Bishop Hill Ward versus Tol
Apr 3, 2014 Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG2 Climate: Ward Media I am somewhat in awe of Channel Four news. I mean, Bob Ward writes a post criticising Richard Tol on an obscure page on the LSE website and Jon Snow, Cathy Newman et al leap into action to interrogate Tol on air. Not only that, but Ward is invited on to put his own case to Tol and Newman repeatedly accuses Tol of "having an agenda" because he is an unpaid adviser to GWPF while Ward, the paid mouthpiece for a wealthy environmentalist, is given a free ride. All that from a blog post!
I must say, the interview was distinctly uninformative, with Newman and Ward apparently trying to suggest that because Tol's paper is the only one showing benefits from warming (there are only two that have examined the case of warming of 1°C), his allegation of scaremongering by the IPCC is wrong. If ever there was a non-sequitur this is it. As Tol points out, the other studies for warming of a few degrees show net harm that is indistinguishable from zero. Calls for panic are indeed over the top.
Reader Comments (58)
Snow is a man I think that is starting to mentally stumble. His speech mistakes on air are increasing, and the whistle through the teeth Apart from that he is a freaky alarmist - notably during the Thames flooding and in Greenland of late.
So for the money we have to put up with BS. Monckton excels on WUWT repeatedly and I guess he isn't given money by us.
Ignore!
I occasionally watch Channel 4 news. Most of the programme consists of manufactured reports, not news. My default position is that what they say is the opposite of the truth. Jon Snow, Cathy Newmann, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Tom Clarke et al all have a political agenda and are not trustworthy.
There is still a channel 4?
Well, even the Hors d'oeuvre had me choking in less than 8 seconds:
Well if they can, then why don't they? Or is it just that twice as good as "useless" is still complete rubbish.
Channel 4 is the other state owned and run broadcaster and, like the BBC, is subject to FOI requests.
This was so blatant. Cathy Ward and Bob Newman ganging up against Richard Tol.
Of course, everybody has an agenda. Bob Ward's is to defend to consensus and Richard Tol's to challenge it.
So what Cathy should have said is that both Bob Ward and Richard Tol have an agenda, to the extent that I understand climate change, I think Bob Ward's is the right agenda and so I'm going to gang up with Bob and we'll have a pop at Richard who has the wrong one.
The same programme hinted that the Sahara sand problem in UK at the moment was all part of AGW.
All rational opinion however know that this is a entirely natural occurence.
I quite often watch C4 news and normally find it to be quite informative. Jon Snow and Cathy Newman normally do a good journalistic job. Earlier this week they had a shortened news followed by an extended report on Nigel Farage which is the best bit of TV I've seen this year! Nigel must have got through about 60 pints in the hour program - good bloke;-)
But then we had Jon Snow standing in the rain declaring that climate change had begun and Cathy Newman last night doing a quite aggressive and biased assassination attempt on Richard Tol. Ironically, the suit in the studio is the paid environmentalist while the guy with the beard in the woods has an agenda - the media really are losing the plot.
While there is mounting evidence that the BBC is a mouthpiece for government propaganda what of C4? Is this blissful ignorance of a complex topic or have they been got at?
The most ridiculous bit was when she said Tol was "in bed with Lord Lawson".
It's the media bubble. None of them has any scientific training and they all socialise with one another, reinforcing their own prejudices. If they shared a few beers with people like Tol, they might learn something (including the benefits of beer over Pinot Grigio).
While the news team are unapologetic alarmists. Contradictorily, it was C4’s showing of Martin Durkin’s ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ that put me on the sceptical path. I thought ‘Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story’, also Durkin and C4, pretty good as well.
There seems to be a disconnect somewhere in the arguments of Newman & Ward. Just because Tol's paper is the only (?) one showing benefits from a 1 degree C warming, doesn't make it wrong. Science per se is not a democracy! I am quite sure Newton didn't pop down to his local coffee house with his mates to chew the cud over whether gravity existed or not by taking a show of hands, rather I think he demonstrated it. On their basis, one could prove anything true by a show of hands after a colourful persuasive argument! I sometimes do wish people like Newman & Ward would just be honest & state that they want to change the world by creating a Global Socialist based UN Guvment, reduce the western democracies (what's left of them), & interfere with & control every aspect of our lives! Surely honesty IS the best policy? That is something that is impossible to achieve, we would just end up with a Global EU, run by "Commissioners" who are in charge of everything but responsible for nothing!
