Bishop Hill Harrabin on CMEP
Nov 29, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics Roger Harrabin has written an article responding to David Rose's article in the Mail on Sunday about the activities of the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme. This is most of it.
Climate sceptics seeking more space on the BBC helped provoke the Trust’s investigation into science impartiality but the Trust said we were already giving them too much space – not too little. We should bear this in mind when we hear new accusations of bias. Take the Mail on Sunday’s latest articles, which focused partly on the BBC ‘Real World’ seminars I helped to run. They began in the late 90s after I wondered which stories would still appear significant in 100 years. I concluded that longterm changes in environment and development might prove very important, and judged that these slow-burn issues were under-covered at the time.
In those days the environment was a lower order story and leading scientists were already complaining that we treated environment science like politics – as though the weight of opinion on each side was equal. There was also a gathering consensus among UK parties and corporate leaders on the issue. That’s why Tony Hall, then Head of News, asked me to create seminars for editors and managers to discuss global environmental change and development. Over several years I worked under the supervision of senior BBC management with Dr Joe Smith, a senior lecturer at the Open University, to devise meetings with politicians, business people, thinktanks, academics from many universities and specialisms (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world.
The seminars, held under Chatham House rules, have contributed to the BBC’s strong reputation for reporting on environmental issues – not just on climate change. Lifting editors away from deadlines for creative conversations proved popular, so the environment seminars morphed into diverse gatherings ex- amining trends in society, the economy and culture as well as the environment. They include a broad spread of views and if they had been captured by any agenda, BBC management would have squashed it instantly. One meeting proved contentious in the blogosphere after a climate sceptic invitee wrote about it. A senior scientist present had told us the debate on climate change was ‘over’ and urged us to stop reporting the views of climate sceptics. I said the balance of the science suggested that we should not always feature sceptics but that we should continue to represent their views on a case-by-case basis because many legitimate science debates remain and because of the politicised nature of the policy debate. Helen Boaden endorsed the advice.
The BBC paid its own way with the seminars but Dr Smith’s expenses and time were funded by a spread of organisations wanting a better public debate about the issues including HSBC, Vivendi, Bowring Trust, WWF, Economic and Social Research Council, Dept of Environment, Shell, and the Tyndall Centre for climate research.
Outside funds for the meetings have now stopped, but the Mail on Sunday singled out the contribution from Tyndall Centre, which is a consortium of several universities including the University of East Anglia, where the Climategate controversy happened Tyndall is a bona fide body and part of its remit was improving communication of climate science. The BBC sought advice from many different experts on trying to make climate change coverage more accessible and interesting to our broad audiences. Professor Mike Hulme – the director of Tyndall – proved particularly influential in his advice for us to adopt measured tones, avoid inflammatory reporting, accept that some areas of the science are impossible to resolve and to treat the issue more as one of societal risk than scientific certainty. He is an odd target for sceptics as some mainstream scientists think he’s too sympathetic to sceptic views.
The BBC has told the Mail on Sunday that the funding arrangements for the seminars raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output. I believe we can be much more robust over our coverage. Our journalists have met and interviewed many of the world’s leading climate sceptics, some of whom have actually praised both our reporting of the Climategate affair and my own Uncertain Climate documentaries. Correspondents and editors strive to be fair at all times when reporting this vexed topic. Generally, though, we seem to be trusted by our audiences to be offering impartial information. However controversy about our coverage won’t disappear, because some players on either side will never be satisfied with that.
Reader Comments (142)
Actually, having Harrabin pull a Pachauri is fantastic.David Rose must be rubbing his hands together with glee - Harrabin is making himself the story. How Harrabin can take money from the University at the center of a controversy, and be on its advisory board, and not make this information public, is perverse.
Imagine if he were to do the same with an oil company?
Harrabin's piece deals primarily with his own position - he does not deal with the wider accusations raised - with evidence - by the David Rose article. It is a CYA statement - and it is notablke that he has got Helen Boaden, Head of News at the BBC, to back him.
