Bishop Hill BBC and Nigel Lawson
There is a letter in the Spectator from the Deputy Director of BBC News and Current Affairs on the subject of the BBC's spat over Nigel Lawson's appearance in discussion with Brian Hoskins.
No ban on Lawson
Sir: You write that the BBC ‘has effectively banned’ Lord Lawson from items on climate change unless introduced with ‘a statement discrediting his views’ (Leading article, 12 July). There’s a lot of muddled reporting of this story. Lord Lawson hasn’t been in any sense ‘banned’, and the Editorial Complaints Unit finding didn’t suggest that he shouldn’t take part in future items. It found fault with the way the Today item was handled in two respects: firstly that it presented Lord Lawson’s views on the science of global warning as if they stood on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins, and secondly that it didn’t make clear to listeners that Lord Lawson represented a minority view. There is also no ban on other non-scientists discussing climate change. The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue. Our position remains exactly as it was — we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly. We do, however, on occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of the BBC’s overall commitment to impartiality.
Fran Unsworth Deputy director, BBC News and Current Affairs
Happy valleys
Reader Comments (77)
is this the fran unworthy who in 2004 said the science of climate change was settled.
Typos it should have read from
Fantastically Unworthy
Happy Days
I've just finished going through the transcript and have found nine occasions where Hoskins actually exaggerated or misinterpreted the consensus science, I'm preparing a billet doux to send to the BBC Trust complaining about BBC editorial policy that allows scientists to exaggerate and twist the IPCC and other scientific papers to meet some political objective.
1. That weather events such as tropical storms were increasing in numbers and intensity. They’re not;
2. That increasing intensity of storms is a sign of anthropogenic global warming. The IPCC say individual weather events cannot be attributed to global warming;
3. “…the Arctic sea ice has reached a minimum level in the summer which hasn’t been seen for a very, very long time…” When he must be aware that the Arctic sea ice has only been monitored since 1979;
4. Failed to inform your listeners that global sea ice extent is at record levels;
5. That the Greenland and Western Antarctic ice shelves were melting because of global warming, when the best science is saying it’s too short a period to come to a definitive conclusion;
6. That there is confidence that temperatures will rise between 3-5C by the end of the century, while the IPCC AR5 report is 1.5 possibly more than 2C;
7. That sea levels will rise by 0.5 to 1 metre when the measured sea level rise is, and has been for two centuries at 3mm/annum putting us on course for a 0.2-0.25 metre rise;
8. That, without any scientific proof, the heat missing from the atmosphere has taken itself to the deep oceans by unknown physical means;
9. That this ocean heat content as a result of the missing heat has been measured when it most certainly hasn’t.
10. Implied that sea level rise had only taken place in the 20th century when it is known that sea level has been rising by around 3mm/annum since 1800.
Sorry 10 not 9. It's quite extraordinary, and does indeed indicate that Sir Brian's views are not only different from Nigel Lawson's but with his fellow scientists it the clisci community. Except for the liars that is.
"The corporation will never allow a fair debate, until the infiltration of the green lobby is purged." --Peter Stroud
I suspect the corporation will have to be dissolved and privatised in order for that to happen, otherwise the rot will recur.
Morning,
Have you seen the paper that says only 15 ppm of CO2 emissions are from fossil fuels?
And we're spending hundreds of billions on that!
Troll comments and follow-ups removed. TM
The link in the story is broken. I think it should be:
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/has-lord-lawson-been-banned-by-bbc.html
[Thanks, faulty one now replaced. TM]
geronimo [Point 3] it is true that the NSIDC satellite records of Arctic sea ice only go back to 1979, but I remember seeing a graph on Steven Goddard's site which suggested that sea ice extent was less in the early 70s, can't find it now but found this comment which confirms my memory:
"There are satellite sea ice records going back to the 1960s. The 1990 IPCC report had satellite graphs going back to 1973. 1979 is a cherry pick." - http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/april-28-global-sea-ice-area-third-highest-on-record-highest-in-22-years/
After more googling, the 1990 IPPC graph [source: www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf] does look like 1979 was cherry-picking.
