Bishop Hill BBC review of science coming
Jul 19, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics The long-awaited BBC review of science coverage is going to be published tomorrow according to the Mail.
Apparently the upshot is that the BBC is going to challenge sceptics much harder, but there is no word in the article of Brian Cox's Orwellian solution - having any programme that challenges mainstream science flagged as a minority view. I wonder if this means that the BBBC has stepped back from the edge. I for one have no objections to being challenged, as this gives the audience a better opportunity to judge how sound one's arguments are.
If this is the approach that the BBC intends to take, it's going to be an interesting contrast with the ideas of Connie St Louis, who is arguing that scientific journalists should be challenging scientists much harder rather than just engaging in a lot of cutting-and-pasting. If the BBC is going to continue to accept the prognostications of mainstream scientists without question, while bashing anyone who challenges them, they are going to rather prove her point for her.
(H/T Alan Reed in Unthreaded)
Bishop Hill
I'm reminded of Jeremy Paxman's observation that the BBC had given up any semblance of neutrality on AGW. That was in 2007.
And the BBC has now decided that they need to be less friendly to sceptics!
Reader Comments (82)
[Snip - off topic. Take it to the forum]
The problem is you aren't going to get tge chance to be challenged simply because tge BBC no longer has to cover your heretical thoughts on Mann Made Global Warming (tm). Besides we already knew where the BBC's loyalty was, now at least they have (apparently) come out and just said it!
Mailman
"Besides we already knew where the BBC's loyalty was"
Jul 19, 2011 at 7:59 AM | Mailman
Yup, to accurately reporting good science. Not pretending that crackpot fringe views have any substance worth broadcasting.
[Snip - response to O/T]
ZDB, please explain why non-belief in CAGW is a "crackpot fringe'' view?
ZBD
Is Paul Hudson on the crackpot fringe then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml
Don't feed the Troll!
She's going to get very upset with the CERN results!
[Snip - response to O/T]
BBC have invested their pensionfond in carbontrading etc..
So if that is not going to happen their pensions are gone?
[Snip - response to O/T]
ZDB
From Judy Curry's Climate Etc on the perils of manufacturing a consensus:
Once the consensus claim was made, scientists involved in the ongoing IPCC process had reasons not just to consider the scientific evidence, but to consider the possible effect of their statements on their ability to defend the consensus claim.
I'm keen to see how the BBC will handle contrary peer reviewed literature. CERN's 'Cloud' results should provide the next good read.
It would appear that Zed is "on the toot" already - at 8 AM !
The Beeb are so fond of using such weasle words (as are many a scientist with nose in taxpayer funded trough), such as, may, could, possibly, might, & the classic,"suggests"! This last incarnation always seems to lead to an extended MSM positive claim about proof being established without caveat nor caution.
"BBC have invested their pensionfond in carbontrading etc..
So if that is not going to happen their pensions are gone?"
Jul 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM | Jon-Anders
Comments like this are positively daft, and generally come from people who don't understand the first thing about pension investment. Oil in one form or another makes up over a tenth of the entire global market. It dwarfs green/carbon trading etc by a huge amount.
For BBC pensions to entirely ignore all aspects of oil, and only have green investments in their place, would be to miss out on huge pension revenues and growth, and I've never seen any evidence at all that this is happening.
In which case, as they are far more involved in oil, than green investments, then they have far more to lose by broadcasting AGW 'propaganda'.
As ever, Jon Anders comment remains unchallenged on here. Showing that people are prepared to let the most incredible nonsense be posted as long as it's knocking 'green'.
As ever, my question to ZDB remains unanswered...
Maybe it's a bit early for me today but I am confused by the Mail article and it's definition of consensus and sceptics.
'But the main conclusion made by Prof Jones is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR jab, the BBC shouldn't give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus.'
And then this at the end.
'As a result of the review, insiders say that the BBC is likely to challenge groups such as Greenpeace 'more vigorously'.'
Perhaps I am missing something here but has the 'consensus' changed or has Greenpeaces stance changed.
