The BBC and the consensus

The 28gate seminar's finding that global warming science is settled and that "due balance" requires dissenting views to be seen and heard less is insidious. In this post I'm going to try to set out why.

What is the consensus? That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Yup. That man's activities are increasing carbon dioxide levels? Certainly. That temperatures went up at the end of the twentieth century and have not gone up since? Definitely. That human beings can affect the climate? Without a shadow of doubt.

Anything else? I don't think so. Even simple questions like whether observed temperature rises are anything out of the ordinary remain hugely controversial. The extent to which mankind has affected and will affect temperatures is likewise unknown, a great amphitheatre of ignorance dimly illuminated by a handful of aged CFLs - the climate models that scientists have pinned their hopes on - and little else.  That these models are wrong is not in doubt - all models are wrong after all - but how wrong and how useful they are as tools to guide public policy is just another mystery. How can there possibly be consensus in these circumstances?

The impacts of climate change and the economics of climate change and policy responses to climate change are likewise entirely up in the air, with new hypotheses flown every day and shot down every evening and a mishmash of often contradictary empirical observations lending colour to the chaos. A glance tells you that there is no consensus.

So let us be clear, we don't even know if we have a big problem or a small one.

Yet the seminar has decided that sceptic input is not required in any of these areas. When did you last hear it put on the BBC that climate sensitivity might be low and that we were getting worked up about nothing? When did you last hear the Stern report or decarbonisation challenged on the BBC? 2007? I certainly can't recall any recent outings for views like this: they are sceptic views and are not to be aired. Yet these are all areas in which there is precisely no academic consensus. Indeed in the case of Stern one could probably make the case that there is something approaching consensus that the noble lord is talking out of his hat.

The concepts of mainstream and sceptic, upholder and dissentient, warmist and denier are profoundly unhelpful in the climate debate. The range of questions at issue mean that it is simply preposterous to divide everyone into two camps as the BBC has done - it's simply not logical.

Of course, given that the seminar was run for the benefit of green pressure groups, it's clear that logic had nothing to do with it. The BBC has used the seminar to minimise criticism of any aspect of climate science, climate economics and climate policy.

Quentin Cooper, the presenter of the BBC's Material World radio programme, asked on a recent show why he had never heard about the problems with biofuels. Frankly I'm amazed that he can't work it out.

Comments

[jeremyp99]

Nov 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM | sam
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sam,

Grab yourself a copy of the Bish's "Hiding The Decline" if you want to know just HOW bad the various inquiries were. You'll also be supporting a very good cause, and it is an excellent read. As is the Hockey Stick Illusion (Books available up above)

[EddieO]

On greenhouses,
If you replace the glass in a greenhouse with rock salt the same heating effect occurs despite rock salt being transparent to LWIR. The high school radiative explanation of the mechanism for warming a greenhouse is easily disproved. Open the ventilator and the door and the temperature will quickly fall due to the resulting convection. Shutting off the convection is what heats a greenhouse.

[John Whitman]

Some of us former British colonists are doing our Thankgiving thing today.

- - - - -

BH,

It appears to me that governments can only support bias in climate science when most media consistently pursue evangelical crusades for alarmism. The real concern of mine is that applies most importantly to privately owned media. My expectations for publicly owned media are much lower (zero); they have less importance for me.

The media's crusading behavior has its origins at universities where journalists and editors achieve their professional values and codes.

To restore balance more detectives are needed coming from universities and less crusaders. BH, you are one of the detectives. I thank you on Thanksgiving.

John

[Robin Guenier]

Might the new DG, Lord Hall, institute a change of heart? Well, the signs are not encouraging. I've just posted this on "unthreaded":

Tony Hall is a member of the Board of Trustees of the British Council where one of his fellow members is Professor Steve Jones - notable for his 2011 report criticising the BBC for giving too much space to AGW sceptics. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the British Council has a clear view on AGW:

The evidence is clear: human activity is dramatically altering the environment of the very world we live in. Through deforestation and burning fossil fuels, our actions are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, raising the temperature of the land, sea and air. Climate change affects us all and it’s taking place on a global and local scale.

In consequence the BC -

... has developed a Climate Change Programme with a series of specific projects falling under four overarching themes. The projects draw on the British Council’s demonstrated expertise in delivering strong impacts through cultural relations programmes and are designed to bring down the barriers of helplessness and misunderstanding that stop people from taking action.

We are working to strengthen networks and relationships among decision makers, influencers and future leaders worldwide to tackle climate change.

