Bishop Hill Sceptics on Radio 4
Nov 1, 2014 BBC Climate: Sceptics Climate: sensitivity I gather that there was a segment on Radio 4 about climate sceptics this morning, with an interview with Nic Lewis. I'm going out shortly so I can't record it for you, but you should be able to listen again here in a few hours' time.
Bishop Hill
Nic Lewis emails:
As you know, Roger Harrabin's piece on global warming that included excerpts of his interview with me aired at 7.15 this morning on Radio 4.
Unfortunately, his piece confusingly muddled up both CO2 emissions with CO2 concentrations and equilibrium climate sensitivity with the transient climate response level. Both equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response relate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, but the equilibrium sensitivity is higher because the transient response refers to the global warming that occurs over decades rather than the centuries it takes for the ocean to fully warm up and equilibrium to be reached.
Harrabin said "if we double CO2 emissions - which we are likely to do later this century - we are likely to provoke a temperature rise of about 1.7°C", or similar words. What I had told him was that, based on instrumental observations, I estimated the equilibrium climate sensitivity to be 1.7°C warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration.
Reader Comments (131)
just watched the BBC news on this this with Roger Harrabin's comments reported above/but different ?
there was no mention of who made the comment, something like "even Sceptics now agree things are really bad, man made CO2 is causing Global warming, I've never heard this from them before, this proves we need action now"
might have misheard, but the jist to me & intent of the message to Joe Public was !!! you guessed it -
"it's worse even than we thought maybe last week, Sceptics agree something's up !! barking at the moon says leave it in the ground or the planet will fry !!! - new fry by date tentatively predicted/proposed as 2100"
Yes, dougieh. The timing of the propaganda barrage seems just a bit too well coordinated for anybody to take it seriously as unbiased news reporting.
"Frying tonight", as they said in previous hammy scare stories.
not banned yet (Nov 2, 2014 at 8:25 PM)
To pronounce an anathema you first have to be elected Pope – or imagine a society where everyone is his own Pope.
Your definition of consensus is in fact a rather good definition of democracy – the acceptance of the need of a political mechanism for acting in concert with people with whom you don't always agree.
Of course, nothing and no-one can oblige you to act in concert with other people. “I'm not banned yet, therefore I exist” is a perfectly adequate position for a commenter on a blog. Some people want to take matters further however, and may even see politeness as a means to do this.
"nby: I've already suggested that I'd be the only sceptic to want to thank Roger Harrabin on this thread, so I accept that I'm an outlier."
I don't see why you'd want to thank him, but I do agree that there's little point in seeking revenge for past misdemeanors if he wants to come in from the cold. I doubt very much that Harrabin had any say in the interview of Nic Lewis however, I suspect that was the decision of the producer or editor of the programme.
Rhoda: I noticed the use of the word "Independent" rather than "Intergovernmental". The BBC wouldn't want people to think that the report was produced by Government representatives rather than Government "scientists".
On Radio 4 Today this morning, around 7.20, Justin Webb interviewed Chris Field, and there was a touch of scepticism in Webb's questions about exaggerated claims and certainty.
Paul: I'd say a touch of scepticism is better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick but the sunny optimism implied would doubtless attract wrath. Hand me that blunt stick :)
Geronimo:
What Harrabin said on air about why he was highlighting Nic was really quite strange. He sounded to me like a man who knew he might well get into trouble for this choice. From the fear I deduced that a) his producer/editor had said 'on your own head be it' and b) it's worth showing the guy some qualified support. Your and other readers' mileage will undoubtedly vary. (As I've said before I used to know Roger personally when we both lived in the leafy streets of Gospel Oak. As it happens I really liked him. Funnily enough I tried to pop in on our closest mutual friend in Holborn on Wednesday only to learn that he'd sold his business without telling me. How out of the loop is that!)
Nov 2, 2014 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered Commenter michael hart
Not to worry! We're just seeing yet another tedious iteration of Richard Drake in self-serving moderator-wannabe mode.
After watching him in operation for the better part of 5 years, I have yet to determine why Drake chooses to bore readers with his self-serving approbations and/or disapprovals with his (often) obscure and/or off-topic and picayune self-glorifying protestations - at the expense of others on the skeptical side of the fence.
In this regard, Drake has ... as many Brits would say ... "form" [See, for example, my Dec 9, 2012 at 2:10 AM comment in Quantifying Uncertainties in Climate Science and its antecedents!]
But aren't you also in moderator-wannabe mode in wishing Richard Drake to reduce all the iterations you find so tedious, my dear HO? I prefer Geoff's view where we're all Popes in our own runtime. Why don't we pronounce mutual anathema then get on with something more productive? :)
Just listened to Benny Peiser being interviewed on BBC news
http://www.thegwpf.com/benny-peiser-what-does-the-ipcc-ar5-synthesis-report-tell-us/
same theme from the BBC - sceptics are falling in line with mainstream thinking
who'd a thunk it
Thanks H2O! Benny hits all the right notes IMHO, including the fact that "what we're saying now is what we've said since 1990". He doesn't know if Nic is right but if he is we have much more time to deal with the challenge of our emissions than has been implied by those proclaiming climate 'Armageddon' or 'Doomsday'. More than anything we need to improve our ability to adapt to weather extremes that are bound to come in the next hundred years. Another example of the BBC giving a platform to an excellent spokesman for all of us called sceptics. At least that's the way I viewed it. The bad news is we have to win on the strength of our arguments, not the size of the propaganda slots we're handed on a plate, like the alarmists. The good news is we are.