But will Boaden dare deny any of the other charges made by David Rose ? Hopefully Rose will return to the fray.
The comments above that struck me most forcibly were those that pointed out that Harrabin and the rest of the BBC crew never interview key dissentiants like McIntryre and McKitrick. I Can I add - Nor do they ever, as far as I have seen, give links from their online articles and blogs to ANY websites on the sceptical side. So Harrabin's claim that sceptics get a fair look-in is specious.
Harrabin's piece should properly have been posted as a blog on the BBC's website. But he is presumably scared to provide links eg to David Rose's article, that is why he posted at Ariel.
Anyway - he has at least been stung to reply - the usual BBC line is disdain. His reply already looks in tatters. His reputation - and the reputation of the BBC - is on the line. Quite right too, it is time some of the people at the BBC were called to account.
Harrabin to Watts:
“I have shamelessly stolen the line for my radio piece - and don't have a spare 2" to credit you with it”.
Not even two seconds to credit a quote? Sounds as if someone’s being a little economical with the truth there (ho ho ho).
More likely Harrabin was coming under conflicting pressures - one editor naively saying “Why not give a bit of space to one of these sceptics, to show how even-handed we are?” while another, more savvy, says “Whatever you do, don’t mention Watts”.
Does the BBC's de facto bar on dissenters now apply to George Monbiot ? He used to be a permanent fixture on the airwaves, ultra-Green plus a Guardianista. But since his criticism of the behaviour of members of the Hockey Team when ClimateGate 1 broke, Monbiot no longer seems to be the BBC's go-to guy on climate matters.
i was thinking Harrabin and Black may find their P45's on their desks when they get back from Durban, but they'd just transfer to The Team and carry on doing the same PR job that they do at the BBC
There is no point trying to argue the science with Harrabin, Black etc as they don't have a science qualification between them. That is another part of the problem, they aren't intellectually equipped to challenge the AGW nonsense at source. I think intellectual cowardice, being totally out of your depth trying to report on a subject you know nothing about, and leaning to the left politically make you an ideal candidate to work in the BBC's Environment section.
Steve Jones
Yes the BBC's environment "reporters" are woefully amateur on the actual science, not a science degree between them. Nor any maths degree - so they can't handle straightforward issues of statistical handling. Challenge them on the "science" and they simply retreat to "the consensus view is...".
But this current matter is about behaviour and ethics, not about science per se. The behaviour of Jones, Mann et al, and also the behaviour of BBC "reporters".
The BBC is the biggest echo chamber in the world for Warmism - its "reporting" on climate issues has been predominantly propaganda for the Warmists. "Churnalism" - don't research the issues, just write on the website or broadcast whatever Greenpeace, WWF, Patchouri etc put out, link tyo their websites, give them soft interviews. But DON''T print or broadcast the other side, don't link to dissenting websites like ClimateAudit, WUWT, and this site. If the BBC has a management-level seminar on climate issues - DON'T invite leading sceptics.
And on ClimateGate 2 - DON'T write on the website or broadcast ANY of the newly-released incriminating emails. Suppressio veri is the watchword, try to smother ClimateGate 2 at birth.
The BBC is the biggest news organisation in Britain - indeed in the world. (It is far more dominant than the Dirty Digger's empire) The BBC used to be trusted. On this issue in particular, it is no longer trustworthy - but we are still being forced to pay for it.
The BBC is meant to be "public service". ClimateGate 2 shows that it does not serve us - it serves its own agenda.
The real public service is by people like Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford who provide a platform for genuine uncensored debate and information. David Rose's article has already drawn blood - I hope David Rose will now skewer Harrabin's disingenuous response. Many of the comments in this thread should help him.
Steve Jones, Thinkingscientist, and others:
It’s not “leaning to the left” which is the problem at the Beeb, so much as believing everything you read in the Guardian (and disbelieving everything you read in the Mail) which is not exactly the same thing. Intellectual snobbery is as much part of it as voting Labour (or Trotskyist).