Or perhaps this is just an indication that the normal interviewee on environmental issues will no longer be a member of a lobby group or a non scientist. If so then surely it is a step in the right direction.
Perhaps the actual report will be a bit more clear.
It looks like the BBC are to adopt the Stalinistic approach to the current scientific consensus on AGW - dissenters are to be challenged, marginalised and discredited. Again we see scientific arguement being sidelined, the scientific method being undermined in order to ensure that a manufactured societal and political norm over AGW remains unchallenged.
It simply won't work - the reputational damage to the BBC over its unthinking position on AGW could be very large indeed.
Should it be described as the mainstream view? Are the BBC not promoting the IPPC view, which could be argued to be slightly different from a mainstream view?
To discuss a mainstream view you would have to discuss the nuts and bolts of the AGW argument. As soon as you do that the mainstream view breaks up. You are left with what the evidence is, what the uncertainties are and what the other possibilities are?
Is the IPPC consensus view not that probably is the biggest minority view? IT does represent an all in one argument in a very uncertain field. How many scientist active in the field wholeheartedly agree with it? For me it is a good question. Ask individual's publishing in the field on a scale of one to ten what their own confidence level is in the various stages of the IPPC consensus and you may end up with a different view of what consensus is.
The BBC are promoting the views of a political organisation ahead of all other views. That is where the BBC are at fault.
Paul
Dave Salt, You know as well as I do that Zed will not answer a question. Answering a question presupposes that the person being questioned has some knowledge of the topic it is being questioned about, plus a modicum of intelligence. Zed has proved that it has neither.
Feeding trolls is an absolute and unproductive waste of time.
Paul
The mainstream view of the scientists is at odds with the mainstream view of the public. The general puiblic are becoming more sceptical, cynical and stubborn over AGW.
How does the BBC represent that in its broadcasts?
Ordinary folk are beginning to realise that the testable AGW hypothesis has failed, no observed Hot-Spot, the tricks, etc. etc.
All the BBC are doing is to make AGW a taboo subject within its own corridors, the consensus must prevail, and in doing so it opens itself to public ridicule.
How long before Eastenders deals with the subject of AGW denialism?
So, the venerable BBC "is going to challenge sceptics much harder".
Why just sceptics I wonder?
After all, we have been told so so many times that the BBC is unbiased and has to take all sides into account where science is involved.
Any chance it will take the opportunity to challenge the alarmists, or even challenge the renewable energy pundits and their daft forecasts?
Its a windy day here in Dublin, I am going outside to P**s into the wind.
Interesting statement signatory for a national broadcasting authority!
IIGCC Investor Statement
The IIGCC Investor Statement on Climate Change encourages investors – both asset owners and asset managers – to take a more pro-active stance on climate change. It sets out the actions that investors can take in their own investment processes and in their engagement with companies, policymakers, other actors in the investment community and wider stakeholders. Signatories to the Statement commit to reporting annually on the actions they have taken on climate change. Mercer surveys all signatories and IIGCC prepares an annual report on the actions taken on climate change, highlighting best practice.
IIGCC Investor Statement
Annual Statement Reports
Signatories
ATP
Aviva Investors
BBC Pension Trust
BlackRock
BNP Paribas Investment Partners
BT Pension Scheme
CCLA Investment Management Ltd
Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church
The Co-operative Asset Management
Environment Agency Pension Fund
Ethos Foundation
F&C Management Ltd
Generation Investment Management
Greater Manchester Pension Fund
Hermes
Insight Investment
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
London Pensions Fund Authority
London Borough of Hounslow Pension Fund
Merseyside Pension Fund
PGGM
PRUPIM
Schroders
Universities Superannuation Scheme
West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities Pension Fund
West Yorkshire Pension Fund
It's as bad as we thought !
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-news/3473-green-smokescreen-climate-sceptics-to-get-less-coverage-rules-bbc.html
Jul 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM | Lord Beaverbrook
Are you actually under the delusion that that constitutes some form of evidence that the Beeb pension is is not more significantly invested in oil than green?
I suspect that you looked into it, realised it was a daft claim, and posted that up in a half-hearted attempt to win some form of point.
