Bishop Hill Startlingly silly
Mar 23, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environment correspondent weighs in to the debate over Lord Oxburgh's appointment at the head of the Royal Society panel looking into the CRU-science, and the fact that the noble lord has a financial conflict of interest.
But already his appointment has been attacked by climate sceptics, as he has strong business interests in biofuels, is chairman of the wind company Falck Renewables, and a board member of Climate Change Capital, a major investor in carbon credits.
Critics say this is enough to ensure his view of the science is biased, and have called for his removal.
And roughly speaking, this is where we are coming from. So, what's Fiona's take on this argument?
The same bloggers are now aiming for Lord Oxburgh, and even if they do not manage to unseat him, when his committee reports they will undoubtedly claim that the conclusions are invalid.
But then, who would be good enough to head up such an inquiry, in the eyes of the sceptic community? Lord Lawson?
I'm struggling to understand what is going on in Ms Harvey's head in between her acknowledgement that the noble lord is indeed conflicted and the petulant closing shot. Does Ms Harvey really think that it doesn't matter that the head of the panel has a stake in the outcome of the review? Does she really think there is nobody who is both suitably qualified and free of vested interest?
The FT is meant to be a serious newspaper, right?
Reader Comments (36)
I thought it was the Financial Times.
And it's clear to realists, that's what it's all about. Financial (carbon trading) and Fiscal (green taxes).
If we propose some alternative candidates Fiona, if you're reading, would you follow up in tomorrow's FT?
Would you care to explain how anyone is going to avoid having a conflict of interest? Just asking rhetorical questions might seem startlingly silly to some people. How about some balance?
[BH adds: Sean - by appointing someone who doesn't have paid employment in the renewable energy sector or investments in it. I also pointed out in a comment yesterday that the panel should comprise people who are not climatologists, but rather experts in related fields like physics and statistics.]
I've registerd (specially!) to leave this comment, which appears to be subject to moderation. That's fair enough, but just in case:
==========
I admit to being puzzled by the direction this article takes.
You clearly acknowledge that Lord Roxburgh has a significant conflict of interest as far as his participation is concerned.
You then go on to claim that any objections raised as a result are some of invalid carping. Clearly they are not.
Personally I'm baffled as to:
a) Why he was asked
b) Why he was accepted.
This is no comment in the man particularly, but this has to be impartial and has to be seen to be impartial. Surely there are hundreds of other candidates with suitable experience who do not have a direct financial interest in the outcome
Why don't they pick one.
We live in an age of idiot journalists who have no critical thinking ability nor awareness of their responsibility to their readership. Given what goes on in their own reporting and uk politics I think many of them don't even understand the meaning of the word "impartial" let alone its value.
The questions she should be asking is how will his interests effect his judgment and management of the Inquiry? It may be Lord Oxburgh is a man of integrity who can and will run an effective and illuminating Inquiry - the journalist should realise this is the fundamental issue and be examining it rather than taking a potshot at "the sceptic community" (who I suspect would not support Lord Lawson as an appropriate choice for Chair?). She should also be questioning the track record of "independent inquiries" appointed by bodies with vested interests.
I wonder if "troll journalism" is really any different to sensationalist headlines - shifting copy gives way to generating traffic in the digital age?
What's wrong with Lord Lawson? He has shown a great deal more integrity and acuity than a lot of people on both sides of this debate. Or is it that the requirement for the chairmanship is that they must be an AGW believer?
Sadly, not banned yet, you are spot on. Whatever happened to "Who,what,where, when, and how"? Those are the five questions journalists are suppose to ask to get the facts as best they can. Now we get rhetoric, spin, and outright lies.
Lord Lawson is not a scientist, so is probably not suitable. He doesn't have the conflicts on interest that Lord O has though, so one can argue that he might well be something of an improvement.
Activist or journalist?
Certainly UN meeting moderator:
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/Fiona_Harvey.htm
Why not just save everyone a lot of time by simply appointing Phil Jones
Why not appoint someone from the sceptics' camp to counter-balance Lord O? Shouldn't be hard.
If you want to comment your frustrations.
Comment where people that do not know what is going on can read them.
Ie like the bbc.
