Wednesday
Mar022011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Johnny Ball
Mar 2, 2011 Climate: Sceptics TV mathematician and AGW sceptic Johnny Ball is on the BBC's Daily Politics show today, discussing scaremongering.
Mar 2, 2011 Climate: Sceptics
Reader Comments (35)
Johnny Ball back on the BBC? Truly, the world is turning!!
His recent Daily Mail article was good I thought. He is a persuasive communicator and a brave man.
Link junked - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html
It says on the link that
I cannot believe the BBC will allow an independent filmed report on climate change. Surely it will not be Johhny Ball's report. I hope I'm wrong.
P. Bratby
The updates about what Johnny Balls says is for the benefit of Philip Hammond who is also on the show, he has Overall responsibility for climate change and he needs to be told how to reply.
Simon Singh wrote that Johnny Ball was given the cold shoulder *mainly* because he overshot his time talking/ranting about AGW at the atheist meet and made racially slanted jokes (something about crustaceans vs crushed asians absorbing the CO2)
It is in the Sunday Times.
Singh on Ball - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6962833.ece
Ball apparently has "adopted a faith position" on climate change. I suppose that's possible.
I will keep my fingers crossed. He is not always cool, calm, and collected, but has such huge confidence as a public speaker that he can charge on regardless. This interview and the programme may allow him to come across at his best. Let us hope so.
Johnny Ball back on the BBC? That's a must-watch then.
Wonder who put him on ? Andrew Neil ? He tends to be quite an independent voice at the beeb with a lot of editorial input to the show. His Blog doesn't follow the BBC 'party line' much either.
The film has been updated. Not all that long really, not too much detail.
Nicholas Hallam: Singh on Ball
Note the date - Dec 2009.
Wow - I've just seen John Ball.
When will this be broadcast as the lead item of the Australian ABC 7 pm news?
/ no sarc needed
Having just watched the clip, I agree with his basic message - that 'things can only get better'. When people say they don't want to bring children into this world because its getting so bad, all I can think is 'what self indulgent naivite'.
Average life expectancy has increased and infant mortality decreased beyond imagination compared to just decades ago - and compared to many still in the under-developed world - that group who are not yet 'polluting' the world with CO2. We are unlikely to have to send our children into a 'Flanders Fields'. Such things as central heating, hot water, nutritious and plentiful food, safe drinking water, sanitation, cancer cures, sexual freedom and equality, democracy, motorised and rapid transport, holidays, etc, etc, etc are thanks to the innovations of the developed world. Our children (I have two) are now born into a world of greater prospects of longevity, standard of living and happiness than ever before. Of course, many problems remain - one of the biggest the need to find a 'sustainability' and our impact on the Environment. But I would rather my children live in the world of today than at any other moment in history.
From this, we can soon expect Leo Hickman of The Guardian to re-visit his character assasination of Ball (a la Monbiot vs Bellamey)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/22/brainwashing-climate-johnny-ball?INTCMP=SRCH
It seems Ball's comments are carefully toned to not appear as an outright challenge to AGW theory, but more a challenge to general doom and gloom - which probably explains why the BBC is prepared to show it.
The BBC's support for AGW is as strong as ever and an appearance of a sceptic will be seen by them as another opportunity to ridicule.
Nobody can have missed David Shukman's seemingly weekly propaganda slot on BBC News, but has anyone else noticed that all nature documentaries are now fair game for promoting the message?
Take last night's Natural World on BBC2; a superbly photographed and narrated programme by Canadian Jeff Turner on his search for grizzly bears in the Cascade Mountains. In the midst of all this stunning natural beauty, some pine trees are dying - killed by a bark-eating bug that is flourishing because of global warming. Am I being too cynical in thinking that the BBC influenced Mr Turner to include this one-liner?
As 10:10 found to their cost scaremongering as a tactic doesn't work - it has the opposite effect.
I'm not totally optimistic about how this is going to play out. It's the BBC, and if there's one thing I've learned about the BBC over the years it's that they know precisely how to control the message. They're rarely out-manoeuvred on their own watch and I don't believe for a second that the BBC - a giant ship, too large to steer itself - could possibly have taken only one year to catch up.
I hope Johnny Ball can keep on track and focus more on his tremendous abilities as a mathematician than his distinguished educational/motivational TV career. I spent many hours in my teens with Johnny Ball, at Yorkshire TV working on puzzles for a TV programme called "Fun And Games", and so he became not just a childhood hero but also a teenage inspiration to me. I can't deny that his overt climate scepticism makes him once again something of a revered icon for me, this time in my 40s! :)
Agnostic - that's sad to hear that last night's "Natural World" was infected. In the BBC's defence, the series they did on Yellowstone National park (about 2 years ago) was totally free from the usual global warming comments and AGW bollocks. (I think it was a joint German/American production, and it was brilliant - I thought it must have been made in the 1980s and had been lost in the archives).
I also saw a BBC Scotland news report on coastal flooding (about a year ago), which amazingly did not once mention rising sea levels or global warming. The reporter seemed totally content to pin the problem on coastal erosion and storm surges. Or maybe I dreamt that one, as I don't remember ever having seen her on TV since.
@arthur.
I think you;ll find that Phillip Hammond , who is my MP, is the Transport Secretary.
Climate Change comes under Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html
Johnny Ball really struck a chord with me in the above article. When he say's:
I don’t make television programmes any more, but I do still visit 80-100 schools a year and I know what children are taught about climate change, and what the result is. They accept it absolutely and will solemnly tell you that they always turn off lights, close doors and, at school, have installed solar panels on the roof. They tell me how worried they are about global warming, rising sea-levels and, having seen alarmist films such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the imminent prospect of all human life being wiped out. And this breaks my heart. I want children to be excited about the future, not cowed by it. I want them to grow up in a world which is going to be better than the one their parents knew, not significantly worse. I want them to grow up excited by technology and new inventions, not worrying about where the electricity is going to come from to power them."
