Bishop Hill No sceptic scientists in the UK?
Oct 2, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics I was struck by a thought just now. Although I didn't hear the report myself, I gather that the BBC claimed last week that it had been unable to find any sceptic scientists in the UK.
This is odd, because I had an email from a prominent BBC journalist at the end of August seeking scientists who would give the sceptical side of the argument. This was apparently with a view to finding alternative views to present at the time of AR5.
Given the importance of the pause, the obvious candidate was Nic Lewis and, having ascertained that he would be willing to talk to the BBC, I put his name forward. Nic obviously doesn't work in the university system, but he has published in the key area of climate sensitivity, and given that other people in the area now seem to be adopting his methodology it would be hard to make a case that he is not expert.
I didn't get a response, although I recall Nic asking if anything had come of it.
The BBC's claim is therefore something of a mystery.
Reader Comments (93)
Many interesting comments in the first file, here is a taster.
"Surprisingly there is very little coverage of the temperature threshold agreed by the policy makers at 1.5 - 2.0 C. There is a box on implication of 4.0 C but little on 1.5 - 2.0 C. Policy makers are most interested in that. Suggest adding a box on the implications of 1.5 - 2.0 C." (INDIA
Do the BBC mean sceptic scientist or sceptic "climate scientist"? There are plenty of sceptic scientists in the UK, including you and me.
This is a pattern of behaviour for the BBC. They don't want to find any sceptic scientists, climate or not, so don't try very hard. It's well known I'm sceptical and I've had no approach from the BBC. I've also written to the BBC with an official complaint about the presentation of data by David Shukman that I have reason to believe was 'sexed' up for his presentation. I've also asked David Shukman (via Twitter) twice about the provenance of the data. The silence is deafening.
I believe that the BBC said something along the lines of, "a reputable climate scientist still active in the area". The chances of finding a "reputable", ie., acceptable to the warmist Beeb, sceptic scientist in academia in the UK are by definition remote. A classic case of the Beeb making sure that a suitable candidate cannot be found?
In further news, BBC were unable to find any self-confessed witches in Salem.
It would help if the BBC were to specify exactly what qualifies somebody to be a "climate scientist". Also what does a "climate scientist" have to do to become disreputable?
Did the BBC say they could not find and UK sceptic scientists, or could not find any UK sceptic scientists who were willing to risk putting their heads above the parapet?
Either way it is odd that the BBC did not seek to contact Nic Lewis when his name had been given to them.
What about Prof. Jonathan Jones, (Physics, Oxford)? I don't know where exactly he stands on sensitivity, but he certainly had a view on the low standards of many of the hockey team scientists.
Failing that, I assume that David Whitehouse or Nigel Calder (who both should be well known to the BBC) would have been happy to give a sceptic (and authoritive) perspective on the science? Piers Corbyn has a background in astro-physics and meteorology, he also would have given some good sound bytes or made an interesting interview?
Worth quoting what Harribin said I think:
He starts from a hand-wavy generalisation that any scientists in the world being sceptical is rare to then tacking on at the end the qualification "in this field".
Add to this the vagueness of just what qualifies as sceptic; if it means consensus sceptic, then what's the consensus ... etc then you can see what a wonderfully easy job it is to be an acute investigator of climate criticism at the BBC ;)
Basically old Rog. hasn't looked really but for the purposes of Today show decorum pretended to check his pockets and then told Jim Naughtie he couldn't find any ;)
BBC deliberately define sceptic scientists as climate scientists working in a university. So it is unlikely that they will find any as they will not want to lose their funding.
However, I would say the majority of professional scientists in the UK (including me) are very sceptical. But the BBC doesn't want the truth as this will not support for its biased position. I seem to recall Professor Michael Kelly was sceptical? I am sure there are others in scientific (not climate) academia who are sceptical, but the BBC do not want to know.
It seems to be a common line thrown out by greenies at public meetings. I attended one for a local group given by a local activist. He started off by saying they always wanted to have a debate, but could never find anyone willing to debate (for the sceptic side). I put my hand straight up and offered to take part, either there and then or at a later date, but my offer was never taken up.