Richard Black's Earthwatch is a good place, very well read. as are Paul hudson, and some very sceptical Andrew Neil Blogs (see his tv interview of green party leader, straight talk, climategate 10 mins in - should still be on iplayer)
Sceptics read sceptics blogs, advocates read real climate..
''Normal' people read the bbc...
If the bbc continues to recieve educated criticism of its stance, and the science.. then the tanker, may start to slow and turn...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/03/climate_ads_
A current post of mine...
I am very annoyed with the BBC. I've been following their coverage of climategate, etc, since the 20th november.. (I had never heard of Bishop Hill, Climate Audit, Jo Nova, Blackboard, Realclimate watts up, until then)
My current post:
"Is it OK for the BBC to treat the public like children, the BBC know that was CGI(the copenhagen small child tidal wave clip) fiction, do you agree or not that clip was 'alarmist' fiction?
This is not the Guardian.(you know what you are going to get there)
The BBC have a duty to inform.
Actually, that is not what is going to happen (59cm in 90 years does not a tidal wave make), even if you believe the IPCC's own computer projections..
So do you and the BBC think it OK to pass on uncriticised this fiction, (propaganda) used to close down the debate, all in the name of the greater good.
I'm still waiting for Richard Black's and Roger Harrabin's answer to that question as well."
What a painfully stupid article. Troll journalism is a perfect description - many thanks to not banned yet!
Not a barrister in sight, nobody with the experience of sifting and illuminating evidence. There should be no climate scientists on the panel, almost any scientist should be able to understand the scientific issues.
"But then, who would be good enough to head up such an inquiry, in the eyes of the sceptic community?"
Someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest. That's really not a very abstruse concept, is it?
Do the Royal Society, the FT etc take us for idiots when we can't determine that there is a massive conflict of interest, just by examining details in the public domain? The very reason that details are put in the public domain is to prevent this very thing happening.
The appointment of someone who has such obvious conflicts of interest is not just bad judgment, it is perverse and cynical.
This is not the only time that Harvey has failed to act with journalistic integrity. On February 3rd, she published an article “Climate expert concedes more openness needed”, which discussed the dispute between Phil Jones and me.
The dispute essentially boils down to this: one party accused another party of fraud. Harvey's reporting consisted of asking the accused party (Jones) if he was guilty, and finding that the accused declared himself innocent. Her reporting did not include examining the evidence for the accusation, nor interviewing the accuser. Even without assessing the merits of the article, then, I believe it is fair to say that her reporting on this was a failure.
The article actually asserted that my accusation arose because Jones “had not given out data in response to an FOI request”; it then argued that such an accusation was ill founded. The article's assertion, however, is false: my principal accusation is that most of the meteorological stations used in one of Jones' studies had no histories and thus claims that they were selected on the basis of such histories were fabricated. Briefly, then, the article did not report the accusation honestly, but instead resorted to a straw-man device.
Like everything else that has been 'inquired into' at huge cost to the taxpayer, the panel will be a whitewash. So many careers threatened, so much money at stake. We will carry on with the AGW insanity until, not unlike in the financial domain, the whole thing crashes down.
barry woods
"Comment where people that do not know what is going on can read them.
Ie like the bbc."
Not so easy. I and others I know have submitted many clean and reasonable comments to the BBC and not a single one has ever appeared. Neither is there even an entry showing that the comment was pulled. As I say, my colleagues and I are well aware that the BBC does not want to allow sceptical views to see the light of day. They are censored out without trace. All sorts of inane views appear, and comments by daft commenters and cranks, so that the BBC can claim it allows sceptical comment. It lets the cranks through so that the sceptics appear to be cranks. This in itself is a scandal.
When I read about the appointment yesterday, I really did think that it was the bish attempting satire. As it turn out to be accurate I am gobsmacked and very disheartened.
It is akin to David Irvine being appointed to investigate The Holocaust.
I used to read the FT, but their environmental and economic reporting was pretty plainly re-formatted government propoganda. You would be hard pressed to get a cigarette paper between their views and the governments on environmental policy. They sold cap and trade like it was their personal policy, and I don't recall them reporting on all of the frauds. I vaguely remember an article suggesting £100billion on windmills was a bit on the expensive side - but as a general rule anything anybody anywhere could consider remotely green won't be criticised on financial grounds in the FT. The EU and UN are pretty much angels in human form too.
