BBC review cancelled?

Tony at Harmless Sky has discovered that the BBC's much-vaunted review of climate science may have been cancelled. He hints at a reason why, which will be of much interest to those who have followed the Climategate inquiries and their determination to avoid hearing from informed sceptics. It 's only a rumour at the moment, but one hopes that the BBC will confirm or deny...

Read the whole thing.

Comments

[stan]

There's a good reason all the other "investigations" have been so inept or corrupt.

[royfomr]

"BBC Trust"
Oxymoron alert.

[mactheknife]

I'm not sure what you were expecting of the BBC ? There have been numerous posts on here by people who have written to the BBC Trust on this very subject and their one sided view of it. I submitted my own letter electronically some four months ago and the submittal page required a "tick box" filled to indicate you wanted a response. Four months and still waiting !! As we have seen from the like of Fiona Fox and the Beeb's own Harrabin and Black, there is (or has been) a concerted effort to exclude disenting voices. However I do agree that maybe the reason for the cancellation of the review is that the BBC could potentially find itself in a somewhat difficult and embarrassing situation and this would inevitably put Willis, Oxburgh, Russell and even the government under scrutiny. Aunte Beeb is in a politically precarious position right now and upsetting the new government would be an absolute no no.

It has been noticeable recently that Harrabin has been a little more balanced in some of his reporting. Maybe the complaints and correspondence are having some effect ?

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

Surely you don't expect the BBC to rock the political boat and cause waves in the financial department. I mean they are supported by tax pounds collected by the government so that they can be the government's propaganda organ.

"Move on, nothing to be seen here."

[Dusty]

Don't use email it's too easy for it to be lost by the 'gatekeepers'. Write a letter 'for the personal attention of:.....' and sent it by registered post or recorded delivery. OK it will cost but that way there will at least be a signature trail.

Snail mail still has it's uses especially if there's a legal aspect.

[Caroline]

Has someone already used the term 'post normal journalism'. It seems that's where we are. The suspension of normal rules because, as the warmists see it, 'the stakes are too great' to allow dissent.

I remember the days when journalists used to dismiss PR press releases or, if they were going to use them at least question them. They even used to go into every situation with the thought, 'why is this xx lying to me?'.

I remember one Daily Mirror journalist I worked with. One evening he saw me in a bar with a man and he completely ignored me. I saw him the next day and he said, "I didn't know if you were meant to be with him so I didn't want to intrude." Journalist used to be that suspicious; they saw a scandal everywhere. (The man in question was my husband.).

[John Shade]

Why don't you contact Prof Tait more directly, and not via the BBC. That corporation is so entangled with the contortions of the various 'positions' it has adopted on climate as well as on other areas of political importance, that its staff must either have huge manuals to guide them on what to do when a non-conforming letter is received, or they just bin it.

[RETEPHSLAW]

Hello from Dublin.

I read the comment on the BBC’s review of Climate Science may be cancelled. Assuming, in advance, the worst, then this is possibly one of the most reprehensible actions that this formerly venerable and August body has taken or will take.
For those of you in the UK, excuse me if my facts are not 100% accurate, I heard a few days ago that the status of the UK TV license fee is up for discussion and that maybe in the future, instead of this fee, people would pay a contribution. If this is to be the case, then I wonder if this means that people power might in future be an option. Having said that, I would also doubt if the “powers that be” would expose the Beeb to such a fate. But it is just a thought. Imagine the public being able to dictate certain items. Would there be anarchy of sorts or would things just get worse than they are now?

