Bishop Hill Sarah Mukherjee reveals all
An extraordinary lecture by Sarah Mukherjee, until recently a BBC environment correspondent.
Muckherjee's subject is the attitudes of senior UK politicians to the UK's suicidal Climate Change Act - she concludes that they don't actually take it seriously and that the Act's lack of any meaningful redress for its breach means that it is essentially a dead letter.
There are few climate-related videos that repay watching from beginning to end, but this is certainly worth the investment of time, and not just for Mukherjee's eccentric delivery (she comes across as a sort of a younger Ann Widdecombe).
Look out for the moment where she says she has "worked in environmentalism" for ten years. And the bit when she talks about the Climategate inquiry led by Lord Browne.
And what about the bit where she says that NGOs "paid for most of the science" of climate change? Did I hear that right?
Reader Comments (80)
Dr John - I believe that David Whitehouse is a qualified scientist and was the BBC's science correspondent. I believe he won more awards than Ms muckkherjee for his science journalism. I also heard he was 'creatively dismissed' because his knowledge of science was too much of a contrast with the arts graduates at the BBc who are now in charge of science.
200,000 militants in 2007! Those were the days! Campaign against Climate Change has had just one tweet in the past week.
FoE thinks 200,000 (1% of voters, or the total number of Green Party supporters) is a great popular movement. Muckerjee thinks the Guardian , with its 300,000+ readers is too insignificant to deserve to exist. They really have a way with figures.
j parry You could say the same about much management in the civil service or for that matter in many of the service industries in UK plc. I have work for some people who you would be hard pressed to find a single redeeming feature supporting their position other than they went to a certain school or knew some in their road who they played golf with. I once upon a time worked in manufacturing and was surrounded by people that knew what they were doing. I now work in IT where the opposite is true, were those that do know what they are doing do 90% of the work and the rest just drift. The most worn out phase I hear is "you don't have to know what your people do to be able to manage them"
As for Sarah Mukherjee, she is just typical of the know nothings that have swallowed the whole CAGW mantra hook line and sinker, swallowed the dictionary of clichés that goes with it, but in reality would be hard pressed to be able to convince anyone that the oceans contained water.
"she concludes that they don't actually take it seriously and that the Act's lack of any meaningful redress for its breach means that it is essentially a dead letter."
Well surely many in government already know that the act is flawed and AGW is not happening - they are just going to let it die on the vine perhaps?? I don't know.
The same was true of the Cancun jamboree - gone are the commitments to cut 20, 30, 40% etc. but they will strive to keep rising temperatures to 2 deg C this century. Do they know already that keeping to that figure might not prove too difficult??
She is obviously a fairly independent-thinking woman, whom I would love to contact to put the evidence pointing in the opposite direction - does anyone know her email address? She is cynical and savy - she can see how much of the political process is sham - she just hasn't yet realised the the "climate science" is a sham too. If she could be persuaded of that, she could become a powerful force for common sense.
It sounds plausible that politicians will suddenly realise the energy gap and act - let's hope she is right (even though from her point of view, it would be a disaster)!
David
I have emailed for clarification on a couple of points. Let's wait to see if she responds.
With respect - what on earth leads you to that conclusion? She has spent her entire career at the beeb parroting handed-down, green talking points without showing the slightest desire to "look behind the curtain".
At least Black and Harrabin have had their moments of doubt about the "science" and tied themselves in knots trying to wriggle out of "climategate". I've never heard Sarah voice a single enquiring thought.
I think her breezy cynicism about politicians and their motives is just the sort of typical bar-room bluster that less cerebral hacks tend to amuse themselves with among their peers - I actually thought that weaving it into a supposedly serious lecture was a bit pathetic.
All IMHO, of course.
@David, as someone who seems to enjoy name/profession/education dropping throughout her talk, in my experience and background, I would have labelled her as "bluffer" and a lightweight until I got to know differently.
Perhaps unfair to her, but such are the joys of the internet... exposure is a double edged sword.
Foxgoose,
In reply to your coments, I suppose I recognise myself. Prior to climategate, I had just assumed that there really was a well researched problem here. Climategate and the concept of "carbon capture" set me thinking - how could one imagine a world getting energy from carbon based fuels, and safely storing the CO2 - the idea was obviously based on an utterly naive analogy with nuclear waste. I did chemistry research as a young man, and have retained a lively interest in science ever since, but I always felt that while climate science might be important, it looked a rather dreary subject - so I never gave it much thought.
