Bishop Hill Beeb responds
Feb 9, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics You may remember that I emailed Emma Jay, the producer of the Horizon programme who appeared to have misled James Delingpole over the nature of the programme. The BBC promised to get back to me and now, with a bit of prompting, they have sent me a copy of the letter that editor Aidan Laverty sent in response to Delingpole's article in the Spectator:
Sir:
In response to James Delingpole’s article last week I wanted to clear up a few points concerning the Horizon documentary ‘Science Under Attack.’
From the outset, we made clear to James that the purpose of this film was to examine public trust in science generally - not just in the area of climate change - reflecting both the role of scientists and the influence of the internet and bloggers. At no point did anyone on the production team lie or mislead any contributors about the programme's content or objective.
Well, hold on Lord Copper, in her letter to Delingpole Emma Jay said this:
The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions. On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves. Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.
None of this was true, was it? The tone of the film was unquestioning and carried a clear preconception that sceptics were wrong. No scientist emerged criticised in any meaningful way. The idea that Sir Paul felt the scientists to be culpable in some way (if indeed he does) was not conveyed to the audience and none of the scientists' failings were discussed. This is hard to square with Mr Laverty's statement that " At no point did anyone on the production team lie or mislead any contributors about the programme's content or objective." Very hard indeed.
To return to the new missive...
We recorded an interview in good faith with James lasting just over 90 minutes - a typical length of interview for most scientific documentaries. The film contained five minutes from this interview, including what we believed were his key arguments.
Were they what he believed were his key arguments though, or was this just another example of sceptic arguments having to be interpreted by an environmentalist?
The science in the film was rigorously researched and accurate.
This is plainly untrue. Even the scientist interviewed by the programme has admitted that he got the figures wrong. It was a clear case of the BBC regurgitating anything that met their preconceived green agenda.
There is a substantial body of evidence that humans – rather than natural causes – are producing most of the increases in atmospheric CO2.
The significance of this human contribution can only be properly assessed against the evidence that the natural release of CO2 into the atmosphere is almost completely balanced by the absorption of CO2 into the land and oceans as part of the carbon cycle.
That ain't what they said in the programme though was it?
Really, this is an appalling letter for the BBC to write. Why do civil servants feel that the correct response to being caught fibbing is to fib some more?
Reader Comments (55)
did josh ever parody the poor defenceless straw man being beaten the hell out of over-n-over-again?
Thanks for all of this and for chivying the Beeb to get it. But this is the central deception. The complexity of the carbon cycle was totally glossed over by an unsupportable 7:1 ratio put forward by Bindschadler and emphasized by Nurse. That this was utter bunk has to be acknowledged by all - or else the lack of trust in scientists that old Nursey spent the whole programme lamenting is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
The carbon cycle is far more central to the AGW story than the distribution of temperature anomalies Antarctica (though lying and corruption of peer review can it seems become a habit). But even if every increase in atmospheric CO2 apparently shown in the record from Mauna Loa since 1960 is due to man's emissions this of course proves nothing about the consequent effect on global energy flows and thus surface temperatures. It says even less about any of that being remotely dangerous in a hundred or even a thousand years time. But it's still one of the basic building blocks. Giving such a misleading statement about it centre stage, as is now admitted by Bindschadler, needs to be faced up to as the deception it was. No more quibbling.
Being a numpty, I don't understand why carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels is in some way nastier that carbon dioxide which comes out of the oceans, for that is the implication of the argument. If the earth is warming, then CO2 will dissolve out of the oceans, thus increasing the concentration in the air: that's first year undergraduate chemistry. I just can't get my head round what the BBC is saying in their "substantial body of evidence" paragraph and wonder whether I am being dense or the BBC is being dense.
Northern Numpty
As a fellow northern numpty, I can assure you that you have nothing to worry about.
The BBC are not just dense though - they are biased.
"in good faith"
Do they even know what that means?
Perhaps the Beeb is taking Hilaire Belloc too literally..
"And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse"
The fuel of climategate would long ago have burned itself to a gray ash were it not for the seemingly irresistible impulse of those caught out to invent and publish new lies that provide themselves with faint cover and serve more to infuriate those who are paying attention and thereby pile yet more fuel on the fire.
"There is a substantial body of evidence that humans – rather than natural causes – are producing most of the increases in atmospheric CO2."
And this proves what? Surely we need an empirical link between CO2 and temperature, then we have to explain why the temperature has been rising steadily since the end of the little ice age, then we have to make forecasts and test them against observation. (That's probably the easy bit, they'll simply forecast that any weather conditions prove we are suffering CAGW). Then we have to try to understand why the 47 million brilliant minds working on climate change can find NOT ONE beneficial effect from an increase in temperature.
