Bishop Hill No sceptic scientists in the UK?
Oct 2, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics I was struck by a thought just now. Although I didn't hear the report myself, I gather that the BBC claimed last week that it had been unable to find any sceptic scientists in the UK.
This is odd, because I had an email from a prominent BBC journalist at the end of August seeking scientists who would give the sceptical side of the argument. This was apparently with a view to finding alternative views to present at the time of AR5.
Given the importance of the pause, the obvious candidate was Nic Lewis and, having ascertained that he would be willing to talk to the BBC, I put his name forward. Nic obviously doesn't work in the university system, but he has published in the key area of climate sensitivity, and given that other people in the area now seem to be adopting his methodology it would be hard to make a case that he is not expert.
I didn't get a response, although I recall Nic asking if anything had come of it.
The BBC's claim is therefore something of a mystery.
Reader Comments (93)
A fascinating twitter exchange by Paul Mathews on Oct 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Wow. Is there a continuation or does the exchange really end with Harrabin's question "Spartans?".
Harrabin could easily be called a liar had he not used the "out" of a "To my memory"... Too simple an excuse but lets him off the hook?
Sorry, knr. Your post must have appeared whilst I was composing mine. Good analogy, though, eh !
The remarkable growth in ‘climate science’ in the UK over the last 30 to 40 years has largely been driven by fears raised about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It would scarcely be surprising if the initial and the ongoing recruitment has been of people who wish to participate in the scare, whether from heroic visions of saving the planet or merely because that is where a lot of money has been made available by the state or by other wealthy donors. This by itself is a sign that all is not well. A preponderance of expertise built upon the notion of giving carbon dioxide an importance in the climate system which it has not clearly displayed in the past, nor is it clearly displaying in the present. The weaker the evidence, the more frantic must be the search for inventions, be they computer wheezes or convenient theories as to what is now to be regarded as important. Epicycles added to epicycles helped the earth-centric view of solar system astronomy along for quite a while, phlogiston theory lasted longer than it might well have done thanks to widespread adoption by a scientific establishment, and vigorous state support helped Lysenkoism . We have all three supports appearing for carbon dioxide driven climate alarmism: technical sophistry, the science establishment, and political power. Here lies the scandal and the shame of having an intellectual monoculture where there could have been more diversity of ideas and a proper respect for data and competing theories.
The BBC follows its agenda. They relentlessly push stories about climate change, benefit cuts, negative revelations about UKIP, problems with the NHS, etc.
They avoid mentioning the opposite side of these stories, so they don't cover criticism of the IPCC or the Antarctic ice extent. They avoid covering stories about benefit cheats or the high cost of welfare to the taxpayer. You will rarely see negative stories about the EU even though the rest of the media find a plentiful supply on a daily basis.
People who depend exclusively on the BBC for their news get a distorted understanding but it is the message the BBC wishes to project. They have been doing that for years, which is why I usually get my news from a range of other sources and now I rarely watch the BBC.
The BBC has problems even finding Women, never mind sceptical scientists. Even the Guardian said so.
Peter Sissons, former BBC newscaster :
"By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’."
That probably explains everything about the BBC attitude to climate change.
Michael Hart - good link to the Guardian article.
It seems a new web site was created http://thewomensroom.org.uk where women can register as subject experts. (We could consider one for sceptical scientists ...)
Looking at the number who have registered it seems as if we have;
lawyers 137
africa 55
europe 52
religion 13
sex and relationships 12
science 11
energy 4
poles 2
america 2
defence 1
Says quite a lot about what media types are interested in I suppose.
Harrabin is a snivelling liar Sven, his memory is fine. He knew where to find sceptical scientists but like many lefties at the BBC had no interest in finding out the truth.
Any climate "scientist" in UK academia who is thinking of speaking against the CAGW religion can look at what happens to people who do e.g. Willie Soon.
Who would want that demonisation and hatred at the start of a career?
I can't find any smart people who believe in Global Warming. I really can't.
Andrew
hmm, how about going and shouting that - outside Finsbury Park Mosque on a Friday afternoon?
