.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Breaking news: BBC gets science from scientists

Sou | 2:51 AM Go to the first of 183 comments. Add a comment
Stop the presses. In breaking news we can reveal that BBC senior management seek scientific information from scientists.

David Rose first published this scandal at the Mail Online.

Science deniers are enraged.  Andrew Montford labelled it "subversion of the state broadcaster".

Steve E, of Norwich wrote of his outrage: Scap the licence fee now, we are being forced to pay for the BBCs properganda! 

The scandal has made headlines in the USA.

The saga was revealed by a little known - outside of the British arm of Science Deniers Inc (a branch of the Scientific Illiterati)  - pensioner CWM Tony Newbery whose hobby is blogging, mainly protests against clean energy and writing to all and sundry about how he is a fervent and committed climate science denier and that "scientists don't know nuffin'".


In other news, the Scientific Illiterati Society will be holding their annual general meeting next month.  WUWT and Daily Mail readers are encouraged to attend.  The Society said it was bending the rules slightly and would be keen to recruit anyone who is able to read.  Particularly if they are also able to write.  Understanding what is read or written is desirable but not essential. Tea will be served, with an extra biscuit for eligible members. Dress: Brown cardigan.

183 comments:

  1. Specialists:
    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Matthew Farrow, CBI
    Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
    Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Joe Smith, The Open University
    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

    Please name the scientists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh, oooh, can I name drop?! Well, I know Iain Wright and Steve Widdicombe from various meetings I've been to, Iain is industry but consults and works with academics on a regular basis and Steve is a marine scientist at PML, specialising in the effects of increased CO2 on ocean marine life. Both good chaps :-)

      Delete
    2. And let's not forget Robert May (even making it to President of the Royal Society...as an Australian! Or what about Mike Hulme? And Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and Michael Bravo. Dlugolecki may not be a scientist in the conventional understanding, but the insurance companies that employed him will think otherwise. Pravat and Smith are scientists, too, albeit social scientists. You could add Eleni Andreadis to that list, also. Widdicombe and Wright have already been mentioned.

      Note that some people will try and not let Richard D. North be discussed. Bit inconvenient to have a conservative commentator working at a free-market thinktank when trying to make it into a leftist conspiracy.

      Delete
    3. I realise that YOU think they are all 'scientists'. The real question is how many would be better classed as 'lobbyists'?

      And why the BBC spent so much money and time trying to conceal that distinction.

      Delete
  2. What's this? My licence fee is paying for the BBC to be advised by oil companies, a power generator and the man who brought us the AmazonGate (non)-scandal?!

    I'm shocked and outraged, I tell you. Thanks to Newberry for unearthing this scandalous lobbying of our beloved national broadcaster by vested interests....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong Richard North, Phil. Richard D. North is not the same as Richard A.E. North, even though they do both fall into the more rightish side of the political spectrum.

      Delete
    2. Ooops. Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous could not have been looking very hard, the first person in his list was president of the Royal Society for 6 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please. Try counting the number of 'scientists' against the number of 'others' and form your own opinion as to how may of each were there.

      The 28 'scientists' turns out to be slightly less which is the main point made by most who comment.

      Normally the BBC is expected to give impartial news, seems slightly one sided to me but....

      Delete
    2. So the BBC should have invited flat earthers, cornwall alliancers, iron sunners(?), cycle maniacs, etc., and of course ex weather forecasters?

      Delete
    3. II that what you would recommend? Me, I would have suggested others who have relevant knowledge in the field.

      Ahead of Greenpeace anyway,

      Delete
    4. Anonymous - giving some names might help... Real scientists mind, given your stipulation.

      Quiet Waters

      Delete
    5. Ah but how many names? How many positions are there required to b filled.

      That requires a list of the 'lobbyists' to be drawn up so that the number of available positions can be determined.

      I'll try but please feel free to add/remove names at your discretion

      Scientists – 6
      Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
      Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
      Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
      Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
      Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
      Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University

      Lobbiyists/Advocates – 22
      Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
      Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
      Trevor Evans, US Embassy
      Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
      Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
      Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
      Claire Foster, Church of England
      Saleemul Huq, IIED
      Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
      Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
      Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
      Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
      Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
      Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
      Matthew Farrow, CBI
      Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
      Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
      Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
      Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
      Joe Smith, The Open University
      Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
      Anita Neville, E3G
      Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
      Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia
      .

      Delete
    6. I can't comment on the expertise of individuals. I'm Australian not British. However if you (Anonymous) are implying that an organisation that advocates on an issue doesn't have broad expertise in that issue you'd be way wrong. For example, who do people turn to when they want to find out about homelessness? Or health matters? Or consumer affairs? It's not restricted to the government agency for housing or professional medical associations or economists. It's the peak bodies and key NGOs who take on an advocacy role on such matters.

      In fact it's self-evident that non-government organisations spring up because of their interest in a subject matter of wide public concern. And because those issues are not being dealt with adequately by society (by neither the public nor the private sector). And some organisations and individuals are clearly more credible than others. Eg who in their right mind would rely on a group like the GWPF to consult on climate matters. They are a bunch of scientifically illiterate nutters with a clear agenda to slow the shift to clean energy. They aren't interested in nor have any expertise in climate or climate change or how to respond to it or what it will mean for the general public.

      Makes me think that thefordprefect is correct and that science deniers would rather the BBC called on the Flat Earth Society and the Cornwall Alliance or, heaven forbid, know-nothing populist entertainers like Christopher Monckton and James Delingpole. The BBC isn't the tabloid press. It's not the Daily Fail.

      Not knowing the program or its scope or its objectives, it's difficult to comment further. Clearly there are any number of people who could inform senior management of the BBC on environmental topics and the broader societal and economic implications. Casting my eye down that list it seems to cover a broad spectrum. If that's what they were wanting then they did rather well, it seems to me.

      Anyway, that's getting away from the subject - which is that a nondescript pensioner blogger (Conservative White Male) being incensed that the BBC would want it's senior staff informed. He's now had his five minutes of fame and it couldn't have been in a more appropriate manner - a spread in tabloid paper by a smut-seeking journalist, David Rose no less. I bet it goes to his head.

      I thought it cute that the little blogger sends his climate denial tomes to the Leveson Inquiry. Good thing they can't WPB submissions from cranks. Their weirdness is now on the public record.

      Delete
    7. The BBC owns words were

      ”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”

      6 scientists, 22 lobbyists stretches the definition of 'expert' quite a bit I would have thought. YMMV.

      If you like you can read the biographies supplied by the attendants themselves at http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/~newbery1/disclosures/1%20BBC%20disclosures.pdf

      Delete
    8. I see among the list of "lobbyists/advocates" various names that are problematic. What exactly would for example Dlugolecki "lobby" or "advocate" for? Or what about Smith and Pravat, who are actually social scientists?

      Delete
    9. If you take a look at the detail the attendees are listed as 'specialists' not lobbyists or advocates. Dr Andrew Dlugolecki - is titled "Insurance Industry Consultant & IPCC Author" and was specifically involved in the section with questions such as - What do the public need to absorb & debate over the next ten years? How can politicians and the public form opinions and policies on the basis of uncertainty?

      http://www.postevents.co.uk/underwritersforum/static/dr-andrew-dlugolecki

      Smith is Dr Joe Smith, Lecturer in Environment, Geography Discipline, OU.
      "All of my work seeks to promote better understanding of - and action on - global environmental change issues. This breaks down into three linked areas of research and commentary: public engagement and the media, the politics of consumption, and contemporary environmental history."

      Poshendra Satyal Pravat is a PhD Researcher, OU - Research Interests:
      Interdisciplinary and policy relevant research on environment and development, in particular environmental governance, forest management and climate change. Other research interests: conservation and human rights, food security and agriculture, forest politics and policy, environmental and social justice, businesses and corporate social responsibility, and ecosystem services and poverty alleviation.

      So, experts in the developing world, mitigation, media, policy, etc.

      Delete
    10. "Breaking news: BBC gets science from scientists"

      reduced to 'getting advice' from

      "experts in the developing world, mitigation, media, policy, etc."

      Not 'scientists' advising on the level and nature of climate change but people concerned about how to get a possibly one sided message out. That is normally called propaganda.

      Even the IPCC is not that convinced the message is as clear and simple as some would like it to be.

      Crayons anyone?

      Delete
    11. the title is perfectly accurate. even by your own admission (assuming you're the same anon as above -- it would be less confusing if you picked a 'nym) there were 6 scientists present.

      "how to get a possibly one sided message out". possibly one-sided? that's a strange way of saying "i've got no evidence that they were biased, but i'll just assume they're being dishonest anyway", though i can appreciate its concision.

      Delete
    12. Anon, there was no 'reduction', indeed I was expanding on detail about the seminar, which was one of several about " improve its coverage of the developing world.", not just "the level and nature of climate change", though of course adaptation in such areas of the world is going to be crucial, hence the need for many types of knowledge, not just from scientists.

      Delete
    13. Katy D: "hence the need for many types of knowledge, not just from scientists."

