Bishop Hill Bishop in the commons
Jul 17, 2013 Climate: Parliament Climate: Sceptics Well that went OK, I thought. The questions were fair and touched on many of the issues that are of concern to those of us in the sceptic community.Those readers who have been suggesting sceptic talking points that I could work in to my answers may be pleased therefore, although I had decided that I would concentrate on trying to answer their questions as best I could.
It would have been helpful to have had Sarah Newton's question, which revealed something of the committee's objectives, at the start of the hearing rather than at the end. It seems that the government is looking to find a way to persuade everyone that the science of global warming is solid so that we accept the IPCC report without question. I can't see that happening. If you want to convince someone a report is solid, you really need it to actually be solid in the first place. There's a long way to go before that happens.
I think I'm right in saying that this is the first time a sceptic has been heard in the SciTech committee since GWPF were invited to the Climategate hearings. I hope they learned something from it. Judging from the look on some of their faces when I was talking about sea ice, what I said was certainly new to them.
[Updated - I'd misidentified Sarah Newton as Sarah Wollaston]
Bishop Hill
The transcript is here.
Reader Comments (120)
pesadia: very interesting. The sales background is invaluable.
Basically there was a spectrum of possibilities for the Bish, between sounding outraged at the 97% to seeming perfectly relaxed with it. Outraged would I think have taken him into obsessed-looking right from the start. As you imply there was great wisdom not going this route but unpicking the category from the inside.
Talking Media generally Why i think Climate Skeptics really hate the BBC.
Before 28 gates there was the Hutton Report and Dr David Kelly.The worlds foremost expert on Mustard Gas.
My Grand Father actually sustained severe lung injuries in the First World War at the battle of Ypres.It was Dr Kelly job to make that unlike my Grand father that todays serving British Troops didn't suffer the same agonizing injuries as him and his comrades.Dr David Kelly was actually my idea of what a real scientist should be Informed, Quiet ,Diligent and Dignified.
But the BBC just used him to generate a few Iraq Tabloid headlines and then happily sacrificed Dr Kelly and when he took his own life they sacrificed their chief Greg Dyke who after all was an old ITV man.
Now there is Jimmy Savile .The BBC an organization that turned a blind eye to vulnerable very young members of some of its TV audience being exploited by one of its most high profile iconic Star, when Half of their staff and its management knew he was Predatory Pedophile .
The BBC towing the all party political Consensus line on Climate Change and protect its License fee.
How can you trust that organization to tell the truth about Climate Change.
Now there is Jimmy Savile .The BBC an organization that turned a blind eye to vulnerable very young members of some of its TV audience being exploited by one of its most high profile iconic Star, when Half of their staff and its management knew he was Predatory Pedophile .
Jul 18, 2013 at 10:22 PM jamspid
Turned a blind eye? The BBC itself committed crimes.
It's a scandal that the BBC has not yet been prosecuted as a corporation for procuring children for sexual abuse. Things were organised for Savile's convenience in carrying out his abuses. Plenty of BBC managers knew what was going on.
The fact that the topmost management perhaps did not know does not let the BBC off the hook in the slightest.
"Dr David Kelly was actually my idea of what a real scientist should be Informed, Quiet ,Diligent and Dignified."
Indeed he was.
" when he took his own life"
Er, yes. That's right. He took his own life. Sure he did.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of poster on here must be secret BBC employees, or were educated in the same education system:
Anti-chamber (where I'd like to send James Hansen and Al Gore, etc?);
Towing the line (canal boat holiday, anyone?);
And now, bathe in reflected glory.
Just goes to prove I'm a grumpy old man, I suppose - must be the record-breaking heat. It's a pity that spell checkers haven't (yet) been developed that pick up context better.
Ian, Ian,
The first axiom of making a public statement about grammar or spelling is that the statement itself will inevitably contain an error of that kind.
In your first sentence, I suspect that you meant to write "posters".
And, if there is anything wrong with using the expression "bathe in reflected glory", I keenly look forward to finding out what it is.
Chill, bro.