;O!
Bish
I am sure you have the ear of David Rose
seems to me there is a lot of ammunition for his next piece from the posts on this blog
and I am sure that our resident scientists will be more than happy to give him some quotable quotes
I look forward to reading the MoS version of this story this weekend
Surely it should be skeptical scientists?
The BBC follows its agenda. They relentlessly push stories about climate change, benefit cuts, negative revelations about UKIP, problems with the NHS, etc.
Oct 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM | Schrodinger's Cat
========================================================
By "problems with the NHS", I assume you mean, "problems with the NHS caused by the Coalition, and not occasioned by Labour mismanagement", as opposed to "real problems with the NHS, such as it being a bloated bureaucracy"?
Inquiring minds and all that...
I guess it is sort of possible to understand what Harrabin said without it being a lie. In each scientific field, there are a number of people in the UK who are, due to some combination of excellence in their scientific research and in their scientific popularization efforts, are recognized as being the go-to experts on that subject. Say people like Richard Dawkins on evolutionary theory (some years ago when he was not primarily viewed as an expert on vocal atheism), or David Spiegelhalter on statistics and risk, Marcus du Sautoy on number theory, or Lord Robert Winston on reproductive biology, etc. Then there are slightly less household names also. All are traditional academics with good reputations in their academic field. These are people the media view as reliable experts, and those are the kind of people Harrabin would have been thinking of - also requiring them to be climate scientists, and clearly sceptical. On those terms, there aren't any in the UK. Even in the US, there aren't that many - perhaps Judith Curry.
There would be many disqualifications (in Harrabin's mind) for belonging to this group: such as not being an academic (Nic Lewis, Steve McIntyre), not being in climate science (Michael Kelly, Jonathan Jones, Paul Matthews), or not being among the highest profile/most respected in the field (I guess, Paul Dennis), or being someone who is viewed within the field as not being 'sound' (Richard Lindzen). These disqualification criteria are mostly silly, of course, but I think they can be honestly assumed to be obvious requirements if you're in a certain frame of mind, as Harrabin clearly is. Marcel Crok's 10:58 AM comment shows these weird filters in action in McGrath's mind...
Oct 2, 2013 at 3:13 PM | Trefor Jones
Surely it should be skeptical scientists?
No, it certainly should not and neither should it be "sceptic scientists." It should be "sceptical scientists."
Why would there be no sceptical scientists in the UK? Given the complexity of climate science and its huge importance it is strange that no one has any doubts about it at all.
Perhaps climate science is a bit like Kazakhstan, where President Nazarbayev got 96% of the vote. I am sure the BBC would find it equally hard to find anyone sceptical about their great and glorious leader.
The dishing out of grants and funding in academia is one of the last bastions of Stalinist central planning. The absence of dissenting voices is just solid evidence that the science has been corrupted by politics.
Most media in the West is giving us a sad demonstration of how rare a free press is, and how easily they can be corrupted.
Some days it seems like George Orwell was an optimist.
I can tell you what the BBC is good at finding; an environmental cloud to go with every silver lining. Today the BBC department of even-good-news-is-really-just-bad-news-in-disguise-and-it's-all-caused-by-global-warming brought us this story about lobsters.
I can now understand why the BBC Head of Comedy attended their secretive 28-gate star-chamber meeting on global warming. At least they can't be accused of taking themselves too seriously.
In the RS event mentioned by Athelstan and Shrödinger’s Cat,e the closing speech by John Ashton is on: “Reality and its enemies: climate change and its implications for the contract between science and society.”
John Ashton is in the Guardian this morning opining that the BBC had no right to interview a geologist about AR5. His scientiific experience is summed up in his E3G cv as “...a brief period as a research astronomer...”
But he’s also apparently an expert in “Reality and its Enemies.”