Now, my real point.
While watching the RHS Chelsea Flower show earlier this year, I heard a reporter blame the disappearance of bees on Climate Change. I leaped up and down on my chair and said to my (long suffering) wife that that was rubbish and that the reason for the decline in bee numbers was due to the Varroa mite and also possibly to the growing of GM crops and also wet weather.
So, I sat me down at my keyboard, found the appropriate place on the BBC web site and wrote a complaint accordingly advising them that there was no evidence that Climate Change was having any affect on the bee population.
Much to my surprise, about 7 days later, on 9th June 2010, I actually received a reply from them and here it is:
(I will add a further comment below their reply.)
Quote:
Dear Mr Walsh
Reference 101219
Thanks for your e-mail regarding ‘RHS Chelsea Flower Show’ broadcast on 25 May.
I’m sorry to hear you were disappointed by Andy’s comments in the Programme regarding the decline in honey bees populations.
We’ve discussed your concerns with the production team and we can’t agree that Andy was blaming the decline of the bee population on climate change.
What he said was:
"With honey bees under threat due to climate change, increasing urbanisation and intensive farming, this garden shows how careful planting choices can encourage bees to forage in even the smallest of urban spaces."
As the published notes below from The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in January 2010 state, there is early proof of a possible link:
"Climate Change - There is uncertainty about the potential impact of climate change on UK pollinators. Pollinators that have a broad climactic distribution, like honeybees, may adapt. However, there could be a mismatch between flowering dates of food plants and emergence dates of pollinators if they respond differently to environmental cues. Blackcurrant and its pollinators have diverged by 28 days since the 1970's. This could expose pollinators to periods of starvation, affecting particularly wild pollinators that have little food stores."
You may be interested to know that Alan Titchmarsh spoke about the Varroa mite in relation to bee numbers later that week on Thursday evening 27th May (BBC Two) in an episode concentrating on bio-diversity:
"Bad weather, pesticides, a lack of wildflowers and the Varroa mite have all contributed to a near catastrophic collapse of bee colonies across the country......"
Your complaint aside, we hope you enjoyed the rest of our coverage of the ‘RHS Chelsea Flower Show’ and I’d like to take this opportunity to assure you that I’ve recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Ciaran McConnell

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

I have only one point to add.

The reporter, Andy, clearly led off his sentence “With honey bees under threat due to climate change” and then added a few more reasons for the apparent problems bees are having which you can see above.
Mr Ciaran McConnell, (a good Irish name that) replied: “We’ve discussed your concerns with the production team and we can’t agree that Andy was blaming the decline of the bee population on climate change.”
Am I stupid? (Don’t answer that please). If he didn’t mean it, why did he say it?

Do I not, after almost 65 years, understand basic English.

Did Andy say that bees were under threat due to Climate Change?

No wonder you Pommies (that’s a nice reverential term the Aussies use for you guys) are getting fed up with that biased reporting on “climate”.

Stick it to them.

Don’t give up.

I know you won’t.

Here endeth the lesson.

Peter Walsh

P.s. Ciaran McConnel might also have added the following. In one of the Springwatch programmes, the loverly Kate Humble was showing us her bee hive. She had Varroa mite infection in the hive and explained what the mite did. I wonder why Ciaran didn’t mention that?

[Ian E]

'No wonder you Pommies (that’s a nice reverential term the Aussies use for you guys) are getting fed up with that biased reporting on “climate”.'

From pommes de terre or potatoes, I believe. A certain other website refers to our new leader here in the UK as the 'scrubbed potato' - I dont think the blogger uses the term reverentially!

[Stonyground]

On a regular news spot on BBC Radio 2 there was a report that scientists now have indesputable proof that reptiles were the first creatures to walk on land after the discovery of some fossilised footprints.

My first thought upon hearing this was that this was obviously nonsense and was the result of really shitty news reporting by people who had no clue about science. An internet search revealed that it was exactly that, even the BBC website gave the correct story that the footprints indicated that reptiles had started to move further away from water a little earlier than we had previously thought.

It could be possible that piss poor reporting of the climate change issue is only partly due to bias, the balance being taken up by idiocy.

The good thing about this paticular dispute is that given enough time, one side will have to admit that they were wrong, I look forward to feeling very smug or very foolish.

[DrCrinum]

Here in the USA, most major newspapers and MSM national news programs have been suffering significant declines in readership and viewership for a number of years. It is my contention that this has been occurring for 4 major reasons:
1) Extreme political bias, resulting in not reporting significant news items that adversely affect a particular political party; i.e., the MSM purposely did not report on Climategate. This bias has been amply documented: circa 90% of the MSM votes liberal Democrat. Actually, the term "MSM" is being gradually replaced by "Ministry of Truth". I only subscribe to my local newspaper to read the obituary column and letters to the editor, and I never ever watch national news on TV.
2) Lack of primary, investigative reporting. Most everything reported by the MSM is either superficial, sensational, anti-Republican, or involves Hollywood and TV personalities. I wish a buzzard would regurgitate on the face of every reporter who covers Lindsay Lohan.
3) The Internet. The latter has become my #1 news source. I even subscribe to several Internet sources and pay a fee.
4) Talk radio. Good for discovering important news items not reported by the MSM and actually a source of some in depth investigative reporting.