My Dear Bishop, you should hold them to account. They are a public service, are they not? Perhaps politely point out that their response does not answer the issues you raised and that the programmme misinforms viewers. Are they not obliged to correct misinformation?
Then again, as I posted earlier, the main point would seem to be humans' contribution to the increase in CO2; the 'net' figure after natural absorption. This must be a matter of record, and fossil-fuel derived CO2 has an isotope marker, n'est pas?
So, is the figure of mankind's contribution to the increase in CO2 in the order of '7 times' larger than natural sources, or is it not? If not, then the BBC should issue a retraction. If it's just a matter of semantics, skirting over the potential complexities of emissions vs absorptions, then there's no reason to get our knickers in a twist.
If I'm missing something, please let me know.
This response from the BBC was to be expected. It is no different in tone from the responses I (an ex-northern numpty) have in the past received from the BBC.
BBC induction ceremony....................
Take the IPCC AR4 report in your right hand and repeat after me........
I swear to tell etc.........
'Feudal monarchy'
Write to your MP and get them to support the 2nd reading of Robert Halfon 10 minuite rule bill which will give the public a vote on the way the BBC is run.
Northern Numpty
As Gixxerboy points out CO2 from the combustion of hydrocarbons has an isotope marker, and as this isotope of Carbon is increasing in the atmosphere they offer this as proof that the increase is caused by Man This depends on Natural processes distinguishing between the different isotopes of Carbon within CO2 molecules. It also depend on all Coal Gas and Oil having the same isotope makeup.
For myself I find all this just a little hard to believe, and a little too convenient, given we cannot accurately measure any of the outputs of Natural or manmade CO2, or the atmospheric concentration for that matter, nobody has explain convincingly how nature distinguishes between the various “types” of CO2 and a host of other questions. Just like every other branch of the convoluted subject of AGW, all we do know is we don’t know very much, yet Climate Science brushes over all these uncertainties.
The BBC are so arrogant. This is s similar type of response to those you hear during their 10 minute programme which addresses criticism of their news coverage. I have never once heard them admit a mistake or error of judgement. Sheer self-serving propagands and a pointless waste of time.
Emma Jay's duplicity exposed.
Warmist Double-Thinking: "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that you are the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.
The strangely defiant letter dripping falsehoods from the dim Beeb functionary reminds me strongly of a small boy who has been caught telling lies about spending his lunch money on a block of chocolate and a bottle of fizzy drink before he arrived at school. The lad isn't bright enough to realise that the remains of both illicit purchases are clinging to the corners of his mouth and that falsehoods will be found out and will push him further into trouble. To his limited and childish level of understanding, lies are the way out.
One would expect adult behaviour from adults.
Piling fibbing on fibbing is the preferred modus operandi of civil servants, and also of some other people involved in climate 'science', because they hope that those asking the questions they feel forced to fib about will eventually go away.
Unfortunately they still haven't learned that the first fib may be forgiven if they come clean right away, with apologies, whereas every successive fib will make the mess they're in greater, and will definitely make the inquirers more persistent.
It's the cover-up which will attract attention, not the first lie.
Just so we are clear here, is this Ms Fox's understanding of what the controversy is about? Does she really believe that all sceptics believe the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not man made? Does she think that establishing this is the killer "fact" which ends the debate? Her quote clearly indicates so.
How can anyone claiming to speak in public on this issue be so woefully misinformed as to exactly what it is that sceptics are sceptical of? No doubt this is what comes of surrounding yourself with people you believe to be"experts", while lacking the discrimination to recognize a genuine expert from a charlatan.
Mac wrote:
Nice quote. From whence was it drawn?
"Why do civil servants feel that the correct response to being caught fibbing is to fib some more?"
Why would you expect them to change their behaviour? People who deliberately lie, deliberately lie. If they feel the 'correct' response is to lie (because they are Utilitarians who feel that's the 'correct' response because they have believed the propaganda that it's all for the greater green good), they will consider it correct to keep on lying. Utilitarian ethics are destructive of morality.
Hang on though, the issue here is not the mass balance of the carbon cycle it's whether James was sold a pup. The reply very adroitly steers away from the question of misleading the prospective interviewee to a vague piece of armwaving with accompanying flutes. Don't be distracted by the smoke and mirrors.
BBC Diet: This week, we will not be eating crow.
