I'll keep posting links to interesting reactions on the Paul Nurse programme. I'm certainly still finding them interesting. This one is by the Science Media Centre's Fiona Fox, with the first comment coming from her colleague Bob Ward.
A group of green activists is proposing to take more direct action against those of us who disagree with them.
Our initiative, Confront the Climate Cranks, will do just that: confront the cranks on camera and accompanied by some of the children they have put in danger. We will video all of our confrontations and then quickly make them available to the public—by posting them on YouTube and sharing them with mainstream and alternative media and the social networks of our partner organizations. (In the run-up to these confrontations, we will invite the participation of the members or readers of The Nation, Grist, Kids vs Global Warming and the other partnering organizations, polling them on which cranks to target, what questions to ask and so on. Thus we hope to build momentum before arriving in Washington, as well as generate continuing attention and activism after the confrontations.)
Climate Realists is reporting a move to make a documentary about global warming from a sceptic viewpoint. Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle has expressed an interest. Good, provided the case is not overstated, which is always a risk on these occasions.
I can't see any station in the UK showing it though. Sceptic views are not generally permitted on terrestrial television, and then only filtered through an environmentalist of some sort. This is what is referred to in the trade as "balance".
As readers know, London's West End will soon be showing two different plays about climate change and these were the subject of last night's Night Waves programme on BBC Radio 3. As far as I can tell, Greenland is a propaganda piece, while The Heretic at least takes dissenters as its theme (although I daresay the heretic in question will have a change of heart at the end). I don't suppose it will be a surprise then to learn that the BBC decided to look at Greenland.
The audio is here, from about 19:15. It's quite interesting, with presenter Anne McElvoy suggesting that the play is rather unchallenging and doesn't give the dissenting voice a hearing. The response is, of course, that the science is in and...you know the rest.
There's a review of Greenland here.
Disappointing multi-author climate change play...with an interesting drama about the Copenhagen climate change summit struggling to get out from an unsatisfactory mish-mash of interwoven playlets and sketches. Marred by some baffling directorial decisions.
Another review here. The comments below are good too. Here's some excerpts.
Patronising, preach-y, outdated (things have changed since 2009), over-long etc.
The worst show I have ever had the misfortune to attend. I walked out after half an hour.
This was pretentious, outdated crap of the highest order, which does a disservice to public understanding of climate change.
Great quote snaffled from Pielke Snr's site, an excerpt from EOS, the house magazine of the American Geophysical Union.
Perkowitz [the Moderator of the AGU session and author of the book Hollywood Science] related that the 2004 science fiction film about global warming, The Day After Tomorrow, which has grossed nearly $550 million, got many facts correct but sped up the tempo so changes occurred in weeks rather than decades. He said some scientists and others “were deeply offended that the movie took that degree of liberty. Yet the movie made people more aware of the importance of at least knowing about global warming and thinking that it might be an issue."
In a quick survey of the Fall [AGU] Meeting audience, Perkowitz estimated that about half were offended by the liberties the movie took and half indicated that it is okay to stretch the truth in a movie to raise public awareness about an issue.
A propos of the post about the use of the word "denier", I was pondering the problems we have with referring to the different attitudes to global warming in the debate. Names like sceptic, warmist, denier are all bickered over endlessly.
Perhaps each of us should adopt a number, being the amount of warming we expect to see over the period 2000-2100. It would be more precise and less prone to use in a derogatory fashion.
It's an idea anyway.
What number are you?
Werner Krauss on reconciliation in the climate wars
It is hard to imagine how justice will ever be done to those hurt and overrun by those who are in charge of the IPCC process.
(Quote edited to correct English slightly)
Anthony Watts has an interesting piece describing his own encounter with the team that made last night's Meet the Sceptics programme.
I was interviewed (captured really, they flagged me down in the conference hall foyer with no notice) by this production group at the Heartland conference last year in Chicago, giving well over an hour’s worth of an interview in which they asked the same question several times in different ways, hoping to get the answer they wanted. This is an old news interviewing trick to get that golden sound bite. I knew what they were doing, and kept giving the answers my way.
Doug Keenan in the comments to the last thread on the Monckton programme says he was interviewed too, but they never used the footage.
In the climate debate it can be hard to tell the two apart. Over recent days, I've been having some very interesting conversations with Matt Flaherty -- someone who is largely convinced of mainstream climate science. I've been suitably impressed by his open-mindedness. I don't think, however, that I've persuaded him of anything more than that there is a case to answer, but a space for debate has been opened.
This comment just appeared on the Met Office thread, courtesy of Thinking Scientist. It's too good not to have a post of its own:
I looked at the documents Katabasis got from the FOI of the MET office. The predictions from the Met are even poorer quality than appears at first glance because their categories for mild average and cold overlap!
Mild -0.1 to +1.3 Probability 30%
Average -0.5 to +0.6 Probability 30%
Cold -1.5 to +0.4 Probability 40%
That also means their probabilities make no sense, and gives them a double dip, or even a triple dip! If the actual anomaly was, say, 0.0 then it would be in all three categories. Brilliant! Everyone's a winner...
Can anyone think of a rational explanation?
I was thinking about all the brouhaha about James Delingpole's "interpreter of interpreters" comment, and I'm not sure I get all the fuss. I mean, James writes opinion pieces, not pop-science. I'm not sure I'm at all convinced by the idea that all columnists who write about science read the primary literature. Is that really true? Does George Monbiot?
And anyway, hasn't the AGU just set up a rapid rebuttal unit, so that all the environmental journalists know the "line to take"? What are these green journalists if not "interpreters of interpreters"?
(And please can we maintain a bit of decorum in the comments to this one. Thanks)