Let's hope that, nonetheless, Tony Hall will take an unprejudiced view.

[Martin A]

@ Justice4rinka

@ Martin A
I am eager to know, what changes in the climate have been observed that, without room for doubt, were effected by human beings?

I can think of two. One is the UHI, most noticeably detectable where an area is urbanised around a temperature station and the readings duly go up. Another is the dust bowl phenomenon of the 1930s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl) where it seems clear that agricultural practices buggered the local weather.
(...)
J4R

Fairy Nuff, if "climate" includes local climate. (Although I had always thought that the dustbowl resulted from a drought, rather than the reverse.)

I shall now affect the local climate in my living room by turning on the heating.

[Dung]

"So let us be clear, we don't even know if we have a big problem or a small one"

I think there is already ample evidence that there is no problem at all.

First you have to include the fact that CO2 is plant food and weigh that in the balance even if it did warm the planet.

Second we currently have CO2 levels of about 400 ppm but even the IPCC report AR4 shows that the last interglacial warm period had temperatures at least 3deg C higher than this one even though CO2 levels are thought to have been no more than about 280ppm.

Third the ice core records clearly show that global levels of CO2 have always (ALWAYS) followed warming and never (NEVER) preceded it.

Fourth you have the work of Prof Murry Salby who shows that the daily rises and falls of CO2 levels are totally disconnected from human emissions.

All of these are empirical observations and yet an unproven GHG theory is dictating our poverty?

[Robin Guenier]

Gulp - it gets worse (see my post re the new BBC DG above). Here's an extract from Andrew Orlowski's 13th November article re 28Gate (H/T Jiminy Cricket on Unthreaded):

One event on 26 January 2006 was a "brainstorm", in the IBT's own words, "focusing on climate change and its impact on development". The BBC sent 28 senior staff, and 28 outsiders were invited. The event was also organised by CMEP, its second parent - a now dormant or defunct outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, and once funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC's head of news in the 1990s, Tony Hall, had invited him "to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialisms (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world".

[Tufty the Cat]

All the comments about real greenhouses made me recall something I read somewhere or other about how much radiative physics has to do with the question of whether AGW is a problem or not. It is analogous to the problem of what colour you should paint your car engine block if you want it to cool most efficiently. Should you paint it black or white? The answer is, of course, that it makes so little difference compared with other much larger effects that it's not worth answering.

[peterwalsh]

Hi, on Nov 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM I posted an historical complaint (and the Beebs reply) on Unthreaded.
It might give readers/contributors here a laugh. It goes back to 2010/2011

PW

[3x2]

The BBC has used the seminar to minimise criticism of any aspect of climate science, climate economics and climate policy.

Let's try that one again by removing 'climate'

"The BBC has used the seminar to minimise criticism of any aspect of science, economics and policy."

I could, perhaps, understand certain aspects of the policy (from a BBC news editor POV) if it were just a case of "climate sensitivity really isn't an issue with the Public right now" (too boring for BBC current affairs). But that, plainly, isn't what they decided. Questioning any container on the good ship 'Sustainability' earns one a "Holocaust Denier" Green felt badge from the Beeb.

The way things are going (global warming wise), there is a fair chance that we will see the Bow (Catastrophic AGW) end of the container ship 'Sustainability' requiring a bit of dry dock and repair. If temperatures fall , they will be back out with a new shiny Bow ('Ocean Acidification'?) shortly thereafter. The BBC will promote the new scare as virulently as the old and we "Holocaust Deniers" will be back where we started.

A majority of the Beeb hierarchy (light sustainable comedy and children's rural affairs) attended a 'seminar' where it was decided that, as far as they were concerned, "Communism 21" had made their case and, from now on, there would be no air time on the Beeb for those pesky 'Holocaust Deniers'. (L)A21 is the way to go and any awkward questions certainly wouldn't be aired on our (publicly funded) network.

My point is that this isn't about 'the science of global warming' this is about promoting (L)A21. Softening up the local population for what is to come. That is where our beloved national broadcaster has really let its 'readership' down. Were they obviously pushing the manifesto of the 'Alliance for more International Communism' then they would have been torn apart a long time ago. But what's the harm in promoting 'planet saving measures', even if we have to lie frequently to the 'great unwashed'?. It's all for 'the cause' (see climategate).

Another set of publicly funded liars and cheats (with a nice tax funded pension plan). I say - "No taxation without representation". Hmm ... now where did I hear that first? (and what was the end game for those stealing the cash?).

