Bishop Hill Our consensus
The Register has a fascinating story regarding a complaint to the BBC about its coverage of a scientific issue. Could We Survive A Mega Tsunami? was:
dramatised the effects of a giant ocean wave ("starting at one kilometre high"), far greater than the tsunamis created by earthquakes, and illustrated by (in the BBC's own words) "Hollywood-style graphics". The film showed havoc being unleashed upon European and North American seaboards.
Unfortunately, the mega tsunami theory appears to be viewed as comical among geophysicists, and has apparently been comprehensively debunked in the scientific literature. This, you might have thought, would therefore be an open and shut case, since the BBC has repeatedly said that they must follow the scientific consensus. A backdown and apology is surely in order?
Not a bit of it:
The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards unit interpreted the complaint in an unusual way. [The complainant], the Trust decided, was not challenging the presentation of the weight of evidence, but challenging the authority of the people making the argument.
It thus rejected the complaint on credentialist grounds: the academic promoting the Mega Tsunami theory "is a recognised expert in the field". The film makers had included sufficient hedging material to pass a narrow reading of the accuracy tests, even though it had failed to reflect the geophysical academic consensus.
You really have to read the whole thing. The takeaway message is that non-consensus views are welcome at the BBC so long as they are crazy and millenarian or green-tinged. If they are sensible or measured or have anything to do with science they have no place on the corporation's output.
Reader Comments (42)
The best part was the idea that "some scientists believe" is enough to tell the viewer that "some scientists are crackpots... and here they are".
As always the BBC Trust is not fit for purpose.
Unless its purpose is to destroy the justification for the controversial BBC and thus prepare the way for its abolition.
Its OK to publish scary stories in order to support the narrative of moving forward. The Precautionary Principle says that scary stories are important, and consensus only becomes an issue when it supports moving forward with the narrative.
Don't you understand? Are you an idiot?
/sarc
FYI, I just read a fascinating description of the work of the famous French deconstructionist philosopher Jacques Derrida, who is renowned for being obscure. A great deal of post-modern philosophy is based on his "work". The description comes from an interview with another post-modernist philosopher (John Searle):
----------------------
Searle: With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he's so obscure. Every time you say, "He says so and so," he always says, "You misunderstood me." But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that's not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, "What the hell do you mean by that?"
And he said, "He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part." And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes."
------------
So, you need to understand that what the BBC is doing is a bit of"obscurantisme terroriste", to get you to just obey - if you don't get it, then you are too stupid, and should just shut up. And anyway, scientific logic is so privileged and oppressive that it needs to be eliminated, as well.
If I was frightened by the possibility of a meteorite wiping out London, I could launch a campaign to identify a possible meteorite, and possible means to avoid a possible collision. I would be laughed at, and would lose money.
People wanting to make money out of fears about "killer waves", must look at climate alarmists, as financial whizzkids. The UNIPCC can look to Hollywood 40 years ago, to learn, how to earn from fear.
A man eating shark, could be launched in land, from a giant wave, to put out a towerblock fire, caused by an earthquake, and drown the mad guy in an ice hockey mask, killing people in a Texas chainstore.
Nah, never work, would it.
When I was a kid we'd have radio 4 on almost constantly. 10 years ago I was the same. I'd wake up to today and listen to world at one. Then my wife would listen to the Archers in the evening.
Now I can't remember when I last listened to BBC at lunchtime, if I ever turn on Radio 4 in the morning it's always sport or thought for the day so it quickly goes off.
All the children watch is Big Bang theory, "how I met your mother" and Top Gear (on Dave).
We are certainly not getting our money's worth with the license fee.
Bish you are too kind. Consensus does not matter. The only views that are welcome at the BBC so long as they are crazy and millenarian or green-tinged. To hell with science.
The TV License has become money paid by millions in order to get non-sexual porn broadcasted to their homes.
MikeHaseler: R4, Today and WATO: You and me, both. I gave up on them. I listen to the headlines then switch to Classic FM - which gets me back to sleep!
Not far off-topic, but Channel 4 (in the UK) is fielding hundreds of complaints about a program it's just broadcast smearing the UKIP party. In the run-up to an election, it thought it was a good idea to do a docu-drama depicting a UKIP win, followed by race riots and the collapse of the British economy due to UKIP policies.
I note that the web started buzzing as soon as the program went out - but the BBC ignored the issue and tried not to report it until it was practically forced to by the weight of opinion...
My new documentary series "Pressing questions." I've already storyboarded 4 episodes.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Could we survive being pooed on by flying pigs?
All the oxygen in the atmosphere decide to migrate to the poles?
Everyone in China jumped in the air at once?