However, this cherry picking is discussed and dismissed by the alarmists at http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/14/guest-post-its-ice-melt-season-deniers-let-the-conspiracy-theories-flow/
where I also found a link to old Danish sea ice maps from 1895 onwards: http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/
There are historical records also which Norwegian scientists are currently working on:
Source: Scientists seek global warming clues from dead explorers' notes, The Scotsman, March 2nd 2003. .
I will have to leave this for another day.
Hi Frannie ... I don't believe you !!
The BBC is part of the green blob, as described by Owen Patterson. It is a seamless mucus that seeks to suffocate all criticisms and contrary opinions. It usually succeeds in doing so. It is a master class in how to use taxpayers money, helpfully chanelled through the EU and national governments to sock puppet organisations such as the BBC and the green charities, to brainwash those same taxpayers. It is hard to think of any peacetime equal.
Usual FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY and Confirmation Bias that allows
The fantasy universe largely created by Bob Ward and the Green Hedgefund industry.
imagine a BBC introduction if such authority has to be included :
"This DOCTOR Andrew Wakefield, who has published his PEER REWIEWED research in the BMJ ! saying there is a clear connection between vaccines and autism
.. and this is a NON-entity who says there is no proper evidence."
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
This is an extremely well written letter and demonstrates that the BBC appoints staff, like Ms Unsworth, on the basis of their ability to manipulate the language to persuade, rather than on any ability to manage a national broadcasting organisation.
For the climate change sceptic, however, close examination reveals some weaknesses. In the absence of evidence, the muddle in the reporting is obviously merely the writer's opinion, and not worth that much. The remainder of the letter consists of statements that contradict each other in a way that even Ms Unsworth's undoubted linguistic skills fail to conceal. Firstly, the letter denies Lawson has been banned but then explains in laudable detail processes that, in practice, have much the same effect. And next, the letter states that the BBC is committed to balanced (taken here to mean equally by people on both sides) reporting of climate change as if there were no contradiction with the admitted restrictions of the airing of minority views. As a result, of course, the reporting cannot be impartial (meaning with equal exposure of opposing views) because any part of the argument that Lawson, for instance, wishes to bring into discussion is dependent upon his opposition referring to it. In these ways does Ms Unsworth both have her cake and eat it!
The BBC's treatment of Lawson has, however, implications for the way the Bishop runs this Blog. It is surely the case that the banning of ZDB and other trolls in this Blog is closely similar to the limitation the BBC imposes upon minority opinions such as Lawson's on climate change. If we crtiticize the BBC we must, at least in principle, have doubts about the justice of banning our trolls.
In addition, I am doubtful the practice serves any useful purpose. Because the decisions that matter will ultimately be made by politicians mostly in total ignorance of any underlying science, the climate wars are ultimately political. As such, they will be conducted in terms that the politicians, and ZDB and fellow trolls, find forceful - that we sceptics conspire for personal advantage, are funded by secretive mega-rich, are in the pockets of vested interests, that we deny science that is widely accepted and that has been repeatedly replicated, and, no doubt, a host of other such fanciful reasons In the context of these wars, it is a total waste of effort to answer with logic and science. A Ya-Boo from a believer cannot be effectively answered by a But Corbinskey and Smith showed how false that idea was on the basis of ... ... , rather it requires a similar but louder and more effective YA- BOO. So the muzzling of ZDB deprives her from making the sort of absurd points so often made by believer politicians and the community here of practice in the sort of rhetoric that will convince the politicians that it will be more prudent to take a sceptical stance than a believer's.
And yet the BBC is quite happy to have, for example, on the Daily Politics a week ago a whole piece from Vivian Westwood talking utter drivel about fracking, unopposed.