      Having spent a few years in politics I understand the need to obtain impartial advice from multiple sources. I also believe that there is a need to be very careful to make full disclosure of those from whom the advice comes. That way any bias in the views can be properly assessed and dealt with.

      In this matter the BBC have come across as wishing to conceal rather than reveal.

      The premise that others views from the 'consensus' should be heard is one I agree with. I understand that should not to be taken to mean that 'flat earthers' are given equal time.

      However there are reputable scientists who do not believe that CO2 is the sole driver of climate since 1840. It would have been nice to see at least one of those being invited to attend.

      Delete
    14. "However there are reputable scientists who do not believe that CO2 is the sole driver of climate since 1840."

      i'd be really quite surprised if any of the scientists present held such a simplistic view of the climate.

      Delete
    15. Really. Care to give your assessment as the proportion to give to CO2 and the proportion to give to 'natural factors'?

      Delete
    16. crazy thought, but you could always check the IPCC reports for yourself...

      Delete
    17. Where anonymous would find that CO2 is not the only human factor, but NOx methane black carbon and aerosols. And water from feedback. The very question is meaningless.

      Delete
    18. Oops. Double posting because I lost track of the threading. My fault and I apologise.

      Sorry, I obviously failed to make it clear enough.

      Please indicate what proportion of the rise since 1840 to give to 'natural factors/forcings' and what proportion to the various green house gasses in all their totality.

      I'll start you off if you like

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.006/offset:-1.9

      Delete
    19. Click here to see the contributions of different climate forcings since 1750 - with references to the relevant passages in the IPCC report, which in turn provides references to scientific papers.

      And why do you show a chart going back to 1958 when asking a question about radiative forcing contributions since 1840?

      In regard to UAH and RSS (elsewhere in this thread), click here for a comparison of RSS and UAH. That article also has a plot of UAH and HadCRUT on the same chart for comparison.

      Delete
    20. Hmm. Just 'radiative forcings' from that link. No 'natural variations' but I may have missed them.

      And my RSS/UAH runs to 2013 and shows an almost identical output.

      Delete
    21. "And why do you show a chart going back to 1958 when asking a question about radiative forcing contributions since 1840?"

      Because the CO2 information was not available of there before then?

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.006/offset:-1.9

      Delete
    22. ...but I may have missed them.

      Yes, you did miss them. Look at it more closely. That chart I showed you listed the radiative forcing by emitted components to global temperatures of the past couple of hundred years or so, which AFAIK was what you asked about. It also includes solar radiation, which isn't subject to human influence. (If it wasn't for human activities then the world wouldn't be as hot as it is today.)

      If you only want to look at trends in solar radiation, volcanic forcing and well-mixed greenhouse gases compared to temperature over time, this chart from the IPCC report shows it clearly. It's not the same as the previous chart and doesn't give the same information. It's complementary.

      Because the CO2 information was not available of there before then?

      There is now CO2 information from before then although not as precise (from ice cores for example). In any case, that wasn't your question. You were asking about various radiative forcings since the mid-1800s, not just CO2. So you need to compare the radiative forcings to temperatures of that whole period, not just since the 1950s. (Since the 1950s, probably more than 100% of the forcing can be attributed to human influence - eg positives from greenhouse gases etc, negatives from smog/aerosols.)

      Why don't you read the science for yourself. Start with the IPCC technical summary - it's got the sort of information you are looking for. If you want more detail go to the full report. And if you want still more detail follow up the references to the scientific papers or do your own literature search.

      Delete
    23. Hmm. Just 'radiative forcings' from that link. No 'natural variations' but I may have missed them.

      By the way, your original question was about contributions to global warming, as I understand it. The term "natural variations" could apply to forcings such as volcanic eruptions or changes in TSI (see my other link above). But I'm wondering if you are confusing internal variations with changes in radiative forcing. Internal variations denote shifts of energy within different parts of the earth system as occurs with ENSO events for example (atmosphere - ocean - surface energy exchange) - with no net change in radiative forcing.

      Delete
    24. Anonymous, your logic is fallacious and heavily reliant on cherry picking and goal post shifting. If you "spent a few years in politics" it is a poor reflection on the processes that are used to recruit quality political membership - one of the perennial short-comings of most democracies in the Western world.

      Sou's given you a complete drubbing though. You should take note of her points and understand what is fact, rather than attractive to an ignorant voting public.

      Delete
    25. Lemmings or Leaders is a question history will decide.

      Delete
    26. Science or pseudoscience is a question that time will decide regardless of the spin that humans put on it.

      Delete
    27. Same statement, different words.

      Delete
    28. Annoymous. My request for some names on January 13, 2014 at 6:59 PM was actually a request for you to provide some names of scientists who you feel should have been on the panel.

      Quiet Waters

      Delete
    29. "Same statement, different words."

      Actually, no.

      But you've shown great skill at confabulation so I am not surprised that you don't understand the point.

      Delete
  4. I would not try to teach science to journalists, that is for sure. Four scientists would be enough to make sure that the very basic facts would be correct. Which have to include worst case scenarios. Evidently that is propaganda to some people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I read it the seminar/whatever sessions were much broader than climate science. I think it was environment generally - which is a huge area. It might have even included fisheries, forestry and agriculture, which would broaden it even more.

      Delete
    2. It was described in John Bridcut’s landmark ‘Wagon Wheel’ report on BBC’s impartiality, which was adopted and published by the BBC Trust in July 2007, as:

      ”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”

      So are the 28 'the best' or the 6? Does kinda change the value attached does it not?

      Delete
    3. Since the Landmark Wagon Wheel is mentioned, I had a look at what it says. Anonymous quote is from a section: "GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOUR
      Impartiality is about breadth of view, and can be breached by omission. It is not necessarily to be found on the centre ground."

      What does it say about this seminar? "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has
      come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate."

      Since this is indeed correct, the value of this seminar is: as high as it could be.

      This foofraw is just the usual nothingburger from those in denial.

      Delete
    4. It is about openness and honesty in public affairs. Too often those who attempt to operate in the shadows are unwilling to step out into the glare of general scrutiny.

      History has shown that to be a poor choice of options.

      Delete
  5. I used to work for someone who was at several of the ongoing programme of BBC seminars and is an expert in the developing world and innovative broadcasting, whilst also having an excellent grasp on climate change (not a scientist) so I was interested to find out more.

    What a bizarre & slanted twist WUWT puts on an innovative way to share knowledge - not only do the WUWT links give the background documents showing the topic was not specifically climate change but also the Tony Newbery blog has the 'BBC disclosures' documents which give the true picture. From them we find the following;

    The International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) has been lobbying the BBC, on behalf of all the major UK aid and development agencies, to improve its coverage of the developing world. One of the aims is to take this coverage out of the box of news and current affairs, so that the lives of people in the rest of the world, and the issues which affect them, become a regular feature of a much wider range of BBC programmes...

    A one and a half day event was held on July 12 and 13 at New Hall College, Cambridge entitled ‘Telling stories about an interconnected world: the challenge to broadcasting.’ There were four ‘carousel’ sessions with a wide range of experts, who all approached the theme of an interconnected world from different angles. Some of the specific issues explored included innovation, design, migration, generational differences and the role of global business.

    and further;
    The aim of the seminars is to change minds and hearts. We want to talk about the developing world in a way that is interesting, engaging and provocative, so that the BBC participants and independent producers come away convinced that this is an area which their programmes should no longer ignore.

    Participants. At each of the seminars there are approximately 40 participants, half from the BBC, and the remainder covering a wider range of voices with an interest in, and knowledge about the developing world.

    So not specifically about climate change, and therefore the participants reflect the actual topics under discussion!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting that you talk about another, different, event held in July rather than the event this was about, The '28 scientists' in January.

      Delete
    2. Ah, OK, so as part of a series of discussions, one was on climate change and its impact on development, including mitigation, vulnerability, adaptation & economic impact. Invitees were names as 'specialists', not scientists. It appears to be part of a whole series of events over three years including a wide range of topics.

      .A one day event was held in London on January 26 2006, focusing on climate change and its impact on development. The brainstorm brought together 28 BBC executives and independent producers, this time including several from BBC News, and 28 policy experts. It was chaired by Fergal Keane and looked ahead to the next 10 years, to explore the challenges facing television in covering this issue. Several delegates attended from developing countries, including Ethiopia, China and Bangladesh.

      Delete
  6. Why is it relevant that Tony Newbery is a pensioner? Isn't that being rather ageist? The BBC fought long and hard to keep all this secret, so full marks to Mr Newbery. The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster and is meant to be impartial. It has lost much respect here in Britain for it's obvious bias towards certain issues. It does not provide balance for many of it's reports, whether on the EU, AGW, mass immigration or the Labour party. Whatever you may think, I repeat, the BBC does not command respect here. It is so biased in fact, that if the BBC advocate a line, most people so distrust it, they choose to take an opposing opinion. This conference of theirs is a perfect case in point, attended as it was, in the main, by lobbyists pushing one agenda. What scientific advice do you suppose the lobbyists provided?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Attack the messenger, not deal with the message?

