Bishop Hill The BBC's great confidence trick
Apr 19, 2014 BBC Climate: Sceptics The Australian Attorney General George Brandis, a confirmed upholder of the climate change consensus, has lashed out at the large numbers of his fellow-travellers who seek to silence dissenters.
He said one of the main motivators for his passionate defence of free speech has been the “deplorable” way climate change has been debated and he was “really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers”.
“One side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong,” he said.
He referred to [Opposition leader Penny Wong] as standing up in the Senate and saying the science is settled as an example of climate change believers trying to shut down the debate.
“In other words, ‘I am not even going to engage in a debate with you.’ It was ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in climate change,” he said.
In related news, the BBC's Feedback programme decided that environmentalist dismay at Lord Lawson's appearance on the Today programme needed a bit of an airing. Alex Cull has prepared a transcript here.
Jamie Angus: The BBC's reviewed its coverage of climate change and climate science, and it's set out some admirably clear guidelines for us to follow. We are able to put on air people who take a differing view from the majority view of climate science. However, that coverage should be proportional, and I think that any reasonable listener who listened to Today's coverage of climate change, across the past three months, would probably find that Lord Lawson was the only climate sceptic, if you like, who'd appeared in that period. And I think, you know, when Justin and I and the programme team discussed that interview, we thought we'd allowed it to drift too much into a straight yes-no argument about the science. And of course the settled view of the expert scientists is just that - settled, and I believe that our coverage reflects that, over the long term.
As a representation of the medieval approaches that George Brandis was talking about, this just about takes the biscuit. And the intellectual dishonesty that Jamie Angus has to engage in is something to behold.
Firstly there is the constant citing of "the science" without ever explaining what science is being referred to. Does the mean the greenhouse effect? That carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet? He will never tell us of course, because then his intellectual dishonesty would be revealed for all to see. He would either have to claim that all aspects of climate science are settled and would be instantly laughed into oblivion, or he would have to admit that the extent of any future warming and its impacts are scientifically highly tentative and that almost every scientist interviewed on the BBC would therefore by rights need to be challenged. But of course that can never be.
Then consider the bit where Jamie Angus claims that the Lawson-Hoskins segment moved into
a straight yes-no argument about the science. And of course the settled view of the expert scientists is just that - settled.
Now go and take a look at the transcript of that programme and see what it is they were discussing. In each and every case they were issues that were about as far as it is possible to get from "settled". Indeed, both interviewees agreed that this was the case - Hoskins said that "we just don't know" if the persistence of the winter rains was climate-related or not. The conversation moved onto weather extremes, yet nobody can seriously suggest that this is an area of settled science given all the IPCC's statements of "low confidence" about the existence of any trend, let alone attribution to mankind.
So the BBC persists in the great confidence trick that it plays on the public, refusing to define the "science" that is alleged to be settled.
Reader Comments (27)
If the science is 'settled', why does £millions of tax payers' money continue to be wasted on further research?
For a perfect summation of the religious fervour of alarmists, pop over for the Guardian's take on Brandis. In particular, see endless righteous fury in btl comments. It's a sight to behold.
Even though Brandis has accepted the warmist theory, accepts agw is a problem and believes it needs addressing he is still given the mother of intolerant fiskings.
They are so rabid they cannot even allow one of their own true believers to say in public that sceptics should at least be allowed a voice to raise dissenting views.
As for the BBC....nobody is surprised at their partisan stance anymore. I gave up on their telly tax as my own protest long ago.
This is what the Left looks like, and it's not pretty.
I honestly don't believe Jamie Angus shows "intellectual dishonesty". I suspect he merely shows the appalling lack of understanding of science as a mode of investigation that is so prevalent among the supposedly well-educated establishment.
Jamie Angus is the usual combination of stupid and arrogant.
He doesn't know that he doesn't know. Therefore his world is simple. Everyone he knows agrees with him.
It's a bit ironic but it seems to me that the journalists and activists that insist on trust in the science are in many cases essentially scientifically illiterate.
"So the BBC persists in the great confidence trick that it plays on the public, refusing to define the "science" that is alleged to be settled."