>"By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. <
Regarding the Guardian and Alan Rusbridger:
He is a governor of the Ditchley Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditchley_Foundation
Guardian column: Ditchley and the market demand for journalism
December 15, 2008 by Jeff Jarvis
Many forms of subsidy were suggested: A slice of the BBC’s or ITV’s cake is the starting point (which Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger broached in these pages recently).
http://buzzmachine.com/2008/12/15/guardian-column-ditchley-and-the-market-demand-for-journalism/
Remember the Steve Jones report confirming that the BBC reporting of science was completely impartial, but that in the case of climate science they were giving too much coverage to sceptics and should ignore them since sceptics are equivalent to flat earthers?
That report was commissioned approved and proudly presented by the BBC Trust which is charged with overseeing the BBC and making sure that they adhere to the requirements of their charter.
I've just reminded myself about what Peter Sissons said about BBC climate change propaganda.
It is well worth reading.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
Perhaps Harrabin thinks climate scientists are individuals like those who attended the 28-gate meeting?
Proper scientists should just be called scientists. The adjective "sceptical" is like repetition and is redundant.
ThinkingScientist another word is 'otiose' - 'serving no useful purpose'
Paging Allen and Allan.
Thanks thinkingscientist for reminding of us of the “top experts” the BBC chose to brainwash the troops in the 28gate seminar. Not one of them was a climate scientist working in Britain, let alone a sceptic one. (The only working climate scientist, I think, was a Norwegian working in Greenland).
On 04 February, 2010, I emailed Harrabin a name, with his email addresses, who was not one of those mentioned in comments above. He replied "Thanks."
Also on that day, I sent the following message to him, which is a similar message to those in the comments:
"Congratulations and best wishes on reaching out to WUWT for a more balanced view on global warming. [I was actually more cynical than this sentence implies.]
You may find this illustrative: My copy of Londoner Andrew Smithers' new "Wall Street Revalued" is a few hundred miles away, so I am relying on memory. Boston money manager Jeremy Grantham wrote a fine introduction in which he lambasted the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, and wrote of the 30 year period when EMH was so dominate that young academics were fearful of writing or expressing any misgivings of it as that would damage their careers.
It is highly probable that an equivalent situation has existed in climate science, and skeptics have hidden.
An interesting climate connection with Grantham: This Friday a debate will be held in London between Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute at LSE and Roger Pielke, Jr. moderated by the BBC's David Shukman."
They used to use Philip Stott until he started winning debates.....so the invitations stopped.
Oct 2, 2013 at 8:11 PM | Don B. Mr Ward is badly outclassed on the science. I can only imagine he will be ad homing his way through the debate."tobacco shill" ad nauseam.
What a superb comment thread. You would think, with the travails of the BBC Management and Trust more vulnerable than ever, that the BBC would be falling over themselves to appear impartial. They don't have the faintest clue how even to fake it.
Does being born in the UK (Berkshire) but living in the USA count I wonder.
Well knwn Climate Change sceptic, famous all around the world...
Freeman Dyson
Long Now Seminar, San Francisco, October 5, 2005
Born (1923-12-15) December 15, 1923 (age 89)
Crowthorne, Berkshire, England
Nationality American, British
None are so blind as those who will not see. From the bible I believe.
I can't believe this. Steve Jones whom I mentioned earlier is complaining that the BBC gave too much airtime to sceptics in their coverage of the IPCC report.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics
Does this count, from Piers Corbyn?
Weather Action: “A cowardly cover-up and a disgrace to Science”
“All scientific tests and examination show there is NO ACTUAL OBSERVED
EVIDENCE for man-made CO2 Climate Change in the real atmosphere and sea in the
real world and ONLY EVIDENCE AGAINST. The warmist CO2 ‘theory’ is disproved." /cont
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No39.pdf
Jeez look at all these words !
All the people here are fair honest and rational people so they are perplexed , but then when you've seen a big warmist lie right in front of you you realise the reality. They have no compunction about lying for the cause then backing it up in the very next breath with "oh those deniers lie all the time and all in the pay of big oil" Trouble is we are nice and they fight extremely dirty ... Rats backed into the final corner I guess.
we could easily wrote a list of 10, 20 scientists who will express a skeptical viewpoint if given airtime.