      Delete
    2. Why is it relevant that Tony Newbery is a pensioner?

      It's not. However David Rose thought it so relevant that he included the fact in his headline.

      Yeah, it was naughty of me. I was simply poking fun because of the stereotypical brown cardigan clad retired conservative white male who gets their knickers in a knot that some people have a broader and more nuanced view of the world than their small-minded bigotry allows. It goes with the stereotype of the climate science denier. (Think Steve McIntyre for the archetype of the obsessive climate denial nutter. I bet he wears a brown cardie and comfy fleecy lined bedroom slippers, with holes or at least scuff marks - while he's hunched over his keyboard blogging furiously his annoyance with climate scientists :D)

      Delete
  7. North, the attendees were 'policy experts', not lobbyists or scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Katy D, there you have identified the problem. The 'policy experts' are indeed advising the government on policy that affects every person and business in the UK. The fact that the BBC had no-one sitting round that table who would provide a counter argument is the issue here. I would be interested in knowing what experience the 'policy experts' have, and I do not mean fancy titles. Real life experience outside academia, that is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'counter argument' to 'how shall we deal with developing world impacts' as broadcasters is to not bother to report at all! Why don't you look up the expertise & life experience yourself? Most of the attendees have detailed on-line information about their particular field (see some of my comments above) - they cover a huge range of experiences. You should also look at the whole seminar programme rather than just this one event. You will find the background paper on "REAL WORLD BRAINSTORMS" says "The aim of the seminars is to change minds and hearts. We want to talk about the developing world in a way that is interesting, engaging and provocative, so that the BBC participants and independent producers come away convinced that this is an area which their programmes should no longer ignore. We are not pitching ideas and have no guarantees that specific programmes will be commissioned on these issues. Our goal, therefore, is to bring to life stories and issues from the developing world. We shall not be talking in detail about tv coverage so we do not need participants to have a detailed knowledge of British television."

      Delete
    2. North of England - a counter-argument to what? And just how do you know what different views were expressed?

      I would expect these are all smart, experienced people, including the BBC people. They wouldn't be ignorant of the range of perspectives. They'd be well aware of the small minded views of the Tony Newbery's of the world as well as the real life circumstances of the billions of normal people outside Tony Newbery's tiny world.

      I've been involved in enough scenario type discussions to know they consider the full spectrum. But I also figure that someone like Tony Newbery would be a lost soul at such an event. Montford might fare better because I imagine he could choose from any number of masks he keeps in his closet, donning whatever suited the occasion. David Rose could do the same, to a point. Having read his blog, I don't imagine Tony is quite as sophisticated. He comes across more as a plodder. A willing drone that people like David Rose and Andrew Montford will use when it suits them to do so.

      I could be wrong and often am. But that's how it seems to me.

      Delete
    3. I would expect these are all smart, experienced people, including the BBC people. They wouldn't be ignorant of the range of perspectives. They'd be well aware of the small minded views of the Tony Newbery's of the world as well as the real life circumstances of the billions of normal people outside Tony Newbery's tiny world.
      *************************************************

      Sou, the BBC are dismissive of the views of the vast majority of the British public. As you are an Australian, you will be largely oblivious to the contempt the BBC are now held in. This seminar, stuffed as it was with people all singing from the same hymn book, just about sums the BBC up, for most people. That, coupled with the fact the BBC was prepared to spend whatever it took to cover things up, is the reason the story is so big here in the UK. The BBC are at real risk of losing their licence fee funding, so angry are the public at their behaviour. Just ask yourself, if everything was so honest and above board, why were the BBC so desperate to cover this up? How would it go down in Australia if any of your publicly funded organisation were to behave in the same way? You have used this story in a knee-jerk reaction to support your opinions for CAGW, that is not what the story is about. It is about bias, secrecy, attempts at censorship and waste of public money. Do you see that?

      Delete
    4. have you considered spending a little less time on BiasedBBC, NoE? because as a Brit, i've not seen anything like the anger you're claiming, even among my most extreme conservative/libertarian friends and acquaintances.

      Delete
    5. Most of the news organisations in the UK have used the phrase "unprecedented since..." in their output. The BBC is no exception.

      At least it helps to determine their level of impartiality.

      Delete
    6. "the BBC are dismissive of the views of the vast majority of the British public.."

      that sounds unlikely given that a 2013 poll shows the public trusts scientists, green charities and BBC journalists the most (in that order) to tell them about climate science (graph of poll results)

      Delete
    7. David Sanger 1, NoE 0.

      Delete
    8. It's not even as if this story is "big" in the UK. NoE and the various Anons have had more to say on this subject than I've heard anywhere else...and I live on a street where three people fly the St George Cross in their gardens...

      Quiet Waters

      Delete
    9. NoE provides a masterclass in the argument from assertion (aka dishonest framing):

      Sou, the BBC are dismissive of the views of the vast majority of the British public.

      False claim; no supporting evidence.

      As you are an Australian, you will be largely oblivious to the contempt the BBC are now held in.

      False claim (contempt); no supporting evidence.

      This seminar, stuffed as it was with people all singing from the same hymn book, just about sums the BBC up, for most people.

      False claim; no supporting evidence.

      That, coupled with the fact the BBC was prepared to spend whatever it took to cover things up, is the reason the story is so big here in the UK.

      Two false claims: cover-up and big story; no supporting evidence.

      The BBC are at real risk of losing their licence fee funding, so angry are the public at their behaviour.

      False claim (public anger); no supporting evidence.

      Just ask yourself, if everything was so honest and above board, why were the BBC so desperate to cover this up?

      Two false claims: dishonesty and cover-up; no supporting evidence.

      Try this in court, NoE, and see how far you get.

      I don't know about others here, but I've had about enough of this rubbish.

      Delete
  9. Katy D, for further clarification my question on what scientific expertise the lobbyists could bring to the table was in response to the title of this post:'Breaking news: BBC gets science from scientists'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I said, they were not 'lobbyists' they were policy experts, clearly not all scientists.

      Delete
    2. The BBC fought very hard for this information not to get out. As a BBC licence payer (reluctantly) I feel we deserve to know what the BBC are spending public money on. We are still, notionally, a free and democratic society.
      http://order-order.com/2012/11/13/the-list-of-names-the-bbc-did-not-want-you-to-see-scientist-exposed-by-climategate-set-bbc-policy/

      Do you not see how misleading the title of this post is, and what is the difference between a policy 'expert' and a lobbyist?

      Delete
    3. I don't think Sou had read through all the detailed docs when she titled the post, so she didn't know exactly what percentage were scientists, but clearly there were scientists there, plus a lot of other experts in many fields. It appears to be one of a number of learning seminars, surely the BBC need to learn about the developing world in order to give good coverage? And there is very little point in linking to a conspiracy blog.

      Delete
    4. Conspiracy blog? It is certainly a blog the establishment wish would go away, it has a strong record on exposing wrong-doing and is read by many politicians and those in the MSM here in the UK. By the way, you didn't manage to answer my question, what is the difference between a policy 'expert' and a lobbyist? The two are frequently to be found hand-in-glove. Whatever the credentials, or not, of the attendees, you still miss the reason this story made news here in the UK. The BBC was found, once again, involved in a cover up on how it spends taxpayer money and the biased nature of it's reporting. THAT is the real story. Sou may be advised to inform herself of the full facts in future before rushing to publish under sensationalist headlines.,

      Delete
    5. North of England, the article was in response to this sort of "shock horror" for something that happened seven years ago for heaven's sake:

      At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

      It's David Rose who is misleading and appealing to the baser instincts of the illiterati. To David Rose and more particularly to his audience, anything remotely to do with the environment gets labeled "green activism". I bet the kerbside recycling program and anti-litter campaigns are "green activism" to some readers of the tabloid press.

      That's the point!

      And another point. Why would the BBC spend money on barristers? Did this go to court? In any case £20,000 wouldn't go far with a barrister. It wouldn't go very far even for a solicitor.

      David peppered his article with words like "admitted" - for a perfectly innocuous statement. It's a beat up. That's what it is, which is why I made fun of it.

      PS From a risk perspective, I reckon global warming would be a bigger threat than nuclear war. The former is a dead cert - the question is how well are we going to respond to the threat. A nuclear war may or may not happen. It's probably less of a threat now than it was a few decades back. But as civil unrest increases and world economic balance changes with global warming, who knows what will happen. Nuclear war may emerge as a big threat again.

      Delete
    6. No-one said they were lobbyists except you, lobbyists can be anyone, experts have expertise. The people attending were clearly a wide range of experts. And any links with the word 'climategate' in them can be readily ignored.

      The themes under discussion were described - "We looked at the effects of global environmental, technological and economic changes and exploring issues like urbanisation, deforestation, access to education, running water healthcare, trade rules, HIV/Aids and mental health. More recently, we have focused increasingly on the theme of interconnectedness."

