Bishop Hill Blackening the name of the BBC
Nov 3, 2011 BBC Climate: other Richard Black briefs colleagues on covering climate change.
He is quite a piece of work isn't he?
A green organisation was also invited to speak at the same event.
Bishop Hill
Black has added a note to the foot of his "Hide the Decline" article:
UPDATE 3 November 1036: A number of comments have quite rightly pointed out that the "hide the decline" email was also critiqued at the time of "ClimateGate" in its proper context - ie, reconciling a tree-ring dataset with an instrumental dataset.
This wasn't the sense in which I dealt with it in this post, obviously - I was focussing on the mis-use of the email in claims that it "hid a decline", or slowdown, in temperatures from 1998 onwards.
With hindsight I should have made that clear in the text, and I could also usefully have pointed out that some "sceptical" blogs took pains to clarify the issue at the time, such as the wattsupwiththat post reading "contrary to what you've likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide".
It's astonishing isn't it, that having written a blog post, a correction to the blog post and having given a course to BBC colleagues, he still hasn't managed to tell anyone that the hiding the decline was declared to be "misleading" by the Russell panel?
Reader Comments (96)
Bish, feel free to move this as it's not strictly 'on topic' although does have tangential significance.
I've just heard the first thing in months which restored any faith in the BBC harbouring even the slightest hint of talent.
The correspondent on 'This Week' has just referred to the economic mess in the Aegean with the pithy tag "Acropolis Now", although to be fair, I think "Whoops Acropolis" would be accurately reflect the situation.
An Ode to Climate Science
Good, better, BEST
the data cannot rest,
such torture endured
by now we’ re inured
to trends suspicious,
and stats injudicious
much variance diverging
from reality emerging
the paleodata surging
past is present haunting
uncertainties are daunting
hypotheses astounding
are ever so resounding,
untestable of course
then that’s the source
of conclusions erratical
from climatologists fanatical,
whose logical defiance
based on over-reliance
on concepts theoretical
and models hypothetical
with assumptions abounding
and parameters surrounding
such splendid renditions
of initial conditions
and boundary limits
with feedback exhibits
such a virtual world
with scenarios unfurled
sensitivity to measure
and results to treasure
with projections aplenty
and scenarios many
predictions never admitted
now are not permitted
in post-modern science
With a hint of reliance
On well worn consensus
And groupthink relentless
How utterly senseless
Where pal review reigns
And sensitivity gains
Are so wide ranging
With credibility straining
Cherry-picking for tenure
No-one to censure
hypotheses not tested
truth cannot be wrested
from the likes of IPCC
ARGO data from the sea
are troublesome it seems
as to what it means?
satellites not tree rings
will give us soundings
of clouds and aerosols
Well bless our souls!
the feedback's critical
for hacks so political
and ever hypocritical
with pretexts ever flimsy
to tax us at their whimsy
Bristle-cone pines
Are stretching the lines
Across eons of time
In California at least
Where trees can feast
On good old CO2
And yet we know too
That the graph’s askew
Mann-made warming
now there’s a warning
the blade’s uplifted
with data sifted,
by PCA short centring
All ready for entering
A journal so lenient
extremely convenient
the puck is ready
the ice is steady
but the decline ‘s hidden
thus the message given
until came the mire
Now it’s McIntyre
With McKitrick in tow
That’s ruined the show!
Oh how reality bites
When the method invites
Such critics revealing
secrets unappealing
Well now that it’s done
We’ve all had our fun
Oh why, oh why
they all cry
cannot he resist
he truly must desist
from silly verse
so terse and worse
sentiments ill-considered
time and efforts frittered
On and on it goes
Heaven only knows
yet more appended
til he' s suspended
fear not this is ended.
Comment on the video:
He glossed over the IAC Review of IPCC...quite egregiously IMO.
The IAC Review documented irrefutable evidence (from IPCC participants themselves no less) of
(a) lack of transparency regarding the selection of personnel and technical/scientific material to be considered.