Having taken in Peiser, let me return to this bracing interaction with Stephen Richards:
I realise the Beeb is a bit like a Rorschach inkblot, in that we tend to see what our subconscious most wishes or perhaps most fears. But the fall of the propaganda pieces around the IPCC Synthesis Report from top item on Sunday morning to very low in the pecking order even twelve hours later is for me a striking example of what I was saying yesterday. Add to that Harrabin's innovation of interviewing Lewis at the start of the weekend and the steady, credible words of Peiser on Sunday afternoon, with respect, not sneering, from the interviewer on News 24, and I continue to see progress.
Perhaps anger and fear aren't the best guides on such matters? But I accept that something more scientific than what I've offered here will be needed to convince many.
"I can't find any sceptical scientists" is Harrabin's famous quote on Today
so how the hell does he know what sceptics think if he can't even find sceptical scientists in plain sight ?
In the first instance at that time he didn't look.. and secondly when 4 or 5 like Paul Matthews contacted him he just sent them a "one line reply"
Does Harrabin nhave any evidence to support his misleading statement that sceptics are coming over to the IPCC line ?
- Can someone point me to a place on the BBC website where the sceptics case has been clearly stated ?
well ATTP (Anders the wordblind) and his fellow travellers are very pissed-off...it is comical to see their horror at being counteracted by someone more knowledgeable
Stewgreen
"I can't find any sceptical scientists"
It does seem to be a problem.
Newsnight recently put on an item about Antarctic sea ice. To discuss it they invited Tamsin Edwards, a climatologist and designer of climate models widely respected among warmists and sceptics.
For balance they should have invited a respected climatologist with a more sceptical view. Instead they invited a failed banker cum journalist.
If the evidence against climate change is so strong, there should be sceptic scientists queuing up to make their case and boost their image at the expense of their warmist colleagues. Instead they are conspicuous by their absence.
Absence of sceptic scientists is not evidence of absence of sceptic science, but that is the way to bet. :-)
diogenes, thanks, that really cheered me up! He can't be bothered to read anything by Roger Pielke, but is quite happy to give his opinion that Pielke's position is 'rather silly'. That's his usual MO.
Ben Pile has a new blog post Why Environmental Correspondents Trip Over Themselves on Harrabin's fairy story that sceptics are coming round to agreeing with the IPCC.
geoffchambers @ Nov 3, 2014 at 6:28 AM
What are you on about? I think you are in danger of following in RD's footsteps by putting words in my mouth but perhaps you clarify by identifying the anathema you are referring to?
Plus, what do you mean by "taking matters further"?
If anybody sees or hears a public correction by Harrabin of the mistakes Nic highlights, please can you point it out? 10 mins google hasn't found anything. Thanks.
For EM:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/on-the-take-an-impromptu-psychological-study-of-government-science/
nby (1:55 AM):
Examples of me doing that, with exact quotes, would be ever so appreciated.
I'm only guessing but could Geoff be referring to the phrase he's just quoted:
Sorry if that was a little hard for you. In the past Dung seemed to argue that I should be banned from Bishop Hill but you're the first to imply that I'm not even a sceptic, not even a really, really bad one. As I said already, thanks for the exclusion!
This also requires the ability to read what Geoff had just written:
The apparently menacing phrase clearly meant the aspiration to act in concert with people with whom we don't always agree. Perhaps you do find that idea menacing. Is the true ideal for sceptics here no surrender, no compromise, no progress? Not for me. Geoff is right that I see politeness as a means to accomplish this kind of democratic partnership.
But not just politeness. As I was talking to Keith Shine of Reading University, with another climate researcher present, in the tea break after his talk at Imperial College as part of Classic Papers - The Greenhouse Effect on 15th October, an event to mark the 50th anniversary of the death of Guy Callendar, he suddenly launched an attack on Nigel Lawson, saying that because Lawson disagreed with climate policies he chose to say climate science was wrong when he had no reason to, which was entirely unethical. I said, very calmly, "That accusation against Lawson is both false and unjust." The man seemed none too pleased with that reply in front of the admiring female researcher. But I feel it is important that we say things, in all situations, as we see them.
As I have here. I continue to find it interesting that you feel the need to define me as a non-sceptic rather than deal with the substance of what I've written.
Richard - perhaps Geoff will politely thanking you for intervening on his behalf; in the meantime I'll wait to hear what he actually has to say.
nby, I began by asking if you could substantiate your allegation of putting words in your mouth. To repeat
I'm sure you wouldn't make such a grave accusation against a fellow BH contributor without specific instances in mind. Thanks in advance for your attention - or for the retraction of the allegation. Either way, something to look forward to.