Note how they'd air Lovelock when he was alarmist, but not after he came to his senses.
Well, if it's any consolation, it seems to me that the CBC, Aunty Beeb's equivalent over here, is equally "committed" to including the views of skeptics.
As I had noted in a recent post, in which I had observed that the CBC has finally (but very silently!) dropped IPCC-nik Andrew Weaver's fake Nobel laurel:
Sad to relate, the BBC was unable to find a true Scotsman in the UK, either.
Another new report says, it had been unable to find any unbiased journalist at the BBC.
Harrabin wins $70K .. It's hard work not finding any skeptics
irony meter broken again
- I was chasing his conflicts of interests : The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at UEA paid him £15k to organise seminars
- LinkedIn : Conference facilitator (seems for enviro & energy stuff ..watermeetsmoney.com etc.)
- In this video at 12.50 Lord Monckcton MISTAKENLY says "Harrabin : An environmental extremist working at the BBC paid by activist groups".. unless anyone else has evidence
Let me summarise the story so far from the comments in this blog
- Harrabin's team you are brilliant ! That is a great killer statement that impacts rather than informs ...straight out of the politicians playbook. Creating a headline much bigger than the actual story. Lapped up by the faithful, yet ridiculous to the more informed : sceptics or independent analysers.
H is One of the best Green party politicians working inside the BBC. Did it come out of some PR agency maybe ?
- Ironically it's a statement of denial as the meaning that it conveys : that almost all scientists working in the climate field take the IPCC position, H clearly knows is not true. (PROJECTION again)
- It's really is a very clever killer political for statement spreading a message political message rather than explain complex truths
.. Popular with the faithful, but And of course does not stand up to deconstruction : Here we know for sure there are sceptical scientist working in the climate field.. indeed there might be many of them ..it might be possible to find dozens of scientists in the field that disagree with fundamental IPCC statements.
(It's like SkepticalScience blog seeking to spread a message rather than the truth.
You can't exactly say lie, lie , lie but by clever choice of words and spinning the reader is left with an impression somewhat at odds with reality)
- In politics politicians make things seem Black & White simple whereas the real world is Full Colour Complex & takes idiots like me hours & hours to deconstruct.
- You frame a context, say a wordy phrase ..you haven't exactly told a lie, but a lie is constructed in the mind of many listeners. as people automatically extrapolate it into something simpler e.g.
sorry I was paraphrasing H's actual words
- Yes note how it is a political statement statement designed for effect rather than to a light enlighten. It's a killer statement with very high impact which of course does not stand up to close the construction deconstruction.
- "Wow" say the party members it is exactly what they want to hear, but outsiders in the know it's ridiculous 4 sceptical scientists have in this blog have shown that they told Harrabin they would speak.
But showing the front of Tescos, H just brushes it off & repeats it .
(most people think untruths are bad, but politicians know that often it's difficult for truth to get a grip)
- If a person who is seeking the truth they are going to take time to thrash it out.
- Why sceptics know straight off it's ridiculous
The seed planted is that are no sceptic scientists working in the field of Climate. What is it 100% IPCC supporting ?
97%, 97% we have heard again as if to create a meme. Based on that if H had asked 100 scientists he would have got 3 who expressed sceptical views
That 97% is the best anti-sceptics have come up with is from a massively flawed small survey. Then Cook came up with his withdrawn paper amazing saying coincidentally 97% of papers are against sceptics.. as if to re-inforce the meme. The fact is that among scientists "climate sceptic" has never been properly defined & surveyed. But people experienced in reading lots of deconstruction on sceptical blogs would expect the figure to be much higher.. it could well be the majority of scientists in the field are sceptics , but the dynamic means most are afraid to show their faces.
Techical Deconstruction
Misrepresentation as it would create an untruth in the mind of a normal listener.
- "I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world." : that opinion can be shown to be wrong. There are many scientists in the world who are openly sceptical on the normal definition of man made CO2 is bringing catastrophe.