Lord Lawson has caused the release of this gem from the BBC's Attenborough after complaining about sensationalism in episode 7 of 'Frozen Planet' -
"Whether it (warming) is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.”
Can the BBC not see that if the warming is not man-made then the reversal of civilisation will also have no effect? Do they not understand the sceptical argument at all? I am beginning to believe that to be the case.
As ever David Whitehouse shows what a real 'science and environment correspondent' would do.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4449-more-met-office-spin-about-annual-temperatures-in-time-for-durban.html
I hope Black and Harrabin take notes.
"Whether it (warming) is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.”
It's not just sensational it is incoherent. If, ex hypothesi, the warming is not caused by us, why would bringing down carbon emissions have the desired effect on temperature?
Is David Attenborough even aware that 96% of CO in the atmosphere is there by entirely natural processes.
of the supposed 4% dangerous human contribution, the UK's is less than 2% in total.
I like this:
"Professor Mike Hulme – the director of Tyndall – proved particularly influential in his advice for us to adopt measured tones, avoid inflammatory reporting, accept that some areas of the science are impossible to resolve and to treat the issue more as one of societal risk than scientific certainty. He is an odd target for sceptics as some mainstream scientists think he’s too sympathetic to sceptic views."
Obviously hasn't seen the Climategate 2 emails and Hulme's involvement in the reaction to and actions in response to de Freitas publishing Soon and Balunias in Climate Research. Too sympathetic to sceptic views eh? Have a look at this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/29/getting-the-right-kind-of-people-onboard/
Nov 29, 2011 at 2:30 PM | HaroldW
re Ice Age
May or may not help. All found on the web, remember this is from the pre-internet age so getting links is a bit tricky.
* “The Earth’s Cooling Climate,” Science News, November 15, 1969.
* “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age,” Washington Post, January 11, 1970.
* “Science: Another Ice Age?” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.
* “The Ice Age Cometh!” Science News, March 1, 1975.
* “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
* “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead,” New York Times, May 21, 1975.
* “In the Grip of a New Ice Age?” International Wildlife July-August, 1975.
* “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable,” New York Times, September 14, 1975.
* “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit, Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” Science magazine, December 10, 1976.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&noredirect=1
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
Largely sour grapes. He is trying to wriggle out of his responsibility for spreading false climate science.
'Our journalists have met and interviewed many of the world’s leading climate sceptics, ' really who are these they ,anyone know ?
"Roger Harrabin is taking unpaid leave on a Knight Wallace Media Fellowship at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/15937222
Hmm... am I reading too much into this footnote ?
Fom Mac's Daily Mail link
'Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA, said that natural variations from year to year meant that every year would not be warmer than the last. But he said: ‘Independent researchers analysing long-term trends of these indicators have seen an increase in air, sea and land temperatures, rising sea levels and decreasing Arctic sea ice, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere and glacier extent.’
Note the reference to unnamed 'independent researchers' (sufficiently newsworthy one would have thought to at least name them?), and the subtle qualification to a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon- and equally subtle suppression of the Antarctic trends.
Roger Harrabin has no good reason for saying that "generally we (the BBC) seem to be trusted by our audience".
He most certainly cannot say it on the basis of the BBC's "points of view" messageboard. In early November this year for example this ran a blog on the topic "Less coverage for Climate Change Sceptics" which ran to about 240 comments. It was then closed, amid accusations of censorship. The explanation given for closure was that the board was "no longer on topic", but the reality was that it was taking on a predominantly sceptical tone critical of the BBC.
Nor can he say it on the basis of Richard Black's "Earth Watch" blog which was closed earlier this year after attracting rather too much dissent from his audience.
Each time the BBC audience has been allowed to express its view it has used it to express nothing but mistrust in the BBC' output.
Re Hulme;
"He is an odd target for sceptics as some mainstream scientists think he’s too sympathetic to sceptic views."
He's a highly skilled manipulator, and a major, behind the scenes driver of the ideology.