Bishop,
If I understand correctly, the e-mail was addressed personally to Emma Jay and you still haven't got a reply from her. I don't consider that we've yet got to the lies-upon-lies stage because they've fobbed you off with a letter from another person addressed to another person - James Delingpole. Even if Aidan Laverty is the editor (and what, does that mean? - that he cut the film?), he is merely acting here as a spokesperson using typical diplomatic talk giving a rosy view of what they would like to have happened, trying smooth things over - and making them worse. I think you should insist upon getting a personal reply from Emma Jay and then we'll really see if it's sackcloth and ashes (unlikely) or lies-upon-lies and lame excuses.
The quute if from 1984 by George Orwell.
Here is an other from the same on double thinking, "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Pluck
That's from George Orwell's 1984. And very appropriate it is too! The Ingsoc concept of doublethink has clear parallels in the world of climate alarmism, particularly the selective memory:)
Calling them the "Doublethinkers" might be a very apt parry to the "Deniers" label.
Miserable, lying BBC bastards - sack them all. In Oz we say: they couldn't lie straight in bed.
"There is a substantial body of evidence that humans – rather than natural causes – are producing most of the increases in atmospheric CO2"
Exactly how many increases in atmostpheric CO2 are there.
Surely it should read , is producing most of THE increase.
"Why do civil servants feel that the correct response to being caught fibbing is to fib some more?"
it's because they never pay any price for their lies, inaccuracies, incompetence or laziness.
no punishment means that they just don't care. Why should they, when there are no consequences?
We need written warnings and then sackings in the BBC, UEA, civil service, Met Office and any other institution taking public money.
Lies and exagerations are destroying society, let alone science.
>Does she think that establishing this is the killer "fact" which ends the debate?
Evidently, and the reason (I surmise) is that the evil effects of CO2 are a given in these people's minds. It simply hasn't occurred to them that it might not be so, and I'm pretty sure that even if they do know the concentration level in ppm, they haven't actually considered what a 'part per million' really is. Plenty of people think that CO2 is 20-30% of the atmosphere...
I can't seem to post on the BBC thread, would someone mind asking her to release the entire Delingpole/Nurse interview, so we can see how the esteemed professor explained the science to Mr Delingpole and provide all of us with the definite science we need to mend our evil sceptical ways?
Good luck with that.
I'll be replying to their refusal to release same under FOI later this week.
Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. Never trust the Beeb (or anyone else with a public bias) any farther than you can throw the boobtube.
Does anyone here believe that BBC journalists actually hold the views they are being told to propagate ?
E Smith.
Last year I had the mis-fortune to spend 4 weeks in the close proximity of an "environmental" journalist (freelance, but producing content for the BBC). Sad to say that said journo was a true believer with a child like naivety - and yelping puppy-dog enthusiasm for the cause.
Buffy Minton
That's different. He was selected by the BBC for his lack of knowledge of this particular issue.
Stalin is reputed to have said that a "lie always has a stronger effect than the truth" and that "Truth is protected by a battalion of lies." (Montefiore's Young Stalin, page 331 - a good book IMHO) Seems to me that we have the lies, but the truth is AWOL.
Why do civil servants feel that the correct response to being caught fibbing is to fib some more?
Because, as Gendau says, there's absolutely no comeback if they get found out... "Power without responsibility: the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages" - Kipling.
I find that response from the BBC just nauseating.
Bishop
I hope you will respond to the Beeb and point out the gross error on manmade CO2 proportion. Also we were led to believe that NASA can simulate the weather in real time - another wow moment for the hapless Nurse. Of course, if he was a real scientist, he might have asked the NASA dude why we cant predict weather more than a couple of days in advance. That excerpt was designed to mislead.
Yes I am another Northern Numpty - but with a Dolphinhead
What a repulsive propaganda outfit the BBC are, made all the worse by having to pay for the pleasure. If there was a way to refuse to pay licence fees, in a legal sense, then surely that would be worth pursuing, and an effective way to send them a message. Sadly from what I read elsewhere, this would be difficult to do and win, unless someone has any bright ideas.
This seems to be the "greater good" argument from the BBC. Man made global warming is a fact, it is dangerous, and hence it is not really important how we go about spreading this information. (I know it's twaddle, I am just trying to set out the BBC point of view.) The point of your complaint - that Dellingpole and others were misled has been sidetracked and dishonestly denied. That is what needs to be hammered home. The BBC completely misrepresented the nature and aims of the programme and must be brought to account for their actions
Hi can you tell me what this bit means pls " Even the scientist interviewed by the programme has admitted that he got the figures wrong." Which scientist? When ? I thought I was keeping up but obviously not. Regards Hengist,
See my previous post about Bindschadler. His source compared two anthropogenic sources, not natural versus anthropogenic. He agree that it couldn't support the statement he made.