She seems to be the same Fiona Harvey whose views were reported here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/27/how-to-report-climate-change-after-climategate.html
This is truly shocking. My test for newspapers has always been how well do they report subjects I do know something about. For many years only the FT has passed that test consistently. What is it about climate science that makes most journalists lose their objectivity? Fiona Harvey go to the bottom of the class and I hope your editor reads Bishop Hill!
ScientistForTruth - I have had the same "censorship" experience with BBC sites and you are right they do publish comments from "cranks". [Apologies Andrew for off-topic comment]
There are dozens, if not hundreds of eminent Fellows of the Royal Society with strong analytical capabilities and weaker ties to either side of the climate debate than Lord Shell of Carbon Trading. Another statistician such as Smith or Spiegelhalter would enhance the panel, and any number of physicists who are not parti pris but understand the issues.
Since investigating 'conflicts of interests' is one of Fiona Harvey's supposed strengths as a journalist you would have thought that she would be hot on the trail of Lord Oxburgh once she scented blood.
Aparently not.
Fiona Harvey reveals how partisan she is on environmental matters. If it doesn't suit her own agenda she simply turns a professional blind eye.
I've had a long and healthy interaction on Paul Hudson's BBC blog for a month or more now, without any moderation issues at all. It's hard to read Hudson's own blog posts and still believe he falls for the AGW rubbish. He clearly doesn't.
I don't know how many people actually stop for the comments, though, and we (me and warmist Paul Briscoe) have a tendency towards verbosity in our exchanges. I don't have Bish's (or Terry Pratchett's) ability to condense complex narrative, sadly.
" the BBC does not want to allow sceptical views to see the light of day. They are censored out without trace. "
You can post on the BBC radio4 Science Board here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778
There are several climate threads. I started most of them. There is a nucleus of reasonable folk constantly under attack by the board STASI. Ad hominems abound from the cadres but they have little to say re contrarian science except to belittle it in general tyerms, so I just try to stick to providing links to good contrarian science and articles. I just posted up a link to Willis Eschenbach's essay "The Thermostat Hypothesis" in WUWT. They went hysterical!
Please come over and join in. I don't know how many people read the boards but it is one option to use in addition to the BBC blogs.
See these threads for a taste:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7296356
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7369869
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7376627&skip=0&show=20
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7358175
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7328136
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7353156
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7333758
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766778?thread=7353156
When they first announced an enquiry be held I said that any British Nobel nominee (science prizes not Gore's) could be expected to do an honest scientific result. I assume East Anglia Uni decided the same & that is why they didn't go for it. I would be interested to see Fiona explain why she thinks such people should not be on the short leet & that it be limited to Lord Lawson & the windmiller & which of the 2 she believes more honourable.
marchesarosa
The problem with contributing to the BBC blogs that you cite is that these are metaphorically in the servants' quarters of the huge mansion which is the BBC website. Very few visitors go up there. Visitors prefer to be entertained in the reception rooms downstairs where Richard Black, David Shukman and Roger Harrabin hand out tea and biscuits larded with a heavy dose of the AGW drug. Rather, the blogs allow the BBC to claim that it is providing the "impartiality" which it is statutorily required to.
In reality, the method of delivery of much front-line news and comment from the BBC is straight from the Pravda instruction book. Bias by the BBC extends to an array of issues on which the BBC has a political line which it ruthlessly pursues. Analogously with those in "climate science" whose "post-modernism" has reduced science to an exercise in corrupt propagandising, the BBC has corrupted public debate by ignoring or twisting the flow of information on which a mature public - given the opportunity and the facts - could make up its own mind on a variety of issues, not least that of climate.
If the man had an ounce of integrity, he would recuse himself, and if he had a little bit more he would not have accepted it in the first place.
Even if he intends to be fair, his awareness of his own exposure as a vested interest should have given him pause for thought; the obvious conclusion is that he is corrupt and self-seeking, as most people in senior establishment positions appear to be nowadays.