@ SandyS
Thanks for the interesting set of references to articles from the 1970s expressing the opinions of some scientists that global cooling would soon be a problem. There are, however, two very important difference between the global cooling scare of that period and the current belief in CAGW; in the 1970s nobody seriously suggested spending billions or trillions of pounds, dollars etc to combat the problem and nobody suggested that crippling the global economy would be a solution.
Since the habits and trustworthiness of journalists is in play, how about this from 3744?
quote
The Futerra team have read every story on climate change across the main UK newspapers
over the past three months. Interesting work but, as we suspected, the UK print news
media portrays climate change as a big nasty with no real solution. Coverage on the
solutions or ideas for what the public can do is hard to find.
In the attached report you'll also find rankings of the top10 newspapers and journalists
covering climate change.
unquote
Futerra, for those who have not looked behind the curtain, is a climate-change/eco/green advocacy organisation with considerable skills and influence, rather like Fenton Communications which does the same job in the US. It is run by the fragrant, decisive and impressive Solitaire Townsend whose combination of intelligence, looks and power must be almost impossible to resist when she wants a story spun.
I wonder if she'd let us know how she rated those ten. Did the phrase 'a safe pair of hands' ever hover near the likes of Black or Harrabin?
JF
BTW, Miss Townsend, has it occurred to you that you may have contributed to the death by hunger of thousands and, by diverting resources to the mirage that is AGW from more useful ends, condemned a generation of third world children to poverty and disease?
What's the difference between a spy and a BBC reporter? A spy feigns collaboration with his source, a BBC reporter feigns collaboration with his public. In gathering and delivering (otherwise obscure) information, one is a far greater danger to those they is entrusted to serve than 'CAGW' could ever be.
ooops: "they ARE"
Harrabin's response to the Mail's Peter Sissons article-
I don't recognise Peter Sissons’ portrayal of the BBC’s reporting on climate change (Mail) and I’d like to scotch the myth that I changed an online report on the World Meteorological Organisation at the behest of a green campaigner. I amended my copy not because of the campaigner, but because the WMO suggested a better way of reflecting the science. The amendments didn’t alter the message that global temperature had stalled, albeit at an elevated level. The campaigner assumed the changes were provoked by her, but she was wrong.
ROGER HARRABIN,
BBC environment analyst
And the green campaigner ingratiatingly corroborates this dubious explanation-
As the ‘green activist’ in the piece, I don’t agree that I ‘berated’ Roger Harrabin. I was a bit upset but it was a respectful email exchange. The minor changes he made were not proof of journalistic malpractice but to better reflect the evidence from the World Meteorological Organisation.
JO ABBESS
What is so amusing, is that the lady continues to berate her soulmate so-
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/06/25/roger-harrabin-two-degrees-short-of-accuracy/
Harrabin sure is in the deep and steamy.
Futerra's co-founder Ed Gillespie (writes occasionally for the Guardian..)
Is good mates with Baroness Bryony Worthington.
The lady that gave us the UK's Climate Change Act.. Labour gave it to her (peerage) as Ed Milliband said, she was instrumental in writing it.. She aso on the Board of 10:10, and Duncan Clark (environment Guardian) is 10:10's Strategy Director
oh, and Ed GIllespie on the board Baroness Worthington's company SandBag, (all about lobbying for CO2 emissions, etc in Europe)
It a small green world..... we live on ;-)
Mac - Great and apposite quotation from Clive Crook:
"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering,"
It is a gem and a keeper. Unlike Harrabin, I will make the appropriate attribution.
I have no idea how to do an FOI request (nor any more time)
Could someone FOI Tyndall or the BBC to find out just how long Roger Harrabin was on the Tyndall Centre Advisory Board... (at least 2002 - 2005)
any resonable person would think at the VERY VERY least that the perception of bias, to be avoided..
VERY disapointed that Roger HArrabin, doesn't even mention that he was (at the time of seminars) on the BOARD of Tyndall.... which was spponsoring his CMEP.