Actually this is pretty well harmless until the UN set up the UN Made Up Mega Disaster Committee to influence governments to sponsor national Cnuts to hold back tides.
Next week on the BBC: Erich Von Daniken: Misunderstood genius.
It wouldn't surprise me anymore.
If anyone from the BBC science dept is reading this (through a Google alert), You've become a joke. You think you're the gold standard, but you're a laughing stock.
It should be noted that most commenters here are men.
But BBC programmes are not aimed at men (the survivors of Top Gear, x* and MOTD aside).
It specialises in cookery, crafts, gardening, choirs - middle class women's hobbies.
And soaps, of course.
* Insert third male-targeted BBC show here when you think of one.
MCourtney, have men and women in New England been equally surprised by the evidence of global warming they have been experiencing. In households, are women more likely than men to favour buying a snowblower?
Channel 4 inhabits same mind-set as BBC, witness UKIP smear documentary as mentioned above. Ukippers depicted as gross racist morons (though under every other set of circs 'working class' are salt of earth etc etc), never occurs to bien pensant prats to engage with their arguments (yes proles can argue, even have feelings too, some of them) and ask whether its a good thing to give away our country to anyone who fancies a bit of it.
GC
"killing people in a Texas chainstore"
The Texas chainstore massacre, perhaps...
"BBC programmes are not aimed at men"
Because the predominantly male management at the BBC does not watch TV, unless it's home early enough to catch Newsnight (when it can lust quietly after Kirsty or Emily).
Ofcom have noted that 700-odd complaints re the UKIP documentary all appeared to complain about the same thing, viz: "unfair portrayal of UKIP ahead of the election period" - which kind-of smells of a co-ordinated whinge from UKIP members.
Jamesp blahtissedtick liesense?
steveta, 5:44: Not to mention that they apparently received around 400 of these complaints before the programme was actually aired. It seems that a lot of kippers are suffering from premature objection.
At least the technology's new.
Just listened to PM where we were treated to half an hour devoted to two self-centred people pratting on about their experiences with cannabis.
All this while civil war rages in Ukraine; the Greeks are threatening to bring down the Euro; and various islamic terrorists at home and abroad seem intent on beheading as many unbelievers as they can get their hands on.
Wonderful sense of priorities, not!
" ... views are welcome at the BBC so long as they are crazy and millenarian or green-tinged ... "
How very true. The BBC is a propaganda arm of the left-wing. I just hope most people understand that.
~ Mark
Salopian: Actually it was 19, not 400; so would you be exaggerating just a teeny bit ..... or perhaps more than just teeny?
As the programme was in fact fundamentally "unfair portrayal of UKIP ahead of the election period" it's hardly surprising that that is what everybody complained about.
Quite incredible that such a programme could be broadcast at any time let alone in the run up to an election - a crazy fantasy presented as a likely scenario.
“It should be noted that most commenters here are men …”.
MCourtney’s comment above concerning the feminisation of the BBC is aptly demonstrated by the Samantha inquiry (linked in The Register article), the ridiculousness of which went over the Trust’s head Humph-style.
steveta_uk wrote:
"Ofcom have noted that 700-odd complaints re the UKIP documentary all appeared to complain about the same thing, viz: "unfair portrayal of UKIP ahead of the election period" - which kind-of smells of a co-ordinated whinge from UKIP members."
I'm not sure, there seems to be pretty widespread condemnation....
http://order-order.com/2015/02/17/everyone-flips-out-at-c4s-100daysofukip/
Your link goes to page 4 of the story, which is a bit confusing.
I saw the programme on a recent visit to this septic isle, and it was very boring. There was an image of a tsunami wave approaching which was repeated about forty times to illustrate what a tsunami wave approaching looked like. It was very very boring. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it was very very very very very boring. There was also a computer simulation of the wave spreading out over the Atlantic into the Caribbean and the Channel, with red blue and orange bits, which seemed to be about fifteen seconds long, but which was chopped into about twenty five-second slices interspersed with images of places underwater. The main message seemed to be that Brighton is doomed, so I took it to be a party political broadcast for the Green Party.
I also caught another BBC science report, about exo-planets. The journalist started by announcing that scientists had discovered that alien life might be more advanced than we thought. Since I didn't know there was any, I pricked up my ears. As with the tsunami programme, much was made of the fact that the scientists who had made this discovery were British. Then he told us how by analysing variations in the signals coming from a distant star, they were able to determine the number, size and age of the planets circling it. Since the planets had apparently been formed two billion years earlier than ours, it therefore followed that any civilisation on them could be two billion years in advance of ours.
What a shame that the term “Age of Stupid” has already been copyrighted.
