Monday
Jan162012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill All Shuk up
Jan 16, 2012 BBC The BBC's media correspondent, Nick Higham, tweets that David Shukman is to be the new BBC science editor.
Jan 16, 2012 BBC 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Jul 18 - chloe
on
Navigating the Academic Landscape: Term Paper Writing Services for Students -
Jul 11 - logiicmount
on
Seeking Help With Dissertation
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (55)
Now we know why the post did not require a person with scientific credentials.
Thinking about this appointment is akin to wondering whether Beria, Malenkov or Molotov would take over after Stalin's death in 1953.
What is the BBC playing at? He's a manikin, no substance. No depth of knowledge, no qualifications in science. Run of the mill, if not tedious, reports. Not a non-consensus thought in his brain. Unimpressive.
The BBC has shot itself in the foot on this one. Was he really the best candidate?
Shocking. Shocking.
So that's a science editor with a BA in Geography, is it?
How long, oh lord, how long?
OllyD,
That makes him perfect!
Think on the bright side, at least it's not Black or Harribin!
Mailman
Once again when it comes to science BBC News never misses an opportunity to make itself look stupid.
Another safe pair of hands from Eton then....
Shukman, apart from the Oryx scandal which should have cost him his job (and did cost the BBC £750,000) has risen without trace within the BBC.
You have to admire him though - he was told, so I am told, its the Science job or no job. It's Richard Black and Roger Harrabin that I feel sorry for....
though not as much as for the British public.
Al Jazeera English have taken all the good BBC reporters...Shukman, Black, and Harrabin did not receive the call from Qatar.
I believe that there will be a play on his name. Sad choice, but not at all surprising.
David Shukman is another one of those BBC types who have the finest education that money can buy.
Obviously strings have been pulled, as they always are in the old-boy networks, in making such appontments.
God forbid if the BBC appointed someone from a lesser background who actually knows something about science.
I just remembered, isn't David Shukman considered to be one of Phil Jones and Tim Osborn's contacts at the BBC?
#3526
It is all rather cosy.
The best qualified candidate was Susan Watts (grammar school, degree in physics) of course.
Shame it wasn't't Roger Harrabin.. I think, he would be, eventually, open to persuasion... Even after previous criticism of his past actions.. ie tyndall advisory board, cmep.
Bishop: Wasn't Susan Watts the only qualified candidate? Perhaps she shares genes with Anthony.
The BBC have consistently failed to perform due diligence and probe the evidence and justification for the climate agenda, opting instead for political spin. This appears to be not mere gullibility, but intentional, as evidenced by contemptible behaviour staging the deliberate setting up of sceptics, and stifling proper debate.
Will Shukman turn a fresh leaf and make an attempt to redeem them? I would not hold my breath, but lets wait and see.
Congratulations, Mr Shukman. You are on stage, and we await the performance.
My favourite Shukman report; scaremongering about permanent drought in Spain from a dried up reservoir bed, just before the rains came:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-shukman-on-weather-and-climate.html
For some reason I always get Shukman confused with his collegue, BBC Economics Editor and ex-socialist Worker's Power member, Paul Mason. Could be something to do with the narrative that runs through all their reports.
Yes, see 3526. Poor Phil is staying at the Hilton Hotel in Paris. Shukman says:
So it seems that he has the right political prejudices for the job.Can anyone find the link where our host put up the job requirements? I recall that knowledge of science was not among them.
Ok lets have a bet about climate change between David Shukman and (Dr) David Whitehouse
The BBC has indeed shot itself in the foot if they have appointed Shukman. For me his most appalling video report (and for which he should never be forgiven) was when he flew in with the dakota to bring back the Catlin expedition after their bizarre ice drilling sojurn. Before they took off, Shukman got one of the expeditionists to jump into (and then swim) across an open lead, to demonstrate just how global warming was affecting the Arctic. This was broadcast on the 6pm news, but I have never been able to find the report on the BBC website, I assume because the BBC's online editor knew it was total WWF propaganda and bollocks which should never be shown again.
He has a geography degree...
...........well that is the Climate scientists, degree of choice..
ie
Mike Hulme
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/mike-hulme/5/826/144
Dr Tim Mitchell (missing Tom-from Harry_read_me.txt)
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/personal/index.html
Lapogus: Here's a link to reams of coverage Shukman gave the 2009 'expedition'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7897392.stm
Needless to say Shukman made no comment on why an Insurance company who stand to profit by exaggerating the threat of climate change might be sponsoring such an 'expedition'.
Also notice how the camera pans around to get a good shot of the WWF patch on Hadow's arm in the first clip. I thought advertising wasn't allowed on the BBC?
Chilli that is fair comment about insurance companies hyping up climate change but, if you knew Stephen Catlin, you would put the whole thing down to sheer vanity rather than fiendish cunning. This is a man whose executive suite (an office is not grand enough for him) has a huge photo of a youthful long-haired Steve (as he was then) and who recently moved the company out of their palatial offices because they were not big enough. I suspect he misguidedly thinks climate alarmism is hip and by associating the company with WWF and nice poley bears he will give them a cuddly sympathetic image. He might even be right, God help us.