A blog comment from Richard J at the Times gives some background that FH really should have covered:
++++++++++
Hansard: 14 Jan 2010 : Column 623
12.15 pm
Lord Oxburgh: 'My Lords, I had not intended to talk about science today because the science was not seriously questioned at Copenhagen-it was not the issue. On the other hand, it is worth making a comment or two on it. When the former leader of one of the world's important countries, said, as he commonly did, that the science is not certain, that was pretty much a content-free statement. It does not mean anything unless you specify what question the science is supposed to answer. Although scientists, climatologists and so forth disagree about a great many of the details, the general direction of change is not seriously questioned by many.
It is very difficult to question the influence of our greenhouse gases in controlling the earth's temperature and question the fact that during the past 150 years we have significantly increased those by roughly 30 per cent. People who deny that really have to recognise that they have to come up with a whole new theory for temperature distribution in the terrestrial planets, which has stood the test of time for about 100 years, if they want to throw out the concept of greenhouse gas perturbation. When you come to the precise consequences of this-how much ice melts where; whether we are talking about 2 or 3 degrees-there is much more scope for disagreement over modelling and between the different approaches taken. However, there is nearly uniform agreement on the general direction of change...'
So said the impartial Chairman of the impartial scientific assessment panel appointed to investigate the veracity of climate science.
March 22, 2010 11:38 PM GMT
+++++++++++++++++++++++
It seems he really will have to be a man of special integrity to overcome his financial interst and his preconceptions on the science.
Umbongo
"The problem with contributing to the BBC blogs that you cite is that these are metaphorically in the servants' quarters of the huge mansion which is the BBC website. Very few visitors go up there."
I don't know how many visitors go to the radio4 Message Boards, but unlike the BBC blogs (that people complained about) they are NOT censored. Provided you stay within very broadly drawn limits of board behaviour you can say what you want. Debates can go on for weeks into many hundreds of posts. Personally I wouldn't dream of contributing to the BBC blogs where the subjects are initiated by the "personalities" not the public. On the Message Boards you can start threads on any subject you like within reason.
I have always been of the opinion that the BBC Message Boards were the creme de la creme of the mainstream media. Maybe I'm wrong. But they are certainly biased towards AGW. The BBC Radio4 Science Board is the spiritial home of environmentalism and it needs stirring up. So please come and participate. We really don't know how many people come to read without actually participating. Maybe there are enough to make the effort to instill some balance worthwhile.
A little off topic but FWIW....I had contact with Fiona Harvey years ago. I hope I'm not saying anything defamatory but it is remarkable that I remember a telephone conversation with a stranger that took place more than ten years ago.
I was working a junior PR for a technology company. There was a misunderstanding with a journalist at PC Week who believed we were withholding information. In fact, we simply didn't have said info. Two minutes later the phone rings and it's the editor, none other than Fiona Harvey. Instead of asking me any questions, she yelled down the phone at the top of her lungs and gave me one of the most severe ear bashings I've had in my entire career. It was a very upsetting experience, so much so that although it was my only ever encounter with her, I never forgot her name.
It seems neither the attitude nor the enquiring mind have changed over the years.
marchesarosa
You may be right and I would not disagree that the boards you refer to need stirring up. I freely admit that I am not as assiduous as you apparently are and, accordingly, I tend to make my "contributions" to sites such as Biased BBC (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/) or the Bishop's or WUWT: in other words generally those sites where banging my head against a brick wall is not a part of the deal.
Having said that, in a small and very much less courageous way, I tend to follow Victor Klemperer's example (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/book-of-a-lifetime-i-shall-bear-witness-to-the-bitter-end-by-victor-klemperer-1654787.html) of bearing witness to the scientific, political and economic travesties visited on my country by its political class. This makes me (sometimes) a difficult guest at dinner parties in North London and (always) one of the awkward squad at local "consultation" and other public meetings of the bien pensant.
Apparently our our political masters are confident that the "independent" Climategate reviews won't change a thing:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22924
"Comment where people that do not know what is going on can read them.
Ie like the bbc."
