Wednesday
Jul182012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill One for the vine
Jul 18, 2012 BBC Climate: other I'm off to Edinburgh in a short while. I'm due to appear on the Jeremy Vine show (around 12:30). George Monbiot and I will be discussing the recent wet weather.
(I'm not sure how the invitation fits with the Jones report and its conclusions on sceptics appearing on the airwaves. No doubt outrage will ensue.)
Update on Jul 18, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
The audio (for UK listeners) is here, from about 30 mins.
Reader Comments (52)
Bish, can you let us know when your Jeremy Vine appearance is due to air?
Hope you have done your homework as I doubt moonbat would be appearing WITHOUT consulting "The Team" on what he should be saying.
Mailman
Brent
Its the second topic today, around 12:30.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ks5wl
Details here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ks5wl
Look forward to having a listen, just in time for lunch. Good Luck.
You'll ace it fella
A veiled Genesis reference?
Can't find any Monbiot statements about recent weather...this appears to be the one blog vaguely on-topic
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/06/15/storm-warning/
Remeber that George Monbiot is an activist - first and foremost, and will use every trick to 'win' as it is an information war.
George Monbiot's guide - An activists guide to explotingthe media - is legendary'
Probably to late, but you should really read this first..
http://www.urban75.com/Action/media.html
Extract from - An Activists Guide to Expolitingthe media - by George Monbiot.
"But the war we're fighting is an information war, and we have to use all the weapons at our disposal. Whether we use the media or not, our opponents will. However just our cause and true our aims, they will use it to demonise and demolish us, unless we fight back. " - George Monbiot
Rules and tactics - George Monbiot
i. Be informed. This is the golden rule. Remember, this is an information war, and the best warriors are the ones with the best information. Don't go into a studio unless you're confident that you know your subject better than the person you're up against, and can head her or him off if they try to outfox you with some new facts. This means lots of reading. Make sure your information is reliable and stands up to critical examination.
ii. Be calm. However much the issue, or your opponent, winds you up, you mustn't let it show. Generally the calmest person is the one whom the audience sees as the winner. This doesn't mean you can't be passionate and enthusiastic - indeed these are good things - but your passion and enthusiasm must be tightly controlled and mustn't, repeat mustn't, spill over into anger. If necessary, take a deep breath before answering the question. Be polite but firm with everyone.
iii. Be concise. It's amazing how little time you get. You must know exactly what you want to say, and say it in as few words as possible, with clarity and determination. The main point must come at the beginning of the interview: you should summarise the whole issue in just one or two sentences before expanding on your theme.
iv. It's the answers that count, not the questions. When you go into the studio, you must know exactly what you want to say and how you want to say it. Don't be too scrupulous about answering the question: deal with it as briefly as possible, then get to the points you want to make. You must leave the studio at the end of the interview knowing you've made the most important points as effectively as possible.
v. Don't try to make too many points. You want to have a maximum of three main lines of argument. Any more and both you and the audience will get lost.
vi. Finish your point. If the interviewer tries to interrupt you before you've got to the important thing you want to say, don't be afraid to carry on talking until you've said it. Sometimes it's useful to say "Just a moment" or "If you'd let me finish". Be assertive without being rude. Don't let yourself be bullied.
Advide from George in his guide: An Activists Guide to Exploiting the Media,
on difficult/'hostile' questions.
"Deliberately misinterpreting the question. "You're quite right, there were a lot of undesirable elements at the protest. In fact, there's an urgent need to regulate the security industry properly. Do you know that a lot of security guards have criminal records for violent assault? It's symptomatic of the whole road-building industry: they don't care what they do or who they do it to." - George Monbiot
http://www.urban75.com/Action/media.html
Bish - please point out that the recent wet weather has not afflicted the whole of the UK as the Met Office and BBC keep asserting. The north- west of Scotland, Skye, and the outer Hebrides have had one of the best summers in years, and is a wonder that the hoteliers and tourism businesses have not sued the MO yet. Two words: Natural variation.
Hope you remembered your brolly.