OK - so now I know about the hockey stick, statistical fudges, spliced curves and the rest of it - but reasonable people can easily not know those things. OK, she was the Environment Correspondent, and should have looked more carefully - she isn't blameless - but at least I think it is worth trying to inform her.
If she was just a well known layperson, or minor telly sleb, who'd stumbled into the climate controversy, I'd agree with you.
But it sticks in my craw that the world's biggest news gathering organisation, with £3bn of public funding, has selected a lightweight PR hack to report on (according to them) the most important scientific debate ever.
They could have their choice of the best science graduates around for a job like that.
Anyway, I agree with your latter point - always worth a try.
Note where she mentions wheat harvests and laments the late celebrations of harvest day.
Note: there is not one but two harvests per year, winter wheat planted in October maturing in late winter, and spring wheat planted in March and maturing in June, as it always did.
Harvest celebrations are traditionally celebrated on the Autumn equinox in September.
But this lady mixed everything up in her brain to come up with a personal eye witness account of global warming due to early harvests in June. Saints preserve us!
Hello everyone. Sarah Mukherjee here.
Failed lawyer? Never qualified, I'm afraid. PR hack - yes, for a time - about 18 months. Stupid, airhead, know nothing, terrible presentation? If you like, although I would understandably question all of it if we were to meet face to face. (Is younger Anne Widdecombe a compliment?) But, after stumbling upon my name several times on sites like this, I do wonder sometimes whether being anonymous online means people feel they can be unpleasant in a way they wouldn't dream of being if they met you.
I was a journalist for 20 years, about half of it doing environment and rural affairs, and in fact I spent a lot of time not "parroting" green "nonsense" - I interviewed climate sceptics, and told scientists to their face (not hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet) that just because almost everyone believed a theory didn't mean it was right. Indeed was often berated (to my face) by people who thought it was a crime to give climate sceptics airspace, so I assumed I was doing something right. Incidentally, supporting the white working classes when I criticised a high profile BBC series didn't win me many senior friends in the organisation, so I think I have proved that a craven desire for BBC career advancement was not high on my list.
The Centre for Science and Policy asked me to talk about the link between politics and environment from a personal point of view, which I did. I'm not standing for election, and it's not completely perfect. I might do a different one were I asked today. The stuff about the harvest? It's what farmers told me, unbidden, and these were farmers who would have run Greenpeace activists off their land. They told me they could see the climate changing, and that summer arable harvests were moving. I didn't mention which harvests, I did't have unlimited time. Perhaps I did mention my background too much - I don't know, I haven't watched it again. But I am proud that I managed to go from a single parent home, a council house to Oxford and working at the BBC, via a grammar school, something which is practically unavailable these days to people like me.
The email enquiry from Bishop Hill was fairly polite; it certainly did not betray the strength of feeling I obviously engender amongst the correspondents on this site. I would be happy, David Bailey, to talk to anyone about anything; I wonder how constructive that might be, however, when your correspondents think I'm some "lightweight PR hack" whose entire career appears to have been a festival of smug self advancement?
I'm touched that you are following my career with such interest. I don't work for a quango, I work for a policy development organisation, and I am really enjoying what is a challenging and interesting job. I left the BBC for many private and professional reasons. I'm not quite sure why that was a bad thing if I was doing such a rubbish job as environment correspondent.
Anyway, that's my right of reply.
Happy commenting!
Sarah Mukherjee
Hi Sarah! I didn't say anything rude about you - or anything at all about you - so I feel well equipped to welcome you to Bishop Hill. There is some very good debate on here - and some less good stuff. I was working on other things when this thread came up in April and only skimmed it very briefly. But I have just been thinking again today about anonymity and how it can reduce the quality of our interactions. That's why it's particularly nice to see you respond here. Though we may not agree about man-made global warming, I'm very much on your side :)
Thank you, Richard. Much of what I wrote was prompted by Foxgoose, so perhaps I should walk my own walk and address him (her?) directly:
Dear Foxglove,
You say you are, quite rightly, a supporter of scientific method. However, there seems to be little in your comments that provides alternative, fact based evidence to refute what I actually said in my lecture. You may think I am a failed, stupid blah-di-blah, but what do you disagree with? That politicians are led into making decisions by the press? That the Climate Change Act could be dead on the water at about the same time we start using British coal to plug the energy gap? I won't say I didn't find the personal abuse upsetting, because I did. As I said, I'm quite proud of what I have achieved. But if you feel the way you do, at least come out of the virtual shadows and identify yourself so we can judge each other on our respective bodies of work on equal terms. And deliberately misspelling my name to suggest everything I say is muck? Really?
