Newshour

Here is the link to the BBC World Service Interview I did earlier today. There is also a podcast here.

Comments

[John Hewitt]

Slowly but surely the voice of sceptics is being heard. You made your points clearly and with authority, well done! Its not easy to respond to an interviewer who may ask questions in a way that makes it difficult to get your point across.

I noticed that before the interview they said clearly that the report says that the hockey stick graph exaggerated the rise in temperature. They can say that again!!

[phinniethewoo]

Well done. Normally Robert Lustig tries to create the impression he "wants to get in depth and get the zest of all of it " in an interview. He seemed a bit fast now..skim skim .

Das Aparat is engaging in a "Keeping up Appearances" exercise.

When is the beeb going to vent anything about unit roots and their existence to us, the ignorant hoi polloi??

[Robert Thomson]

Well done - you provided well thought out and well delivered points. I continue to cringe at the willingness of the BBCs environmental correspondents to skate over the surface of the subject matter and take at face value the "official nonsense" and regurgitate it, when a little personal research could provide the balance that the public deserves.

[Alex Cull]

I thought you came across very well, and you also have a good radio voice. Have you considered doing podcasts as a regular feature? Sermons from the Bishop, as it were.

[Mariwarcwm]

Well done, you came across loud and clear.

I agree with Robert Thomson. I suspect that environmental correspondents go to university to read environmental studies, and environmental studies departments these days probably believe the AGW fabrication and brainwash everyone who passes through. Those who don't 'believe' get a third. Those who get firsts get jobs with the BBC.

[Tim Channon]

You were on the midnight main R4 news too.

Heard this pompous git and thought of you, England, then remembered the Scottish connection.

Shortly after this Montfort bloke came on.

BBC as usual, hacked emails.

[Kevin]

Good work. Enjoyed your brief interview.

[E O'Connor]

Yer Grace

Yes!

That was the speed to attract the attention of listeners and viewers who do not know much about the issues and the debate and also those who are undecided and simply relying on the proclaimed 'fact' that most scientists support AGW. These are the people on which to focus and to nudge their state of placid acceptance.

[Paul Boyce]

I thought the boy Bish done well.

Made a good fist of it, and handled the aggressive question perfectly satisfactorily.

I always watch with great interest how politicians behave when interviewed on programmes like "Newsnight", especially when up against an aggressive interviewer. I don't think it's nearly as easy as the professionals make it seem.

Paxman: "Your critics say you're incompetent, loose your data, are not very good at statistics, and don't know the difference between a hockeystick and a bristlecone pine."

Me: "OK Paxman - that's it, you *@*&! Out in the car park! You and me - NOW!"

Experienced Politician: "Thank you, Jeremy, for allowing me to put my side of the case in a calm, rational, and highly persuasive way."

[NIal]

"BBC as usual, hacked emails."

The world service version said 'leaked' emails!

That was a good interview, concise and you sounded reasoned and balanced.

Nial.

[Frank S]

Well done.

[Steve2]

You got the important point over.

I notice that the question "when would you be satisfied" is used again. These non-investigations are about provoking that question, seemingly as more of an attempt to portray sceptics as unreasonable rather than actually investigating, However the Bishops answer was excellent and succinct - basically look at the actual evidence and we would be happy.
I think the fact that these investigations are of such an obvious light and forgiving nature, with such sympathetic judges, will come back and haunt the silent scientific establishment.

[barry woods]

I wonder if Roger Harrabin is still a 'believer' or not?

I think the important point was the politics of it all, ie scope of enquiry, and not actually looking at or answering any of the allegations. yet somehow exonerates everybody..

Or is everybody in the UK so used to enquires now, that nobody cares/listens.

[IanW]

The interview went as well as could be expected, although the BBC approach was perfunctory: they interviewed themselves first to align listeners to their prejudice, and then interviewed an alternative viewpoint (the Bishop) as a matter of duty rather than having any interest in getting a sound view on the matter.

It is quite evident that the UK Climategate inquiries are not intended to deal genuinely with the scandals. This is not surprising. Indeed, the way the inquiries have been handled may be encouraging. When Climategate happened a lot of influential people were caught out. Some form of inquiry was unavoidable but that must protect, or not embarrass, the influential . That is what has "saved" Professor Jones (although he may survive as a professor, he may be expected to quietly lose any administrative role). That the inquiries have only been able to operate at the most superficial level indicates that the strength of the criticisms of the CRU and IPCC is well understood; and it seems to have been accepted that they can't be countered openly.

What matters is what is happening behind closed doors. This will become clear over time. The recent Royal Statistical Society statement suggests there will be moves to make sure that future CRU/IPCC work will be required to be based on professional statistical practice. Paleo-climate journal editors will probably be advised to do the same by their lawyers. Forensic investigation of AR4 will proceed, and in the US those responsible for manipulating the report after the first and second draft may be exposed publicly in due course. There may well be a fight for future control of the IPCC. Control seems to have rested with the UK and US with EU support. But the brutal shift in diplomatic influence displayed at Copenhagen in December could see pressure for more Asia-Pacific control . This may only be avoided by neutralizing the IPCC. That appeals to me. The idea of an AR5 is unsound.

[j ferguson]

"Paleo-climate journal editors will probably be advised to do the same by their lawyers. "

IanW, what do you understand to be the legal vulnerability of these editors should they not take this advice?

I write from the left side of the pond, where we have plenty of experience with publishing nonsense with impunity. I had thought it possible on your side as well.

[O'Geary]

I think we could learn from the experience.

We need a succinct and definite reply to the same old "will anything satisfy you sceptics?"

Reply:

Yes. Open access to the data. Independent voices on public enquiries.

[IanW]

"Paleo-climate journal editors will probably be advised to do the same by their lawyers. "

j ferguson: Journal editors have a general duty of care to ensure that work published meets professional standards. This is because they know that people may take action on the basis of published research findings. The best example is medical research. But climate research has the capacity to affect many people (through indirect impact via public policy on energy prices and production costs, for example).

There must be a risk that if journal editors could be shown to be complicit in publishing distorted results leading to damaging public policies they may become embroiled in legal actions that may arise. This is speculative, of course. But in-house lawyers give conservative advice: in this case merely that the journal editor set high standards for publication, for example, by insisting on professional statistical co-authorship.

My understanding is that medical research has very specialized partnerships with statisticians (some universities have medical statistics departments in addition to normal statistics departments). The reasons for this are clear with medicine. A similar case may be emerging with climate research.

It is still early days. We don't know yet what legal actions may emerge from Climategate and the fights over the IPCC. If political advantage could arise from a legal case against scientific publishers and others, there are people who may be prepared to fund a claim. And the publicity of planned litigation may be damaging enough without the follow-through. A legal risk assessment at the moment might put that as remote but still conclude that journal editors should protect their position.