"George Monbiot and I will be discussing the recent wet weather."
Why?
Amen, John Silver.
Monbiot's screed is both interesting and original.
However, the interesting bits aren't original and the original bits aren't interesting.
Antonio Gramsci said most of this 80 years ago -- ah, there was an activist's activists, beside whom Monbiot is very weak tea.
"George Monbiot and I will be discussing the recent wet weather."
Why?
Yeah. Weather's weather isn't it? Climate is something else I hear.
Monbiot has just thrown caution to the wind. He'll never change.
GM has gone for the Jehova's Witness tactic...we ought to do something now because by the time something bad happens, it'll be too late.
[GM] is pushing climate extremes plus the idea that even if we don;'t see it now, climate change will lead to it.
He's a poseur pretending to be calm whilst his CO2-centric World is collapsing about his ears.
From my armchair, I think it went fine. I would have pushed more on the "weather is not climate, George, so what are you talking about".
Slippery George was "its all going to happen" and as his evidence of the drying of the Horn of Africa which he says has been going on for decades then it probably that this is a non-human induced climatic shift not age
IMHO George is more into rhetoric and not scientific evidence
Montfort wins by an away goal.
Pity you are too polite to call out the blatant hand-waving. Good job.
Satisfactory conclusion, IMO. JV ended discussion and feedback with statement that "the jury's out". He also reminded listeners that it was the man-made component of CC that was at issue. Surprised that Monbiot is convinced that it's still getting warmer...
Monbiot's feeling the heat from the Guardian's £100,000 loss/week.
He is creating his new career.
.omnologos: *Can't find any Monbiot statements about recent weather..."
Monbiot doesn't post nearly as much about CAGW as he used to. It seemed in the past that rarely a week went by without at least one hysterical rant about "deniers", then came climategate and his momentary wobble. He soon got over his his shock at scientists misbehaving, his very temporary attack of real journalism passed and he went back to sneer mode but not, I think, with the same ferocity or as often. His posts are mainly now about other issues and I wondered if he was preparing to slip away from the sinking CAGW ship if necessary. At least he was surely realising that banging on about the coming apocalypse had a limited shelf life.
I heard JV on Ken Bruce, where he said he'd just had a briefing on the Jet Stream, presumably from Black or Harrabin.
Then I had some root canal work and only heard the last few listener comments (mainly extreme warmists). The comments included references to "Waterworld", James Lovelock predicting disaster since the 70s presumably from someone not up to speed there, and comment from someone's whose brother (PHd Physics) said it was caused by cold air rising in the Arctic; science has changed since I was a student in the 60s.
Sandy
"George Monbiot and I will be discussing the recent wet weather."
George Monbiot IS the recent wet weather.
Perhaps the radio show was too short (But, on the other hand, it seems that everybody in that show knew that talking about recent weather is, err, like engaging in pointless arguments.).
BBC/Vine asks incessantly:
I simply cannot imagine that major institutions around the world, that are obviously infiltrated, for example, by UN-issues, could be somehow genuine proud of introducing the following provocative, opprobrious equation:
To me that equation, used also by the BBC, is one kind of dulling of the mind. We shouldn't support such nonsense with our clicks. Notwithstanding that I'm quite sure that most people can't hear it any more, but isn't it clear to everybody that weather is always changing? that climate - dependent on how you define climate - is always changing, too?
[Aside, to a point that some people made in that show: Hockeyschtick reported: According to a graph published on the NASA Earth Observatory site, Arctic temperatures were warmer in 1930's than at the end of the 20th century. In addition, the graph shows the Arctic warmed ~1.6C over the 19 year period from ~1918-1937 at a rate of 0.84C/decade, 75% faster than the 0.48C/decade from 1980-2000. Thus, alarmist claims that recent Arctic warming is unprecedented or accelerating are bogus.]
However, thank you Andrew.
"Monbiot's feeling the heat from the Guardian's £100,000 loss/week.
Jul 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM | spartacusisfree"
Is this really true? There are 52 of them in a year, you know.