Probably if you'd insisted in adorning their requisite baby blue or pastel pink rip-torn she-man outfit and gyrated for a bit atop a couched wave of hysteria you might've been a contenda. Too bad.
Prof John Brignell of "Numberwatch" mayhap? His latest comments - http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2013_september.htm#show - are more than a tad critical (of both "sides" actually).
Incidentally Bish, I'm surprised that there's no link to Numberwatch in your blogroll.
[BH adds: So am I! Fixed]
There are hundreds of scientists in the UK who are quite capable of taking on the climate community and making the argument on basic scientific principles, criticising statistical methods and showing that predictions do not conform to observational data.
The problem is that we are not "climate Scientists". While we may not be great on counting tree rings, or doing so highly dubious statistical calculations on lousy data, we collectively have a wide experience of basic science.
lol.
So the BBC thinks the "consensus" is not 97%, but 100%?
link via @etzpcm (Paul Matthews) twitter
in 2010 UEA's Paul Dennis responded to Roger Harrabin's request (see full comment at WUWT)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/the-most-slimy-essay-ever-from-the-guardian-and-columbia-university/#comment-324561
".... Two weeks ago Roger Harabin made a public call for scientists who are actively publishing in the climate change and palaeoclimate literature to contact him with a view to taking the debate forward. I thought very carefully about doing so but in the end felt that the attempt to provide a forum for a mature and open debate on the science was a worthy effort and responded. I received a one liner which said “interested but very busy” (my paraphrase). I have received nothing else in the past 2 weeks.
This is from a journalist who had just made a very public announcement that he wanted to open the debate and bring it to a new level. The lack of response is deafening and one can only conclude that there are groups of people who do not want to shift the debate onto science. They are more comfortable slinging mud."
--------------------------
so maybe they just don't bother any more...
This is a new low for Roger Harrabin. Here's the story.
Back in Feb 2010, Harrabin put out a call for UK academic sceptics, via WUWT.
A few days later, Paul Dennis wrote at WUWT that he had, after some hesitation, responded to Harrabin, and received only a one-line reply, then nothing.
I think Don Keiller also responded.
Paul Dennis was lucky to get a one-line reply - I only got one word after I, also hesitantly, and asking him not to phone me, replied to Harrabin. Here is his reply in its entirety.
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010
From: Roger Harrabin - Internet
To: Paul Matthews <Paul.Matthews@nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Request for sceptical UK scientists
Thanks
The BBC just cannot help themselves, it must surely amuse them greatly, the progressives that is, they do love to play these charades and legerdemain is after all - their trade.
What reputable scientist would wish to name himself 'a climate scientist'?
If science and scientists weren't sceptical - then, there would be no scientists. It follows that, if 'the science was settled' what need have we [society] of scientists?
In some academic disciplines, it seems that all the logic of science has departed onto the platform - where the gravy train awaits.
When Matt McGrath (BBC) visited me (and we had a nice talk) the week before the Stockholm meeting, I strongly encouraged him to visit Nic Lewis. He saw two problems: 1) Lewis was mentioned in an article by David Rose (so he was "contaminated", my word); it is all about perception he said and 2) He said the problem is how you explain to the public that someone, who is almost retired and just in the business for a few years, knows better than all these professional scientists. I said to him: you finally have a very well informed "sceptic" in the UK, who even published in the peer reviewed literature, and you still don't want to talk to him.
Quite disappointing
I commented here about that. It was on the Today programme. The presenter, I forget which one, said that they had tried to find a sceptical climate scientist in the UK but failed to find one.
The inability of the BBC to find a UK based sceptical scientist is because of a dearth of the necessary professional:-
The Investigative Journalist!
If the BBC employed a few and allowed them to carry out their professional responsibilities they would soon find more than enough sceptical scientists to consult.
@The BBC's claim is therefore something of a mystery.
Said without a hint of irony ... nice =)
One scientist who is turning more sceptical by the day, though not from the UK, is Judith Curry. She has an excellent article in the Financial Post in which she blames the IPCC for the state of climate science and calls for the organisation to be scrapped.