(b) political interference
(c) biased treatment of genuinely contentious issues
(d) poor handling of uncertainty
(e) vague statements not supported by evidence
(f) failure to respond to critical review comments
(g) reference material which had not been critically evaluated or peer reviewed (or even flagged as such)
(h) a total lack of any policy to preclude conflict of interest
(i) management problems
Moreover, contrary to the impression given by this presenter, the IAC certainly did NOT endorse IPCC's version of the science. In fact, the IAC Review explicitly states (on page 2 of Chapter 1) that its report does not consider the science or the validity of its representation in the IPCC Assessment Report.
If you have not read it, it's definitely worth reading!
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%201%20-%20Introduction.pdf
I've figured out that Mr Black took GISS's annual figures for global mean temperature (source here) and computed the difference between values 10 years apart. Simple enough, and perhaps what one would expect from a journalist.
However, the accepted method is to compute a trend by linear regression. Using the monthly values available here, I have made the necessary computations for 10-year trends beginning in 1991, corresponding to Mr Black's selection. Here are the results.
It does appear to me that the latest 10-year trends are fairly close to zero.
His youtube page is moderated for comments..a good thing no doubt :)
I left a comment linking this web site and corrections..I am sure it will be posted in the interests of the truth..just kidding..
Hide die kleine curve;
What's a sign change among pals?
Et tu, Brute Cold Force?
============
“The fact that it [Climategate and Glaciergate] happened before Copenhagen can’t have been coincidental”
Can’t it? Black obviously knows something we don’t. What kind of journalist would sit on a scoop like that?
Global warming hasn't stopped. It's just going through a "period of relative plateauing". Thanks for clarifying that one Richard.
On the Did It Stop graph, if Black had been holding this meeting in 1941 instead of 2011, he could have made the same comments. Did he not notice that the 30 years to 1941 showed the same characteristics as the last 30 years? Move your neutral line down 0.5 deg Richard then stand back and look. Now bet your job on what happens next.
Hint: explain 1911 to 1941 in relation to CO2 as you did 1981 to 2011.
Over to you Scoop.
The sad thing is that though Black's presentation was not to a very high level, he obviously knew it was of enough of a level for the journalists present. If he can get away with it... he will.
And just for arguments sake, one of editors keeps stum here but strays off message in a piece? You know damn well his inbox and that of their boss will be receiving an "education" message from Black.
This is laying down the BBC orthodoxy - who would be brave enough to break it?
BBC's Black should have another seminar to balance the previous. The new seminar’s title should be 'How to be an Actual Critically Skeptical Investigative Journalist'. He can invite Donna Laframboise as the main speaker.
Or Black can continue to sit around holding hands with fellow IPCC-fawning journalistic associates, swaying gently in unison while singing kumbaya.
John
Black's opening waffle:
So is it the job of a BBC reporter to do the weighing?
Patrick, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:41 AM
Superb!
The situation remains the same Black really is just the 'Teams' BBC bag boy you expect nothing from him that did not follow their line no matter how many knots he would have to tie himself in.
An error strewn and very misleading briefing.
Black gets the HCSTC and Oxburgh dates wrong.
Also note the graphic of surface and satellite temps (3m 30s in). See how the graph Black uses neatly overlays all surface and satellite temps, showing the all temp records are of the same shape and magnitude. Now we know that is not the case, it is worth repeating we know that the surface temps are basically of the same shape and magnitude but the satellite records are not.
It raises the question how was this incorrect graphic produced and why was used in a briefing for other BBC journalists?
Here is how I think Black (or some third party) produced the misleading global temp graph.
1. It appears to be a 10 year moving average of HadCruT, GISS, NOAA, RSS and UAH datasets.
2. The various plots of these averages have been offset downwards to fit over the UAH plot.
3. Finally the magnitudes of the various plots have been adjusted to show equal magnitudes.
This give the (Black) illusion of all the instrumental records showing the same increasing global temperatures.
This shows the BBC at its best (or should that be BEST?)
The fact remains that BBC journalists are being routinely misled by their own colleagues on climate change.
The 2nd video: "Alejandro Litovsky - Reporting Climate Change" is similarly frightening.