What happy tidings.
If you Google George (and Caroline's) CACC website, you will still find a young Monbiot with his mantra -'Climate Change is perhaps the gravest calamity our species has ever suffered etc etc'.
To-day we heard an older and more circumspect Moonbat using expressions like 'likely to bring more extreme weather' and 'incredibly complex' system.
His new expression 'Plausible Mechanism' (twice) is, I'm sure, designed to obfuscate.
Going to Scotland to discuss... rain?
Well, it's the right venue, anyway.
When clicking the link I get...."Sorry, this programme is not available to listen again ." :(
Ross, BBC can take a long time to post programs - often they're not available till the next day. I can't think of any technical reason why they can't be posted the second the program finishes. C'est la vie.
spartacusisfree - £100,000 a week? Guardian Media Group dream of losses of £100,000 a week.
Try £850,000 a week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/17/guardian-observer-report-losses-44m?newsfeed=true
We were able to listen to it at home when I posted the link. I don't know why they would have taken it down again.
Climate change, says Dai Attenborough
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/sir-david-attenborough-this-awful-summer-weve-only-ourselves-to-blame-7942405.html
The website states.."Unfortunately certain programming is subject to rights restrictions."
Maybe they're editing out music from the show? I only caught the tail end and wanted to listen to the whole thing. Shame.
Thanks steveta, I shall keep my fingers crossed that it appears again soon.
I heard it on my travels.
Not a bad job, my only comment was that it's ACE Accumulated Cyclone Energy, that's at a historic low, so that covers not just hurricanes, but typhoons too.
I notice that old Moonbat, was telling us that this odd weather we've been having, was predicted decades ago. Funny, I don't remember that, just that things would get hotter!
Despise Monbiot though one properly should, it's hard to deny (fnaar fnaar) that he is a master of his art. You did very well, Bish, and should feel very pleased with your performance. But as ever I'd say the best we got out of this farrago of nonsense - and this is no reflection whatsoever on you - is a score draw.
The reason for this is, very simply, that the odds are so agonisingly and infuriatingly stacked in the Warmists' favour.
On programmes like this, Monbiot doesn't need to say anything remotely extreme or contentious or in any way exceptionable. All he has to do is do what he did: come on like a kindly, avuncular don and deliver an amiable mini-lecture about the jet-stream, hedged with all sorts of generous "mays" and "mights" to indicate just how perfectly reasonable and rooted in necessary scientific uncertainty it all is.
You, Bish, make a much better counter to this sort of nonsense than I do because you can respond in kind.
When I hear this shit all I want to do is go: "But hang on: what about all the economic damage which is being done to avert this non-existent problem? What about the lives that have been ruined by biofuels and wind farms? etc"
But this is not the best way to counter Monbiot's Alinskyite method. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. You did good, Bish. You did good.
Thanks James
A Bishop praised by the Lord of Gwent. Praise in deed, take a bow :-)
I also missed all but the end of this segment - listening to You and Yours on the other side...
What amazes me is: Four years ago we had a very hot and dry summer which had followed several previous such summers and mild winters. This was hailed as "Proof" of AGW. Since then we have had a succession of damp summers and some very cold winters - the polar opposite -- yet this seems too to be proof of AGW.
Wasn't 2010 on the CET exactly the same as the very first year of CET.
I shall "listen again" to the whole thing when I have moment.
Still not available to listen again Thursday 19th, 10:15am. Time for conspiracy theories methinks. :-)
Listening to it now, via the link at the top, although I'm not in UK.
Just listened to it, Bish. My God, Monbiot wittered on and on about how in the future we're going to find more and more evidence. So much faith, so little evidence. Such monumental chutzpah.
Like JD said, you did good. Especially since the biased BBC, as usual, gave more time and the last word to Monbiot.
I nearly had to switch off and go gag. I'm proud of my own fortitude in managing to get through it.
Have now listened.