Lord Beaverbrook at 9:15 AM on Jul 19, 2011
'But the main conclusion made by Prof Jones is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR jab, the BBC shouldn't give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus.'
So it's not only on CAGW that the BBC wants to take a political stance? The meaning of the phrase 'scientific consensus' has changed from what it used to be.
I wouldn't be surprised if the fluoridisation of water supplies, the safety of artificial sweeteners, avoiding vitamin D production (in the sunshine), News International vindictiveness, and even MORE O/T subjects that even our politicians avoid, will be included by these BBC policies.
Not that we would know - the original BBC CAGW policy was decided at a secret meeting, that didn't take place, if FOI requests are to be believed!
And it's all paid for by British TV licence payers.
The article is confused and confusing.
The headline says “Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage”, (what less than now, i.e. less than practically nothing?) the first para says “Opponents of global warming should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby” (Fair enough, we’re a minority view, like Her Majesty’s loyal opposition) while the last para says: “.. the main conclusion made by Prof Jones is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, .. the BBC shouldn't give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus”.
They also quote a Telegraph article which I can’t find.
gwpf has the Telegraph article. Thanks jazznick.
"is is not more significantly invested in oil than green!"
Hate to be a pedant but "is is" hmm me thinks you need more free range moss friendly carbon neutral
been curd before posting !
I've always found David Shukman very diligent and challenging when he's interviewed me. For example, a few days before the "4 Degrees" conference in Oxford in 2009, where I was to give the opening science presentation on the plausibility of whether we might reach 4 degrees this century, he phoned me up and gave a right grilling for absolutely ages before he even considered going near the story.
Then when he did cover it, he was very good at reflecting the large uncertainties - he's the only person I've ever seen put error bars on a climate graph shown on the 10 o'clock news! Also more generally, he does include caveats in his reports - he invariably says things like "if the scientists are right" and "these are only model results" etc etc
And also, for the 4 degrees conference, his coverage was of the climate projections (by me) and the issue of detection and attribution of past changes. As far as I remember he didn't give much coverage of the presentations on the projected impacts at 4 degrees - which I was glad about because many of which were (in my opinion anyway) rather more certain about extreme negative effects than I was personally confortable with (Not all of them, I should add, just some). But Shukman drew his own independent conclusion there, I didn't get chance to tell him what I thought before he filed his report. I think it was pretty clear that he wanted to focus on the areas that had higher confidence, and also show that nevertheless there were still uncertainties even there.
Many other (non-BBC) journalists I've been interviewed by have not been anywhere near so diligent. I think I rather annoyed Sky News in a live interview at the Copenhagen climate conference by not being drawn down their line of questioning on imminent catastrophe! (Live interviews are often better because you can't be editted or taken out of context!)
Imagine it is 2030, the world possibly is 0.2 - 0.8 warmer, the sea level has risen 2-3 inches, hurricanes are on a down trend as are tornados and floods. food production is at an all time high, yet the world is still cursed by politics and poor distribution..
A possible scenario or projection...
I wonder if anyone will remember all this fuss?
I've just read the Mail article, and actually, although the headline says "challenge climate sceptics harder" the article itself says (at the bottom) that pressure groups such as Greenpeace will be challenged harder.
Also they make it sound like they give more emphasis on "scientific consensus" in issues like MMR than climate change. Sounds fair enough.
However, let's read the actual report when it comes out.
So what their telling us is that to revive the AGW religion there going purge themselves of impure thoughts and attack the deniers with more rigor .
And what has that to do with science?
Here's an idea for TV program the BBC can make , a series covering how 'scientific consensus' turned out to be often completely wrong in practice through the ages . There is certainly enough material to work with it could well be interesting to the general public and given the right presenter it would work well.
However I can see one little problem , start the public thinking about past instances of this and they may start thinking about the chances of current instances of this , and that may lead to 'impure thoughts' which would never do.
Hi Barry
This is getting off topic, but your scenario/projection exactly why the climate science community needs to make sure it is not lumped in with those who are certain of climate doom by 2030.....