[tomo]

Driving earlier, I heard a long "pm" interview with Chris Patten about the new DG and problematic "isshoos". Quite forthright questions from Eddie Mair but nary a single hint even of "Climate Change" or that seminar.

I think we're looking at bias by omission on a grand scale here. Ignore 28Gate - it did not happen = simply keep churning out warmist bilge at every opportunity - business as usual.

The BBC will not change it's tune here - their presumption of authority on this issue pervades everything - particularly the BBC's appetite for setting agendas.

[pat]

the BBC fought Newbery for years, won the battle at taxpayers' expense to keep the List a secret, only to have the List published online for all the world to see within days.

and then? the BBC is silent on 28Gate. their rival broadcasters, especially TV news which is where the public gets most of their news, is totally silent. and, other than booker/delingpole, the newspapers are silent. is the MSM monolithic? yes.

[Dung]

3x2

Belly laughing funny and great post and I have been trying to get "Communism 21" on the BH agenda for a while now without much success :(

[clipe]

"I had an interesting lunch with Roger Harrabin last week about developing
the comms strategy."

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4655.txt&search=humphrey

Humphrey not Humphreys

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=humphrey

[TDK]

Andrew
You miss the point. The BBC doesn't worry about consensus or not. We know from programs such as 6 degrees of warming that they are perfectly happy to broadcast documentaries that are miles outside the consensus.

Instead they start with a narrative and seek supporting facts. The narrative is that wicked man is despoiling the planet, that the mass of people consume too much, that we must deindustrialise, that ordinary people cannot be trusted with freedom but must be nudged to doing the right things.

Once you think like that then you cease to worry about details like is Stern supported by the consensus. It supports the narrative so it is given lots of airtime. The vast bulk of studies into Antarctic Ice show growth yet do we get told that? No the narrative says we are losing the ice caps so the only studies to get media coverage are the exception that show melting.

[Justice4Rinka]

@ TDK

Presumably you are using the word "narrative" in the Mandelson sense of "lie"?

[Stephen Richards]

Nov 22, 2012 at 11:28 AM | MikeHaseler

Best summary of BBC behavior ever.

[Stephen Richards]

I am eager to know, what changes in the climate have been observed that, without room for doubt, were effected by human beings?

Nov 22, 2012 at 11:32 AM | Martin A
*
Me too Martin.

[omnologos]

J4R - journalism is never about the truth. It is about telling a story so that readers are hooked and read the interspersed rest as well.

[MartinW]

The phrase "new hypotheses flown every day and shot down every evening" is apt. Unfortunately, it is almost always that "new hypotheses" are flown every day and given maximum publicity by the BBC, and "shot down" by true scientists armed with real data, but are given no publicity by the BBC. The unproven hypotheses thereby becomes THE TRUTH.

[Richard Lawson]

The Bishop says

"What is the consensus? That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Yup. That man's activities are increasing carbon dioxide levels? Certainly. That temperatures went up at the end of the twentieth century and have not gone up since? Definitely.That human beings can affect the climate? Without a shadow of doubt. Anything else?"

Let us see if we can find how much common ground is shared between the two sides in this debate, by proceeding stepwise with the science.

We agree that the GE exists, that CO2 is a GHG, that doubling CO2 will produce an increase (eventually, when equilibrium is re-established) of 1.2C, and that Climate Sensitivity means that this increase will be amplified.

The extent of this amplification is all that we need to debate. You have agreed with a figure of between 1-2.5C for Climate Sensitivity (for doubled CO2), on the basis of Forster & Gregory 2006 http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/5456/

Many studies put CS much higher than that, but you set this work aside since it is tainted with computer modelling. There is a debate to be had somewhere else as to whether it is reasonable to regard computer modelling as tabu, rather than a technique to be viewed with due criticality.

The possibility that a temperature rise of 2.5C is reasonably probable (in your view) should be enough to cause mankind to start a process of cutting back on all greenhouse gas emissions. The Precautionary Principle endorses such a course of action, and there are a whole slew of other gains - jobs, technological progress, reduction in air pollution, reduction in ocean acidification, blunting the effect of Peak Oil - that flow from this course of action.

I acknowledge the anxieties on your side on the effect of decarbonisation on the economy. I feel that these anxieties have been allowed to build up into a form of - dare I say it - alarmism. Not to say hysteria.

Yes, there will clearly be an impact on the profitablity of oil and coal companies but these companies have known from their inception that their product is finite, and if they have not made provision for coping with a run down in demand for their product, they have no-one but themselves to blame.

Have they?