While it was not a 'great debate', I see it as an important milestone for a number of reasons:
- A BBC interviewer (Vine) was balanced in how he handled both guests
- terms like 'denier' or ' denial' not mentioned
- Monbiot remained polite and very restrained, responding to Andrew's scepticism very calmly
- A lot of talk by all about the uncertainties, including Monbiot, and the climate scientist Dr Edward Hannah (?) heard in a preliminary piece
- Monbiot’s lifeline was limited to keep telling us what ‘will’ happen
Monbiot started off very conciliatory using phrases like "the plausible mechanism that could" explain a link between this summer's weather and man-made climate change is..... He stressed that no single event or single season's weather could be definitely linked.
But later on, he started throwing in much more extreme comments, such as 'no doubt that man-made climate change is happening' and 'temperature's have risen spectacularly since the industrial revolution'.
Andrew tackled Monbiot quite well when Monbiot gave Horn of Africa as a region suffering from man-made CC, by pointing out he had just being saying you can’t use a single case or region as an example.
And later, when Andrew gave hurriances as an example, Monbiot said: ‘but you can’t pick and choose your examples’!!
Overall, Andrew did a good job of keeping measured and not provoking Monbiot into a vicious counter-attack.
By the way Bishop Andrew, could you give a reference to the flood study you mentioned during the interview? I couldn't catch the author's name.
[Demetris Koutosoyiannis - see http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf]
“Oh George, you explain” after Dr Hannah ‘confused’ Vine with all his hifalutin science talk of jet-streams and such complicated malarkey. Andrew Bishop did well given Vine’s deference to Monbiot, and determination to see current gloomy wet weather as a sign of climate change.
Andrew, towards the end of the interview, made the valid point that we shouldn’t judge weather patterns over our lifetime, but Vine just steamed on, and gave Monbiot (playing the part of an ‘avuncular don’ - lovely Delingpole phrase) the last word, and he followed his own “…activist’s guide to exploiting the media” http://www.urban75.com/Action/media.html
Don’t let the presenter or the questions stop you getting across your key messages (see last part of his Guide). So he ended on “…blah, blah massively higher temperatures, dramatic fall in sea ice, records falling…there are patterns forming already...by the time they’re established, there’s nothing we can do about it.. CO2 is driving it all ..we must reduce our consumption of fossil fuels blah blah…”
Monbiot is a well practiced, rhetorically polished, slick media luvvy, and it showed. But his ‘we’re all doomed unless we return to Medieval times, and only burn (small amounts) of wood (and grain)’, isn’t popular. I think Andrew did well, but needs to read ‘slick George’s’ guide, and play him at his own game.
Mark P: Play him at his own slimy game!? That's going to get complicated because it is all Monbiot ever tries to do with his adversaries. He constantly recycles skeptical arguments, then twists them to his own advantage.
Oakwood (Jul 19, 2012 at 3:23 PM) gives a particularly good example of this tactic:
I remember Ian Plimer on the wrong end of this sort of thing a few years ago. He lost a good few feathers from getting on to his high horse. Andrew came out of it well, using the only riposte possible, i.e. pointing out and exposing the tactic. — This also happens to be the only effective strategy for debating with fascists.
Well Andrew got two plugs for his Hockey Stick Illusion on the BBC from Jeremy Vine which is a huge plus. It is a travesty that the scandal contained within the pages of the HSI is not front page news. I hope Andrew left behind a complementary copy for Vine to read. Maybe they can have a discussion on how political activism is corrupting science next time.
44:25 Monbiot:
What we can say that because of climate change and the generalized heating of the world caused by it we will see a lot more records broken, we will see a pattern of increasing extremes, this is what scientists have been telling us for a long time and so far we have seen some very extreme weather over the past 10 and 20 years
This the new climate change, "a pattern of increasing extremes", all we seem to hear about in the last few months is extreme this and that. Why "extremes" even happened in the last 10 -20 years when global temperatures have flatlined and even hint at a new downward trend.
And did I miss it, I don't think he mentioned a specific 2-4-6-10 degree rise by 2XXX prediction that was always trotted out in every single conversation?