RB
If what you say is true about Shukman then what is reported in the Mail highlights a major change by the BBC from challenging scientists and the science to accepting modelled projections and to challenge only sceptics. Turning away from scientfic arguement to a more moralistic stance on projected catastrophes as demanded by the consensus is simply propaganda.
Mac
That wasn't my reading of the Mail article (although the headline may imply that).
But let's see what the report says.
BTW yes what I said is true! :-)
I fink that the sceptical view of greenpeace et al as to what constitutes real empirical science is to be challenged...actually needs to be challenged more in open debate.
Almost all signatories utilised a combination direct engagement and collaborative
engagement. They also exercised their voting rights on climate change. While one-on-one
discussions with companies in a non-public manner was the most typical engagement
approach adopted throughout Europe, the survey results show that signatories to the IIGCC
Statement were also very active in collaborative engagement initiatives.
The issues most frequently addressed through engagement include:
improving reporting/disclosure on climate change
integration of climate change into product design and operations
integration of climate change issues into business strategies
Therefore, as asset owners and asset managers, we will:
Use our individual and collective influence to encourage governments to adopt policies
that provide incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to encourage appropriate
responses to the physical and societal impacts of climate change.
Build our capacity to assess the investment implications of climate change.
Work together on initiatives that will help reduce the threat and impacts of climate
change.
Promote information-sharing among the growing number of investors and organisations
around the world concerned about climate change.
Incentivise and/or support research on the risks and opportunities of climate change and
climate policy that adds value to our investment decision-making processes.
Seek to minimise the adverse impacts and maximise the positive impacts of investment
decisions on the production of greenhouse gases.
As asset owners we will:
Encourage our asset managers to integrate consideration of climate change risks and
opportunities in their investment research, analysis and decision-making and shareholder
ownership activities.
Consider climate change in our processes for the appointment and evaluation of our
asset managers.
Instruct our advisors and consultants to consider the impacts and opportunities of
climate change and climate policy in the advice that they provide to us, in particular to
pro-actively consider the opportunities to invest in clean energy.
As asset managers we will:
Explicitly consider climate change risks and opportunities in our investment analysis
and, individually and collectively, develop the tools to assess the short-term and longterm
risks and opportunities presented by climate change and climate-related policies.
Engage with the companies in which we invest to ensure that they are minimising the
risks and maximising the opportunities presented by climate change and climate policy.
We will also encourage these companies to improve their governance and disclosure of
climate risks and opportunities.
2 Working with others
We encourage companies to:
Clearly define board and senior management responsibilities for climate change.
Integrate climate change risks and opportunities into business strategy.
Set high-level policy commitments in support of action on climate change, including
commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
Provide appropriate disclosures on climate change risks and opportunities that allow
investors to assess the financial implications of these risks and opportunities for the
company.
Prepare and report comprehensive inventories of greenhouse gas emissions (both directly
from operations and activities and indirectly from, for example, the use of the company’s
products). These inventories should allow historic performance to be assessed and should
include projections of likely changes in future emissions.
http://www.iigcc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/947/2009-Investor-Statement-on-Climate-Change-Report.pdf
BBD it's about integrity or lack of, like a senior police officer resigning because of a link to a suspected criminal whereas a Prime Minister shrugs it off. It's what shapes and forms society.
Theres a whole site about the BBC pensions - looks like a lot of tobacco to me...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Appologies last sentence should be ZBD not BBD.
Right, now then, objectivity and..........Harrabin and Black?
The BBC is a apologist for and Socialist instrument of mass propaganda, it makes no pretensions to be otherwise.
I couldn't careless.
What I do care about is; I have no redress, I have to pay for this agitprop rot, I have no choice in the matter.
This media totalitarianism should be ended and yesterday would not be soon enough.
The BBC Scheme spread of investments on 1 April 2010 was:
Equities...................56% .......... £4,984,000,000
Bonds......................22% .......... £1,958,000,000
Property..................10% ......... £890,000,000
Alternatives...............9% ......... £801,000,000
Cash and other.........3% ......... £267,000,000
The pension fund was worth £8,900,000,000 at 31 March 2011.