You wine DENIER!!
Channel 4 news has always been just as biased towards the left, ever since I started watching it in preference to the awful BBC news. Snow, especially, has an axe to grind, and does so at every available opportunity. He has been sold on the AGW issue for ages - so much so that recently, I have all but abandoned Channel 4 news as well, and continue to search, in vain, for a news service which is more factual, and untarnished by political bias. Not an easy task.
Well, at least Newman didn't call Ward a climate scientist. The bias otherwise is so blatant as to be laughable.
Looked to me like Cathy was in bed with Bob!
"...based on a seven year analysis of the scientific consensus..."
Did she really say that? I suppose that's a far more accurate description of the IPCC than was intended :-)
It is not Ward that speaks here. Poor guy.
In his interviews, Ward has to usually jump in and cross-question his fellow interviewee himself.
Euan M:
While there is mounting evidence that the BBC is a mouthpiece for government propaganda what of C4?
I despair of Ch4 News. Its frenzied re-hashing of the eco-lobby line is so crude that one suspects that it's lobbied a deal harder and a deal more effectively than the BBC has ever been. The programme has one or two good correspondents but in the main comprises low-grade reports from hacks - its international coverage has gone way down hill - and an intensely irritating interviewing style that thinks that constant interruptions are a substitute for astute questioning.
(My partner has a theory that the reason why Ms Newman is so uptight is that she's Mary Whitehouse's secret love child.)
Euan -
Jon Snow has not been got at. Irrc he is one of the few journos whom went public on being approached by MI5 (in his university days) to work for them on the side. (He declined their offer). Sadly Snow has let his left-wing perspective blind him to the AGW scam. I tried sending emails to him 5 years ago, but did not get far - they did invite me down to the studio to ask questions of Milliband on the eve of Copenhagen, but I had to decline as last minute, and just as well I did as I would have been the token sceptic in a room full of hand-picked alarmists, mostly from Islington. Jon Snow was probably the most extreme in this religious beliefs: he introduced a woman from Cumbria whose house had been flooded, as someone who had "personally suffered the evidence of climate change".
Back in the 1930s a book was published in Germany “100 authors against Einstein”. When Albert Einstein was asked about it, he said “Why 100? One would be enough, if I am wrong.”
Well, at least Newman didn't call Ward a climate scientist. The bias otherwise was so blatant – the opening montage in particular – as to be laughable.
I must say I had no idea that Tol was quite so wild looking.
Interesting, too, that Ward has clearly tried to adopt an air of frowning gravitas as opposed his former style of incoherent foaming at the mouth.
C4 news did indeed show a film about Farage. That it was not anti is probably due to the film coming from Martin Durkin, originator of the Great Global Warming Scandal, also on Ch4. It sometimes seems to me the Ch4 is so keen on iconoclasm that it challenges the shibboleths even of the media left.
I think we sceptics have still to realise that we are not dealing with rational people here. I am sure that Snow and Newman like many other people in C4 and the BBC are intelligent, thoughtful, and mean well. But like most in the W1A media village, they appear to have been afflicted by a religious belief in AGW.
Given the lack of warming for 16 years (and a good chance of cooling ahead) they would be wise to acquaint themselves with some recent climate history and context, and start questioning the alarmists, like proper journalists should have from the start of this computer model generated scare.
Jon Snow has long been a believer in CAGW and you often see his biased questioning on Channel 4 news. However, it looks like his fellow "journalists" have decided to join him in his zealotry.
Modern day journalists are really pathetic and have become just mouthpieces for the green religion.
It's quite clear that C4 news, given the background of some of its presenters (only ever worked in environments with a liberal agenda), will have a liberal Leftist slant.
However, I thought the interview was relatively balanced and Ward came across as a dogmatic bureaucrat. You could see he was quite agitated in comparison to Tol who easily deflected the flak. The only thing that annoyed me was that any association with a skeptical group is a sign of corruption; this exposes the bias of the presenter with her implicit assumption that skeptics are wrong because they don't accept the mandated story by the those in authority.
The BBC, Channel 4, ITV and most newspapers are severely critical of Lord Lawson, and the GWPF. But how many of the MSM critics have bothered to look at the foundation's website? Precious few, I wager. How many are aware that the IPCC is now preaching exactly what Lawson has suggested for many years: ADAPTATION. Mat Ridley has picked this up and has written an essay on the subject, (see the GWPF site). Does this spell the end of MITIGATION? I doubt it.