At around 6 minutes in, he says this:
"...we have the possibility to invent a much more creative and interesting agenda"
Wow, just wow!
John Shade Nov 4, 2011 at 9:43 AM |
Thanks John. You may also like my previous effort (in comments under the 'Two Papers' post)
Nov 3, 2011 at 12:43 PM | Patrick
It is clear that post the satellite era that Black's plots of the averaged temp data have been adjusted so that all the plots overlay nearly exactly. In fact if you just offset the other averages using UAH around the year 1993 so that they roughly overlay, as Black appears to have done, there should be clear differences of the same magnitudes in all the average plots post the satellite era as is clearly shown between surface averages prior to the satellite era.
It would appear that Black has put in some effort to show the recent changes have been adjusted to appear all the same.
In summary:
Richard Black in trying to show that all the instrumental records show the 'same' warming by producing a misleading graph misses the much bigger point - they are not supposed to.
Both the actual surface record and satellite records are meant to diverge - they do - but they do so in the opposite way to what the AGW hypothesis states. The surface data shows too much heat in comparison to the satellite data.
Richard Black is in effect showing how BBC journalists can use bogus arguements to make the case for AGW.
We saw this with 'hide the decline' now we see it with the surface and satellite datasets.
"Richard Black is in effect showing how BBC journalists can use bogus arguments to make the case for AGW. " - Mac@11:35
Spot on Mac.
Breathtaking.
Can someone with some clout in these debates (Bishop, Peiser?) please highlight this video and splash it round some of the less biased mainstream media outlets as absolute proof of the one-sided propaganda a publicly funded news organisation is blatantly enforcing, propagating and spreading? It really is like openly admitting to political bias, and (Jones report aside) is so clearly not "impartial reporting" that other news organisations need to speak out on it and make it clear to the public how untrustworthy the BBC is on this issue. They've just provided us with stunning evidence - a real smoking gun.
This needs to be seen widely, not just on this blog....
I sent a complaint to the BBC about Richards blatant factual error relating to hide the decline.
I was somewhat surprised to receive a reply within 2 hours...from Richard Black.
So BBC policy on complaints seems to be, ge the person you are complaining about to churn out a reply, without anyone else getting involved.
Absolutely shocking.
I responded by asking Richard to pass the complaint on to someone who manages him and for it to be treated as it should have been, as outlined by the BBC complaints process.
I suggest you leave comments here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/11/video-reporting-climate-change.shtml#dnaacs
Is it just me, but the alarm bells went off almost as soon as Black started talking, and before he had made any substantive points at all? He opened by saying:
"Personally I view the Jones report as quite empowering actually, because what it basically tells us in a nutshell is that where there is a genuine debate let's reflect it, where there isn't a genuine debate let's not pretend that there is."
The alarm bell went off at the ninth word: "empowering". This is a code word which indicates to the audience that the speaker belongs to some trendy lefty political group. It's a bit like a Marxist dropping the word "proletarian" into a sentence, or a Christian mentioning "Christ", or an Islamist mentioning "Allah". It serves to tell the audience that that the speaker is One of Us, and by implication that the audience is composed of Us as well.
The use of the word "empowering" serves no other purpose than one of self-identification. Plenty of other words were available. e.g. "informative", "instructive", and so on. But instead Black uses "empowering".
The use of this word also highlights what this is all about. It's about power. It's about the power to permit or deny or direct debate. And in climate science, as in so many other matters, the debate is always over.
FWIW here an outline of clique with their hands around the BBC's throat:
The Green NGO fellow in the linked video, Litovsky from ' Earth Security Initiative' (" uniting scientists, politicians, business and investors, and the defense community"
e.g. some scary outfit spun off from 'Volans' a business outfit looking at "...shaping our future and explore how they impact markets today" They are run by people who are green capitalists and happy to "advise (d) the BBC on environmental and communications issues"
Also supported by "Synchronicity" (run by hedge fund capitalists (Adam Sweidan, Aurum Fund and his arts major wife/daughter, Tom Fernandez, Galleon), partnered with BBC Wildlife Fund (never heard of this one before...)
there you are , more here 3 w greenfunders.org/whosinvolved/
More on Black's graph. I think I have discovered for myself 'Black's trick' in making the recent global temps for all the datasets all look same, a method that also results in increasing the trends in temperature. It is all to do with 10 year averaging of data.