Does the above apply to the BBC? Is it strictly a government mouthpiece? Does it have a significant audience? Is it suffering from declining viewership?

[Nemesis]

If you want evidence of bias check-out the 'Biased BBC' website, it runs to several pages:

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/12/bbc-editor-is-climate-change-activist.html#uds-search-results

[Oxonpool]

A few weeks back I enquired by email of the BBC Trust the anticipated timing of the start of the review but received no reply. Perhaps the review has indeed been quietly dropped.

[HaroldW]

Dr C:
"I wish a buzzard would regurgitate on the face of every reporter who covers Lindsay Lohan."

Thanks, I got a great laugh out of that. Oh, for the days of inventive curses!

[cosmic]

When I listen to BBC radio I have the impression that they manage to insert some sort of reference to Climate Change into every other programme. Often it's quite subtle, they simply treat it as a given when discussing something else.

The Beeb are not exactly flavour of the month with the Tories, however, Climate Change/AGW is one precious area of common ground. I can't see them easily giving up a position dear to them anyway and creating friction with the government in the interests of balance, especially not at a time when senior people's pay is being questioned and there's a general feeling that reform is due.

[cosmic]

Don Pablo de la Sierra,

Surely you don't expect the BBC to rock the political boat and cause waves in the financial department. I mean they are supported by tax pounds collected by the government so that they can be the government's propaganda organ.

------------

Don Pablo,

It's not quite so simple.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/05/the_bbcs_champa.html

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/03/swire_the_bbc_m.html

In the eyes ot the Tories, there's a fair bit of ingrained naughtiness in the BBC.

[DrCrinum]

Nemesis,

Thanks.

[al]

in response to my complaint about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8387365.stm I got:

Thank you for your e-mail. In his report, Roger Harrabin calls the IPCC
"the world's biggest peer review body". By that, he doesn't mean that it
carries out reviews itself, but that it is effectively assesing the work
done by other scientists. That will, of course, already have been
subject to peer review. We hope that clarifies the matter.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

cosmic

Then let them repel the tele tax, which they will not because they too want to control the propaganda when they have power.

The reality is beeb is on the public teat and will do the will of those in power. It the Tories have time enough to force their will on the leadership of beeb, they will.

[cosmic]

But it's not just the leadership of the Beeb, as the 1997 Champagne story shows, it's long ingrained. Furthermore, the Tories are in power in coalition with the Lib Dems and Dave (Hug a Glacier) Cameron has put Chris Huhne, a man who seriously believes windmills are the answer to electricity generation questions, in charge of energy policy. The Lib Dems are much more a BBC type of thing.

So, all in all, I see few reasons why the BBC would stop blowing the trumpet for Climate Change, and many reasons why they're inclined not to. Probably we'll have to get to the stage where surveys were not showing that Climate Change was a low priority, but that it was a high priority, that is any talk of Climate Change was a guaranteed vote for someone, anyone, who thought the idea was nonsense. We're not there yet, give it another couple of years and power cuts in a cold winter.

[Mike Post]

Can I remind everyone of the 2007 BBC paper: “FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century” which may be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

Here is a quote from page 40 which deals with the reporting of climate change: ”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.”

When I requested the BBC to provide a list of the “best scientific experts” who had attended the seminar and the methodology used to select them, the BBC refused my request. (see http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_list_of_scientific_exper_2#incoming-62048 )

I have therefore drawn my own conclusion that the BBC wishes to hide this information. If the BBC refuses to be open, in my opinion, its journalism cannot be trusted. This is extremely disappointing behaviour by a public service broadcaster with an obligation to be transparent.

[Jack Hughes]

Some good coverage of the BBC seminar at Harmless Sky

An attendee writes...

I found the seminar frankly shocking. The BBC crew (senior executives from every branch of the corporation) were matched by an equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the “we must support Kyoto” school of climate change activists.

So far as I can recall I was alone in being a climate change sceptic (nothing like a denier, by the way) on both the science and policy response.

I was frankly appalled by the level of ignorance of the issue which the BBC people showed. I mean that I heard nothing that made me think any of them read any broadsheet newspaper coverage of the topic (except maybe the Guardian and that lazily). Though they purported to be aware that this was an immensely important topic, it seemed to me that none of them had shown even a modicum of professional journalistic curiosity on the subject. I am not saying that I knew what they all knew or thought, but I can say that I spent the day discussing the issue and don’t recall anyone showing any sign of having read anything serious at all.