On further reflection, of course the useful idiots at the BBC have given him a fortune's worth of free advertising in contravention of their charter. His competitors spend a fortune sponsoring rugby, cricket and equestrianism.
The David Shukman who didn't check / know a kilometres to miles conversion published under his name, not a good start.
The journey of about 400km (150 miles) involved crossing a mix of deep snow and rock-hard ice and took three days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16538129
Now corrected to
The journey of about 250km (155 miles) involved crossing a mix of deep snow and rock-hard ice and took three days.
No thanks for pointing out the error though!!
Good grief. This is simply unbelievable. I thought that Shukman's pre-Climategate career of non-stop Daily AGW Doomsday stories would have him locked in the BBC basement by now.
To pick up on Team paranoia, is this some clever plot by Big Oil to completely discredit the BBC? Certainly looks like it.
"Can't have a grammar school gel with a proper real pure science degree old boy... eh watt?"
"No, no, no, no - we need a person with imagination, someone capable of adding 2+2 and making................ well whatever they are told to, ho ho."
Jan 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM | Barry Woods
Hi Barry,
Actually most climate scientists are physicists or mathematicians. Well, they are at the Met Office Hadley Centre anyway, and in IPCC WG1.
Cheers
Richard
Is there any evidence Susan Watts would provide a different line on CAGW? Her utterances don't seem to suggest that:
http://tinyurl.com/nwxbef
Paul Matthews, this was discussed at this very site back in October, see this page where there is a link to the job details (it still works because Andrew downloaded the doc onto squarespace).
Well – it’s the new science correspondent’s first day on the job….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16538129
Scroll down to the clean room… not like any clean room I’ve ever come across….. well - maybe before it's cleaned.
The devil is in the detail – it is not nerdism or anorakery – they didn’t have to say clean room – just equipment being prepared or somesuch – but nope – that’s a clean room… sigh….
One can forgive missing something arcane - but the laziness about everyday accuracy makes it plain that the specialist correspondents don't know squit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/16575085
Most people when they have been in an organisation for 29 years are thinking of retiring!
It says he's covered the launch of the space shuttle - wow!
Richard Betts
Interesting.
Anyone bar-charted sceptic scientists by science discipline?
Pharos,
Be nice to see the bar-chart, if one exists. My impression is certainly that many are trained in physics or maths (Lindzen, Chylek, Shaviv, Svensmark, Dyson...). According to Bart though, they are all sub-standard. Difficult to know what to think, isn't it?
I do wonder what Richard Betts makes of you all. And how he keeps his temper.
Congratulations to David Shukman for winning promotion.
"I do wonder what Richard Betts makes of you all. And how he keeps his temper"
I have to agree with you, for once, BBD. Too much anger and mean-spirit is souring my favourite site.
Here's an amusing comment by davidmhoffer I read somewhere which attempts to explain how a physicist can become a climate scientist:
davidmhoffer says:
October 15, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I wrote this piece a long time ago and should probably update it based on my better understanding today of climate “science”. That said, though it be a year or so old, for those who have followed Dr Lewis’ resignation from the APS and the things he boldly said about the state of affairs revealed by Climategate, I think it appropriate to repeat my presentation of:
==================================================================
The Physicist and the Climatologist
Climatologist; I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
Physicist; The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.
Climatologist; Well what if I change the composition of the system?
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Perhaps you don’t understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; But the CO2 would cause a small rise in temperature, which even if it was temporary would cause a huge rise in water vapour which would absorb even more of the energy being radiated by the system. This would have to raise the temperature of the system.
Physicist; there would be a temporary fluctuation in the temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average… see above.
Climatologist; That can’t be true. I’ve been measuring temperature at thousands of points in the system and the average is rising.
Physicist; The temperature rise you observe can be due to one of two factors. It may be due to a cyclic variation that has not completed, or it could be due to the changes you alluded to earlier resulting in a redistribution of energy in the system that affects the measurement points more than the system as a whole. Unless the energy inputs have changed, the long term temperature average would be… see above.
Climatologist; AHA! All that burning of fossil fuel is releasing energy that was stored millions of years ago, you cannot deny that this would increase temperature.
Physicist; Is it more than 0.01% of what the energy source shining on the planet is?
Climatologist; Uhm… no.
Physicist; rounding error. For the long term temperature of the planet… see above.
Climatologist; Methane! Methane absorbs even more than CO2.
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Clouds! Clouds would retain more energy!
Physicist; see above.
Climatologist; Ice! If a fluctuation in temperature melted all the ice less energy would be reflected into space and would instead be absorbed into the system, raising the temperature. Ha!
Physicist; The ice you are pointing at is mostly at the poles where the inclination of the radiant energy source is so sharp that there isn’t much energy to absorb anyway. But what little there is would certainly go into the surface the ice used to cover, raising its temperature. That would reduce the temperature differential between equator and poles which would slow down convection processes that move energy from hot places to cold places. The result would be increased radiance from the planet that would exceed energy input until the planet cooled down enough to start forming ice again. As I said before, the change to the system that you propose could well result in redistribution of energy flows, and in short term temperature fluctuations, but as for the long term average temperature…. see above.