      Delete
    7. I didn't say they were lobbyists, I asked what the difference was between a lobbyist and a policy expert.

      Delete
    8. What it shows is that David Rose's audience are not familiar with common practice in business and government. This sort of activity isn't uncommon in the corporate (or government) world in various guises and for various purposes. This exercise sounds like it was up there with the best of such programs.

      It seems to have been very worthwhile. Quoting David Rose again:

      BBC radio Helen Boaden...: ‘In my view, the seminar had an impact on a broad range of BBC output.’

      So it should have or it would have been a waste of time, money and effort.

      And this statement is hilarious:

      "However, there were no expert climate sceptics present."

      What do you have to do to become an "expert" climate "sceptic"? Let's guess - Get a distinction in illogical thinking, at least a B in fudging, demonstrate a strong aptitude for conspiratorial thinking and confirmation bias, read WUWT daily and subscribe to Marc Morano's email list, and promise hand on heart that they've never read a single science paper and avoid the IPCC reports like the plague.

      I bet some of the people commenting here would rate as "expert" fake climate sceptics.

      Delete
    9. What it shows is that David Rose's audience are not familiar with common practice in business and government. This sort of activity isn't uncommon in the corporate (or government) world in various guises and for various purposes. This exercise sounds like it was up there with the best of such programs
      *******************************************************************

      You do the public a disservice. A lot of us are very aware of the practices of lobbyists and their influence of government policy. A lot of our politicians, of all parties, are on that particular gravy train (as they are in every country). Another article by your bĂȘte noir David Rose:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523758/MPs-Lords-lobbyists-advise-Ministers-eco-policies--cash-in.html

      Delete
    10. Here's the definition of a lobbyist in Australia:

      http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/faq.cfm#q5

      There is also a distinction between a lobbyist and an advocate. Many NGOs for example have an advocacy role, without lobbying for a single policy solution. They are interested in advocating for their constituency to make sure they get a fair go, but they may be amenable to various approaches.

      There are shades of grey between a lobbyist and an advocate, however distinct lines are drawn by various regulatory bodies, such as the taxation office and charity commissions or equivalent.

      A policy expert is different. A policy expert will generally be across the spectrum of positions that different lobbyists might lobby for as well as being familiar with the broader range of issues. They will more particularly have expertise in the policy development processes, including consultation processes and in the case of government policy, the steps involved in making policy - all the way through to regulations if it comes to that. Also in how to evaluate policy (which you need to think about before policy is implemented).

      In short, a lobbyist pushes for a particular policy approach/solution and is generally only interested in a narrow range of issues. They tend to represent individual businesses or narrow groups of interests (eg newspapers, pharma companies) and make pitches to the powers that be on their behalf.

      An advocate is wanting to make sure the needs of their constituents are met, but are more open to a range of solutions. They are more likely to be represented on, for example, community advisory groups or send in submissions re green papers (where that process is still used).

      A policy expert can be someone who has no preference for any particular stance but who is expert in developing and/or implementing policy - whatever that policy may be. A policy expert may also refer to someone who has a great depth and breadth of knowledge about a particular policy area.

      Someone else may have a different perspective, but that's how I see it here in Australia.

      Delete
    11. You do the public a disservice.

      I wasn't referring to the general public. I was referring to the illiterati - the core of David Rose's target audience. The sort of people who confuse lobbyists with other experts. The sort of people who think there is such a thing as an "expert climate sceptic".

      Delete
    12. The USA senate seems to disagree on "expert climate sceptic"

      http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=cfe32378-96a4-81ed-9d0e-2618e6ddff46

      Delete
    13. Probably half the GOP in the USA would regard Duane Gish as an expert evolution sceptic, too.

      Delete
    14. hey, Roy Spencer is a creationist, so he could cover that too!

      Delete
    15. As the chairman was very careful to point out before he had a chance to present the science.

      Another 'name calling' episode. RSS seems to agree with what UAH first concluded to the science seems genuine regardless.

      Delete
    16. given his writings on the subject of evolution show a profound (and for a scientist, utterly shameful) lack of understanding of how science works, i'd say that's really quite pertinent to his testimony. see his contribution to "The Evolution Crisis", for instance. he's clearly willing to let scientific evidence take the back seat when it conflicts with his ideology.

      his signing the Cornwall Declaration (climate change cannot be harmful to humanity since God wouldn't let that happen) shows that isn't a misplaced concern.

      incidentally, RSS and UAH only started to agree after several really stupid mistakes were found in the latter. normally i wouldn't have a problem with that (his ground-breaking work work with John Christy on UAH was truly impressive), but this came after years claiming that everyone else was wrong and the planet wasn't actually warming. ooops! not that he let it get to him: even now he's claiming that the reason the vast majority of climatologists disagree with him is that they're either idiots or liars.

      Delete
    17. In point of fact both RSS and UAH provide almost the same picture if you compare their OLS over the whole period.

      Within that time their response only differs in the minutia. Try placing the two on the same graph and, by using their OLS, align them to the same baseline and observe that what I say is true.

      There is a small offset between them (0.1C), but that could just be down rounding errors (both publishing mostly to 0.1C).

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/uah/offset:0.1/plot/uah/trend/offset:0.1

      I try to keep a persons beliefs separate from their science. The first is by definition not based on facts, the later always so (at least in theory).

      Delete
    18. Sorry, I obviously failed to make it clear enough.

      Please indicate what proportion of the rise since 1840 to give to 'natural factors/forcings' and what proportion to the various green house gasses in all their totality.

      I'll start you off if you like

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.006/offset:-1.9

      Delete
    19. Oops. I am sorry. With all the threading I misplaced the above response when your 'bot checker' stalled, I hit refresh, and forgot to make sure I posted on the correct part of the thread. Please feel free to delete if you like.

      Delete
    20. In regard to UAH and RSS, click here for a comparison of RSS and UAH. RSS diverges in the last couple of years. IIRC Spencer/Christy puts it down to RSS using an older satellite.

      That article also has a plot of UAH and HadCRUT on the same chart for comparison, which shows they too are very close despite being measures of different things.

      Delete
    21. I think that the two presentations show the same thing. That UAH and RSS mostly agree except for small details. I am aware of the recent divergence between them and note Christy's reasoning for it. No doubt this will be resolved fairly soon as the disparity cannot continue for long.

      UAH and RRS v HadCrut4 is more interesting. Whilst they do show measurements from different parts of the same system, the trends in both are expected to be the same in the long term.

      It is enlightening that both sets of measurement show a 60 year cycle to the data (satellite data being too short to do much more than indicate its presence so far).

      The (potential?) 60 year cycle is one that is missing from most/all of the models and it is at the end of the likely resolution in those models.

      The next few years should prove interesting as to the progression of GST and may well provide better insight as to which of the various theories are closer to the 'truth'.

      Delete
    22. What 60 year cycle? Temperatures now are way higher than they were 60 years ago let alone 120 years ago.

      Oh, you probably mean this 60 year cycle - lol.

      Delete
    23. As I did not suggest that a 60 year cycle was the only factor in play your response has little meaning.

      Delete
    24. You brought that cycle up, anomtroll, and you got a reply. Say 'thank you, Sou'.

      Delete
    25. how can 30 years of data show a 60 year cycle (or even just "indicate its presence")?

      Delete
    26. Interesting. The IPCC recognises 'natural variability' as being (in part anyway) responsible for the current trends in GST. So I am not the only one pointing it out.

      Delete
    27. "how can 30 years of data show a 60 year cycle (or even just "indicate its presence")?"

      Well it could be that the data only shows, say, the rising edge of a sine wave. Without the full period of 60 years it would be, by definition, only an indication.

      Delete
    28. "Well it could be that the data only shows, say, the rising edge of a sine wave. Without the full period of 60 years it would be, by definition, only an indication."

      I seem to remember that Tamino indicated that two full cycles at least are required to demonstrate periodicity, so yet again you are wrong - half of a putative period shows nothing at all - not even an "indication".

      Delete
  10. I should point out that it was this blog that labelled the attendees as 'Scientists'. The BBC only listed them as 'specialists'.

    It was indeed only one of many meetings that were supposed to set out how the BBC covers 'climate change'.

    The only problem is that the BBC felt that it was worth hiding who that actual attendees were and their level of expertise.

    I am sure that all who attended were 'knowledgeable' but I am not sure 'expert' would be the technically correct term.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The seminars were not 'to set out how the BBC covers 'climate change' ' they were set out to 'improve its coverage of the developing world.' Which is why the range of expertise was so broad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BBCs own words are

      "”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”

      Delete
    2. Link please, and why you add the square brackets? I have quoted direct from the seminar papers with their official title by organisers of the seminars. Perhaps you are not fully quoting?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous wrote:

      The BBCs own words are "”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”

      I googled that and found that the GWPF said it came from John Bridcut’s landmark ‘Wagon Wheel’ report. So I went to the report - here it is. That report was not about climate change in particular, it was about impartiality in broadcasting. However that snippet was about climate change.

