What a night..

Well that was exciting wasn't it? I rolled in from the local hostelry at 11pm to find a message waiting for me from BBC News and the most extraordinary pair of articles about Phil Jones on the BBC website.

The BBC were pushing this story, which seems to have been some colleagues telling tales about the state of Jones' office, the spin being that Jones' untidiness is the reason he can't lay his hand on his data. This doesn't really ring true to me. In the emails, Jones was telling his Hockey Team colleagues that he was going to refuse to release the data, not that he couldn't lay his hands on it. If he really couldn't lay his hands on it, you would have expected him to start trying to collate the data anew, wouldn't you? And anyway, what was it that he sent to Peter Webster at Georgia Tech? I'm profoundly uncomfortable about this story.

Far more interesting is this Q&A between Harrabin and Jones, in which Jones announces that the existence of the Medieval Warm Period is still a matter for debate, a step that for most people would be enough to win them the "denier" label. He says only that "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity". Most of us thought that the science was "settled".

The whole thing is a must-read, but it's also worth standing back and marvelling at Professor Jones' ability to express uncertainty in a manner that will be readily comprehensible to the layman. This is something that we have been told many times is very difficult to do. Perhaps we are getting somewhere now.

On being a country boy

One of the problems with living in the country, with its early-to-bed, early-to-rise ways is that you're not geared to the daily cycle of TV news.

Someone from the BBC emailed a couple of times last night asking for a reaction to the Campbell resignation, but unfortunately your humble blogger was already fast asleep. I dare say they managed OK without me. And fame can wait.

The Richard and Roger show

Richard North and Roger Harrabin go head to head on the subject of Climategate on the Gaby Logan show on BBC Radio. Richard isn't very gentle.

Audio starts from about ten minutes.

Newsnight turns

BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, had climate change as its headline news tonight, with an interesting piece about a largely unnamed group of scientists meeting in the UK to discuss what to do with climate science, an interview with Doug Keenan, and a television debate between Chris Field, head of IPCC WGII, and Roger Pielke Jnr.

Good stuff, but probably not viewable outside the UK.

Update on Feb 3, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Roger's take on the head to head with Field is here.

Blimey

Does this explain why the BBC are so vehemently alarmist over global warming? Because their pension funds are invested in green companies?

This could get ugly.

Update on Feb 1, 2010 by Bishop Hill

On second thoughts, if the BBC pension fund is defined-benefit, why should they give a damn what they are invested in. We the taxpayers pick up the tab regardless.

BBC impartiality

The BBC's flagship Today programme featured an environmentalist presenter, John Humphrys, interviewing an environmentalist, Tony Juniper and an activist environmental scientist, Mike Hulme.

Nobody to put the sceptic point of view.

Again.

Andrew Neil on gates

Andrew Neil is emerging as the voice of scepticism within the BBC. Twenty years or more after the global warming debate began, it's certainly nice to see one's opinions finally recognised as legitimate. He hits hard at the IPCC and has some nice words for the blogosphere too.

The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops -- and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.

A BBC approach to NASA

Here's the fair and balanced BBC approaching NASA for an interview, in another email from the NASA collection.

From: James Morgan-GW
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:00:21 +0100
To: Leslie.M.McCarthy
Subject: BBC TV series

Dear Lesley,

I am a researcher from the BBC, in the UK. I am developing a landmark television series, looking at the effects of artificial chemicals (all things toxic!) on our environment on a global scale. It will be the ultimate global health check - an update on where we stand now, 45 years since Rachel Carson wrote her influential and controversial book Silent Spring. Using similar headings as Carson for the chapters in her book, the six episodes will be as follows:

Planet
Oceans (and Rivers)
Humans
Insects, Soils and Funghi
Animals, Birds & Fish
Our Green Mantle (trees, plants etc)

Regarding the first episode, "Planet", I am keen to speak to NASA scientists who are using satellites to measure atmospheric pollution from space. Your colleague Rob, in the Goddard media relations office, has recommended four scientists, who you may be able to put me in touch with:

James Hansen
Drew Schindel
Gavin Schmidt
Reto Reudy

I am keen to get a clear and informed idea of how the Earth has changed in the past four decades, how NASA is measuring these changes, and how we could illustrate these changes in a TV programme in the future. Also, I would like to know about any new and positive developments where chemicals which have been a problem in the atmosphere have been remedied by new and advanced methods?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

James

Can anyone tell the difference between James and a green campaigner?

BBC to review climate coverage - so what?

According to the Daily Mail, the BBC Trust is to review the corporation's coverage of, among other issues, climate change.

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

This is, frankly, a sideshow. Complaints about the BBC's handling of climate change have been brushed aside by the BBC Trust time after time. They are simply going through the motions in order to fend off complaints. No heads will roll, no changes will be made. Richard Black will continue to shut down his blog comments whenever there is a sceptic story in the air.

The only possible resolution to this problem is to close the BBC down.

Sonia B-C on Marr

Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen, one of the most doughty fighters against the global warming movement, has written a complaint about Andrew Marr's performance in a programme on global warming broadcast on BBC radio the other day.

