Wednesday
Nov142012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A blank from Bridcut
Nov 14, 2012 BBC Autonomous Mind has contacted John Bridcut, the author of the BBC Trust's report - the one in which they made the original claim about the nature of the attendees at the seminar.
He seems a little unclear on the origin of the idea that they were scientists.
I cannot now recall the origin of that phrase, and you are the first person to have raised it with me. But if you wish to take issue with the report, I suggest you take up the matter with the BBC Trust.
Reader Comments (60)
bb - try this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf
There are some threads on it here at BH and it had some press coverage:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016299/Climate-change-sceptics-BBC-coverage-challenged-vigorously-corporation-body-rule.html
The exec were supposed to follow up in 2012 - why not see if google brings anything up for you?
NBY, thanks for the links. But Prof Jones' report is rather recent. The meeting that has caused such excitement was in 2006. With all the fuss about it here, I imagined there must be some editorial guidelines prohibiting the airing of sceptical views; a smoking gun that originated in the "Meeting of the 28". Is there really nothing?
Note that I found a little quote in Prof Jones' report that tickled me:
Serious stuff!All of the major UK institutions are infected by the warmist mindset, in my view.
I spent my early working years at the down-market end of agriculture in NZ as a contract labourer and despite leaving that behind me many years ago, I love any TV programme about the countryside, country life and farming. I enjoyed BBC's 'Countryfile', during the years I lived there - except for the incredibly annoying elderly male presenter who saw himself as a hotshot investigator and kept banging on about green energy and how the climate was getting dryer and warmer to an alarming degree, which fitted with no observed drastic drying or warming.
I was also a member of the National Trust for a few years and was always amused at the dutiful insertion in any publicity material about how they were preparing nationally important properties and gardens for a disastrously warmer and drier future climate. The South-East of the UK is, technically, an arid agricultural zone anyway, but nobody in the official world there seemed to be aware of that and the general grasp of the benefits of a small amount of warming seemed not to occur to said officials and spokespersons.
BB, I would trust Horizon, as it used to be, to cover the issues you give as examples. I recall an early AIDS programme oering that french scientist who denied the link between HIV and AIDS. The controversy was covered. (I seem to recall the BBC covering the opinions that garlic would fix it too, as the then presiident of South Africa was voluble in supporting them.) Horizon had a lot of climate change stories back in the day too, before the BBC had a policy which they are now backing away from. I'd trust that show to cover slayers. I don't know what you think slayers are saying. If you think they are saying that CO2 IR absorption does not exist, I think you are wrong. If they are saying that climate alarmists don't have a handle on the mechanism (and by implication the slayers do) then it should be easy to give them a chance to explain. They have papers and scientists just like the watrmers do. I don't know why you categorise them as loonies, unless you think they deny radiative physics rather than the whole logical chain which links Arrhenius to drowned polar bears. (As an aside, I tried to read the Gerlich and Teuschner paper which is their prime text and found it a farrago of shovelled-in non-sequiturs, but I am not a scientist, merely a kind of engineer).
So, summary. There may be subjects where it is foolish to give equal time to both sides, but climate change theory and policy deriving therefrom with all the economic effects is not one of those subjects.
Rhoda, that was a valiant defence of slayers, but come on! I have not read their paper, but have a look at SoD, On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), if your own judgement doesn't convince you of its merits.
A broadcaster just can't give such views equal time with conventional science (well maybe Fox can) and suggesting that it can just tars other sceptics with the same brush. I can see why you would want to try, for reasons outlined above, but it is a lost cause.
On Horizon etc, I remember them making good programs 20 years or so back. I haven't lived in the UK for nearly a decade, but when I visit, I find it difficult to watch Horizon and many other educational programs. I find all of their walking around waving their hands, contants changes in visuals and the tedious repetition of clips and animations (don't they realise we can tell if we've seen them already) makes me close my eyes and just listen. But the combination of closed eyes and a comfy chair normally leads to the inevitable. I've slept through many a program that I've been told afterwards was interesting.
The best science coverage I have seen has been in Germany, a program called Alpha Centauri presented by a physicist. He talks for 15 minutes on his theme, no visuals no distractions, hard concentration to follow (my German is not perfect) but wonderful.
Well, we can agree on global dumbing. If the media gave its audience any respect at all it could present us with this stuff, even the dodgy stuff, and we could accept the challenge to interpret it for ourselves. It seems that media in all forms want to pre-digest everything for us to make sure we come to the right conclusion. There used to be places where serious coverage could be found. Not any more, except on blogs, with the usual drink from a firehose caveat.
bb - try using some search tools - it'll help keep you awake and stop you drifting off into the realms of imagination:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/8/23/more-steve-jones.html
Oh come on NBY, have you read the submission by AM/TN to Prof Jones? Half of it, 5 pages, and most of the Conclusion are all about the climate change seminar and the CMEP. If that is not anal retentive I don't know what is. I don't blame the Prof for not taking it seriously.
BitBucket, using the words "anal retentive", by someone who frequents this site and spends their whole time just trying to pick holes in any argument for the sake of a few points scored, is quite interesting.
It does not seem to be copyrighted as a trait.
Touché!