Mike Hulmes thoughts:
“Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme [CMEP] to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)
David Holland's thoughts
“It is utterly unreasonable to suggest that the Tyndall
Centre at the University of East Anglia would hand over to CMEP funds unless it was believed Dr Smith and Roger Harrabin could, through the CMEP seminars, change BBC reporting policy in the direction the Tyndall Centre wanted.” (David Holland OU complaint)
Mike Hulme, wanted 'this type of reporting starved at source [BBC]', look like his wisshes were fulfilled.
Who is going to tell, the BBC journalists, that Roger Harrabin was on Tyndalls BOARD. not Roger it looks like. And we know no-one that works at the BBC reads the Daily Mail
I was too kind.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/
Harrabin's Knight-Wallace Fellowship sabbatical:
We pay you to enjoy what is the most rewarding year of your life. Our U.S. fellows receive $70,000 – distributed as $8,750 monthly – from September through April. Stipend details vary for international fellows and are worked out on an individual basis.
Travel?
Later in the year, we turn things up a notch with intensive and invigorating international news tours that are equal parts education and entertainment.
We visit two South American capitals, Buenos Aires and São Paulo. Winter trips have included travel to Istanbul, Moscow.............
More travel?
We place equal emphasis on broadening horizons outside the classroom – far outside the classroom. Where else will you go from pressing fresh apple cider in the crisp air of a Northern Michigan fall to galloping on a horse through the brush on the Argentine Pampas to sweating in a traditional Russian banya? Extensive travel is a core component of the Knight-Wallace experience.
Take the family:
The Knight-Wallace Fellowship also offers opportunities for our fellow’s partners, spouses and children. The intellectual resources of the university as well as the program’s activities are open to spouses and partners.
Much like climate science, it's a dirty job but...........;)
joanne nova has a thread going:
ClimateGate II: Handy Guide to spot whitewash journalism – The top 10 excuses for scientists behaving badly
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/climategate-ii-handy-guide-to-spot-whitewash-journalism-the-top-10-excuses-for-scientists-behaving-badly/#comment-759694
i've posted the following in the comments:
28 Nov: Tom Nelson Blog: Way to go, mainstream media: For commentary on Durban climate hoax meeting, PBS goes to Washington Post warmist Juliet Eilperin; there’s no mention that Eilperin’s husband is a global warming activist with the way-left-of-center Center for American Progress
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/way-to-go-mainstream-media-for.html
Nov 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM | Roy
Roy as I recall it, it was regarded as the way the world worked, it was well known that there were short inter-glacials and ours was due to end soon (in geological terms). It's probably still the way the world works.
Sandy
"A senior scientist present had told us the debate on climate change was ‘over’ and urged us to stop reporting the views of climate sceptics."
Roger, you're a journalist, right? You report the facts and the news?
Well, then, why are you using this obscuring language? Do you know who the senior scientist was? Did you forget it? Lose the notes? Never took notes?
Or did you make the conscious choiced to hide the facts? If so, I wonder why you felt this needed hiding, or why you even felt that this was a decision for you to make...to choose which facts to hide or expose.
When you choose to hide the facts rather than expose them, you're showing how the BBC bias works.
Also, this statement: "Generally, though, we seem to be trusted by our audiences to be offering impartial information." You understand what a generally wishy-washy statement that is? Seem? To Who? To you? Are there surveys you can point to? And when you say "your audience"...given that your audience is, to some extent, self-selected, with their own biases, you understand that what you're saying is that people who trust you...trust you? This is not an extraordinary journalistic insight. The question isn't so much whether your audience trusts you...but whether you're trustworthy.
It appears that your goal is to keep your self-selected audience trusting you instead of the more noble goal of providing the news and the facts, and I hope you're not really proud of that. I wonder which young lad out there is growing up with the noble ambition of hiding facts from people?
Back in May 2010 Roger Harrabin criticised the Royal Society for being too cosy with lobbyists and leading him to believe that the science was settled.
Not only everything Harrabin did is above the board and happened with full knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of his managers and the BBC Trust, but he also had no choice but to take the word of the president of the Royal Society.
The guy is whiter than white.
