Friday
Feb052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill BBC One World podcast
Feb 5, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Sceptics FOI Reader and sometime guest commenter Andrew K has passed this link on - a BBC podcast featuring interviews with David Holland and the acting head of CRU, Peter Liss.
I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but it sounds like good stuff. The programme can be obtained here.
Reader Comments (6)
O/T but here is the latest error in IPCC AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2-3.html
States “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.”
The real figure for Netherlands territory below sea level is 26%, so AR4 has it more than double. AR4 is looking like a joke a minute!
Listened to the podcast which contained 3 interviews.
1 - With Jean-Pascale van Epersel, Vice Chair IPCC. Obviously rowing frantically to limit the damage to the IPCC credibility. Put his own spin on definition of neutrality (surprise, surprise). Overall I don't think he came across as convincing.
2 - With David Holland who came across as completely in control of his arguments in spite of some barbed utterances from the interviewer.
3 - With Prof. Peter Liss, UEA. Harping on about '...private e-mails....' '...illegally stolen...' (Duh....oxymoron). Difficulty releasing data because of '...ownership....' problems. 'We haven't done anything wrong...it's the media's fault.....' etc, etc, etc! The same lame excuses. Pathetic and puerile in my humble opinion
O/T
Piquant that the first 2 environmentalist to go to trial for fraud are Labour MPs?
Morley - the world's first "climate change" minister
Chaytor - winner of the "green ribbon" for the most environmental back bencher
Judging from this and the short TV interview, David Holland is a very good speaker.
David Holland came across as perfectly reasonable. The IPCC vice-Chairman was in political damage control, but got away with saying that the Himalayan fiasco was a single minor transgression that had been dealt with promptly. Prof Liss, well what can you say.He's standing there looking at the body's and the CRU holding a smoking gun and focusses his attention on two things, one that the emails were stolen - applying the same scientific rigour the CRU appears to take to AGW, it's a fact it must be CO2 because there is no other explanation, while ignoring every other possible explanation - they are stolen, not leaked, not left where they could be picked up anyone - "stolen". The hubris in the CRU and Met Office beggars belief. He told us that 95% of the data the CRU used was already available, an outright lie, because the raw data has been lost, so that's not available and Phil Jones refused point blank to give it to Warwick Hughes on the basis that Warwick would try to find something wrong with it. The UEA clearly feels safe, but one has to wonder why because those emails, in and out of context, show a blatant disregard for both the law and the scientific process.
When I first scanned the page, I thought it said "one word podcast" and I wondered of the word started with a "B".