If you calculate the decadal trends for just two surface data sets for the entire period of the instrumental records you get this;
HadCRUT:
Monthly: 0.045
13 Month average: 0.045
10 year average: 0.044
GISS:
Monthly: 0.059
13 Month average: 0.059
10 year average: 0.057
From this you see that the 10 year averaging of the data results in a slight reduction the monthly trend.
For the satellite data;
RSS:
Monthly: 0.142
13 Month average: 0.145
10 year average: 0.183
UAH:
Monthly: 0.138
13 Month average: 0.139
10 year average: 0.165
Now that shows that 10 year averaging of the satellite data results in a significant increase in calculated trends.
Now compare these increased trends with the surface record during the satellite era.
HadCRUT:
Monthly: 0.151
13 Month average: 0.156
10 year average: 0.186
GISS:
Monthly: 0.163
13 Month average: 0.167
10 year average: 0.182
Again 10 year averaging of the surface data over the satellite era results in a signficant increase in trends. In addition both the magnitude of the surface and satellite trends are similar.
Here is Black's Trick in full;
Here is how I think Black (or some third party) produced the misleading global temp graph.
1. A 10 year moving average of HadCruT, GISS, NOAA, RSS and UAH datasets results in increased trends over the satellite ere which also produces plots of similar magnitudes
2. The various plots of these trended-up averages have been offset downwards to fit over the UAH plot.
3. Finally the magnitudes of the various plots are again adjusted to minimise any existing differences.
Not only could Richard Black claim that all the datasets show similar changes in warming but there is a hidden benefit that the 10 year averaging method produces increases in trends during the satellite period ( a large uptick on the graph of global temps).
Ingenious, but as ever devious.
[Raise the tone please]
Nov 3, 2011 at 9:30 PM | Frank
-----
To what level? Maybe one from the BBC collection:
Enhancing the narrative
Interpreting events
Maintaining watertight oversight (a personal favourite), or, most likely..
Time to 'move on'.
The last is usually deployed when well and truly nailed, and not even a mea culpa tucked away on Newswatch or The Editors (good value at the moment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/ ) will dig out of the hole, so best to try and brush off or distract (or get a stooge to try).
A truly important topic, and this is how it gets handled by a £4B in theory impartial, professional media empire with a remit to educate and inform.
Not quite the way to maintain a reputation as a trusted broadcaster and national treasure.
More information on Alejandro Litovsky, and ESI (Earth Security Iniative), who gave a briefing the the BBC College of Journalism after Richard Black.
http://www.earthsecurity.org/news/
It is interesting that Alejandro Litovsky, an Argentine, has linked conflicts over the past few decades with climate change.
Could the Falklands War be due to an increase in CO2 emissions?
Mac
He also spoke at the BMJ conference the other day. There's a long video.
James Painter, Rebecca Nadin, Andy Revkin, Yves Sciama, John Lloyd - it looks like the usual suspects will be talking to each other, again, over the evils of climate scepticism and the reporting of it.
Don't these people realise that the debate has stalled because the public see CAGW as just another scare story that is way past its news-worthy sell by date.
Is that an annual event at the British Council?
Good critique by David Whitehouse here
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4271-biased-bbc-advice-based-on-sloppy-statistics.html
Why Britons haven't mass-revolted on the TV Licensing by now, I'll never understand. There is no rational basis on which a government should be taxing your ability to listen to open airwaves with your own technology. To my mind that is a direct infringement on your freedom and something that should be challenged by the common man. Government should be there to regulate so that transmissions are not interfering with each other, and that's it. The U.S. FCC is bad enough with their highly questionable judgements on content and fines on broadcasters, but I cannot imagine having to pay the FCC to come up with content for me.