Details over at Jo Nova.
Here is my twitter conversation with Harrabin this morning:
Bishop Hill @aDissentient
BBC claims it couldn't find any UK sceptic scientists. I told them to speak to Nic Lewis. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/2/no-sceptic-scientists-in-the-uk.html …
roger harrabin @RHarrabin
@aDissentient We did a big trawl a few years ago looking for a nat sci sceptic academic. To my memory not one came forward.
Paul Matthews @etzpcm
@RHarrabin @aDissentient Then your memory is serious faulty. Check your emails.
roger harrabin @RHarrabin
@etzpcm @aDissentient I don't think so. We were looking for academics in post at universities in nat sci. I don't think we got even one.
Paul Matthews @etzpcm
@RHarrabin @aDissentient Rubbish. You got at least 3. Me, Paul Dennis and Don Keiller.
roger harrabin @RHarrabin 28m
@etzpcm @aDissentient Spartans?
Tom Nelson asks:
pdf link
Indeedy.
The BBC does not want to find a "sceptical scientist". Having a highly qualified person casting doublt on CAGW would make too big an impression. Better to get Lawson or Delingpole who can easily be dismissed as being non-scientists. Ed Miliband years ago tried this tactic when he was in a discussion on the BBC. You will see many "yes men" (poodles) like Myles Allen being interview but never a highly qualified scientist who questions the basic science. That is too dangerous!
The Royal Society event - most of the guilty in one room.
I'm sure they will arrive at a consensus.
I'm sure that if climate sensitivity turned out to be 1.2ºC or lower then there still wouldn’t be a majority of sceptical climate scientists because by then the science would agree with what many sceptics think. A great deal of science is and has been published that erodes the catastrophism of current and early claims made by the consensus, but the people doing the work are unlikely to label themselves as sceptical.
The lowest results from the climate models aren’t very far above and/or overlap our own visions of the future and unless we see dramatic cooling, we might expect a long period of warmer years (MWP lasted hundreds). The consensus could be covered for decades, even if it didn’t warm one jot. No reason to become a sceptic if your models are still 'right' and the money is still rolling in.
Oct 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterMarcel Crok
Wow!. There's a lot in there that illustrates problems across the board. McGrath sounds like like the majority of enviro. journalists actually wedded to a narrative that cannot be disturbed by new information that could be "hard to explain".
Surely that attitude is the literal antithesis of "good journalism"?
Together with Paul Matthews example of Harribin fatuous snark this is pretty damning of the state of enviro journalism at the state funded BBC.
Seems therefore McGrath and Harribin are just state funded activists pretending to be journalists.
" I see no ships!"
The BBC evidently feels that it follows an honourable tradition.
Something else for the BBC to ponder on: In 2007 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad skirted a question about treatment of homosexuals in Iran, by saying there were no homosexuals in Iran.
Have they lost Phillip Stott's number (Not the Met Offiice's Stott, the SOAS one)? He has been a regular in the past. Because he's left-of-centre generally, he usually gets space on the BBC. I remember hearing him gently correcting that idiot Vine on Radio 2, as he confused Gulf Stream and Jet Stream during the Ekyavilkkiyilickishkdi volcano eruption.
If the BBC contact Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, UK, the editor of the journal Energy and Environment, then she may be able to to give them some more names.
Also, Richard S Courtney, a member of the editorial board, comments frequently on sceptical blogs about the lamentable state of the carbon model favoured by the IPCC.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to what has happened to the scientific integrity of warmist scientists in the face of nearly two decades of divergence between the models and reality as well as other major discrepancies such as the missing hotspot.
I can imagine the buzz from being part of a global movement led by the UN with the support of 139 governments and all their tax funded scientists. Then we have the Chief Government Advisor and the president of the Royal Society, et al vigorously acting as our cheerleaders. Perhaps the guilt about the science being flawed shrinks down to negligible size especially if we are on the side of the 97% consensus.
Then, on the other side there are the deterrents. If you speak out against the consensus you could become an object of hate, you could lose your funding, your job and your relationship with you colleagues. You career might be destroyed.
