Bishop Hill Mixed emotions
Jul 6, 2012 BBC Climate: Surface Climate: Ward A few weeks back, I was wondering whether to write a piece about the Jones' report on the BBC's science coverage and the impact it had made on the corporation's output. This was prompted by the thought that I hadn't seen a single sceptic viewpoint put forward on the airwaves since the report's publication. Then, a few weeks ago, we had James Delingpole's appearance on the Daily Politics opposite green campaigner Andrew Pendleton, and I decided to move on to other things - not that such a brief segment made much impact on my case.
Bob Ward, however, is unhappy with this new development (isn't he always?) and has been venting his spleen at the Huffington Post.
Pendleton, whose contribution was headed "global warming has not stopped", attempted to provide a link to a commentary I published earlier this year which points out that the rise in global temperature recorded since 1997 is not statistically significant, but also shows that there have been many such periods since 1970 when warming was undetectable from just 15 data points. The warming trend over the past 40 years is clear and statistically significant, but carrying out analyses only on small subsets of these data often means that the signal cannot be detected among the noise.
Statistically significant eh? Not sure about that.
However, Bob then makes himself look as bit foolish by criticising Delingpole for linking to a blog posting.
...he claimed that the three warmest years on record in the United States all occurred before 1940, citing a 'sceptic' blog which alleges that the temperature measurements by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies are wrong
So Bob's blog postings, it seems, are kosher, but other people's aren't. Funny that.
It will be interesting to see if Ward's activity has any effect. I fancy not. But I have mixed emotions about the idea of the BBC excluding sceptic views anyway. If Ward is successful it will only hasten the corporation's demise, and that is not a bad thing.
Reader Comments (31)
"a 'sceptic' blog"
I do bristle a bit when I see it written like that. I can only assume that Bob has forgotten the rôle of scepticism in scientific enquiry.
It is certainly true that the BBC excludes sceptic views. I was excluded myself for complaining about it. I am unclear how the BBC can think it will get away with this. If we have an obligation to pay its licence fee whether we listen to the BBC or not, surely it has an obligation to provide access to all of its services in return.
What really sticks in one's throat is that the BBC actively denies free of speech while at the same time broadcasting soothingly about its commitment to balance, fairness and open access.
[snip - O/T]
Re: David,
If you don't want lots of spam you should change your signature. If you have accidentally used the wrong signature then ask the Bish to modify/delete your comment.
The thing that most amazing me about Bob , is not his typing speed even with his fast fingers , but the fact that his paid to be PR guy pimping the goods of his master but his actual very bad at it . His lies are so transparent that as marketing tool there totally unless, he can't help contradicting himself and he seems to have no ability to understand that you don't win support from people by insulting them . How does he keep his job ?
The BBC is editorially unaccountable because it has a near complete domination over the subjects of public debate in the UK.
Consider Wimbledon for evidence. It is broadcast on the BBC so it is mentioned in every news bulletin. All the weather forecasts are dedicated to the impact of rain on Wimbledon. Radio4 is currently a tennis weekday Radio5.
Yet, no-one expects the same coverage of the Open which is coming up. More people play golf in this country than tennis. Let’s face it, if the Tour de France was on the BBC half the weather forecasts would be about another country.
Despite years of intense Wimbledon coverage, tennis is still a minority sport in this country. But the BBC still makes Wimbledon a topic of conversation throughout the UK for a fortnight. Because it can.
Is this a problem? No, probably not.
But such a blatant abuse of power demonstrates that he BBC is able and willing to use monopoly power in its own interests.
Having heard Bob talk in public and among fellow believers, and having read his twitter output, I admit I am developing a soft spot for somebody so unbelievably detached from my reality.
He's for example blissfully unaware that his reply to Ridley, published on the Times, is ipso-facto invisible and unreadable by the millions who don't get subscriptions to Murdoch rags courtesy of somebody else paying in their stead.
I also have reasons to believe sarcasm is foreign to Bob's mind. In short, Ward may as well be Hickman-squared, or maybe -cubic (power 3). A "Baghdad Bob" minus the tanks, Joe Romm's cousin minus the ill will.
Ward was of course responsible for the Royal Society's PR before he moved to work for carbon trader Grantham.
Anent all these pesky Global Warmmongers: they include creeps who deny other people access to their data. Should we call them "data deniers" or "data denialists"?
"the BBC still makes Wimbledon a topic of conversation throughout the UK for a fortnight. Because it can."
Indeed - and it promotes dishonest, unhinged eco activism - because it can ...
One of the signature propaganda tactics the BBC very deliberately deploys is simple omission - wholesale as in the climate "debate" - or in nuancing stories it wants to apply its own filter on.
fwiw - I find NewsSniffer an invaluable resource - the editorial guidelines emerge like an old chemical photographic print developing in a tray.
The totally nasty bullying tactics they deploy to attempt to harass money from non TV owners is another matter that should get more comment too.
For TomOs "News Sniffer" hyperlink, try: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/
"Anent"
Good word! Vaguely remembered but had to check.. :-)
Bob Ward is just a spin doctor and not a very good one. So why bother with what he says?
The BBC will not react to the complaints of lack of impartiality since the BBC Trust does not seem willing or capable of doing anything about it. Whilst they have a guaranteed income (TV licence) which is the largest of its type in the world,the BBC can afford to ignore any such criticism. This has been aided by their OTP reporting of the phone hacking debacle. I can imagine the enjoyment watching their most severest critic (Rupert Murdoch) squirm. Therefore, if one is unhappy about the BBC then their Achilles Heel is their income.