My 7 year old son recently had a book from school about being Green and had a section devoted to Climate Change, it did not distinguish between natural and so called anthropogenic climate change. Left him feeling quite worried. We had a chat about uncertainies in the science, new technologies and what we are already doing at home to help the planet. Breaks my heart too that people want to scare children.
Remarkable statement from Phil Hammond on the programme that 'onshore wind does not need subsidy'.
So what is the 'Feed in Tariff' all about? I thought they all got gazillions of wonga when the windmill manages to boil a kettle.
Just watched it. Johnny Ball versus two political idiots. Johnny got his message across OK.
Hammond even tried to say that onshore wind gets no subsidy. The politicians have really been conned or are liars or are idiots.
Well done Johnny; pity he didn't have more time. As usual, his message was considered by the BBC to be less importanr than important subjects like street parties.
I just listened to a radio interview on BBC Radio Ulster - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJCpybGU2Ac
I'm far less worried about how he's going to talk on this programme now, having heard this. He's not at all ignorant of either the science or the politics. In this '09 interview, he correctly identifies Judith Curry's point about the IPCC successfully "finding" what it was commissioned to find - i.e. threatening anthropogenic impacts on climate - and bags the "consensus" folly beautifully.
You can read his text here.
Also there is a place for comments on the daily poliics website if anyone feels inclined.
A film about scepticism made by a sceptic is a step in the right direction, even if it is only 2min 40sec long. (is this a first for the BBC?). I guess we have Andrew Neil to thank for this - he's not a man who follows the line of political correctness.
I couldn't get to the TV for the DP broadcast.. waiting for it to appear on iPlayer now.
PS: Captcha just asked me to type in a very rude word. I fainted.
Clearly Hammond has mispoken in claiming onshore wind is not subsidised.
The construction of onshore wind turbine power stations are not subsidised, however the electricity generated by wind turbines are indirectly subsidised thru schemes such as the Renewables Obligation (ROCs), as administered by OFGEM, and the Climate Change Levy (HR Revenue and Customs).
Without such schemes in place no one in the UK would be generating electricity thru wind power, it would be far to expensive.
From Hansard - Thursday 16 September 2010
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100916/debtext/100916-0001.htm
There can be no doubt. Here we have The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry) stating the ROCs equate to subsidies for onshore wind farms.
Philip Hammond has clearly tried to mislead the viewing public on the subject of subsidies for onshore wind farms.
Latimer Alder
This government website says that he is in overall charge.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/ministers/philiphammond
So the Minister Hammond has ""Overall responsibility for transport strategy including economic growth and climate change" - http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/ministers/philiphammond
And he thinks and states on the BBC that on-shore wind farms are not subsidised?
But which political party will try to make capital out of Hammond's astonishing ignorance? And which journalist will have the nous to make a story out of this gaffe?
I suggest you don't hold your breath.
I thought Johnny Ball's little film was well made, and hit home. Not sure that CO2 is 'washed out of the sky' but the wider point about the carbon cycle was clear enough. I thought he tried to make too many points in the interview, but he could have made them if the BBC had allowed more time. I guess we should be thankful for small mercies.
That Chemistry book that he showed us should be withdrawn and replaced with proper books, you know, ones that teach children about Chemistry? Just as in the old days.
Philip Hammond is my mother's MP. I'm thinking of drafting a letter to him on wind farm subsidies and the seriousness of misleading the electorate, then seeing if any friends in the constituency - where Mama is still a social and tennis-playing member of the prestigious Wentworth Club - would be interested in signing.
And I don't suppose there's anyone on Bishop Hill who would like to add an electronic signature to much a letter? Nah, didn't think so.
@arthur
I'm sorry to be really picky, and I really hope you won't be offended - it is not at all meant that way, but what it actually says is
'Overall responsibility for transport strategy including economic growth and climate change'
and it is clear from this context that he is responsible for the climate change piece within the overall transport strategy...not across government as a whole. The same applies to economic growth. Where I believe Mr Osborne has a bit of an interest!
@richard drake
Phillip Hammond is my MP too (Weybridge). I'll sign. The Bish can give you my e-mail - or how can I contact you?
And btw - I've found him to be a pragmatic and reasonable guy in the past. No swivel-eyed ideologue he. A short and reasoned argument, without histrionics, will catch his attention.
Johnny Ball was excellent and has opened up a bridgehead which people must now exploit.
The fifth estate (internet bloggers) are only effective if they influence the fourth estate (MSM) and get truth to the public.
Ironically, blogs have sucked energy and desire from many people to do a Freddie Forsyth, Jeffrey Archer, etc to try to outflank news editors by writing novels, screenplays, teleplays to get their ideas across via fiction.
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/02/please-read-cranmer-bishop-hill-dr-richard-a-e-north-frederick-forsyth-and-tom-bradby/
Unless bloggers become celebrities or try to become msm authors, they need to target celebs, news editors, feature editors, radio producers, to get their ideas to a big audience.
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/03/johnny-ball-exposes-the-dishonesty-of-most-british-politicians/
and
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/02/any-chance-of-a-movie-on-honest-british-scientists-johnny-ball-professor-david-bellamy-dr-richard-a-e-north-and-how-they-suffered-in-their-dispassionate-search-for-truth/
and
http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/02/david-cameron-give-up-your-obsession-with-your-30-billion-trainset-and-create-250-000-real-jobs-in-the-uk-regions/