Then, with the attendees of the Royal Society event, mentioned above in mind, I began to think that my thoughts as discussed may apply to the climate science foot soldiers, but the leaders may require a quite different analysis.
I suspect that the question of integrity may not enter their heads, butI leave it for others to develop this thought if they are so inclined.
The thought behind all of this is that I was wondering about what factors need to change to allow and even encourage sceptical climate scientists to stand up and tell the world what has gone wrong with their world.
@ Green Sand
The qualifier "investigative" should be implicit in the definition of a journalist - otherwise she or he is merely a reporter.
'The BBC's claim is therefore something of a mystery.'
Not really its like being asked do you know where you can find elephants , and when you tell them there at the zoo the person who asked you then goes off to the local primary school and claims they cannot find any. In other words what matters is that they ‘asked’, the fact they had no intention of ‘finding any’ in the first place is another issue. Its an old and dirty trick designed to cover your back when your not actual interested in finding out reality in the first place.
@ David Chappell
"The qualifier "investigative" should be implicit..."
Tis true, so the Beeb needs to employ a few journos, no worries as they can ship out the "reporters" to their print operation in Kings Cross. Probably where they came from in the first place.
Probably a case of the BBC going: 'Lalala I can't hear you...'
It's not a mystery at all. There are no skeptical climate scientists in the uk. All accept the consensus position even if weakly. And if they didn't then they wouldn't be employed very long.
No mystery. The BBC lie.
If being mentioned in a David Rose article means, for the BBC, that they become unworthy of attention, how to explain the BBC's willingness to interview Myles Allen? David Rose mentions him all the time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2440951/Paul-Mason-Former-BBC-editor-claims-executives-worried-messing-up.html
To be fair I would bet the BBC would also have a hard time finding any Practicing Catholic priests who were willing to say god does not exist too, oddly for the same reasons.
As for Harrabin, to be fair to him he does is job of green PR human photocopier, quite well. So that he is neither a journalists nor has any investigative ability is hardly a surprise .
Horrorbin contacted me back in 2010- presumably because I was one who did a FOI on CRU for climate data.
I responded (reasonably) and he never did reply.
I was going to suggest asking Paul Dennis of UEA whether he was available but I see he has already commented on this thread. He is undoubtedly a well-qualified scientific critic of mainstream paleoclimatology. Possibly too well-qualified for the BBC.
knr - 'God does not exist..'...? You mean - there's no old fella with a long beard, sitting on a cloud, promising hellfire and damnation to non-believers..?
well - I'm astonished...
If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions...in public at least.
The problem is part due to the researchers. These are poorly paid, often overworked with little or no scientific background and often with a left wing middle class background. Researchers know that to progress in the BBC they need to pursue a left wing middle class non-technical metropolitan dogma. Consequently, few if any researchers have the inclination obtain the views of those who disagree with Harrabin.
You have to understand how modern journalists look at things:
Their reasoning goes something like this:
All scientists agree AGW is a crisis.
Therefore, anyone not agreeing that AGW is a crisis is not a scientist.
If the BBC claims to be unable to find sceptical climate scientists, perhaps the problem is in its lack of curiosity. But then, the problem with climate science itself is a lack of curiosity. If curiosity threatens to kill your cat (or cook your goose), it's likely the last thing you'd ever allow yourself to have. That we pay both institutions handsomely for nothing but their curiosity is a clue to the crux of our current dilemma.
Looking for "climate sceptic" scientists but requiring that they must be actively working in climate science is like looking for atheists but insisting they must be members of the clergy. You can only get a research post and, more importantly, research funding in UK climate science if you are part of the orthodoxy.
Hence we get a symbiotic relationship between the government and the universities. The researchers provide authoritative papers stating that there are hobgoblins abroad and only the politicians can save the world. The politicians lavish them with funding because saving the world is important and these guys have white coats and pointy heads so must be right. So the whole circus is self-perpetuating. Nothing can go wrong provided there are gatekeepers to ensure the politicians are not exposed to the contrary scientific evidence. This role is fulfilled by the IPCC and senior civil servants, with the Grauniad and the BBC acting as acolytes.