It seems to me, allowing taxation on receivers would give government an in into any form of transmitted media. What is to stop them from legalizing a tax for internet use, for mobile phone use, for 1-way and 2-way radio use, for hearing someone else rant on the sidewalk? These are all transmissions through a medium, so why should they be any different? Why is a hearing aid so different from a television receiver? There's an antennae medium and an amplifier, they are not so different.
The BBC does produce great shows and I'm quite thankful for the last 10 years of BBC imports to America. Lord knows it has helped offset the reality-television trash which American TV is filled with. But it's not worth a tax, imho. You still get great TV in America, you just have to look harder for it.
If I can offer my two-penn'orth: I was struck by the way that Black is now using the words Global or Anthropogenic (although he did make one stab at pronouncing the A word) less and less when talking about warming. He now only talks about 'the warming', knowing full well that many sceptics are fully aware that there is warming, and even some possibly caused by the greenhouse effect. But what he is doing now IMO, is using the word 'warming' in a more pejorative manner so that his audiences get the feeling that any warming is a bad thing.
Jeremy: Sssssh, they might hear you.
Snotrocket,
The successful conflation of AGW with GW has muddied the waters no end in this debate. It means that interpretation of facts can be both true and false at the same time. A very useful tool for some, as Black demonstrates.
Care should always be taken not to slip into this sloppy way of thinking. Always make the distinction between AGW and GW and when having a discussion with someone else, be sure you make them respect the difference.
DaveJR
... and always make sure that they understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide!
Black has performed a service to science. Next time anyone asks me about a Gish-Gallop or fuzzy logic, I know the clip to show them.
Help!
I’m transcribing this for Alex Cull to put up on his Mytranscriptbox site, and I’m stuck at about 3 minutes in, where I hear:
“Well, looking back on this, and giving a perhaps not very scientific analogy here, the heat (???) suggested basically that the climate scientists had been buggering the choir boy, and what it really transpires is that they mislaid the application forms to join the choir. And I think if we’re basing, any of us are basing decisions not to do climate change on the basis of Climategate, this I think shows us that that’s a bad judgement to make”.
Coul that be Trenberth’s missing heat? It’s a travesty that I can’t make it out.
I just want to say, I think that there is more to this presentation than just this video, as it appears there were other speakers at, or during this event's duration. Do we have more video links of an extended edit?
I say this because I have a very, very close - and long-standing friend, for whom I have the greatest respect - who was invited to speak officially on behalf of "current Affairs response + coverage of climate change", as part of this event’s schedule, he has just informed me by email.
To be sure, he is not in any way whatsoever connected to science, environment or global warming studies, his interests and experience are exclusively series production and directorial. (He is also - in spite of all my protestations over the years – a firm, if not devout believer in the orthodox position.)
This leads me to believe that there were other representatives from other units in the bbc that were not only present, but also spoke about how global warming was - and is - addressed within the editorial lines for their respective programme areas: News, current affairs, arts and ents, culture, ethics etc. I would be very interested to know if this was the case, and I shall do what I can to find out.
What concerns me is that this event was intended to coordinate a inter-programming “response” to addressing global warming issues, that ensures that their [the bbc’s] climate message is embedded and coherent across all programming output. Perhaps in much the same way as the national curriculum has embedded its global warming messages across multiple subjects, the bbc – starting with Richard Black’s lecture – is holding events solely intended to deliver “learning outcomes” for their reporters that fall strictly within their “position” on AGW.
I worry that this entrenched mindset, gratuitously delivered with Black at the helm, goes against all that “reporting” is about. Moreover, does this go against the bbc’s own impartiality rules on reporting, when those whose jobs it is to do it, are journalistically lobotomized by having any sense of freedom to report, withdrawn by bombastic lecturing and an entrenched political viewpoint?
Quite how Black – or the bbc - can market this as “Impartiality and reporting climate change”, when their perspective is so obviously biased, is astonishing.
Justin
there is clearly some discussion of the Jones report just before Black’s presentation, since he begins:
“Thanks very much David. Yeah I mean, personally I view the Jones report as basically quite empowering actually, because what it basically tells us in a nutshell is that, where there is a genuine debate, let’s reflect it. Where there isn’t a genuine debate, let’s not pretend that there is. So, if we’re going to talk about things like due impartiality, then we need to know I think what the sort of weight is in things like climate change...”
and he mentions the presentation by Alejandro Litovsky which follows his own, and at which Black is present.