The top 100 investments are worth £2,100,000,000 (about 42% of the equities) and in that list of 100 investments there are only 2 "goodies":
"First Solar Inc" ................. £29,000,000
"Vesta Windsystems"....... £9,620,000
Plus a few "baddies":
Vodaphone ......... £63,900,000 (tax)
BP ...................... £44,580,000 (oil)
BAT ................... £42,320,000 (ciggies)
HSBC ................. £37,150,000 (bankers)
It looks to me like a perfectly normal pension scheme.
They have 9% in alterative investments i.e. hedge funds, managed futures, real estate, commodities and derivatives contracts (more "baddies).
You would expect them to be members of "IIGCC" and "UNEP FI" because we all know of their bias in that direction.
The need is to concentrate on their bias in reporting climate, not their bleeding pension scheme.
Since pressure groups such as Greenpeace have been extensively integrated into the IPCC process since its beginnings, and we now know some of the IPCC's output consists of "rebranded" Greenpeace and WWF propaganda - "challenging" identified pressure group spokespeople would simply be a cosmetic smokescreen.
Much the way the beeb handles any departure from its pre-ordained belief system.
I'm personally quite happy for the BBC to have money in tinfoil hat loony carbon schemes - it means that when it all collapses, exactly the right people will lose money. Good.
In fact we should really be lobbying for them to practice what they preach and take pension money out of successful businesses, such as agri and oil, and to put it instead in stupid doomed crap like green energy.
They can't be made poor enough for me.
"Journalism" professors and journalism peer leaders in the US are openly talking about how to ignore any party who does not agree with their definition of 'accurate' or 'correct'. After all, how can there be two sides to a story if one is completely right and the other completely wrong?
The blind arrogant cynical hubris in that perspective is breathtaking. It would be funny if we were not already watching it be implemented on multiple issues that partisans in journalism are exercised about.
The Orwellian nature of this- to so mis-define skeptics as to call them 'deniers', or to make it where certain political views that are reasonable are 'racist', or 'immoral' for even being held- is on the scale of advanced Newspeak, where it is grammatically logically impossible to state, "Big Brother is wrong".
The BBC is just doing their part in achieving this great new advancement in linguistics and thought.
Donna L has recently reviewed the Chris Landsea resignation from IPCC. Kevin Trenberth, who was to be the author of the section on hurricanes - that was not a specialty of his - held a press conference to claim that global warming would lead to more hurricanes. Landsea, who was actually a hurricane expert, objected to the Trenberth claim, saying that there was no evidence to support it. Ultimately, Landsea resigned, when there was no support for the science.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/07/chris-landsea-and-the-moral-midgets/
The BBC will have no clue that the IPCC view on this matter is the minority scientific view, not the consensus.
Foxgoose
I too am uncomfortable with people with links to campaign groups such as Greenpeace being IPCC lead authors, it's clearly then very difficult to claim objectivity, but fortunately I think they are in the minority (I honestly do not think that "extensively integrated" is quite right). Arguably they may not have not been challenged enough by other LA's in the past, but I intend to do so in AR5. This should also be done through the review process (and indeed challenge all authors, not just Greenpeace ones!)
(But yes the presentation of the recent Renewables report was clearly an issue).
Would you Brits advise me if I understand the situation from the main post.
You have the government media( (BBC) saying it will be hard on people (Skeptics of the IPCC climate science) who do not suppoet the government's (climate) position.
Orwellian.
An American,
John
Interesting slip, Beaverbrook. I've got my eye on you ;-)
I don't really give a monkeys anymore ain't paid my TV Tax in 2 years, although I also have not opend my front door to strangers for 2 years either but it seems to be working.
Some sceptic blogs publish some marginal stuff at times, and in the comments there are often people who imagine they are helping by making plainly ridiculous contributions. The same goes on the other side, of course. I once submitted a ravingly ridiculous supportive comment at RC to see if it would be moderated out, when nobody could get well reasoned opposing comments through. It wasn't moderated out, though by any measure it should have been. It would be nice if people on our side were more considered sometimes.