There are some fascinating snippets of which I would love to know the details. For example:

• the BBC having a financial interest in the advancement of the global warming agenda
• ditto the Royal Society
• the IPCC is not allowed to assess the "for and against" of global warming since it is signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which states that global warming is real and dangerous

Read the whole thing.

The Report

So my encounter with the BBC is over and they're off to St Andrews for their next interview. There was only one hiccup: I got a nasty shock when the interviewer, Simon Cox, said they wanted to interview me in front of my PC - the office looks like a bomb hit it. I would try to convince you that this is not normal, but that would be a gratuitous lie. Simon and Wesley, the researcher, were very nice though and didn't bat an eyelid.

L-R: Wesley (researcher), Simon, Bishop

The whole thing was very relaxed and I surprised myself by not being particularly nervous. Simon has a rather laconic manner, which suddenly disappears when he slips into super-interested-interviewer mode, and I was slightly taken aback the first time it happened, but after that I found myself waffling away quite happily. Simon clearly knew his stuff, having spent the whole weekend reading the emails - all of them he said - and he also covered the NAS hearings in 2006, so he had spoken to many of the key players before. He seems convinced that there is a story to tell. Interestingly he had also taken in my less-than-complimentary views on the BBC, but seemed completely unconcerned by them.

They're going to talk to McIntyre and Mann as well, so I think there's a fair range of views in there. They were quite interested in my visitor numbers and where people were coming from, so I think there may be a media angle to the story as well.

All in all, I enjoyed it. I just wish I could have tidied (and preferably redecorated) the office first.

Campaigning journalism

So George Alagaih, BBC newsreader, is told by the corporation to stop acting as head of the Fairtrade Foundation, a body that campaigns against free trade and against agricultural development. This is apparently because a series "about food that he will present on BBC Two could provoke doubts about his impartiality".

This presumably refers to the Future of Food programme which went out last night - Douglas Carswell has a brief review here.

Does it strike anyone else that the BBC have got this the wrong way round? Allowing BBC journalists to make programmes about issues on which they are active campaigners would indeed lead to biased programming. But merely demanding that they leave their official posts in those campaigns doesn't change a thing. We now know that George Alagiah is an active campaigner for Fairtrade. Ergo his programme on the subject is still biased, whether he has left his position as patron or not.

It should not be broadcast.

Another BBC 'mistake'

I was just listening to the BBC coverage of the Norwich by-election on Radio 4. The reporter was talking about Labour holding on to second place, "ahead of the LibDems and the Greens".

The problem with this is that UKIP were in fourth place, 600 votes ahead of the Greens.

Can't mention UKIP on primetime, can we?

Update on Jul 24, 2009 by Bishop Hill

I notice that UKIP are complaining that the BBC froze them out in favour of the Greens during the run up to the election too. There's a clear pattern emerging isn't there?

Update on Jul 25, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Daniel Hannan has noticed this too and is calling for people to join the boycott of the licence fee.

How do the BBC moderate their blog comments?

A week or two back, I wondered if my comments to a BBC comments thread had been censored, as my reply sat in a moderation queue for four days, while the argument raged on without my contribution. Eventually my comment was released, with its link to a file of correspondence relating to the CRU's withholding of climate data deleted. According to the email from the moderators, this was because I had linked to a PDF file, something that is apparently against site rules.

I thought at the time that this was odd, since another commenter had posted a PDF link shortly after mine. This other PDF was posted by someone on the warming side of the argument.

Now one of the other commenters on the thread has got in touch to say that he had pointed out to the moderators the doctoring of a quote by another commenter, saying that this ought not to be tolerated. For anyone who followed the thread, this doctoring was done by the same commenter whose principal line of argument seemed to be to accuse everyone else of lying. And also the same one who managed to post a PDF unmolested by the moderators.

The moderators felt that doctoring quotes was OK.

So, according to BBC moderators, it appears that accusing other commenters of lying is acceptable. Doctoring quotes is acceptable. And posting PDFs is acceptable so long as you adhere to socially acceptable norms on the subject of global warming.

It's probably something to do with the unique way they are funded.

Barefaced cheek

There's some moderately good news on the BBC front - the corporation looks as though it will lose some of the licence fee, which will be used to prop up ailing commercial broadcasters. OK, so propping up businesses with obsolete business models is not a good thing of itself, but removing the licence fee is a top priority for restoring a modicum of sanity to public debate in this country.

The reaction of the BBC is an outrage though - Sir Michael Lyons is quoted as saying

People would do well to remember that licence fee payers give us their money in good faith, believing it will be spent on BBC services and content. "To suddenly tell them midway through the settlement that their money is being siphoned off, as some have suggested it should be, would be more than an act of bad faith, it would be tantamount to breaking a contract.

What a travesty that statement is. A contract is freely entered into by both sides. The licence fee isn't. Whichever way you look at it, Sir Michael is living mafia-style off the fruits of an elaborate protection racket. He is a party apparatchik who has reached the position he is in because he is a Labour party loyalist.

We can do without his pious cant about bad faith and breach of contract.