As for Geoff, your weasel words were so devious in their determination to miss the point that I couldn't help myself. This began with you denying I was worthy to be called a sceptic, as you deem yourself worthy. I have developed an interest in your black propaganda therefore. I see you as a coward, in case that's not already clear. Feel free through plain speaking to put this impression right.
Richard - and I see you as a fool. Good day.
nby: The difference is by your silence you've given crucial evidence. You said I'd put words in your mouth. I called you on it. You refused to give a single example, or retract. Instead you added a further insult. Coward it is. Inept coward.
Richard - rather than continue to clutter up Bishop Hill indulging your child's play, I decided against referring back to issues past. If you are the careful commenter you claim to be, you do not need me to refer you back to our past disagreement on this issue. If, on the other hand you are simply fast and loose with your comments and you do not recall the past, then there is no point to revisit it. You are the person claiming the high ground of politeness and careful commenting, yet on this thread you have initiated insults as a result of your mistaken reading of my words. Because of this and your repeated behaviour of building comments and lines of argument on what you imagine or project, my conclusion is that you are a fool. As such I'm ceasing to engage with you and your self righteous pique.
Geoff - if you are still reading, don't worry about clarifying your position. I'm out of this thread.
No, nby, you said I'd put words in your mouth. You need to give details or retract. It's simple. It's not childish wanting to clear this up and get on with more productive things but it is simple. Your move.
When it became obvious to most people in the 1980s that the USSR really could not be treated as just equivalent to the USA, the BBC had to change its reporting. Did the BBC apologise for getting it wrong previously? No. Did the BBC even acknowledge that it had shown bias by being so uncritical of the USSR? No. The BBC simply changed its approach and let time and a lack of holding it to account do its work.
The BBC appears to be following exactly the same methodology about CAGW, firstly by uncritically re-naming the ideology "Climate Change", then apparently by claiming that "sceptics" (who they?) now agree with the (supposed) consensus. This is a standard propaganda trick - it takes the spectrum of the opposition (CAGW sceptics) and divides it down the middle, absorbing the less extreme (as viewed by the BBC) into its own ideology. At the same time this moves the BBC position away from the alarmist extremists seamlessly, with no admission of guilt.
If we are now polite and welcoming to this claimed glimmer of "progress" from the BBC, rather than being honest, open and critical about its ideological manipulations, the BBC will never accept its bias. And the BBC will carry on repeating the same mistake. Apart from anything else BBC supporters should be aware that this persistent partisanship, without being held to account, continues to undermine the BBC's position in the country. For me, and many others now, the BBC has lied once too often, and for our safety should be broken up, sold off, and run as pay-to-view. The BBC approach certainly does not merit the fudge apparently advocated by some on here.
I would support the break up of the BBC and the end of the license fee if that was really on the cards politically after the next general election. I would also support Paul Dacre as Director General come to that. Neither of those possibilities in the future tell us, however, how to react to the mixture of bad and small slivers of good we think we detect now. The issue as Geoff said is not the BBC per se but whether we have an appetite for acting in concert with people with whom we don't always agree. That is a very complex matter on which it's entirely fair for BH commenters to disagree. But I'd like to pay tribute again to Benny Peiser and how well he put across some crucial points on a very important weekend for the doomed and increasingly frustrated ship CAGW/IPCC.
Richard Drake
Would you replace the BBC with Fox?
EM it is interesting that even as far back as the 1970s and 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used to go on Jimmy Young's radio show in order to present a message that would not be watered down or spiked by the BBC's team of virulent socialists and overt Labour Party supporters. If anything, the BBC has grown even more intolerant of views that do not fit with their left-leaning ideology. David Attenborough has turned into a real old-fashioned eugenicist - a very long way from the fairly broad-minded mandarin he was as Controller of BBC2. Maurice Peston's son is the economics correspondent and obviously is unable to comprehend the concepts of balance or neutrality or objectivity. During the last few years of the Labour Government, he was the official leaker-in-chief of Brown's thinking. Very little of the BBC's television output has any intellectual content - Strictly Come Dancing, Snog Marry Avoid, The Great Interior Design Challeng, The Apprentice, Bargain Hunt....What is the difference with Fox? The BBC do not even televise cricket these days. When was the last time they made a decent programme on classical music, art or history?
S, I see no reason to differentiate between Foix and the BBC.
EM asks - "Would you replace the BBC with Fox"
diogenes answers the nub of the question above very well, but I would add my 2 bits worth -
I expect a national/world class broadcaster to cover world events, not just UK /BBC agenda orientated news (I will be willing to pay my hard earned money for this service).
I may be wrong & biased/pissed off, but the beeb news (all BBC news channels) has now become a joke for me.
unless goaded into action they seem asleep at the wheel & more interested in promoting the next Dr Who series or survey/investigation/poll they have commissioned & you can watch later bla bla.
Fox news may be a bit below EM's standard for accuracy/facts, but I find it more informative than most UK news channels.
there I said it, and I find the presenters lively/positive & enjoying the job/life in general, refreshing.
(unlike the glum BBC crew, except the weather people, they really enjoy a good storm :-)