Come on, Foxglove, who are you?
Sarah
Thanks for responding and I'm sorry you have had to deal with some over-personal remarks. I think it's fair to say that many commenters here are predisposed to a certain hostility toward anyone associated with the BBC! Re the misspelling of your name that was a genuine mistake for which I apologise.
If you are still interested in clarifying some of what you said, I'd be particularly interested in understanding the basis for your remarks about NGOs funding climate science.
Dear "Bishop Hill",
I am happy to engage, as long as I know who I am engaging with. Once the people, especially those who made the most personal remarks, have identified themselves, and their backgrounds (yourself included - some of what you said strayed into the personal - eccentric delivery? What counts as non-eccentric?), so we can exchange ideas on an equal footing, I am happy to talk. I genuinely don't remember that remark - it was more than a year ago! Perhaps you could write down the quotation? It's certainly true that many conservation organisations and pressure groups carry out and co-fund research looking at climate change, but I'm surprised if you think that's a controversial thing to say. SM
Sarah
For the avoidance of doubt, my real identity is hardly a secret - if you look in the navigation bar you will find a book with my name on it!
I'll take a look at the video again tonight and get the quote if that helps.
I mentioned what you said to a group of senior Met Office people the other day and they said it was nonsense. I guess we could be looking at different definitions of climate change research though.
Maybe we are - a quick look at both WWF and FoE websites brings up a host of reports, some co-badged with other organisations, which address climate change, which I would describe as climate change research. Many other groups do the same. If you're suggesting that I somehow suggested that the Met Office are subsidised by conservation groups - well, I don't know whether they are or not because, while I was a journalist, I did not look at all their funding streams, and there's no reason for me to do so now. I'm not exactly sure what you said I said, as I obviously was not party to your conversation with the Met Office.
I would still be interested to know who your many other correspondents are who have used personal comments for the main force of their argument.
Sarah - Good for you defending yourself. FWIW I don't think you should get too hung up on the real names thing. Concentrate more on what people say, can they back it up and can they respond properly to criticism. Willis posted on the annonymity thing over at Watts Up and there are lots of reasons for it. IMO it is a good thing - evaluate on what people post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-pseudonymous-poll-trailer/
I'd be interested for any comments you have on how journalistic training equips people to work on areas which are outside their immediate skill set. I'm afraid I don't know what journalistic training consists of and though I could probably make some inroads with a bit of Googling but your first hand views would be welcome. I must say for all the column inches and electrons expended I have seen little high quality critical or questioning reporting of the climate issues. The impression I have is that the vast majority of coverage has been uncritical PR. Surely journalists get some training in how to seek out, evaluate and cross reference contrary views? I note your comment re: limited time - so how are journalists trained to keep within the limits of their knowledge and reporting? How do you keep editors from not "over reaching" a story? etc etc. Thanks
Let me check the quote out and I'll come back to you.
OK, the quote is from about 31 min.
"The NGOs have been absolutely crucial more than in almost any other policy framework area to the whole process of getting this off the ground. They led a lot of the science, they paid for a lot of the science, and the networks between NGOs and government departments and international bodies is very very close. But I think on this occasion, when you could argue that it mattered the most they simply collapsed it from the inside."
I put it to the Met Office that I had heard it said that a lot of climate science was paid for by NGOs. They said that was nonsense. Like you I haven't spent a lot of time looking at people's funding streams, but I would say it is not common knowledge that NGOs are so closely involved in the science. If we heard as much about (alleged) NGO funding of climate science rather than oil company funding of sceptics, public opinion would be rather different i would think.
Well, as I said bishop hill, I think we are talking about different things. I do not think it is controversial to suggest NGOs have done a lot of climate change research, as I suggested earlier - look at the websites. I have no idea whether they paid for universities to come up with climate change models, but that wasn't what I was talking about.
not banned yet - thank you for your support. I take your point about anonymity, but look at it this way.