No matter how many times you complain to or to whom you complain, the BBC (and BBC Trust) arrogantly ignores its viewers/listeners - its all right we have the £3.5B of your money so screw you. The BBC believes that it is as well respected now as it was 30-40 years ago - what a joke. It is living an illusion. The science programmes that it now produces are biased and laughable.
The BBC will not change and therefore, the only way to have fairer broadcasting is to make it self-funding. No more licence!
Anyone who relies on "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" in regards to public policy or the impacts of complex processes is actually unable to defend their position except by force and knows it.
George Brandis is typical of the Ministers in the Conservative Federal Government that Australians elected before Christmas. The approach, which would be hard to criticise, is simply telling it as it is. e.g. Prime Minister Abbott stated a pre-election policy of stopping the inflow of boat people, then set about to achieve this policy in Government. So far, more than 100 days without a boat. It seems mechanical rather than emotional, than heavens.
The freedom of speech angle has many complications if one wants to complicate it. The Brandis approach is to keep it simple and again, tell it how it is. One cannot guess how far this will get, especially in regard to this vexed business of climate change debate, because the Attorney-General has a number of senior entrenched bureaucrats who have to be brought to work with Government policy. Currently, many bureaucrats oppose it and many are trying their hardest to white ant the Brandis effort.
Universities in particular, if one can use the blog "The Conversation" as a guide, are in full fury, trying at every turn to discredit the Abbott Government. The methods are sometimes vile, sometimes fraudulent, sometimes juvenile, sometimes illogical.
So, it will take time and resolve, with these groups, the bureaucrats and the universities, actively fighting Brandis, let alone the unions and the ever whingeing left.
Some of the media are being rational, some are opposing. Journalist Andrew Bolt is a shining light for freedom of speech if you wish to follow the matter more closely.
- The Key thing is on Today during talk about the "temperature pause" the "scientist" Brian Hoskins is clearly in the wrong as he states opinion as fact and the non-scientist, but expert on the climate debate Lawson quite correcty calls him out on it.
Australia just seems to become more enlightened every day. What a marvellous country.
The whole of that section of the Feedback programme was an arrogant exercise by the editors in self-justification and ignoring the essence of any complaints, with the exception of the response to some chap complaining about the difficulties of using a new BBC app.
stewgreen:
Quite. And wouldn't hundreds of us have been able to do the same? The distribution of expertise in the climate debate is a very strange thing.
"Feedback" makes me cringe every time I hear it.
"Smug alert" would be a better name - or "listen while we patronise the little people".
Excuse me - could some one tell me who or what is Jamie Angus?.
I live in the county of Angus and have a grandson called Jamie - but otherwise am unwise.
Thanks and a happy Easter to our Bishop and all our wonderful bloggers.
Jamie Angus= Editor of te Today prog .. just like it says at the top of the transcript
As long as it is clear eco-warriors live a green loony fantasy universe, that's good for us.
- Anyone taken the time recently to complain about the world view put out by wacky religions ?
..... Of course not, as what they put out is just for the gullible true believers already living within an alternate reality. And as with @BBCr4Feedback one has to be careful due to concern for the mental health of evangelisers.
- As I detail in the discussion post about previous Feedack bias the BBC has 2 types of climate reporting, a tiny amount talking about the real universe and about 80% Eco-warrior progs for the faithful with a fantasy world viewpoint that all Green dogma is true : "catastrophe is certain", "green eergy is free, yet somehow needs massive subsidies meaning it costs double conventiona fuels" . @BBCr4aFeedback is an eco-warrior prog. If 97% of complaints were from skeptics they would still only mention the 3% from alarmists.
- In our real world I guess 90% of the public have some doubts about the alarmist dogma fed to them, yet BBCtoday prog is extremely biased against addressing those doubts, constantly airing alarmist viewpoints and failing to challenge them; they let a skeptic on once in 3 months whilst airing unopposed climate dogma every other day. And from the twitterverse and the fact petitions against "skeptics on BBC" have not gathered many signatures I guess that in our real world less than 10% of the public are concerned about airing skeptic challenging,.