Not so easy. I and others I know have submitted many clean and reasonable comments to the BBC and not a single one has ever appeared. Neither is there even an entry showing that the comment was pulled. As I say, my colleagues and I are well aware that the BBC does not want to allow sceptical views to see the light of day. They are censored out without trace. All sorts of inane views appear, and comments by daft commenters and cranks, so that the BBC can claim it allows sceptical comment. It lets the cranks through so that the sceptics appear to be cranks. This in itself is a scandal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree,,,, I HAD problems.... around the end of november 2009
I sent a few comments/complaints in, asking why they had disappeared,
I also copied (obvious to the mods- in the emai) my MP, the BBC trust enquiries email,
and 2 journalists at the Daily Telegraph... I have had no such problem since..
(trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk - ref climate change bias investigation)
Please keep trying at the BBC, the mods now know that people are taking note of their actions...
my track record at the BBC, since the 20th Nov...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=14233293
Andrew Neil Blog (politcs) had a few sceptical articles..
Politics veteran journalists, can smell something I'm sure, he gave Caroline Lucas a hardish time, on the current stright talk..
Polticians fear him...
His blog, needed a few gentle prompts, to get things to appear, all well now...
Please keep trying at the BBC....
I'm only trying to get the agw supertanker (bbc) to neutral again..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
recent reply of mine to their reply, regarding a complaint I made.
sorry for the lenght (all copies going to mp's stroke/third party journalist, after all they are publically funded.
-------------------------------
However, I am afraid you reply clearly demonstrates the BBC's partiality..
'so called 'Climategate e-mails scandal'
and:
> "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
> experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer
> justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But
> these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should,
> because it is not the BBC's role to close down this debate. Acceptance of
> a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny
> of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution."
This was a few years ago now.
Who are these scientific experts...
(the sceptical scientists, there are many, appear not to have been invited
to the meeting!)
The bbc has refused to say... even after FOI requests.
If the BBC can make the descision based on their advice,
it is only appropriate for the public to know who these
people were.
If you only invited those who are now implicated in the 'scandal '
If you only listen to one side, you will only hear of one message..
In light of recent events, IPCC, climategate, copenhagen failure,etc
And an acrimonous political 'climate' where :
Gordon Brown, says 'Flat earther', 'anti science',
Ed Milliband, says 'climate sabatouers'
Perhaps it is time for the BBC to reconvene this meeting,
and invite those scientists that are sceptical, not just self selecting
group of
'climate scientists' but those from other fields, astro physicists,
statisticians, geologists, etc..
(which in fact all people in climate science are a mere subset of, as it is
a cross discipline problem of great complexity)
To verify if it is still a valid position.
Steve Mcintyre, Ian Plimer, Lindzen, Spencer, etc might be good candidates.
Lord Lawson might be a respectably mediator from the sceptics side, or even
Lord Monckton. For every activist/journalist like George Monbiot, you might
invite someone like Christopher Booker.
I do believe the BBC have gotten far to close to the issue to be considered
impartial.
Richard Black (and the BBC) is clearly considered to be onside, by those
implicated in the 'scandal'
As a climategate email demonstrates.
The BBC's Paul Hudson, writes a fairly obscure article on the BBC website.
Whatever happened to Global Warming:
And those involved, at the centre of IPCC/CRU. immediate response is to get
in contact with Richard Black.
Who does a good job, and is clearly considered to be on 'message'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:00:44 -0400
Cc: Myles Allen , peter stott
<peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt
<gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert
<trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its
particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great
job). from what I
can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be
appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up
here?
mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mann, P Jones, James Hansens, etc in this email are KEY individuals
in promoting an AGW poltical agenda and are at the centre of the
controversy.
Please note that this email is from, Michael Mann, whose 'hockey stick'
graph, used by the IPCC, Al Gore's 'Inconevenient Truth to promote the AGW
cause to many millions of people, has been completely discredited
scientifically as worthless.
The data sets, these people control, has been demonstrated to be interlinked
and not independent of data as claimed.
The detail of your reply, has been shown to be incorrect,
when I have further time, I will send a point by point reply.
The BBC are too close to see they are part of it.
Regards
Barry Woods
-------------------
ScientistForTruth
You are right about the difficulties with the BBC. Richard Black just stops replying as soon as you show the slightest ability to discuss a particular point.
I've also tried the complaints route, but they make that as difficult as possible. I have currently reached the stage of an appeal to the BBC Trust over general climate science bias. However they are now trying to break that down in to pieces so that they don't have to address the actual complaint of general bias. We fight on .........