Climatologist; Blasphemer! Unbeliever! The temperature HAS to rise! I have reports! I have measurements! I have computer simulations! I have committees! United Nations committees! Grant money! Billions and billions and billions! I CAN’T be wrong, I will never explain it! Billions! and the carbon trading! Trillions in carbon trading!
Physicist; how much grant money?
Climatologist; Billions. Want some?
Physicist; Uhm…
Climatologist; BILLIONS
Climatologist; Hi. I used to be a physicist. When I started to understand the danger the world was in though, I decided to do the right thing and become a climatologist. Let me explain the greenhouse effect to you…
=============================================================
lapogus
Double A++ man!
So cynical.
AND: It's all about your mortgage and your kids right?
Very amusing, but according to standard physics I don't think it is true that a physicist would claim that changing the composition of the system by adding CO2 will not cause the long term average to change (unless very long term averages are being discussed). Everything else being equal, more CO2 will cause temperatures to rise.
sorry for double post, got an squarespace error while submitting that.
Looking for the positive wrt to Shukman's appointment, should we sceptics not try to reach out to Shukman? For example perhaps Whitehouse could request a meeting with Shukman to discuss and enlighten Shukman about the uncertainties of the science?
With regard to the hockey team & the IPCC, Shukman now has a responsibility to properly cover science, and that means cover the abuse of science where it occurs. Reading BH's HSI, and Donna's The Delinquent Teenager, and a good summary of the climategate emails - e.g. https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/climategate-2 should be his number one priority if he wants to claim knowledge of the subject, objectivity and impartiality. One can only hope.
No >T begets > CO2.
"I do wonder what Richard Betts makes of you all."
Who cares? I'd rather wonder what Ladell Betts thinks of us. :P
Andrew
"I do wonder what Richard Betts makes of you all."
I should think he will be very pleased that independent scientists and physicists are speaking out on his behalf. As a physicist he knows that the science is never settled. Working for the Met Office, he and his fellow scientists are not allowed to speak out against the "settled" science of AGW. I suspect that he and many of his colleagues know that the "greenhouse effect" is a load of codswallop, but unless and until we sceptics manage to get science back on course and unpoliticised, there is nothing he can do to change things. They have to go along with the political consensus. Jobs and carreers are at stake you know.
He and his colleagues must know about and read all the debate that is going on about the thermodynamics of the atmospheric processes, rather than the radiative processes, but they daren't participate.
Sorry Richard
Meant 'climate change' scientist of whom there are many..
Unlike climate scientists, like yourself. ;-)
Philip: 'everything else being equal, adding more CO2 will cause temperature to rise'.
Why? What assumptions are you making? Do you assume 100% direct thermalisation of absorbed IR energy by transfer to the kinetic energy of the N2 and O2 carrier? Can't be done because there's no mechanism. The PET bottle experiment just proves that the increased optical path length heats the container walls.
By the same token, it can be argued that in the atmosphere there is only indirect thermalisation, mainly at cloud droplets which have gettered the local CO2 making its effective concentration rise by the Henry's Law principle. However, there will also be substantial conversion of radiative energy to thermal energy in bare aerosols, e.g. carbon, a known phenomenon.
But to counter this, at IR band saturation near the earth's surface, the phenomenon of self-absorption will reduce the absorptivity and emissivity of the atmosphere facing the Earth's surface thus reducing the impedance to IR leaving the Earth's surface.
PS forget about 'back radiation', it's confused with 'Prevost Exchange Energy' which can do no thermodynamic work. Frankly speaking, the physics claimed by climate science is so amateurish, the subject needs rebuilding from the ground up.
Please stop making assumptions that cannot be proved experimentally but instead must be derived from thermodynamic data, as is being done by Nasif Nahle who is resurrecting the science he and I were taught in the 1960s but which has clearly been lost in many present universities.
Richard, Barry,
Are we talking about climate scientists or meteorologists? - or enviro-journalists?
Is there a difference?
Just wondered.
Thanks Jeremy, I knew it was here somewhere but couldnt find it. That document is remarkable. Shukman's 'Main Duties' will include:
* Be influential in shaping and developing BBC’s news agenda.
* To write and produce finely-crafted, imaginative packages,...
* To identify/come up with strong, newsworthy stories and creative story treatments.
Under 'Person Specification' the requirements included:
* Knowledge and understanding of the political/economic and cultural developments of the UK.
* Financially literate in order to report on commercial and financial aspects of the subject.
* Awareness of News Strategy and its implications for the key agenda areas of BBC News
No mention of science knowledge or literacy. It's all about imaginative creative stories, politics, finance and agendas.
"I do wonder what Richard Betts makes of you all."
Rchard Betts, does not speak 'ex cathedra' and he is entitled to his opinions [we sift them] and that's as far as it goes.
The Met Office, an agenda, HMG/DECC/DEFRA + = the EU and go figure - indubitably: none of them have your/our true interests at heart. A statist government cannot ever be anything other than existing to feed itself and its apparats, altruism in government - is for dreamers.
Keep it polite but this is not a social networking site.