We need more Andrew Neil's and Andrew Bolts eh.
Mailman
The paradox is Ward is the slimy character in a suit and Tol is the hairy eccentric in a T-shirt.
I think lapogus' comments hit the mark. The past performances of Jon Snow and the recent one from Cathy Newman are not those of rational people. They are more like aggressive victims of the climate scaremongering campaigns of the past decades. Some of their aggression is directed against the non-victims, such as Prof Tol as and when they gain some publicity. Prof Tol seems more convinced than I am of the importance of additional CO2 in the climate system, but he is wary, and indeed critical, of the facile alarmism he has come across in the IPCC. So, even he, a senior academic, a deep scholar of relevant issues, is casually abused on tv by an anchorwoman imbued with the new faith..
I would like to congratulate Richard on his integrity and fortitude in standing up to the intimidation and the campaign which is being orchestrated against him. Richard has stood head and shoulders above the miserable followers and deserves all the support he can get for himself and his family.
We should be thankful that people like Richard and those other brave souls who stick their heads above the parapet every day to preserve scientific integrity have the courage to continue to argue against the nonsense being proposed as science.
Anyone actually complained ?
- Seems to me that it your fault if nothing changes, cos you stand by and let this madness happen. (Probably prattling on about radiative forcing)
..Please someone hold hold them accountable, and add my name to your complaint.
To be fair to Newman, she said something like "you are paid by Lord Lawson" as a question, an accusation to be refuted, which Tol did pretty well. At least C4 had a bit of a debate, which some are trying to suppress, though they have gone OTT with climate change, with Jon Snow standing in flood water and asking Greenpeace to comment, and recently going to Greenland to interview the few people who want MORE ice.
The choice of background images was telling: animal cadavers, typhoon, dry water course, flood, chimney smoke etc.
Reinforced Tol's point about alarmism above data.
At least our boy knocked Cleggy off his perch!
C4 news is terrible. I always worry about Krishnan Guru-Murthy - the news is on at seven, and that must be waaay past his bedtime. I bet he has to ask specially to stay out that late.
Apr 3, 2014 at 11:12 AM | John Shade
"Prof Tol seems more convinced than I am of the importance of additional CO2 in the climate system"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.
"In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.
"In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently," Dr Donohue said. "Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.
This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results."
"While a CO2 effect on foliage response has long been speculated, until now it has been difficult to demonstrate," according to Dr Donohue"
Apr 3, 2014 at 10:30 AM | lapogus
Fantastic cartoon :)
But then we had Jon Snow standing in the rain declaring that climate change had begun
Apr 3, 2014 at 9:18 AM | Registered CommenterEuan Mearns
Reminded me of Snow standing somewhere in Wraysbury trying to get someone to say it was due to AGW when he suddenly exclaimed paraphrased. Jet Stream, never heard of it before two years ago. He seemed to be implying it appearance was another sign of AGW.
In the same interview the magician chap Paul Daniels wandered by and when asked if he was flooded responded with something like. Not a problem, happens frequently so we have added flood defences. Snow sent him on his way...
Mick.
Conspiracy or cult? I agree with lapogus and John Shade that someone like Jon Snow has been swept along by the cult-like aspects of CAGW, backed up 'official science' here and elsewhere in the English-speaking world. From my time in the Kentish Town/Hampstead area the guy seemed to have some good community values. He also wrote a very positive review of Rupert Darwall's The Age of Global Warming - though Peter Snow cast doubt on whether he'd really read it, when I joked that he was the wrong kind of Snow at Darwall's book launch in Mayfair!
Stewgreen - you are probably right, a complaint may be worth it. They did read my 2009 emails, though they did not change their worldview on AGW.
John - yes, it is indicative of how myopic the mainstream media has become that an independent academic like Tol is accused of "having an agenda" while the paid front man for the Gratham Investment Trust is given an almost free ride.
Hopefully Prof. Tol is getting accustomed to being on the 'dark side'. But with Judy Curry, he is in good company: CLIMATE quotes from former IPCC experts.
Euan,
You can't have been watching much of Channel 4 news if the 'Climate Change loving' Jon Snow has escaped your notice. I got interested in the whole AGW subject a few weeks before the Climategate email saga erupted. I remember Jon Snow referring to the emails to a South African delegate, at the Copenhagen conference, who replied that it was a hoax. Jon nodded his head and moved on.