      Anonymous and the GWPF were wrong about whose words they are. The words were not those of the BBC but the words of the John Bridcut, an independent programme-maker. The report was approved and adopted by both the BBC Trust and the BBC Executive Board. So the BBC accepted the words but that's different to it being their words.

      What is more interesting is what the GWPF and its parrots omitted. Here is the full paragraph from page 40. I've highlighted the quote - read the rest (and weep, sensible people):

      Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

      The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers. The wagon wheel remains a model shape. But the trundle of the bandwagon is not a model sound.

      Delete
    4. Abstracted from the BBC Trust's statement on why it did not need to adhere to the 'balanced view' requirements on climate change.

      The (sub)quote is correct in context I believe.

      "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC."

      http://www.bbc.co.uk%2Fbbctrust%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2Freview_report_research%2Fimpartiality_21century%2Freport.pdf&ei=Nv7TUuvmFYiShgek0oD4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEb7jpmKTCDXsSD4e768drmkTp4Xg&sig2=lR9RXzH3UGQQHaIt7XQNLA

      Delete
    5. Sou: "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts".

      So is it your contention that Greenpeace, The Church, Climate Lobby groups, etc. are "the best scientific experts" or that the BBC were just careless in adopting the paper with those words in it?

      Delete
    6. I found it too, intriguing to see how different it appears when quoted in full! Page 40 of an 81 page report, subsequently adopted by the Beeb. I particularly like the second part of the quoted sentence "The BBC .... has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

      Delete
    7. Ah Anon, at it again! There were 28 individuals, all experts in different fields, some were scientists.

      Delete
    8. For a very LONG time the BBC were very careful to keep to the '28 'scientific experts' meme without disclosing that they were not 'scientists' in the sense that anyone else would recognise.

      Unless you believe that religion and science are the same of course in at least one case. And Greenpeace a 'scientific expert'! Please.

      Delete
    9. Anon, if there were some of the best scientific experts at the high level seminar - and the sentence is about scientific expertise, then the statement is accurate. Whether there were also social scientists, broader environmental experts and others in attendance wasn't relevant to that passage. The reference was to science.

      What David Rose and Anonymous and all the other deniers are doing is what they do so often. It's called "making a mountain out of a molehill". They are peeved that no-one in their right mind gives any credence to their wails of "it's not happening" and "climate always changes" and "it's not CO2" and "CO2 is plant food" and "no-one says that CO2 doesn't cause warming, we just query how much" and "CO2 causes cooling" and "an ice age cometh" and similar nonsense.

      Katy D has provided the context. It sounds like an excellent program. Be thankful that the BBC is taking efforts to inform its programmers and senior managers.

      Don't be such an illiterati, Anonymous. Knowledge is a good thing and way better than wilful ignorance.

      Delete
    10. "So is it your contention that Greenpeace, The Church, Climate Lobby groups, etc. are "the best scientific experts" [...]?"

      far be it for me to speak on Sou's behalf, but i believe it was her contention that the scientists (includes the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and former President of the Royal Society, and experts in climatology and oceanography) on the list are "the best scientific experts". not that tricky a concept, surely?

      Delete
    11. "What David Rose and Anonymous and all the other deniers are doing is what they do so often. It's called "making a mountain out of a molehill"."

      In this particular case it is more ensuring that precision and clarity are the basis for decision making rather than lobbying, concealment and deceit.

      "Don't be such an illiterati, Anonymous. Knowledge is a good thing and way better than wilful ignorance."

      Scientific practice and logical thinking are likely to be the best way to proceed. Name calling less so.

      Delete
    12. Aah, I see. It's a case of "do as I say, not as I do".

      Delete
    13. Please point out where I have less than frank about the sources, assessment and observation in this affair.

      Also anywhere where I have called any form of name on those involved.

      I have suggested that using the word 'scientific expert' stretches that definition beyond its normal limit. I stand by that observation.

      Delete
    14. You've just accused a bunch of people of "lobbying, concealment and deceit". You're turning an FOI case into something quite different. You act as if David Rose is an honest reporter when his history shows he is anything but. You've not acknowledged his beat up.

      It would not be normal practice to release to the public this level of information. If that part of the report is true (I wouldn't trust David Rose to report facts) the Tribunal disagreed. That's what it's there for. The thing is, it's been twisted out of all proportion and your observations are just as skewed.

      True, you've avoided words like "warmistas" and "alarmists" as far as I can see. But you've labelled a lot of people with other derogatory names.

      Delete
    15. Interesting. So my questioning of your choice of the word 'scientists' in the headline and asking simply for an explanation of how the listed attendees could so be described is derogatory and defamatory.

      So far you have carefully avoided any suggestion that the term is inappropriately applied.

      Please care to answer?

      Delete
    16. I chose my words very deliberately to make a point.

      You are helping making my point for me with your constant harping on the subject.

      I expect every other reader bar you and North of England knows well the point I was making. (Although I've said it often enough that even you should have got it by now.) I was mocking the hysteria in the Daily Fail over the fact that the BBC runs interesting seminars.

      You are making a lot of fuss and outrage over the fact that the BBC runs interesting in-house seminars.

      Perhaps Australian send-ups are lost on people from the UK.

      Delete
    17. Perhaps getting a simple answer is just too difficult for some Australians to provide.

      I do note you have never given your ratio of 'scientists' and an answer as to why the BBC wanted to hide the list.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous said:"So is it your contention that Greenpeace, The Church, Climate Lobby groups, etc. are "the best scientific experts" or that the BBC were just careless in adopting the paper with those words in it?"

    If careless = impossible to be misrepresented by deceivers, then they were "careless".

    This is the BEST that science deniers can do, how pitiful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the best you can do is observe that concealment is better than disclosure I suggest you tread carefully should you ever come to a court of law.

      By the way, I do have a small amount of science background and I try to be very careful of what I see are 'facts' and what are 'opinions'.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous: "I realise that YOU think they are all 'scientists'. The real question is how many would be better classed as 'lobbyists'?

      And why the BBC spent so much money and time trying to conceal that distinction."

      So says Anonymous. Would Anonymous consider it unreasonable if readers were to take your comments - and your replies above - as a totality when assessing what it is that you are up to?

      Why did you not correctly identify the role of this group of scientists from the outset - is it because you did not know? That, at least would be an explanation. But no concession of even the possibility of an error is to be seen.

      It seems to me that the intimation in your opening and subsequent posts is one of wrongdoing. You do not appear to me to have rebutted those who have addressed your "issues" with facts. In fact you have not demonstrated your case at all. You seem to proceed by allusion.

      As a reader of various climate websites who rarely comments, may I just point out that after a sufficient number of "non-engagements" a poster (whatever their side in the argument) tends to be seen as saying something about their commitment to facts, debate and reason. That clearly applies to you. I could be wrong - but then I would need some evidence that might serve to persuade me that I had actually got it wrong.

      You now (above) announce yourself a champion of disclosure. So why don't you disclose? Clearly and unambiguously. With an argument. And facts that can be verified. With your (small) science background that should not be a problem for you.

      However the barrack room lawyer comment above does not encourage me to believe that you are quite as committed to a careful and balanced dissection of the evidence as you could be. Would you care to demonstrate that I have got this wrong ? It is not a lot to ask. Is it?

      Anon123

      Delete
    3. I am quite prepared to be judged by the words I use(d).

      The question that I asked at the begging has still never been answered.

      I have provided an assessment of 6 'scientists' to 22 'others'.

      Please feel free to give your reasoned assessment.

      Delete
    4. I'm getting confused about whether 'Anonymous' is the same as 'Anonymous' and what question he/she is asking!?

      There was one seminar in a group of seminars which were set up to talk about the developing world & how the BBC might report on them. One seminar was about 'climate change and its impact on development' which eventually influenced a document adopted by the BBC. The experts who briefed the BBC at this particular seminar included a wide range of people with broadcasting/communications & scientific knowledge. The topics discussed were split into three sessions, with a corresponding group of experts as follows;

      A. Certainty, uncertainty & public understanding

      experts; Glaciology Prof., Niels Bohr Inst., UCL, Renewable Energy PhD, Scientist & Oxford Prof., Insurance Ind. & IPCC, UEA, Surrey Uni, Environmental & Media Consultant (then Comms Dir. Greenpeace), Plymouth Marine Labs - ocean acidification

      B. How should the world respond?

      experts; Special Rep to UK Foreign Sec., E3G, Press Commentator IEA, chief technology officer of RWE Npower, Bangladeshi scientist IIED, UK MP, IPE Prof. Berlin & US Embassy, BP (CCS), Head of Energy Transport & Planning, CBI

      C. Vulnerability - opportunity - equate

      experts; OU researcher - environment and development, Greenpeace China, Tear Fund UK & Ethiopia, Global justice & film - maker Oneworld, African climate change, Polar regions expert Uni of Cambridge, Analyst NEF, Film maker.