You could stop watching TV (and listen to radio) as it is being broadcast and therefore you would not need to buy a licence. Much can be seen on the internet.
Or campaign for a reduction in the licence fee - Government e-petitions are available
"...he claimed that the three warmest years on record in the United States all occurred before 1940, citing a 'sceptic' blog which alleges that the temperature measurements by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies are wrong"
Well not wrong so much as "adjusted", Now when I worked in the Auto industry substituting a "modelled" reading for an actual reading wasn't done. In fact it would be a contract infringement generally (unlawful), and on some of the stuff that could kill people if it failed, would in fact have been seen as criminal act.(illegal)
Bob Ward should see this: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
Eq 17 shows the lower atmospheric emissivity consistent with balanced energy flows for the disc model used by the IPCC is 0.76. The IPCC assumes 1.0. This creates 333[1-0.76] = 80 W/m^2 extra energy, 50 times present estimated GHG-AGW [1.6 W/m^2].
Few years ago but it is nice to see Bob Ward taken down a peg or three
http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/NR/exeres/F3AA3031-F103-48F6-A031-13A4F5BE9D22.htm
jamesp
Excellent word 'anent'. Like 'forbye' there is no direct English equivalent which is English's loss!
(Same applies to 'dreich', of course!)
Bob Ward's grasp of statistical trends seems to incorporate the principle that established trends can never change direction. I'd love to know how many more data points it will take for him to admit even the faint possibility that we might have gone from warming to cooling.
If you're reading, Bob - give us a number 16.....17.........18........19.......20?
Or do we have to wind your "40 year trend" all the way back to its starting point before we can even have the conversation?
Congratulations to Bob Ward! This is his 21st dedicated Bishop Hill thread (see Category Archive -Climate: Ward)
This table gives the warmest month in each state (as well as regional summaries at the bottom)
The yellow ones are from before 2000.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/noaa-warmest-months-for-each-state/
If you want a critique of Dr Jones report on the BBC's science coverage, I have one I prepared earlier, which has been standing idle, deciding where it is going when, because, around the time I completed it, a certain Mr Hunt became embroiled in a significant controversy!
It is not to stand on its own. It is to support taking my BBC climate science bias complaint beyond the BBC, since I ran out of road there, when the Trust itself did not address the substantive issues.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
miket
Best of luck. However, I expect the efforts made at time of establishment to isolate the BBC from undue, particularly political, influence will prove as (over) successful as they have always been and will isolate it from any influence at all, including anything you put together on their science coverage.
I don’t get it. Why should the BBC’s excluding sceptic views hasten its demise, and how is it self-evident that “that is not a bad thing”?
The BBC has done lots of stupid things in its life, some due to a prevailing right wing ideology, some to a prevailing left wing one. Banning climate sceptics from the airwaves is an act of stupidity comparable to its banning of modern jazz in the fifties. As long as it remains a public corporation, we have grounds for protesting. Once it belongs to Murdoch, it can do anything Mrs Murdoch wants.
It would be nice to know more from miket on his critique of the Jones Report. The only people capable of putting together a decent critique - Montford, Newbery and Peiser - are aggrieved parties. It would be nice to see a dissection of Jones’ nonsense which doesn’t start from the premise that the BBC shouldn’t exist.
BBC World Service Trust report on "Africa Talks Climate" (2010). They couldn't find any skepticism.
Undated CBBC page with no sign of uncertainty. I wonder if this actually breaks any law?
Unsigned 2004 BBC "science" article doing a "sh*t sandwich" on the Hockey Stick. Geoff may notice the unwitting irony of a passage highlighted by the BBC itself: " Even if more data is added, I would be surprised if it changed the shape of that curve much - Joyce Penner, University of Michigan".
Sorry about the stutter above.
Omno
I’m not sure what point you’re making with your links, except that there’s some awful rubbish put out by the BBC. For example, from your last link to a 2004 article:
But look at the journalist’s preconception: that this is news, because a scientist is challenging the work of another scientist. However little the journalist knows about science, he’s still a journalist, because he understands the nature of news.
Phil Jones, on the other hand, ceases to be a scientist when he says that science which he doesn’t agree with isn’t science. In this, he predates Professor Steve Jones by several years.
Geoff - that 2004 piece, with the unnamed journalist reporting the controversy yet dressing it up heavily in Jones' and Mann's favour, plus the popped-up quote by a Joyce Penner (who he?), might be the very moment when the BBC went downhill on climate.
They can all huff and puff now, still it's unclear how they can go on like this and for how long. In the 1950's they were still in cahoot with Westminster, I'm sure they'll soon get themselves smartened up on trusting activist-scientists too.
How long, I wonder (perhaps I've missed it already), before someone comes on the telly to state that all this rain is 'evidence of climate change'....
So - it'll be argued - that not only do we not have to have 'increasing temperatures' - 'weather extremes' will do nicely...
Geoff (7.03 AM)
Difficult to just give a flavour - and the whole runs to over six pages - so I won't post it as a comment!
Geoff,
I have been following your recent post at Harmless Sky.
If you would like to see what I've written about Jones, TonyN has my email. You could ask him to send me yours.