- The impression given is "No scientists working in the this field are climate change skeptics". In fact the percentage might be quite high
1. they haven't been properly surveyed
2. they might be afraid to give honest answer
"We couldn't find a single person working inside the BBC who says SkyNews is better or think the licence fee should be cut"
IN FACT at least 4 Scientists working in the Climate field had contacted him On Twitter
- "Paul Matthews @etzpcm @RHarrabin @aDissentient Rubbish. You got at least 3. Me, Paul Dennis and Don Keiller."
- roger harrabin @RHarrabin 28m @etzpcm @aDissentient Spartans?
- quote : Spartans! What is your profession? Spartans: WAR! WAR! WAR! King Leonidas
reproduced here (in the comments above)
- other skeptic scientists names are also put forward.. usually independents.
- So H could have been trying to weasel out by saying their job is title is not Climate Scientists ? But they are : Paul Dennis at UEA (isotope chemistry to environmental and palaeoclimate studies)
H's line is probably an adaption of a stock line politicians use
- "I don't think there are many girls who don't think I am Adonis, I've been trying to find one girl in Eastbourne who doesn't fancy me, and I can't find even one."
.. I've never asked though .. I din't get to Eastbourne, I missed the train.
1. It's true : There are not masses of open skeptics within UK institutions. Why ? Plebgate effect
- e.g.1 "the BBC couldn't find a single police officer to speak against other police officers in the Plebgate affair"
- e.g.2 "the BBC couldn't find a single police officer to speak in favour of budget cuts"
2. It's true : No bosses of UK university climate science departments are open skeptics, but there are some in other parts of the world e.g. Judith Curry
There is scope for being slippery, i.e. those words could be chosen carefully to narrow down the field.
- "in this field" one would think Climate Science is divided into many fields e.g.1 H could dismiss it as "ah I don't include that sub-field"
- e.g 2. Nic Lewis an "Independent Scientist an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of peer-reviewed papers" - could be dismissed cos he works for himself
- Nic Lewis name was given to Harrabin who somehow failed to make any contact.
Conclusions
Beware of auto-extrapolation * Extraordinary Claim * No Evidence * From DramaGreen
* - I am an idiot. I put time intro deconstructing H's claim, when I should have just followed my own rules
1. Beware of auto-extrapolation .. tricks that make you turn a small claim into a big one - It didn't mean that there are no sceptic scientists in the field or that H had looked very hard. Just that H couldn't find any.
2. The Too good/bad/strange to be true Rule : "If something is too goo/bad/strange to be true" and doesn't have fantastic EVIDENCE " then it probably isn't what it first seems :EXTRAORDINARY claim needs EXTRAORDINARY evidence
3.- Credilbilty of Source ? H has always been a DramaGreen with very low credibility : The point is when have such claims in past ever checked out. Take a look at the predictions in H's past stories have many ever come true ?
Isn't that the same as the "They are lies, cos there is a big oil conspiracy" line, that dismissal line that Greenactivists say to things that don't fit with their dogma ?
- No cos when such a claim comes up from sources experience has shown to be credible (can't name them cos the Greens will get them banned) whose stories have always checked out, and supported with a good chain of evidence ..then you can take them seriously
Book of Rhetoric chap 3 page 28
- How to create a lie in the mind of a listener without showing any EVIDENCE
1- Frame the debate with Q
4- don't bother giving any evidence as in the mind of the listener a lie will be created as they jump to the conclusion 2+2 =5
Possible Examples..try some of your own also
X= horse, Y=meat pies
X= Paedophiles, Y=the church
X= Non-Paedophiles, Y=the church
X= corrupt officers, Y=police
X= scientists, Y = field of Climate Science, Z= working in the UK
X=people with integrity, Y= some BBC departments Z= called Harrabin (or called anything)
- If the claims are supported by VALIDATED evidence & stand up to deconstruction then the conclusion is a TRUTH not a lie.
* now if you continued to rebroadcast this trick, even after you had been called out on it : when say at least 4 scientists had contacted you
- If I say hey "you know that conclusion created in the listener's mind is untrue" and you disagree that makes you a .... what?
... surely that would make you a denier