      My 'reasoned assessment' is that this would have been a very dynamic & useful exchange of information, fact & discussion on how best to communicate issues related to the developing world & its likely future.

      Delete
    5. Simple question really.

      ”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”

      Do you believe that the 28 'specialists' listed above can be reasonably described as "the best scientific experts [on climate change]” and do you also believe that the general public would agree or disagree with that assessment?

      Delete
    6. I think Anonymous still hasn't twigged to the fact that Katy D is talking about the entire seminar series, while Anonymous keeps harping on about a part of a sentence which might be about one of those in the series. AKA denier obsession.

      Anonymous for some reason can't accept that one only needs two of the best scientists to be referred to as "the best scientific experts". You don't need 28 of them. AKA denier warped thinking.

      Delete
    7. but you precis a much broader quote..... you conflate two concepts.... and therefore your question is a meaningless distillation.

      Delete
    8. oops, cross-posting! but also the quote was "some of the best", not "the best", so if you want to be pedantic make sure you are accurate! And to bring 'the general public' in as an aside is just asking for trouble.

      Delete
    9. Thank you for the extra words "some of". I accept the pedantry.

      The only reason to look closely at this particular seminar out of the whole series was the fact that the BBC themselves made it front and centre on their position on 'climate change'.

      Their choice, no-one else. They chose to use the words I quote.

      It was described in John Bridcut’s landmark ‘Wagon Wheel’ report on BBC’s impartiality, which was adopted and published by the BBC Trust in July 2007, as:

      ”A high level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [on climate change]”

      Note the 'A' rather than 'one of a series'. And this was used purely in their context of 'climate change ' not on their wider reporting on the developing world.

      Again their choice.

      Delete
    10. "The only reason to look at this closely"

      "They" didn't choose the words, the independent author of the report chose the words. Anonymous and the GWPF and other deniers decided to pluck those half a dozen words out of a seven year old report and use them for their own purpose.

      Finally we get to the heart of the problem. I think it's fair to assume from the above comment that Anonymous doesn't accept the science of climate.

      Do you believe that the BBC bases all its programs that refer to climate on material from a seminar that was conducted seven years ago? Or is it possible BBC researchers, producers and presenters present the latest science, like from the IPCC reports or by reference to scientific experts today?

      Delete
    11. Actually they didn't cross reference that particular seminar in their report, and the full text is rather more enlightening than the phrase you (cherry) picked, but I'm sure you know that.
      The "FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL - Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century" report is detailed and enlightening. It is focussed on evidence & impartiality in reporting rather than climate change, or indeed reporting on the developing world, which was the focus of the seminars.

      Delete
    12. I think I was the first to provide the link to where the text was drawn and the details of the background and biographies of the attendees.

      I did not 'cherry pick'. I provided a reasonable summary of a longer text, in correct context as I later fully quoted to demonstrate.

      The Wagon Wheel report does indeed cover a range of items and this is but one section as you correctly identify. The section on 'climate change'.

      It was this odd characterisation of the people concerned as 'the best scientific experts' that started the whole controversy.

      As I said before, it was the BBC choice of words (by adoption of the report so as to make Sou happy) that caused this to be noticed. Nothing else.

      Delete
    13. it was the BBC choice of words

      Crap! Some obsessive deniers spend every waking hour hunched over their keyboard looking for a short phrase in some innocuous news article, blog, stolen email or scientific paper, that they can twist and quote out of context to "prove" the all the scientists don't know nuffin'. Just like Anonymous has been doing here.

      That's one excellent reason why they are commonly referred to as "utter nutters".

      Delete
    14. "that they can twist and quote out of context to "prove" the all the scientists don't know nuffin'. Just like Anonymous has been doing here."

      As that is not my position at all it obviously does not refer to me.

      Delete
  13. So shit, Sherlock...

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jan/13/dailymail-sherlock

    idunno

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It is about openness and honesty in public affairs. Too often those who attempt to operate in the shadows are unwilling to step out into the glare of general scrutiny.

    History has shown that to be a poor choice of options."

    According to wikipedia:"The BBC is a semi-autonomous public service broadcaster[7] that operates under a Royal Charter[8] and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary.[9] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee,[10] which is charged to all British households, companies and organisations using any type of equipment to receive live television broadcasts;[11] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament.[12]"

    Openness is not the same as responding to hysterical demands in the ongoing search for something, SOMETHING. Pitiful. I bet you thought there was something in the emails of "Climategate", another climate denier nothingburger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have no idea of my politics, religion, scientific background or thought or knowledge on other topics.

      Making stuff up about a questioner is typical of those who unable to respond rationally to the questions posed.

      You do yourself no favours with your ranting style of response.

      Delete
    2. Give it a break, Anonymous. t_p_hamilton is perfectly correct. Openness does not mean that the BBC is obliged to take out a newspaper advertisement every time one of its staff members goes to the loo (or attends a seminar).

      Delete
    3. I don't think I have every suggested such a thing, nor would I.

      I do expect that the quality and reliability of sources of information that will lead to decisions about editorial output and balance are disclosed though.

      It would be frightening if that were not so.

      This whole sorry affair came about because the BBC did not want the fact that they were describing people such as Greenpeace, the Church, Stop Climate Chaos, and others as 'the best scientific experts'. That 6 to 22 ratio in the 28.

      They knew, quite correctly, that such a disclosure would reflect poorly on them. It still does.

      Delete
    4. "reflect poorly on them"

      Only in puny minds, who a) believe that the BBC senior executive and producers are unintelligent, not widely read and not able to form judgements for themselves and b) judge people's expertise by their opinion of their employer rather than by the person's experience, attributes and qualifications.

      Delete
    5. You are wrong of course, the Beeb said that they had consulted 'some' of the best scientific experts, invited a lot of experts to talk to them, some scientists, some experts, all individuals and some of which were affiliated with the organisations you list (& all the others I listed). 'Greenpeace' is not a person, nor is 'The Church'! (I don't know where you got them as contributors, I didn't see them on the list of attendees). The list of advisors is long & expert. Please quote accurately if you decide to quote.

      Delete
    6. Whilst I accept that 'The Daily Mail' is not a choice I would have made to get this to a wider audience we will have to see how much, if at all, this reflects on the BBC.

      Small minds do indeed throw invective rather than argument. I have tried to keep my side of the conversation rational.

      Delete
    7. Katy D:

      Claire Foster, Church of England
      Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
      Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
      Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos

      Do you wish me to re-paste the whole of the first response to this thread or will scrolling up suffice.


      Delete
    8. It's not called "ad hom" for nothing. You are judging a person by your image of their employer or affiliated organisation. You need to consider the expertise of the person - and more particularly all the different perspectives all those individuals as a group were able to bring to the event - based on their knowledge, experience and different (informed) perspectives.

      Not only that, but your multiple comments display a very narrow world view in all sorts of ways - and from my perspective a narrow, warped world view with no understanding of how these sort of events are conducted, their purpose and the importance or otherwise in the context of all the activities of the BBC. (Refer to "mountain out of molehill" comments elsewhere in this thread.)

      But back to your nitpicking:

      Claire Foster
      Blake Lee-Harwood
      Li Moxuan
      Ashok Sinha

      I expect you would have preferred the seminar being run by Lord Lawson. He could have just told them all to pack up and go home, stating as he's said before "global warming appears to have ceased".

      Delete
    9. I just meant the Church, not the others, who I've already listed, I didn't see Claire on the list of experts (I've now spotted her), though she does appear to be "National Policy Adviser for Science, Medicine, Technology & Environmental Issues" to the Church, so that sounds like a 'policy expert' to me.

      Delete
    10. Sou: You make my points for me. Advocacy, Campaigning, Advising, etc. are not usually considered to be 'science'. YMMV.

      Katy D: You still miss the point that the BBC failed to disclose that "some of the best scientific experts" were, in fact the above Advocacy, Campaigning, Advising, etc. people instead.

      And please note that the Wagon Wheel report started all this, not the other way round.

      Delete
    11. Sou: My 'narrow world view' comes from having attended, organised and reported on a wide range of such events over time. On many subjects and with many different political and non-political attendees.

      One of the tenets that has been present throughout all of those occurrences has been the clear and open disclosure of the advisors present and their backgrounds.

      In politics it is required, sometimes by law.

      The BBC sort to imply something that has turned out to be slightly less that truthful.

      As you rightly observe, history will decide on the import (or lack of) of this event.

      Delete
    12. "You make my points for me"

      Thanks, I thought so too. Albeit several quite different points to the ones you think you are making.

      Delete
    13. Advocacy, Campaigning, Advising, etc. are not usually considered to be 'science'. YMMV.

      Delete
    14. What bullshit you write, Anonymous. You said you were a politician of some sort. And talk of "one of the tenets". The BBC isn't a political body. It shouldn't be under any more obligation to publish minute details of every event any more than any statutory body. And it's only obsessive science deniers who insist on it, just so they can do exactly what you've been doing here.