During the recent floods, Jon was wetting his pants (excuse the pun) to get the subject of climate change into every interview. He was determined to get Paul Daniels in on the act when the Thames flooding was news. Paul had enough sense not to get drawn on the issue.
Like 'lapogus', I too was invited to the charade with Ed Milliband, after sending email complaints to C4 news. I concur with everything he says. Couldn't make it myself (lucky escape), because I was living in Ireland and had too short notice.
Does Jon genuinely believe in all this, or is he a shill? Who knows?
He is part of the Common Purpose crowd though!
Here's the transcript:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20140402_c4
It would be interesting to see the exchange of e-mails between Tol and Ward.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Is not the core reason behind the Prof's withdrawal addressed in Bob Ward's declaration (for the benefit of viewers (!)) that Prof Tol had criticized other IPCC authors who put together a 'representative' account of what the literature shows as a whole?
However, two nested caveats:
(1) Representative - of what?
The IPCC report writing process including the identity of authors and other functionaries, and the wording of the results of their not inconsiderable efforts, is subject to approval of the sponsoring governments. Long ago these governments established the IPCC and its working practices with the objective of providing a scientific basis for policies they then, without reservation, held dear. (Now, maybe doubts are creeping in?) The objective was to be achieved by detailed assessment of literature by others that peer-review had shown to be robust and sound, rather than by original research, and was to be reported in exhaustive detail and length in the organisation's reports. Monitoring processes governments then built into IPCC working practices have since ensured that these objectives have been followed.
Thus, the IPCC authors etc responsible for the report at issue knew they had to report that unrestrained climate change would have huge costs for humankind. In all the IPCC's reports, it has been but a short step from the required conclusions to ruling that any literature that could not be made to support them could not be considered robust and sound and included in any representative account of the literature. In the current report, therefore, the IPCC authors, etc, compiled an account, not of the literature as a whole as declared by Mr Bob, but of literature cherry-picked for its support of the established policies.
(2) And the cherry-picking process has been made the easier by bias in published peer-reviewed literature.
Worldwide, research into climate has been largely funded by governments with the same objective that caused them to establish the IPCC, and relatively little funding provided or work done to investigate the totality of natural processes involved in climate. Accordingly for the true investigative climate scientist the consensus of published peer-reviewed papers has been skewed or biased.
In addition, it has been reported ('Climategate') that (no doubt effective) efforts have been made to suppress authors, publishers and the like who have published or supported publication of reports that do not comply with the consensus, so further increasing its bias or skew. And it cannot be doubted that unreported pressures with the same objectives and results are widespread.
-------------------------------------------------------
For the scientist who genuinely wishes to find out how climate works and what it will do to humankind and the globe, the IPCC and its reports must be seen to be hopelessly compromised. Until I saw his picture I was surprised that the Professor, who has seemed such a person, should involve himself in their efforts in the way it seems he has.
No climate sceptic should allow it to be thought that he accepts the proposition that the IPCC seeks to find out how climate works and what it will actually do to humankind and the globe.
This was not the debate as recorded.
It's hilarious to see these people accusing Tol of having an "agenda" immediately after having run a series of scary video clips designed to alarm the audience.
It's hilarious to see these people accusing Tol of having an "agenda" immediately after having run a series of scary video clips designed to alarm the audience.
About a week ago they had a piece with Jon Snow out at a village in Greenland pushing the AGW meme. He stuck a mic in front of a little boy all wrapped up against the cold and and asked him if he had seen any evidence of climate change in his village. His priceless answer was " I don't know about climate but I'm FREEZING!!". Snow then abruptly said "Let's ask an adult" and moved on swiftly.
From my 30+ years in broadcasting, watching this, a couple of points emerge.
1. Tol was put on the defensive from the get-go he never recovered.
2. Tol was at a disadvantage because while fluent in English, it's still his second language, I could see him reaching for words.
3. Ward and Newman tag-teamed Tol, and he didn't fare well under that unfair strategy.
4. Tol's body language indicated he was very uncomfortable, never a good sign when on television while being questioned. Some viewers will also read something into the appearance differences between Ward and Tol.
5. Tol should have come on much stronger when accused of "being in bed with Lawson", strongly denouncing that claim as well as the agenda claim - he had the perfect opportunity to put Ward in the same framework with Grantham and missed it.
6. As much as I hate to say it, Tol lost in this interview.
Anybody who goes on TV who is not a regular should get some coaching first. I'm happy to help anyone in that regard in advance.