I suspect they're working on a modern version of "Yes, Minister" and have sent you one of the scripts by accident.
It is evident that Emma Jay, producer of the BBC Television's flagship science program, still doesn't understand the Carbon Cycle.
Her misunderstanding is interesting - the inference from her statement is that she believes the natural emission and absorption of CO2 is a fixed not a dynamic process. If humans are adding to it, then we're disrupting some "natural equilibirum". This is a religious belief - why would she think this?
I do not fully understand the carbon cycle and perhaps someone can explain the capacity of this to me.
I am assuming that since the 1950s the concentration of CO2 levels in the atmoshpere has increased on an approximately linear basis by about 2ppm per year. The precise figure is not important to the thrust of the point I make. I am also assuming that the total quantity of manmade CO2 emissions in 2010 is significantly up on those produced in 1950.
As I understand matters, in 2010, the natural sinks had sufficient capacity to sink all naturally outgassed CO2 plus all but about 2ppm of manmade CO2 emissions, hence the reason why there was an approximate rise of 2ppm in CO2 levels when compared to those present in the atmosphere in 2009. If that is so, we can calculate the capacity of the natural sinks.
Now we know the capacity of the natural sinks (calculated on the basis of the 2010 figures), the question I have is why say in 1950 did they not absorb all naturally outgassed CO2 plus all manmade CO2 emiisions since the total of 1950 natural CO2 emissions plus 1950 manmade CO2 emmissions is significantly less than the capacity of the sinks calculated on the basis of the 2010 figures?
.
The natural sinks cannot distinguish between manmade CO2 emissions and naturally occuring CO2 emissions. Is the explanation that the sink capacity in 1950 was less than the capacity in 2010, if so why? If the sink capacity in 1950 was approximately the same as that in 2010, then why did it not sink all naturally outgassed CO2 emissions plus those made by man that year (after all, it had sufficient capacity to do so)?
I would be grateful to receive an explanation.
Re Wormthatturned
It's easily done. You need a licence if you watch live TV, so if you don't, well, you save £150 a year. So disconnect aerial, detune TV and relax. The BBC will send you regular letters accusing you of breaking the law, but as long as you don't have receiving equipment installed or used, it's entirely legal. For them to convict, they need proof or a confession. Usually the latter because TV detection doesn't work. Or it relies on the BBC's staff 'detecting' a TV, ie "thats a TV", and you pointing out it's not, it's just a display. They may try to insist on being let in to inspect, but there's no legal need to let them in unless they have a search warrant.
This is from the science forum of the high IQ society Mensa.
Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man made as well as Volcanic CO2 & 85ppm due to Natural CO2, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. All evidence in Ice core data and direct measurements point to changes in the temperature causing the changes in CO2 levels, this increase being due to the 0.76 Kelvin increase in average Global Atmospheric surface temperature over the last 200 year bounce back from the Little Ice Age. But ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. What ever Man made CO2 is absorbed by the oceans is not relevant to the effect that Man made CO2 has on the average Global Atmospheric surface temperature.
"Why do civil servants feel that the correct response to being caught fibbing is to fib some more?"
A good question. But are BBC employees actually civil servants?
I complained to the BBC and ticked the box for an e-mail response. The only response so far was a demand for my TV licence fee which I paid through clenched teeth.
I think that Richard North is correct in suggesting there is revolution (non-violent) in the air, and the newer posts here today on Huhnian committees reinforces that feeling.
Atomic Hairdryer suggested:
"So disconnect aerial, detune TV and relax. The BBC will send you regular letters accusing you of breaking the law, but as long as you don't have receiving equipment installed or used, it's entirely legal."
In fact I think you will find that this 'service' is provided to the BBC by that well known and honourable organisation Capita (malignly known in some circles as Crapita) who do all sort of similar arm twisting - or have done in the recent past.
They are most active when threatening (by multiple letters) the new owners of property where a licence has previously been listed for a person now deceased and 1st year students in Halls of residence at university who may well have understood the alleged logic underpinning the BBC licence concept.
Beyond that the 'rules' about what sort of equipment requires a licence should it be found in yur possession seem a little vague. Iirc the 'ability' to receive programmes is enough - which in theory means that any TV capably PC - for example with iViewer installed or indeed any application that might be capable of presenting original TV material could provide and excuse to prosecute.
Then again pure incompetence could lead in the same direction so it may not be easy to differentiate between the two.