BBC World Service

I will be on the BBC World Service at 14:05 today. The internet link is here.

I was rather nervous, and I don't think I came over very well, but I managed to get a couple of key messages over:

• they've missed the point of the Nature trick
• they should have interviewed McIntyre.

Update on Mar 31, 2010 by Bishop Hill

That was better than I thought. I think they cut out a bit where I burbled, and I didn't sound as angry as I worried I might.

Graun still deleting comments

Not a comprehensive survey, but of the first 50 comments on Pachauri's article in the Guardian, 18 were deleted.

Criticism is forbidden.

Simon Lewis and the PCC

The Guardian reports that Dr Simon Lewis, an expert in tropical rain forests from the University of Leeds, has made a formal complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Jonathan Leake's Amazongate article in the Sunday Times.

Leake's article said that the IPCC had reported that 40% of the Amazonian rainforest was very sensitive to changes in rainfall and might therefore be wiped out by global warming. Leake observed that this claim was based on a WWF report that cited in turn a Nature paper that had nothing to do with rainfall.

Click to read more ...

THES article

I have an article about Climategate in the Times Higher Educational Supplement. See here.

James Delingpole on the Economist

James Delingpole takes a swipe at the Economist's coverage of global warming, saying some nice things about the Hockey Stick Illusion in passing.

Thanks James!

Chris Rapley goes all fair and balanced

Chris Rapley used to be the director of the British Antarctic Survey, a position he used to great effect as part of the campaign to scare us all into believing in global warming.

He now runs the Science Museum in London and seems to have altered his views somewhat:

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

What is more, he has come over all reticent about his own views on global warming, refusing to offer an opinion one way or the other.

The times they are a-changing.

Small world

I'm grateful to reader, Cumbrian Lad, who has pointed out something rather interesting. 

The seminar mentioned in the previous post is being organised by the Science Media Centre, an organisation we have met before, since they also organised the "what shall we do about the sceptics" meeting reported here the other day.

Click to read more ...

Climate science in the media

If anyone is going to a seminar called Climate Science in the Media I'd be interested to have a report on the proceedings. Details of the meeting, which are shown below, were apparently distributed by email only:

Click to read more ...

PR tactics

Keith Kloor's article at Nature Climate Feedback looks at the PR tactics that the warmist side of the debate might adopt. Should it be an offensive against the sceptics or something else.

I can't help but think that this is missing the point rather.

Economist on global warming

The Economist adds its considerable voice to the throng of those calling on the public to "move along" because there's nothing to see here. It seems that action is required on global warming not because we are certain of the science but because we are not.

Huh?

There's an editorial here and a briefing here, the latter covering the Hockey Stick story and making all the usual claims about the NAS panel.

Change of tone at Nature

Nature has returned to the subject of climatology for its latest editorial and I'm pleased to say that they have made a welcome rediscovery of their former considered tone, with not a mention of the word "denier" to be seen.

In fact they are positively critical of the noisier sections of the media, particularly the new media, and their perceived lack of good manners and good science:

Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.

This sentence might have been the cue for some cheap retaliatory shots at Nature, but I shall resist.

Update on Mar 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Readers point out that the word "denier" is actually in the first sentence. That will teach me to post things after the 10pm watershed.

Channel Four on Boulton's CV

Nick Scott-Plummer updates the story of Geoffrey Boulton's CV over at the Channel Four website. You may remember that Steve McIntyre found a copy of the CV from 2007 that referred to Boulton being on the IPCC. Boulton has now sent a contemporaneous copy of his CV to Channel Four, pointing out that this version doesn't include the line about the IPCC. Nick continues:

Asked whether he was implying dirty tricks we received another email: "Professor Boulton has no CV with that line on it, because there is no reason for it", adding: "people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now".

There's also some pertinent comments about how the blogs are making the running on these stories, digging up small details in a very short space of time. And in fact, commenter Turning Tide, has already pointed out that the last edit date for the new version of Boulton's CV is actually July 2008, so this is perhaps not the vindication that was originally thought.

How to report climate change after Climategate?

These are notes taken from a discussion meeting at Oxford University on 26^th February 2010 and sent to me by reader, Simon Anthony. I think they are extremely interesting.

Question and answer format featuring environmental correspondents Richard Black (BBC), Fiona Harvey (FT), David Adam (Guardian) and Ben Jackson (Sun) and chaired by Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre.

(Abbreviations: CG = Climategate; CC = Climate change; CH = Copenhagen meeting)

FF: Has the press done a disservice to the public in reporting CG?  Has media a responsibility to make the public “think the right way”?

Click to read more ...

Leo Hickman on anonymity

The Guardian's Leo Hickman has added his thoughts to my earlier piece commenting on his call for climate bloggers to lose their anonymity. This, he believes, will create trust in what they are saying. Many readers have responded with thoughtful contributions, and in particular I'd echo Lucia's point about the nature of the problem being one of the public not trusting the scientists rather than the other way round, as Leo seems to think. Turning Tide also points out that anonymity of commenters does encourage readers to assess comments on the arguments made rather than any spurious authority of the writer.

Click to read more ...

Environment correspondents

David Henderson's interview on Newsnight Scotland was rather good, I thought. Henderson came over rather well, and in my opinion he's a better frontman for the GWPF than Nigel Lawson, with none of the political baggage with which the former chancellor is encumbered, while also being possessed of oodles of gravitas.

Henderson's opponent was Rob Edwards, the environment editor of the Glasgow Herald.

Click to read more ...