      You're complaining long and loud because you reject the science. That's all. And any person or organisation that accepts science and is working to do something about the situation we're in is "dark and devious" in your warped mind.

      You disregard the actual credentials of the attendees (including higher degrees in relevant subject areas plus broad policy experience) and keep harping on their then employers - as if that's all that counts.

      You talk of "disclosure" and "implying something" - but your entire lot of comments have been substantially less than honest - probably you're not even being honest with yourself. You've got your own agenda.

      Your complaint has got nothing to do with the people who attended, or with the seminar series. It's patently obvious that you reject science and think the BBC is 'crooked', so you are trying to paint a picture that you want to present, not what actually took place.

      Delete
    15. "You're complaining long and loud because you reject the science"

      WRONG.

      I am complaining long and loud because I do not accept that a scientific position that seemed fine and simple 20 years ago still holds true without change now.

      I am always (I would say amused but that is the wrong emotion) disappointed when the tactics of discrimination are used in scientific endeavours.

      In the end it is likely that science will suffer.

      Leaders or Lemmings. Time will tell.

      Delete
    16. I do not accept that a scientific position that seemed fine and simple 20 years ago still holds true without change now

      ha ha. That's hilarious. You must be in an absolute tiz over genetics, evolution, germ theory, the concept of planetary motion, the fact that Newtonian mechanics is generally more than adequate for engineering mechanics. I expect you throw out your computer and white goods every couple of years because you think they won't work any more, given the advances in science.

      You want discrimination? Try learning how to discriminate between huff puffery journalism and the real problems the world is facing.

      Delete
    17. I do try and reflect on what are known 'facts' every few years or so. It is normally called progress and keeping up with it.

      None of your suggestions about my views of science reflect my positions at all. Perhaps they are reflections of your own fears and prejudices.

      I do believe that 'miasma' is a disproven theory though.

      Dealing with real world problems is often better handled by calm consideration and hard work, not aggressive caterwauling.

      Delete
    18. Every few years or so? Not every day or every week or every month?

      Perhaps you should stick to concern trolling. You have quite a bit of talent for that and so far have shown no aptitude whatsoever for science (or for solving the world's problems).

      Delete
    19. Another rant without factual content.

      Delete
    20. "I do not accept that a scientific position that seemed fine and simple 20 years ago still holds true without change now."

      Eh?

      Have you actually paid attention to the progress of climatology over the last two or three decades? Have you noticed the things called "Assessment Reports" that update the world on the progress of the science?

      There is much that has "changed" over the last 20 years, however if you expect the laws of physics to have been repealed you are sadly deluded. The stoichiometry of human combustion of fossil carbon remains firmly grounded in the law of conservation of mass, CO2 continues to exhibit the properties of a 'greenhouse' gas, and the planet continues to have an energy budget imbalance that will warm it over time.

      Fallacious logic might work well in politics but is fails in science, and you are showing a failure of logic of the extreme sort.

      Your job in politics wasn't spin, was it? Is this why you refuse to use even a pseudonym? Yeah, if I were you I'd be embarrassed too...

      Delete
    21. "Have you actually paid attention to the progress of climatology over the last two or three decades?"

      Have you noticed that the measured values of GST have not (significantly?) increased over the last (fill in period that you will accept) years?

      Have you noticed that the measured values of GST are not close to those predicted by the models from 20 years ago? Within range - just possibly but only just. The next few years should decide, as I pointed out.

      Delete
    22. Ha ha. The last hottest ever year on record globally was simply ages ago. Wow - three whole years ago. As for the hottest ever month on record - that's almost as long ago - a whole month ago!

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/whats-that-about-16-years-since-1996.html

      Delete
    23. "The observed reduction in warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in radiative forcing (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the current solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing this reduced warming trend."
      IPCC.


      So 50/50 with a question mark as to one of the 50s.

      Delete
    24. So that I do not get criticisms for only quoting a part of the current IPCC report

      "From page SPM-10:The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).
      IPCC

      If you plug the first line into Google with quotes you can get the reference for yourself without relying on my finding it for you.

      Delete
    25. Good to see you are able to quote the science. The question is, do you understand what it means and what it doesn't mean? Particularly the part where it states:

      There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability.

      In other words, consider what will happen in the next El Nino and positive PDO. (You can place your best bet with low, medium or high confidence - take your pick.)

      Meanwhile, back in Australia...

      Delete
    26. Given that I stated above that any 60 year cycle was at the limit of the resolution that the models can be expected to reproduce, yes I can read and comprehend the science.

      In case you hadn't noticed the 'cooling contribution from internal variability' is the IPCCs way of including this part of the 60 year cycle as it is now in its downward sector.

      Delete
    27. Meanwhile back in the Antarctic.

      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

      Delete
    28. "Have you noticed that the measured values of GST have not (significantly?) increased over the last (fill in period that you will accept) years?"

      What I have noticed is that scientifically-illiterate and statistically-innumerate physics deniers like you refuse to acknowledge that this particular torturing of the facts is an egregious misrepresentation of the situation. In fact just over a year ago I posted a BotE version of a graph to show why this meme is bogus.

      The graph shows, for any particular year from 1981 through to 2012, how many years of preceding temperature data are required in order to detect statistical significance in the global warming signal. A cursory perusal will show that the average interval required for 95% statistical confidence is around 17 years, with a standard deviation of 3 years - in other words there is nothing in the current temperature trajectory that conspicuously diverges from the warming trend of the last 30 years. This conclusion is reinforced by the work of others who have shown that the current trend is not statistically different from the rate of warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

      So anonymous, another of your scientifically specious gambits evaporates.

      As an aside, if anyone hasn't twigged to the high value for 1980, it's magnitude is the result of the preceding years overlapping the post-WWII plateau. And before any denialist pops up to shout "see, warming is a hoax" they should know that science explains why this plateau occurs, so they're advised to keep their knickers on.

      Delete
    29. Given that I stated above that any 60 year cycle was at the limit of the resolution that the models can be expected to reproduce,

      You did? Where? You mentioned a sixty year cycle but didn't mention anything about "limits of resolution", did you? (It's hard to keep up with all this to-ing and fro-ing.) Just what do you mean by "limits of resolution", anyway?

      Are you trying to fit a 60 year cycle to the PDO perhaps? Or is there some other sixty year cycle you've got in mind. Like someone's mathturbations you read about at some stage.

      As for the models, they don't do too badly. (And that's just the mean of model runs, without uncertainty ranges of either observations or models.)

      Delete
    30. "Meanwhile, back in Australia..."

      Archived version, because BoM's graphs are continuously updated.

      Delete
    31. "Meanwhile back in the Antarctic.

      ...a large continent continues to lose ice and, through several physical mechanisms, act as a slurpy machine churning out sea ice around it.

      Quelle surprise.

      Delete
    32. Captain FlashheartJanuary 15, 2014 at 1:33 AM

      I see Anonymous is using "the pause" as a defence. The "pause" is entirely normal in a data series with the given standard deviation and slope. Anyone who cites the "pause" as an argument for anything is statistically illiterate. The "pause" is completely normal in this data series. It requires 21 years of data to show statistical significance, or 24 years if starting from an abnormally high data point (such as 1998). All the denialists who quote this shit need to recognize that when the next el nino comes around they are going to be looking at warming on 15 year time scales. If they have any rhetorical sense, they will retire the pause now, before the next el nino bites their arses.

      Delete
    33. A direct quote of the observed change in behaviour of the GST from the IPCC is denying something?

      Strange how some peoples minds work.

      Statistically significant change requires a reference period to determine the change from. It there are only 2 possible measured 60 year cycles in the thermometer data (measured please note - not estimated) then any statistics on just those 2 samples has to be very close to 'toss a coin' time. YMMV. (Or your definition of 'statistics').

      Delete
    34. Sou: "You mentioned a sixty year cycle but didn't mention anything about "limits of resolution", did you?"

      Can I suggest that the concept of local text search in this web page would be useful in reducing your confusion. In IE Ctrl F and the word 'resolution' should help in finding the sub-thread required. And yes I did previously observe that 60 years is at the very limit of what the models can be reasonably expected to show, just as the IPCC noted.

      Delete
    35. Can you give a page and volume reference for the IPCC stating the models only resolve to 60 years (from when to when - from initialisation to 60 years out or what).

      IF that's too hard, what do you mean by the "limit of resolution". Are you trying to say that the model runs out to 2100 and 2300 weren't worth doing.

      And you haven't said what is causing your 60 year cycle or how you've deduced there is one. Is it just Scafetta's mathturbation or are you pinning it on a known, measured oscillation that has been named?

      Delete
    36. I won't speak for Bernard, but from my perspective, it's not your quote that illustrated your denialist tendencies, it's your focusing on a very short period of time. Also your apparent lack of understanding of the quote you provided. Plus, of course, your way of thinking (or not thinking) about science in general, as amply demonstrated throughout this thread.