.... and why would they be ? Weak views are best aired together with those they challege and beexposed rather than suppressed. Yet Feedback has on 3 different occasions aired items about the ONE time Lawson was on. Furthermore each time it seems to have featured activists who are part of an orchestrated campaign. I think that is the 5 or 6th time within 12 months that Feedback have aired ant-skeptic items fronted by activists and with no counter viewpoint.
So If I point that out to a a climate apathist which side do they take ???
.. It soon becomes clear to them the BBC has no integrity on green issues and "you can't trust the BBC on climate."
- In the real universe the CO2 is what it it and the temperature is what it is, and no reliable models predictions of the future have been validated.
But is easy to point out the different rules of that fantasy universe :
1. "the science is settled" doesn't mean it has been properly validated and that reliable predictions can be made.
2. Saying "there has been no pause", "The temperature has continued to rise faster than ever" , doesn't constitute denial, rather that word is reserved for people who don't agree with this fantasy.
- The public maye dumb but they do live in the real universe so given time do realise who the fantasists are.
The BBC could be saved by Noel Edmonds and Mr Blobby.
Talking about the BBC i was watching a repeat of Grand Designs with Kevin McCloud on More 4 last night.
I like Kevin but some of the people on that show haven't got about the Building Game or Architecture .Just got to much money and too big a mortgage far too much ambition .
This episode was particularity annoying rather the guy in it.He wanted to build a Zero Carbon House what a tosser. .But i think this might cheer everyone up.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/turbine_is_up_for_sale_1_1010169
That story was from 2011, I have found no later update about what happened to the magic turbine, or the magic solar system he was getting to replace it.
- I would expect no news= bad news for renewables hypers
BBC Climate-Truthers giving the truth a helping hand.
..is perhaps a better word for the BBC Eco-warriors. Their absolute certainty seems to say that the gods have revealed the 'truth' to them, but their actions show that 'the truth' just doesn't have enough evidence to support it, so they have to give a helping hand in their programmes by keeping off those nasty skeptics and their awkward questions .. .... 'all perfectly reasonable when the future of the planet is at stake'.
Re the same expertise v amateur thing that the BBC is so keen on – until they put Judith Curry (top scientist) v Bob Ward (paid lackey of Hedge fund billionaire) against each other. Then Bob Ward magically becomes the 'scientist' and Judith Curry (despite being a lukewarmer) becomes a 'denier'.
The same magical BBC effect turns 1980's Tories that the left hated (Tim Yeo and Lord Deben) into paragons of green virtue whose every utterence on environmental issues is to applauded and agreed with.
Strange.
@Stuck-Record funnily enough that was one of my 6 complaints to Feedback 3 episodes back about the BBC climate output that week, another was the unchallenged 1ft per year sea level rise for Chennai.. They again chose to run with 3 activists complaining about Lawson..
.. This is from a prog which now only gets about 15 tweets/week ..I guess they have turned their listeners off
Maybe this is one of his examples of "a straight yes-no argument about the science."?
You see Sir Brian said "Yes...No..." in his argument... Therefore it was a "yes-no argument"? Could that be what he meant??? ;)
Angus Jamie, who is he? And - is the bbc just a big kidz club for stupid boys and girls?
The BBC Ostrich method; Ask no questions, seek no contra viewpoint and the awkward answers - all go away.
That's science, that's settled then!
Apr 19, 2014 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered Commenter Ronan Connolly
Obviously, what the great BH actually means is that because this is climate change, the normal rules of science don't apply. An hypothesis that has yet to be supported by any data goes from strength to strength whereas in the old fashioned science (you know the one, it improved the human condition no end) it would have been discarded long ago.
And then there was the letter from a viewer which was aired on 'Newswatch', complaining that climate change sceptics were getting TOO MUCH airtime..!
I know - you couldn't make it up...
Ah, sure who cares about that old-fashioned science? These days you don't need your theory to be supported by any of that silly "data" stuff.
All you need nowadays is a nice computer model. You plug the theory into your model, run your simulations for a couple of weeks/months, and then all your results will match exactly with your theory... Much better than that pesky experimental data, which never quite matches up... ;)