It's strange but I can't remember the Tory Party and their supporters, getting so agitated by the BBC series 'House of Cards', or the Labour Party and their supporters, getting so agitated by the BBC series 'Friends in the North'; as UKIP and their supporters are about a one-off C4 programme. Too close to the bone, perhaps?
I had some American visitors earlier in the year. I was so embarrassed. I know American TV is crap, but at least its not pretentious crap.
I also think we need a BBC Trust Trust to stop the BBC Trust working for the enemy. I volunteer.
Jeez Louise. I yearn for the days when the controversial BBC only screened The Poseidon Adventure during the Christmas holidays.
steveta
"a co-ordinated whinge from UKIP members"
That doesn't sound too unreasonable, in the circs - who were you expecting?
Does the "expert" in the field of mega-tsunamis happen to have a name that sounds like "Bill McGuire"? Somebody of that name has been peddling this kind of nonsense, ad nauseam, for years. He has featured on Channel 4 and at least twice on BBC2.
which kind-of smells of a co-ordinated whinge from UKIP members.steveta_uk
C4 do a poor program attacking a political party, supporters of that party complain , so just like a 101 other programs where a group complain because they consider they been unfairly treated on TV. Therefore no need for any 'conspricy ' and you can save yourself the cost of a tinfoil hat.
Meanwhile its unlikely that C4 did anything wrong , other than produce a rubbish program , so nothing will happen , now all you got to do is decide if that is a sign of a 'conspricy' or not .
Just like Putin's respect for peace treaties, the Greenblobs respect for science is just a tool that they use to tie down their opponents, whilst they do what the hell they want.
BBC-Eco-warriors-section winners of the Vladimir Putin award for integrity in programme making.
"Could We Survive a Mega-Tsunami of BBC Eco-warrior BS ?"
Oh my God....How to I ease the terror I'm experiencing right now?
Is there anything/one I can trust to make it all better again?
Bugger......how DO .....?....
@Salopian
Yes you are right and some of the outcry is over the top.
However, and I say this as a someone with a dim view of UKIP, this was:
1. explicitly billed as "docudrama" ostensibly claiming to be a "realistic" scenario of what could happen;
2. intermingled fictional with real life footage;
2. commissioned and screened months before a general election
A major error in editorial judgement in my opinion.
The main message seemed to be that Brighton is doomed, so I took it to be a party political broadcast for the Green Party.
(geoffchambers)
Brighton City Council is run by the Green Party. They have made a right monumental cockup.
I like this important BBC effort. A kilometer high tsunami is no less credible than the idea that the world's climate is experiencing a dangerous catastrophic disruption now or in the future due to CO2 generated by human activities.
But a one kilometre high tsunami is so cool!
"The director of a controversial spoof documentary on Nigel Farage and UKIP will be appearing in Southwark Crown Court on Friday [Feb 20th] of this week, charged with cheating the public revenue.
Chris Atkins, a journalist and film-maker who gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, is accused of perpetrating a £2.5 million tax fraud plot along with twelve others. The Crown Prosecution Service say he was involved in a complex five-year scam to cheat the taxman, including seven investment bankers, the Ham and High reported at the time."
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/16/exclusive-director-of-ukip-smear-mockumentary-in-court-for-tax-fraud
There are also reports of 100 days under a UKIP Government being produced by RAW TV which is funded by the EU's funding programme "Creative Europe". So it's not only the BBC being funded by the EU. Where does the EU get its money? It's not from Greece.
The irony is that there are several candidates within the EU that could be the location for a similarly negative documentary, and it wouldn't be fiction.
I am afraid your assumption is incorrect. Edifice failure in the Canary Islands has been a fact of Atlantic history many times and modeled tsunami heights start at over 1km and hit the east coast of USA at 100m. Evidence from easr coast geology conform very high tsunami damage miules inland. So perhaps the BBC was correct.
Suggest looking up the mega-tsunamis caused some 9 - 7,000 years-before-present (YBP) by so-called "Storegga Slides" off western Norway, when rising post-glacial landmasses precipitated gigantic slumps in miles-high North Atlantic continental shelves.
About BC 5200, one such slide generated a "great wave" compressed to astounding heights as it swept south down the English Channel, washed West-to-East across the Mediterranean, then up Bosporus and Marmara to inundate the mile-deep Euxine Basin in no more than Noah/Utnapistim's canonical forty days.
Rousted from their edenic "Old Atlantis", not sunk but flooded, proto Indo-European peoples dispersed from Gibralter to India's Gangetic Plain, from Nilotic Cyene (Aswan) to Baltic/Scandian regions and far-west Brython. The consequent uniformity of archetypal Indo-European myth-and-legend remains severely under-appreciated to this day.