Now that is interesting because you have to;
Apply before the 1st of Feb 2011, and
the fellowship runs from Sept 1st 2011 to April 1st 2012.
How did Roger Harrabin manage to gain a fellowship so late and enter half-way thru the current programme?
It is because Mr Harrabin is now the story, and he has to be removed from the firing line; and that gives substance to claims of a BBC journalist being paid to act in an impartial manner by a third party concerning an important subject - Global Warming.
This is the first indication that the BBC has suffered reputational damage.
The question now is will Roger Harrabin return to his original job, or will he be shifted sideways out the back door?
It really is about time that some effort was made to pull the plug on the BBC in its present form. This is yet another nail in the coffin. How many more nails does it need?
It has become obsessed by celebrities and uses them at every opportunity.Just to remind you a celebrity is someone who is 'famous for being famous'. For example, very few scientist seem to be used now to present specialist programmes.
Their leaning is so left wing at every opportunity that I'm surprised they don't tip over.
There is very little quality output left these days.
We should be given the choice if we want to pay to watch the BBC. The technology is there with Freeview and Satellite. The rather inaptly named Licence Fee (more a compulsory impost if we want to watch TV at all) should be abolished. And sooner rather than later.
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/4454-lord-lawson-accuses-sir-david-attenborough-of-sensationalism.html
Sir David - 'Whether it is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.”
I like old David but he seems to be getting a god complex, stop temperatures rising? Been hanging out at to many Harribin Seminars me thinks. maybe slow temps by 0.001 a decade (pulled out my ear like a lot of climate science).
Seems many suffer from Climate Change Stupidity Syndrome, that strikes harder the more renown one is in his field. It manifests itself with the uttering of climate change related inanities and insanities plus a total mental closure to Scepticism.
If Mann had wanted to, he would have been able to lead those people down a ravine.
HaroldW said:
That is how I meant it - that the science then, as now, was not conclusive and there were a variety of interpretations of the evidence because of gaps in our knowledge. But at that time a more sensible?/rational?/educated? population wouldn't really balk at a little bit more warmth so those predictions were not terribly newsworthy. A cooling climate, a change in ocean currents etc would be.
Today our populations are brainwashed from an early age to fear a warmer world and be guilty of the advances we have made, and the science has been tailored to all circumstances. It will get warmer, except where it will get colder. It will get drier, except where it will get wetter. Whatever change a region is most vulnerable to becomes the thing we must avoid by cutting CO2.
SandyS (Nov 29, 2011 at 7:15 PM) -
Thanks for the links, they are interesting to read.
One correction, if I may -- I had the Science News item of March 1, 1975 in my files, but entitled "Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities". (You listed the title as "The Ice Age Cometh!") It turns out that the cover of that issue of Science News shows "The Ice Age Cometh?" but the article is indeed entitled "Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities". Available here, for example.
Thanks Gareth - I think we agree fully. From the "Chilling Possibilities" article mentioned above:
Thought you might like to know that Harrabin's Chief Lap Dog, Richard Black, has re-appeared on the BBC Environment page with a lame article about Durban. The article suggests he is there so no wonder he is keen to stop the wheels coming off the MMGW bandwagon. Next year he gets a trip to Qatar. Keep up the good work Richard, glad to see my licence fee isn't being wasted on anything frivolous like factual programming.
Viv Evans: "AGW scepticism only arose in the mid 2000s when SteveMcIntyre took an interest in the data."
My apologies if the remark just quoted was intended satirically. But I feel obliged to note that it is completely untrue. Just three books grabbed from my shelves will suffice to make the point: (i) Patrick J. Michaels (1992) Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming. Washington: Cato. (ii) Ronald Bailey, ed. (1995) The True State of the Planet. New York: Free Press, specifically the chapter by Robert C. Balling Jr. entitled "Global warming, messy models, decent data, and pointless policy", pages 83-107. (iii) John Emsley, ed. (1996) The Global Warming Debate. London: ESEF.
Scepticism is as old as alarmism and you can find sceptical papers from the 1980s if you look.