Monday
Nov112013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The BBC's climate policy
This letter appears in the Times this morning, picking up on Michael Kelly's letter the other day.
;)
Incidentally, I'm expecting some more news on the 28gate front in due course, so watch this space.
(H/T Billy Blofeld, via Twitter)
Reader Comments (22)
Unfortunately, letters to The Times won't make any difference. The BBC is immune to criticism and won't tolerate criticism. According to the BBC, the BBC is always right.
Listen to BBC programmes like Feedback and hear BBC producers/editors/controllers/managers/directors telling critical listeners why the listeners are wrong and the BBC is right.
Well said David Newland.
The tap is dripping ever faster.
Tony Abbott is going to be remembered:
The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.
The above is from Australia's position document for the Warsaw UNFCCC conference as reported over at Jo Nova.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/australia-says-no-to-un-wish-list-of-billions-will-not-support-socialism-masquerading-as-environmentalism/
Perhaps he could have a word in Cameron's shell-like at the Commonwealth Conference.
Bet the BBC do not mention Australia and their changed attitude to the AGW nonsense.
Would be good to see if the vote on the Climate Change Act was today and not 3 years ago how many of the 600 odd MP's would vote for it again, sadly I think it would still be a majority and a sizeable one too. Just shows how far there is still to go.
BoFA, the CCA was in 2008.
Yes indeed - well done to David Newland - and to be fair well done to the Times.
I have the distinct feeling that such a letter would never have seen the light of day just a few years ago.
So yes as BoFA says - we do have a way to go to get REAL science back on the agenda rather than advocacy.
But there are elements within the MSM that are starting to ask the right questions.
D.E. Newland ScD Hon.DEng FREng. David Newland is an Emeritus Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge.
Harrabin this morning on twitter is claiming that
Another piece of shoddy science reporting by the beeb today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060
So the latest excuse for the pause is a reduction in CFC's since the Montreal protocol is it? Well not really..the replacement (more leaky) HFC's are also potent greenhouse gases so there is no net reduction in refrigerant warming.
Also the 'spike' in ocean heat content around 2003 is presented as the ocean taking up the 'missing' heat. Yet this spike is known to be just an artefact from grafting new buoy data to older, error-laden bucket/intake/guesstimates. Yes the datasets should have been reconciled rather than just drawing a line from one to the other but I'd still expect scientists and science journalists to know about this.
Far from being a cause of the "pause" the Montreal Protocol may very well have accelerated the emission of greenhouse gases since it stimulated the production of alternatives, of similar GHG potential but zero ODP. This meant that use of such CFC alternatives could accelerate again without needing to worry about the Ozone layer.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/good-news-australians-not-partying-in-poland-chopping-committees-at-home-instead-axing-the-tax/
Tony Abbott took an axe,
Gave Tim Flannery 40 whacks,
When he saw what he had done,
He gave CSIRO 41.
(Apologies to ‘The Red Barn’).
skeptics abound on BBC output.
But was it not Harabin who recently said he couldn't find any?
Where's Skeptic? Is he behind the sofa...no. Is he under the stairs....no. Is he in the kitchen....no. Oh look, there's skeptic, at MIT and a stack of other places just like he's always been, except we didn't bother to look there.
Josh's 28Gate cartoon on this month's calendar springs to mind.
Bill
Brilliant!
bill:
They seek him here,
They seek him there,
That damned skeptic could be anywhere.
Is he in Heaven?
Then the BBC will say "go to Hell".
@Graeme No.3 limmericks are supposed to ryhme
"skeptics abound on BBC output." says Harrabin
(his "can't find any sceptical scientists" is something else it's wording is a rhetorical trick)
- over on Twitter the @DramaGreens just challenged him to name any more than Prof Carter, A Neil & UKIP people, a member of the public on Q Time
...and H tweeted back Hitchens (Q Time), Bishop and Lawson
...OK Bishop and Carter were on on 27th September and Lawson sounds plausible (but only 1 mention on Twitter and that's when he talked about the Euro not climate).. So I make that 6 and half in the last 2 months (or 37,000 hours, the BBC broadcasts 608 hours/day)
..do we know anyone else ?
stew, Graeme's contribution is a variation of:
They seek him here
They seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
Is he in Heaven?
Is he in Hell?
That demmed, elusive Pimpernel!
(Baroness Orczy -"The Scarlet Pimpernel")
@Johanna yes I guessed ..Pimpernel ryhmes
Is he in Heaven?
Is he the fire?
That is the right place for a denier
Is he in Heaven?
on the hidden in the BBC ?
but that's one place a skeptic will rarely be
My point was that it was not intended as a "limmerick" (sic), as you claimed.
The Prof Kelly Times letter referred to by David Newland is of course this one recently published on 7 Nov ,
http://www.thegwpf.org/michael-kelly-re-assess-climate-science/
But this is not the first time a letter from Prof Kelly to the Times has been published. As hat-tipped by the Bishop early last year to WUWT, his previous letter is reproduced here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/cambridge-professor-michael-kelly-on-deniers-and-climate-change-science-has-been-consistently-over-egged-to-produce-alarm/