Sorry but the reason, I believe, Zed is banned is because his/her/its contributions are disruptive and add nothing to the debate.
Mailman
Not just disruptive but plain offensive a lot of the time. I'd back the BBC on banning Lawson if he threw insults around.
To repeat a comment I made on the discussion site about this: The only other point is against the BBC: "The ruling found a false balance was created in that the item implied Lord Lawson’s views on climate science were on the same footing as Sir Brian Hoskins." – Lord Lawson offered no views on climate science; he merely referred to the various organisations for the evidence to support his views on the economics being pursued in response to the "evidence" given by climate science.
As for that final sop that Fran offers – how does she define a “dissenting voice”? One that disagrees with her opinion, or that of someone else? If the latter, then whose? As Bad Andrew said on Jul 20, 2014 at 5:25 PM, “In real reporting, there are no “dissenting” voices. There’s just voices.”
"...firstly that it presented Lord Lawson’s views on the science of global warning as if they stood on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins.
And that the good Sir Brian is a paid shill for Jeremy Grantham Investments amongst whose portfolio is much of the BBC's pension fund..
This is a profound statement:
"The fantasy universe largely created by Bob Ward and the Green Hedgefund industry."
21, 2014 at 11:38 AM | stewgreen
kudos. to stewgreen.
This is an important insight. There is more than a significant amount of money profiting off of the money that flows around the idea of a major climate crisis.
We are at something close to a billion per day, the cost of a modest war. Wars are rightly associated with profiteers.
Grantham and Ward sure act like 'climate profiteers'.
'
BBC announcer voice:
"In the following program Caroline Lucas (English Literature and Journalism Graduate) will tell us that we should live in the dark waiting for the wind to blow...but not too hard. Her views are in no way minority or half-assed.
And power generation expert Ed Davey will tell us there is no pending energy gap caused by strangling investment in viable energy sources and subsidising renewables. However, he will solve the pending energy gap by paying factories to close during the day and open at midnight when everyone is asleep so that conventional power can cope. His views are the consensus of pretty well everybody except the public and industry"
Personally speaking I don't think much of Vivianne Westwoods dress design skills either. I remember Russel Harty lampooning her designs on TV by saying 'but look at that girl - she looks like a chip shop'. To which the lofty Westwood responded, 'if the audience keep laughing at my frocks then I'll stop the show'. But how were the poor audience to know the show wasn't really a parody? Up to that point, I too thought Westwood was just taking the p*ss out of the fashion industry. Alas, just like 'the emperor has no clothes', the vacant pseuds really do buy any old tat (or fairy story) just to be in with the in crowd!
BBC "we accept that there is broad scientific agreement "
When using words like "agreement" or "consensus" as here, always precde them with "manufactured".
The evidence of untruth is in that the BBC regularly brings in loony tune kooks claiming false things about fracking, GM food, peak oil, the success fo windmill power, etc.
They only use the 'consensus' argument when the so-called consensus supports their prejudice.
I've just seen your comments for the first time. You say "loony tune kooks" - wow, I love the phrase, I shall write it down! You lot should compete in some kind of loony olympics yourselves! I think I will bookmark you for regular breakfast reading, I like a good laugh before setting off to work (which presumably you don't as you are either congenitally unemployable creeps or are paid by his highness Lord Lawson himself).
Cheers! You have made my day!
Well that's new.
I think I'd rather have Zed. At least the name doesn't take up so much space.
Welcome, I_Hate_Slugs_And_Other_Creatures_Under_Damp_Rocks. Sorry though to find you voicing such prejudiced opinions about important elements of natural biodiversity. Still, it's good that you find us amusing. I'm not sure how long we will be able to return the compliment. In order not to bore us, you need to find insults that are not completely stale and at least marginally plausible - which so far you have failed to do. But do keep trying!
So now skeptics will be allowed to debate with consensus scientists only after an introduction that will discredit their words even before they speak.