Bishop Hill More radio
Apr 14, 2010 BBC Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Climate: McKitrick I've just returned from Edinburgh where I did an interview for the Newshour show on the World Service. Listeners in the UK should be able to hear it again on the iPlayer shortly. They are also going to use a clip on the 1800 news too (presumably Radio 4).
The interview went much better than the last time. I made the point that the scope of the panel missed key allegations and cited Ross McKitrick's point that Jones had inserted baseless statements into the IPCC reports.
The interviewer came back asking whether sceptics would ever be satisified. I said that we would, if presented with evidence that the allegations were false. For example I pointed out that Ross McK had listed the evidence that would have to be produced to disprove the allegation that Jones had fabricated parts of the IPCC report.
At this point they cut me off, which was a pity, because I wanted to point out that the panel's point that the IPCC had misrepresented CRU science was risible, the IPCC authors in question being CRU people anyway.
Still, all in all, I'm not too unhappy with my performance.
Reader Comments (9)
Loking forward to hearing it!
Well done. Practice makes perfect.
Shame they ask so rarely.
Could you link to the iplayer url when it`s up please
Thanks
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/newshour/newshour_20100414-1610a.mp3
The action begins at 14:15 or so.
Came across very well, very clearly in the 1800 news on R4. However, they have been bigging up the "let off the hook" theme all day, so they weren't in a mood to listen to what you said.
Your performance was fine. For the little sound bite they allowed you.
Sounded very solid and reasonable, maybe too reasonable !
Let's be frank, this inquiry was really a decoy while the real allegations of wrongdoing were never even raised.
Hard to imagine how you could have done better. I take some solace in what Harrabin said about the criticism of Mann's hockey stick - how it "exagerrated" warming, and how the IPCC was complicit in that. It dawned on me that this exercise has been at least in part about Nimbyism - if there is error, the major part of it is in someone else's back yard. The main thing is, our chaps didn't do it, they're only guilty of being absent minded duffers.
There's also some solace in the raised eyebrows about lack of expert statistical input. If that changes, we may get better work in the future, though I'm not holding my breath.
It's a disgrace, but It could have been worse. IMO, the tone of the report condemns with faint praise. I wonder if even these miserable excuses for human-beings-with-a-shred-of-integrity have been left with a bad taste in their mouths. I hope so. I hope that behind the whitewash, they feel at least a little chastened.
If the BBC cut you off you must have been getting the facts across well.