Everyone can Google this lecture, Google me and take everything I have ever said apart. But who are these people with strange noms de plume? Someone I beat in a job interview? Someone I cancelled an interview with? Someone who wanted the desk I sat in at the BBC? Someone who doesn't like Asians, or women, or working class people, or all three? I have absolutely no idea. But because they don't identify themselves, I cannot make any sort of decision as to whether they are genuine climate sceptics, or just random people with an assortment of personal and prejudicial grudges. And why, on a site that promotes free speech, would you hide your identity? Why don't they put their lectures up so we can all have a look?
I would never call someone an idiot, stupid, lazy, fatuous, a failed this or that, or dream of inflicting Maoist violence on them (I kid you not; look at some of the earlier posts) just because I didn't like what they said. That's not free speech, it the politics of the playground bully. Worse, the bully's weedy little mate, hiding in the skirts of the world wide web. I reckon most of these people are completely uninterested in intellectual debate; they just want to hurl abuse at someone, safe in the knowledge that they will never be found out.
I wouldn't take being insulted on a train by a random stranger; I don't think it's any more acceptable when you do it all alone in front of your computer.
And what happens is free speech is stifled, not promoted, by this anonymous group. You ask excellent and incisive questions about journalism, but I will not answer them frankly. I know if I do, airbender and foxglove, or whatever they call themselves, will howl "idiot" or "lazy buffoon", and, while I am happy to defend myself, I am not a masochist, and have spent a lot of time on this already. All I will say is that I am no longer a journalist. I am sure, in this context, you can draw your own conclusions.
Anonymity is a tricky thing. I met a climate scientist a while back who said he had reviewed my book on Amazon - favourably. But he said he did so under a pseudonym. Perhaps he should have revealed himself. It would have done sales no end of good. But he and I both understood that he couldn't be sure it was safe to do so.
Sarah - thanks for following up. You seem to be saying you are moving on from this issue (comment about having spent a lot of time on this already) but there are some comments I'd like to offer anyway.
In your post you say "But because they don't identify themselves, I cannot make any sort of decision as to whether they are genuine climate sceptics, or just random people with an assortment of personal and prejudicial grudges." This is the point about annonymity - the identity of the poster is not really relevant. To make a decision over their fidelity look at what they say. Evaluate that - does it stack up? How much cross checking do you have to do before you know it is good, bad, indifferent or beyond your ability to judge? The ad homs are a part of internet life but usually the people actually debating bring points to the table that they will reference and defend. Sticking with a blog over a period of time reveals this. I don't know where you are at wrt the climate debate - maybe your mind is made up, maybe not - if you are still interested in finding out more I'd suggest you pick yourself a good "handle" (or two!) and lurk around some of the blogs to see who talks sense and dip a toe in the water with any questions you have. 90% of the time good posters with solid material will follow up. If they don't it might be time, might be an issue they have covered many times over and think you should dig a bit yourself, or if you are very unlucky you might get blown off with put down. Don't take it personally -that's life - and posting annonymously gives you the chance to keep some personal distance. It also protects you from saying something really dim/grim that you'll regret later. A pal recently changed job and part of the process was for some "Consultancy" to trawl his internet identity looking for skeletons.... Some, but not many in my experience, abuse annonymity but IMO most use it in a positive way. There are a lot of smart and experienced people offering good input on this stuff which I don't think they'd be able to do if they used their real life names - see Bish's comment above - I'd guess you understand this; isn't it after all a journalist thing to protect sources??! As for putting up lectures - people do and they draw the bouquets and brick bats. Some do it in their own name, some annonymously. Quick examples look at Paul_K at TheBlackboard or tonyb at tAV - Paul's is very technical, tonyb's is an historical long view of climate. And named contributors regularly appear, especially at Watts Up.
The other comment I'd make is you invited me to "draw my own conclusions" re: your change out of journalism - so, in this context, I'm hazarding that you weren't getting the freedom to pursue things as you wished. Shame - IIRR Bish has posted on the crisis in journalism and I agree. Where are the reporters digging on stories which matter. Check out the New Scientist story on here and then read David Whitehouse's comments at the GWPF.
I'll leave it at that - hope all that is not too long winded and overstating the obvious!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-and-mathturbation-part-2/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
Not long winded at all - it is very refreshing and interesting to be provided with cogent arguments and rational debate. I will look at the websites you mention.