The Black video is intoduced at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/11/video-reporting-climate-change.shtml
like this by David Hayward of the BBC college of Journalism:
“If you want a ten-minute guide to reporting climate change and impartiality, this is it.
“Richard Black, the BBC's environment correspondent, gave this excellent presentation at a BBC College of Journalism briefing; dispelling the myths and exploring the scientific facts of global warming.
“He was speaking in the wake of a review by Professor Steve Jones into impartiality and the accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science, ahead COP 17 - the UN climate change conference in Durban at the end of the month”.
Hi Geoff
Thanks for that. I can’t find the clip(s) I am after, but I did take a closer look at the Litovsky lecture, and the green advocacy group he founded to support “global environmental governance.”
Are you transcribing this presentation as well?
The bit that got me was when Litovsky states admiring his chart labeled The great paradigm shift” (19”) and I quote:
“GMO a very large investment fund in the US, Jeremy Grantham’s investment fund, yes! And what is interesting about this, is that they call it “the great paradigm shift”! This is not an NGO, this is like the hardcore financial sector investment… And why is this a paradigm shift? Because what they are saying is this particular growth in commodity prices is not driven just by speculation, it is increasingly driven by resource scarcity. Is driven by the fact we are transforming the face of the earth, and we are running out of stuff!”
Aha, no powerful vested interests then taking advantage of the impending doom:
http://www.gmo.com/America/About/
“Welcome… GMO is a global investment management firm… Our client base includes endowments, pension funds, public funds, foundations and cultural institutions… As of September 30, 2011, we managed $93 billion in client assets, $36 billion of which was in asset allocation strategies.”
Their assets are broadly categorized:
Equities: $84 billion ($52 billion non-U.S.)
Fixed Income: $9 billion
Absolute Return: $11 billion**
Asset Allocation: $36 billion**
Just a few coppers changing hands and lining a few pockets of the already wealthy, contriving to manufacture scarcity to keep prices nice and high for their retirements funds.
Follow the money!
Here's the full transcript of Richard Black's presentation:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20111102_yt
Many thanks to Geoff Chambers for this!
Let's get this straight. Black knew perfectly well what he was doing. He knew perfectly well what hiding the decline was actually about. And realised it was a huge blow to his preconceived political preference for global warming to be true. So he tried to smear it, an act of deep dishonesty.
But he's BBC, what else do you expect?
If this is how the manage reporting global warming, how do we know if they are not managing all reporting like this. How can we every trust the BBC every again?
'If this is how the manage reporting global warming, how do we know if they are not managing all reporting like this. How can we every trust the BBC every again?
Nov 8, 2011 at 9:47 PM | Ian the gun'
--
It's proving tricky. There are of course avenues of exchange that get opened up where the BBC mods are less able to hit the House Rules or Off Topic ejection button, but often they do get pulled quickly or when the discussion veers into dodgy territory. A few samples:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/11/apology_for_andrew_tyrie.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/10/the_challenges_of_reporting_ga.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/10/talking_to_haqqani_how_it_was.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/08/newsnight_the_facts.html (Newsnight's kitchen science series with Ed Miliband and an actual rocket scientist a while ago on matters warming setting an hilarious reporting standard bar)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/08/england_riots_our_coverage.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/06/story_removal.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/03/the_bbc_and_private_investigat.html (note the modding - this guy's 'body of work' on Editorial Guidelines is a hoot)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html (a personal favourite, along with her other outings)
Plus of course the awesome Giles & Steve on the page redesigns:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/03/changes_to_our_blogs.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/05/our_next_step_in_news_blogging.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/07/bbc_news_website_redesign_4.html
I'll leave it with this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/06/whats_up_with_the_weather.html
And these are just when they are stung into circling wagons.
Viewers of Newswatch will know, of course, that actually they 'get it about right' all the time.