As you know the BBC has come to the conclusion that “balance” cannot mean giving equal time to opposing views if one set of views is scientific and the opposing view is, so to speak, unscientific. I agree, and I see this sort of problem arises with MMR, GM, animal experimentation and lots of other topics. I do see it’s a profound problem.

But the policy response to climate change is much more easy to discuss and the BBC like most broadcast media mostly fails at it. I could write more on this of course, but it may be useful just to say that broadcasters mostly balk at noting that it is incredibly unlikely that the current generation of leaders and citizens will do more that make a few faltering policy steps along what may one day develop into a low-carbon economy. Insofar as we do, it will be because action turned out to be cheap and convenient. Also, energy price volatility is likely to be a bigger immediate driver than climate change.

I argued at the seminar that I thought most broadcasting coverage on climate change was awful. But I also said there was no need for them to become self-conscious about it. This was because, though the issues were scientifically, politically and economically difficult, the BBC’s reporting of the thing would improve as soon as their audience was asked to vote or pay for climate change policy. Ordinary realities and recognisable journalistic tensions would kick in and the corporation would give up its rather feeble activist propaganda. In short, they might never get their brain round the issue, but their ordinary journalistic habits would see them through once there was good old fashioned argument about spending money or effort on sorting the climate out - or failing to.

Of course my nose was out of joint. I was struck by the way my views were of only passing interest to the BBC and I have never been asked to aid their internal discussions since. It may be that they are spoiled for choice when it comes to intelligent, well-informed, sceptical voices to deliver a counter-intuitive challenge to their orthodoxies. I should say that I am not at all complaining that I’m not used on-air much. I mean only that the whole apparatus of self-examination on climate change policy seems really to have looked remarkably like subtle propaganda for the orthodoxies it was meant to interrogate.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

Cosmic

Furthermore, the Tories are in power in coalition with the Lib Dems and Dave (Hug a Glacier) Cameron has put Chris Huhne, a man who seriously believes windmills are the answer to electricity generation questions, in charge of energy policy. The Lib Dems are much more a BBC type of thing.

Being in coalition with the Lib Dems is not the same as being in power. But you appear to be correct about Cameron.

There is always hope Marget returns. However, even she had little impact on Beeb. Yes, they have a long-ingrained lefty management. That is why I say pull the plug on the tele tax.

[Oxonpool]

An email from the BBC Trust to me states, "The Science review will consider impartiality and accuracy through analysis of the coverage itself, interviews with those involved, feedback from the Trust's Audience Councils and audience research, and the findings will be published in Spring 2011. A public consultation is not being held as part of the Review." So, not cancelled but carefully controlled.

[Bishop Hill]

Oxonpool

Is that a recent letter?

[Oxonpool]

Bishop,
The email in question was dated 4th August 2010 and came from the BBC Trust Unit (trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk). It was in response to my request a couple of weeks ago for the Trust to let me know how I might make a submission to the review of the BBC's science coverage.

[Barry Woods]

I wonder if Richar Black and Roger Harrabin are embarrased by, appeciate, or just wish she had not said the following.

Fiona Fox's words on BBC Newswatch (23/04/2010)
(Fiona Fox - Science and Media Centre) and she was doing a review for the Science Minister!!!!

"Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact on Climate change there has been a real change..

People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin, fighting internally (at the BBC) to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."

"to have a sceptic in every interview is misleading the public about 'climate science'" - Fiona Fox

And the BBC wonders why we don't think they are impartial. I hope that the BBC would disasociate themselves from this.

[Oxonpool]

I prompted the BBC Trust for clarification on the way the review would gather its evidence. In their reply, the salient points seem to be: "The review is .. an academic analysis... which is being carried out by a university department.... undertake interviews with programme makers, journalists, academic institutions, scientific bodies and whoever else Professor Jones deems it necessary to include.....It is not envisaged that the review will talk to lay people.... was not felt to lend itself to lay views." Certainly they don't seem to want to hear from the small army of scientifically literate citizens who follow the BBC's output, and I find it a bit disturbing that it may turn into Tweedledum reporting on the impartiality and accuracy of Tweedledee.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

Oxonpool

Why am I not surprised? And to think that the British public gets to pay for it with the tele tax.

Wonderful system.