BBC review "proceeding with vigour"

I emailed Professor Steve Jones, who is heading the BBC review of science coverage. Prof Jones has said that the rumour of its cancellation is incorrect and I've now had this confirmed by a third party who has discussed the issue with the BBC direct. Apparently the review is "proceeding with vigour".

But without any input from critics of the BBC's science coverage.

This is probably a good point to bring in this transcript of a meeting of top journalists back in 2005. I chanced upon this while looking for something else. These top truthseekers were discussing how to deal with coverage of global warming and I certainly found it fascinating to see Jon Snow cheerleading for the AGW cause and a man from Greenpeace on hand to make sure that everyone is getting the correct message.

Is it any wonder that the mainstream media is on the wane?

Rees transcript

The transcript of Martin Rees' recent evidence session at the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is now available. The relevant excerpt for readers here is as follows:

Click to read more ...

Thoughtful comment in the Atlantic

From the comments on Clive Crook's Atlantic piece:

Clive Crook.

You deserve to die and your children need to be taken out of the gene pool...

http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/04/atlantic-...)

You are so incredibly fucking retarded you rival even McMegan. It's ridiculous how a child-raping mongrel like yourself can be hired by the same magazine that employs Andrew Sullivan. I should flay you and your wife and have you trade skins, you absolute waste of all human components.

"Had Crook actually read the link he provides, he would know that since it clearly states that after thoroughly reviewing all of the relevant material, “The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation of this allegation was not warranted,” for each of the first three allegations.

I have no idea where Crook came up with the phrase he puts in quotes “lack of credible evidence” — if anyone can find the source for that exact word-for-word quote, please let me know. Note: The original report (which Crook seems unaware of) uses the phrase “there exists no credible evidence” a number of times, but that is not the same as what Crook wrote.

To assert that Penn State “will not even investigate” three of the four charges and imply that they dismiss them out of hand without thorough examination is, I think, libel."

You can't even read, you useless little academic. Tell me again, why do you think you deserve to live when you continue to embarrass everything connected with yourself?

Nice.

More Russell review evidence

The CCE review has just posted up a letter responding to an inquiry from Graham Stringer as to how the panel dealt with the recommendations of the Science and Technology Select Committee. I don't recall having seen Stringer's original letter. Anyone know if it is there?

Bunfight at the Wiki corral

The bunfight over the Wiki page for The Hockey Stick Illusion continues apace, with the whole article now locked down. One of the bones of contention is whether the NWT review that I posted about is allowable, with one participant arguing that the review (which was by NWT's editor) was "a comment to promote a product in a webshop".

The idea that the magazine's editor should be writing sales copy for a webshop is rather extraordinary, so I queried this with Marcel Crok, who ascertained that the review had appeared in the magazine proper...

...and in a sister publication called De Ingenieur....

One word for readers here - I suggest you don't get involved in the bunfight. Leave it to those who have been dealing with the issue already. We don't want to fall foul of Wiki's proscriptions against canvassing.

Crook feels the hairdryer

Clive Crook is on the receiving end of a typically mild and philosophical discourse from Joe Romm, entitled "Atlantic Shocker". Crook isn't impressed.

[T]he evident fondness of climate-change activists for delegitimizing dissent and spinning the facts to make them more "understandable" is simply not working. Cap and trade just died for lack of public support. I think climate-change activists are partly to blame, as I argue in this recent FT column. They are harming their own cause.

Romm exemplifies the tendency to the point of caricature. He delights in splenetic hyperventilation. This is his brand, so to speak. It goes down well with the faithful -- but persuading the faithful is not the challenge. He needs to convince the unconvinced. Operatic ranting is not, I would submit, likely to succeed.

Incidentally, Romm says that a proper journalist would have noted that the emails do not contain the phrase "trick to hide the decline". Oh dear, well, yes, I suppose it doesn't. Here is the exact quote:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps  to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

But so what?

UEA on the New Scientist editorial

A few days back I linked to a New Scientist editorial on the Russell review, noting that it was surprisingly critical of CRU. (It's behind a paywall now, so you will have to take my word for it.) I noticed the other day that UEA have issued a rebuttal of sorts, which is, frankly, weird.

The editorial pointed out, quite correctly, that neither Oxburgh or Russell had looked at the science:

After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared "the science was not the subject of our study". Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell's 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study "was not about... the content or quality of [CRU's] scientific work"

So this doesn't appear to be something that can reasonably be debated, I'm sure you would agree. Not so the University of East Anglia, whose response begins thus:

It is depressing that the New Scientist follows parts of the blogosphere, and some other sections of the press, in asserting that of the three independent investigations into Climategate "none looked into the quality of the science itself".... Our hope was that New Scientist would have a more informed understanding of the method of science research.

There follows a bizarre argument that a search for blatant dishonesty is the same thing as an assessment of quality. It then gets even stranger, with UEA first noting Oxburgh's statement that 'he Panel was not concerned with the questions of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct', and then, with a rhetorical flourish, asking 'New Scientist, when do science conclusions become “correct”? as if they were quoting from the editorial rather than the report they had commissioned. The editorial didn't discuss the question of the science being correct at all.

Quite the strangest document.

Pielke Jnr on the Climate Fix

RP Jnr's talk on climate policy is well worth a look, if nothing else for the perspective it gives on UK energy policy. One can't help but be mightily embarrassed by the 'solutions' put in place by our political leaders and mightily concerned that our energy policy is now being dictated by 'Howlin mad' Huhne.

JG-C on code availability

John Graham-Cumming argues for the availability of scientific code.

Judy C at C-a-S

Keith Kloor is interviewing Judy Curry at Collide-a-Scape about her recent treatment by the hordes at RealClimate and Climate Progress. She shows little sign of being bloodied, let alone bowed by the brickbats flung her way.

...the level of vitriol in the climate blogs reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise.

Feels that way to me too.

BBC review cancelled?

Tony at Harmless Sky has discovered that the BBC's much-vaunted review of climate science may have been cancelled. He hints at a reason why, which will be of much interest to those who have followed the Climategate inquiries and their determination to avoid hearing from informed sceptics. It 's only a rumour at the moment, but one hopes that the BBC will confirm or deny...

Read the whole thing.

von Storch on the inquiries

P Gosselin has a must-read post - a translation of an interview Hans von Storch gave to Handelsblatt. The take-home quote is this one, IMHO

We have to take a critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the rug. Some of the inquests – like in Great Britain - failed at this. They blew an opportunity to re-establish trust.

Yup. Read the rest too.

HSI - big in Hawaii

Another review from the Pacific - this time from the Hawaii Reporter, an online newspaper.

...deserves a prominent place in your library.

For German speakers

Some Guy has set up a wiki based on the Medieval Warm Period blog of William of Baskerville. The idea is that German speakers can help with the translation of articles. If you speak German, do help if you can.

Reinhard Böhm

This is a translation of the interview with Reinhard Bohm that I mentioned a few days back. Many thanks to the reader who provided it. There are a couple of places where the meaning of the German original is unclear.

It is a great pleasure for me to be able to introduce to you one of the most well know Austrian climate scientists, Dr Reinhard Böhm from ZAMT(the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics). Dr Böhm is regarded as a well respected expert in the field of climate research, in particular for climate modelling of the Alpine region. (You can dowload his CV here with a selection of his publications). Dr. Böhm is a much sought-after guest commentator and interviewee for the mainstream media, (among others, Wiener Zeitung, Der Standard).

Click to read more ...