You got me there, johanna - hasty as well as grumpy. As for bathing ...:
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Basking_in_reflected_glory?o=2802&qsrc=999
I think the key word is "reflected".
Chilling as I write.
Apropos the Tett-Bourdieu rhetoric/reality mismatch, it might be revealing to know how many BBC managers did/didn't let their teenage daughters have any free tickets for Top-of-the-Pops.
Ian
Nup. One can sunbathe. Literalism is not your friend.
However, I do agree that the vision of people "towing the line", while felicitous (which might be why it is so popular), is incorrect. And, I quite like "anti-chamber" for similar reasons. :)
I've played it through twice now. A triumph for the Bishop, I think. The day the Committee met its Conscience.
The Bish did extremely well. The polling chap was pretty useless. Opinion here seems to be divided on Donald.
While a bit nervous and eager to not offend and to appear to agree with everyone, I did find some of the things said telling. Nick Lewis was mentioned approvingly. Talked about distinguishing people who are anti wind power from climate sceptics. Mentioned several areas in which sceptics had quite correctly drawn attention to errors and wrong information. My impression was of a seeker of the truth who may well have been drawn down the wrong path but who was open to changing tack if presented with evidence.
Bruce, I have to say that she was playing to the blokes in the audience, very successfully. The fluffy hair, batting eyelids, sometimes shaky voice - ay yay yay. Believe me, I've seen it before, including an admission from someone who used precisely these tactics (although she showed a bit of cleavage as well) and left the blokes on the Committee and the male viewers dribbling. This woman had at least 20 IQ points on everyone else in the room.
Conceding a few indisputable points while claiming that the important thing was to put opposing views "in context" - as I said above, she is a formidable opponent.
Johanna: a very amusing contribution. But couldn't one equally accurately characterise the very negative reaction to Ms Donald before I attempted a limited defence, and other male admirers suddenly came out of the woodwork, as the worst form of sexism against a 'dumb blonde'?
Playing the man rather than the ball has all sorts of wrong connotations in this context but it is I think wrong in either direction. This lady, just like you, deserves the respect of us taking her at her word, whether we find it intelligent or foolish, just like any other human being. And, as it happens, I agree with Bruce Hoult's assessment if I take that unbiased approach to the utmost of my ability, with my normal IQ fully in tact :)
You could also be right of course. Even Margaret Thatcher could have been a case in point on occasions.
Richard - Margaret Thatcher in her younger days is a good example of what I am talking about. Most blokes have no idea of how much their perceptions are driven by well-placed cues from the opposite sex.
There's no final answer on such matters but for honesty and humour I give Simon Hopkinson's
the best marks so far. No disrespect to any member of panel or committee should be inferred :)
I think you have to take one of two courses:
1) evaluate the words actually said by members of the appropriate gender as carefully and objectively as you can, imperfect though that may be.
2) ignore everything that comes out of their pretty little mouths.
I fully admit that 1) can take considerable effort to do objectively, but it is I think the preferred option.
It certainly goes both ways. We hear about as much of middle aged UK (and NZ) women taken in and deprived of their savings by handsome young turkish or south american con artists as we do of the corresponding scam against men.
Quite right, Bruce. So, put the fragile (!) Ros' testimony in print, give it to someone who is told that the words were said by a middle-aged lawyer called Bill, and see how they react.
I'll give you 100-1 that it is different to the reaction of the dribblers who saw her.
On a non-scientific and purely personal note I was interested to see that, although panellists had their name boards in front of them so we could see who they were, the MPs didn't. Is this because they think they are so important and well-known that it wasn't necessary? I didn't know who any of them were apart from Graham Stringer. The other, related thing I found interesting was that the chairman and the first few MPs up to and including the Scottish lady looked like they spent most of their time eating pies.
I'd take those odds.
I think you'd be told that Bill was a career man, probably a public servant, very interested in CYA, but nonetheless the 2nd most open to sceptics of anyone on those panels (after the Bish).
And, by the way, I didn't describe Ms Donald as "fragile" or anything like it. In fact, if you look, you'll find that there was absolutely no mention or even I think implication of her gender or looks in my original message.
Transcript now available.