I absolutely take your point about anonymity when people are concerned about losing their jobs, and indeed, I have given contributors anonymity in some cases. However, when it comes to the abusive nature of the comments on this string, we are not talking about the proud tradition of the 19th century pamphleteer here, who fears being thrown into jail for seditious libel; we are talking about people who are apparently too scared to pick an argument with someone who might argue back (notice how eerily silent it has become on this strand; all those people who were piling in to outdo each other in giving the most offence seem to find it a bit more uncomfortable when they might have to defend themselves).
I am saddened that you think this is par for the course. The coarsening of language and unthinking abuse demeans and dilutes the constructive exchange of views you are obviously happy to participate in. It is much more easy for opinion formers to dismiss people like you, who have many reasonable points to make, as cranks if they look at some of the traffic on this site. Mr Montford, I don't discount you in this; you have provided me with no real answer as to why you thought it was acceptable to call my delivery eccentric, in a way that was obviously intended to be derogatory. If you had been in the audience, would you have said that to my face? At least I would then have had a chance to reply. Most people would suggest this crosses the boundary of polite discourse.
However, it has been a pleasure talking to you, not banned yet, and, as I said, I will look at the sites you mention.
With best regards, SM
Sorry, I didn't realise you were looking for an answer there.
Is describing your delivery as "eccentric" so terribly rude? I think if you are going to take offence at a statement like that, then you are probably a bit thin skinned for the business you are in. I would be surprised if most people thought that this crossed any boundaries.
You were quite happy to make fun of Boris Johnson in part of your talk. Is that within the boundaries of polite discourse?
Sarah - if you are still reading, in response to your comments about "par for the course" and "cranks":
I'm not saying poor commenting etiquette is the norm. I think that the majority is constructive and offers something - follow for a while and ask some on point questions and see what you get. As for "cranks" there are a couple of links that you should look at for a glimpse of (some of) the sceptical audience and their credentials:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/board-of-trustees.html
A personal frustration is that many of the "opinion formers" you mention do not have the skills to evaluate the technical substance of scientific issues. You and I are communicating by the marshalling and directing billions of electrons. It is not magic - it happens on the back of the work of technically skilled and competent people, many of whom are unconvinced by the scientific and technical arguments put forward by the alarmist contingent.
I'll sign off with that - happy reading!
Thank you, not banned yet.
Mr Montford - again, calling me thin skinned shows you don't know me. I would have thought that posting on this site and inviting those who abused me to pick a fight when, this time, I could argue back is hardly thin skinned I stand by the fact that it appears very easy for people on this site to be casually derogatory without thinking of the consequences. I can imagine the reaction if I had suggested I thought yours views were eccentric in a news report.
And as for Boris, I know him from university days and have teased him in very similar terms, to his face, in the past.
And yes, I know Boris from university, and I have teased
You seem to have a slightly different understanding of the expression "thin skinned" to mine. The way I use it, it means "over-sensitive to criticism" - this is also the way my dictionary defines it. Your coming here to argue your case does not stop you being thin skinned. If anything it shows the opposite. If you want to argue that my calling your delivery "eccentric" is somehow beyond the pale, feel free, but I think it just confirms that you are being thin skinned on this count (I think your objection to some of the comments on this thread are warranted, however).
Good to read your responses here, Sarah - thank you. I’m afraid these debates do get quite heated, but if you think this blog is rude, you should try Real Climate or Joe Romm’s Climate Progress!
A common criticism by sceptics of the BBC is that they have a ‘warmist’ agenda. Since you say that you have aired the occasional criticism there, is this something you were aware of? For instance, Susan Watts aired an extraordinary piece on Newsnight when Obama was elected, in which his speech was edited to appear ‘greener’ than it really was. AFAIK, she never responded on her own blog, although the editor attempted to defend it, rather ineffectively, IMO. Since then, I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve shouted at the radio when the reporter fails to ask AGW sympathisers (often ministers) the obvious questions about windfarm subsidies, the greenhouse effect, nuclear power, the IPCC, pal-review, Climategate, etc. Are they told not to, or are they so blinkered that it doesn’t occur to them? Chris Huhne could have been hung out to dry several times by now.
This morning, on Today, Roger Harrabin was obliged to report about the recent reduction in solar activity and the likely result that the world would cool. Despite this, he was unable to resist telling us that greenhouse gases (longhand for CO2) were still a hazard! If they work as he thinks, then they will help offset the cooling, but if they don’t, then he’s been selling us a crock for years...