      Delete
    37. Sou:

      "There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability."

      i.e. The models/simulations are not able/expected to resolve decadal variability - such as one at 60 years.

      Most IPCC references suggest that 100 years is the minimum time period for which the result resolutions apply. I'll see if I can look up an IPCC based reference for you but I thought it was well accepted.

      As to why 60 years, well that is what the data itself says is there. Only two measured cycles to date to be sure. If you are prepared to go to estimation then you can creep that up to 4 cycles but estimation is often determined by pre-conceptions so I try to avoid it where possible.

      I think you will find that if you apply a Gaussian low pass/smooth to the HadCrut4 data you too will observe its presence. Or a LOWESS one if you prefer. Or any other way you would like to use to determine if it is there or not. Why not give it a go?

      Delete
    38. Sorry, I shouldn't laugh. But, no - that's not what the passage means.

      Here are a few comments citing the literature. Usually decadal variability is around ten years but it could go out to twenty years. Any longer and it should be referred to as multi-decadal variability. 60 years is way beyond decadal variability.

      What it means is that models at present (that is these long term projection models) aren't expected to align with observations on a short time frame (eg year by year) basis. They give an indication of temperature beyond the decadal time frame. So look out sixty years and they'll be in the ballpark. Look out a year and they won't be out of the ballpark but don't expect them to model variable weather year by year. They are climate models not weather forecasts.

      As for finding magical cycles - I've no doubt you can find "cycles" with various mathturbations - but that doesn't mean they are real. Not only that but you've still not said what causes your (mythical) 60 year cycle. With various mathturbations you could do a John McLean, remove the trend altogether and try to argue there is no warming.

      Since you didn't comment on Tamino's take the previous two times, how about this one.

      Delete
    39. "Usually decadal variability is around ten years but it could go out to twenty years."

      Strange how they are unable to track (or predict) the current GST then. But then , it hasn't happened so there is not need to explain it.

      Delete
    40. What is strange about it? I think you probably still don't understand the meaning but I'm not sure how to explain it better. I'll have a shot.

      The surface temperatures are fluctuating within the band of the model trends. The models don't claim to be able to get the timing of ENSO events for example.

      As someone pointed out recently, over the period of the biggest ENSO event in recent years global surface temperature went like this (GISTemp)
      0.43 1995
      0.33 1996
      0.46 1997 El Nino
      0.62 1998 El Nino then La Nina
      0.4 1999 La Nina

      What science deniers do is focus on the shorter term blips in order to ignore and sometimes outright reject the bigger picture and the medium to long term trend.

      Delete
    41. BTW - you'll have noticed these anomalies are all positive. It will be eons before the earth gets anything close to the the 1951-1980 mean again, or the twentieth century average. (Probably at least 50,000 years, even if we cut CO2 emissions enough to stop global warming.)

      Delete
    42. "Statistically significant change requires a reference period to determine the change from. It there are only 2 possible measured 60 year cycles in the thermometer data (measured please note - not estimated) then any statistics on just those 2 samples has to be very close to 'toss a coin' time. YMMV."

      Is this your only response to the demonstration that there is inherent noise in the surface temperature record of the last 30 years that results in 95% confidence in a warming trend to any particular year requiring on average 17 years of prior data? Seriously? That there are only two "60 year cycles" so "toss a coin"?!

      Statistically significant change is inferred by taking into account the 'noise' in the system, and this can be determined from more than a 60 year period in the temperature record. Your introduction of 'cycles' is a red herring. If you really believe that "statistics on just those 2 samples has to be very close to 'toss a coin' time" I would suggest that you are talking from the wrong end of your alimentary canal. Don't take my word for it though - go to Tamino's site as Sou has recommended on multiple occasions and tell Tamino your interpretation of the data... See, he's a professional statistician and a damned good one, and I have an inkling that he would beg to differ from somewhat your opinion.

      Seriously, go over there and have at it with him. This is Tamino's bread and butter, and you're going to get a much more thorough dissection of the matter than you will here. Please be sure to provide a link to Open Mind where you've started the discussion so that we can all be kept in the loop.

      And note, if you're going to be (erroneously) pedantic about determining statistical significance within the data, you should also then be accounting for cofactors that affect the temperature record. Things such as the input of various forcings, and where the thermal energy is moving through the Earth system. Oh, hang on, that's already been done and guess what? The Earth is very demonstrably warming and this warming hasn't stopped, no matter how much you try to wave smoke and mirrors at the surface temperature record.

      Delete
  15. The concern troll is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "
    I do expect that the quality and reliability of sources of information that will lead to decisions about editorial output and balance are disclosed though."

    Given that it is stated quite clearly in the Wagon Wheel report what was decided (the science is overwhelming, really, there is no other side), the quality and reliability of the sources must have been excellent and the "concern" is based on nothing, as is all denier strategy (that being all they have).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. has Concerned of Surbiton actually even complained about the accuracy of the BBC's conclusions? all i've seen is 50 posts of abstract worry that not all the people present were scientists (did the BBC ever claim that was the case?), and that perhaps some proportion of these non-scientists maybe said some hypothetical things that potentially weren't completely balanced.

      Delete
    2. I suggest you read the report in question (or some of it quoted above) and decide for yourself if the BBC claimed that this seminar included 'some to the best scientists' or not and if was in support of their position about 'climate change' and balance.

      Some people have expressed surprise that disciplines that are not normally included in 'science' were also part of that mix. Others have suggested that the intention all along was to mean 'some of the best experts' (but what's a word between friends). Others have claimed that the ratio of real scientists to others is a nasty distraction and the BBC never meant in any way to mislead.

      Decide for yourself . Tell others of your conclusions if you must. Please do stop name calling on those who do not accept that your point of view is not the only one that can be reasonably drawn.

      Delete
  17. "Advocacy, Campaigning, Advising, etc. are not usually considered to be 'science'. YMMV."

    My mileage varies tremendously. As a scientist I do a lot of public outreach and science education. Also training scientists in other areas such as planning activities to serve our society and the public.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The real issue has little to do with who the BBC choses for advice and consultation. Rather it is that they decided to focus their reportage on the widely-accepted mainstream science and not overemphasis the arguments of a small but insistent minority. This doesn't mean ignoring contrarian views, but simply presenting them in a balanced context.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Given that it is stated quite clearly in the Wagon Wheel report what was decided (the science is overwhelming, really, there is no other side), the quality and reliability of the sources must have been excellent and the "concern" is based on nothing, as is all denier strategy (that being all they have)."

    As the Wagon Wheel report actually said that those who are not of the majority opinion should still be heard and represented you can't even properly quote from the source you rely on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheesh, I hope you're not complaining that fake sceptics aren't allowed on BBC. You'd be way wrong.

      We'd not have the problems we have now or have to wear the huge costs we'll be up for in coming years if it wasn't for science deniers being treated as if they had valid "opinions". If there were proper balance, for every fake sceptic there should be at least 98 people who know climate facts. Sadly, it's nothing like that in the media.

      Delete
    2. No I was pointing out that the reasoning was faulty. The BBC quite rightly committed themselves to impartiality. That should include not disparaging those who do not toe the majority position.

      Using the extremes to disparage shades of opinion is a tactic that has a long and tragic history.

      Discrimination in all its forms has had its fair share of such usage.

      It is disappointing that the science of climate and its changing behaviour now sees it is all its naked brutality.

      Delete
    3. I, for one, am outraged that the Beeb continues to refuse to accord the appropriate respect to the flat-earthers.

      Delete
    4. The use of a spirit level shows that you can draw a tangent to a curve and derive meaning from it. The question is only how local that observation really is and the range of useful values over which it can be applied :-)

      Delete
    5. ooh, i know! the answer is "15 years, or whatever the biggest stretch you can draw with woodfortrees -- whichever is longest".

      Delete
    6. "Using the extremes to disparage shades of opinion is a tactic that has a long and tragic history."

      if anything we've got the opposite problem: minor disagreements among scientists get inflated into wild claims that all of climatology is wrong, courtesy of a tiny handful of people on the outskirts of mainstream scientific opinion (if they're even in the same county).

      Delete
    7. It will be interesting to see how long (or not) the GST temperatures continue on the trend they are currently on and what that helps to prove or disprove.

      The 'tangents to a curve' comment was, for those who require things spelt out in minutest of detail, was a non too gentle hint that 'linear trends' are also just a form of that particular beast. (I didn't bring up 'flat earthers' first!).

      Delete
    8. "Interesting"? You think it's a mere curiosity? You make it sound like you are disinterestedly watching a bushfire head towards your town and are idly wondering if all the houses will burn down while you do nothing but stand and gawk, while everyone else is doing their best to get people to safety or quell the flames.

      No, it won't be "interesting" so much as increasingly difficult for all of us. This is going to keep getting worse each decade:

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-14/adelaide-reaches-451c/5199778

      Delete
  20. A little more education about the work of people trying to find cycles in temperaure records, which are evidently cause by leprechauns: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/ludeckerous/

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.