I received this email this morning from Roger Harribin, the BBC’s environmental analyst. It’s interesting because I received an email from the Guardian yesterday asking if I’d like to write a 200 word guest piece. Unfortunately it somehow ended up in my spam filter (which I found this morning) so I missed the 3 PM GMT deadline today.
Here’s what Mr. Harrabin wrote. I hope WUWT readers will come to aid, especially since skeptics are now apparently getting a voice in UK MSM.
From: Roger Harrabin – Internet
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:10 AM
To: [Anthony]
Subject: BBC query
Dear Mr Watts,
I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.
I’m struggling to find anyone – but there may of course be a number of reasons for this. Please could you post my request on your website – and ask people to email roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk.
We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.
It strikes me that it might be useful to meet sometime to discuss a project I am planning on the weather.
I enclose my latest column
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8491154.stm
which touches on the difficulties of reporting climate change FYI.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours
Roger Harrabin
If you know of a skeptical scientist in the UK that may be interested, please advise them of this. Thanks to all for your consideration. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A slight format problem on the Harrabin link – this one works:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8491154.stm
REPLY: Thanks, that was the way the email program formed links automatically, looking for an ending space, fixed now. -A
Amazing! 🙂 Kudos to Watts!
Britain has embraced climate alarmism for so long that there probably aren’t any sceptical climate scientists who will admit to the fact. I suggest that you nominate a few of the leading lights from the US. Lindzen would be good place start as he obviously erudite and sensible.
Oh, and I would like to nominate Wibjörn Karlén of Sweden!
One word….WOW…..I hope you and others can give them some good rebuttal. The door is open. I also hope you and other contributers don’t go to far over the top with hyperbole. As you are well aware there is a sweet-spot. You don’t want to fall into the trap people like Jim Hansen have fell into. Sincerely, John
Missed the boat again, someone else got in first about the link, delete my last one if you want.
REPLY: Thanks all the same – Anthony
The problem is climate sceptics have been systematically rooted out of the UK academic establishment by Jones et al over the past decade.
There obviously are still some British academics who are climate sceptics, but are probably too scared to come out and be counted for fear of losing their jobs and/or support grants.
I am a geologist, a chartered scientist and a sceptic, but not an academic. For what it’s worth, I do not know any geologists anywhere – and believe me I know a lot – who believe in AGW.
wow… I guess the BBC has come under fire for one-sideness of its reporting on the issue. What surprised me was the Guardian’s stance. I’m skeptical about the Guardian though. If they seem unbiased, more people will believe what they say. Polarised views do not work on everyone.
Lord Monckton would probably have some good names.
“…I received an email from the Guardian yesterday asking if I’d like to write a 200 word guest piece. Unfortunately it somehow ended up in my spam filter…”
That’s a very good spam filter.
8^)
REPLY: Maybe I wasn’t clear, I only found it today. – A
There are no scientists who are sceptical about AGW because they can’t get any funding. Maybe he will settle for a honest one.
[snip – but thanks for the note ]
I’m currently researching a longish piece on the politics of AGW and received a reply (see below) from a friend in UK academia. It explains why it may be hard to meet Roger Harrabin’s “in current academic posts” criterion.
A British scientist of unchallengeable repute who might be available is of course Peter Taylor, author of “Chill”, the best book-length critique of AGW theory I’ve read.
HTH
+++++
“‘. . . research council funding is moving increasingly from ‘responsive mode’ (proposing to work on whatever takes your fancy) to being directed into strategic areas. How these areas are selected is heavily influenced by government agenda with a strong steer for applications to address priority areas such as climate change. At, say, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, topics include engineering of drought-resistant plants, development of biofuels etc. Given the current financial crisis in the university sector with academics losing jobs for not bringing in grant income (there is no academic tenure in the UK any more), it is inevitable that just about anybody in the business with kids and a mortgage is going to buy into the climate change thing if it will help bring in the grants.’
I nominate my father, and if anyone disagrees, I request explanation as to why. Please and thank you. Anthony, you have become a household name. I am curious that he said he could not find any skeptical scientist. Does this not strike anyone as odd? My father on the Michael Coren show out of Toronto http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19624
REPLY: He’s asking for scientists in the UK – A
As a British BBC viewer I would add this warning:
Do not trust this man.
Repeat.
Do not trust this man.
Repeat.
Do not trust this man.
Repeat.
Do not trust this man.
Repeat.
REPLY: Well I wouldn’t know, the BBC won’t let me watch their programs here in the USA with their iPlayer, citing only UK licensees or some such issue. Maybe that can change. I wanted to post a link to Newsnight yesterday but was thwarted. Mr. Harrabin perhaps you can inquire? – Anthony
Peter,
I also have a geology degree and worked for many years as a geologist. Likewise, I don’t know any geologists who are concerned about catastrophic global warming.
Wow! That is quite a refreshing tone from Mr. Harrabin (and the BBC, I might add). I think the important thing to get across is that yes, climate warms, and yes, climate cools. It is rarely stable and we have been able to notice long-term natural cycles such as the PDO cycle that lasts around 60 years (30 years or so of warming and 30 years or so of cooling). So maybe when we see warming and the timing, rate, and amplitude of that warming is consistent with a known natural cyclical event, it might not be prudent to predict the warming will continue forever.
In the 1970’s when we were in the cooling phase of that cycle, the scientists (including Hansen) were convinced it would continue cooling and we were headed for an ice age. When the other phase of the cycle began and things began to warm, they were all convinced that it would continue warming and all the ice would melt.
Those people must have a very difficult time riding the roller coaster at the park.
I would point him to Dr. Roy Spencer if Dr. Spencer has the time.
Philip Stott? David Bellamy?
And Roger Harrabin, if You read this: Well spoken in Your column! Science should always be open to debate. The opposite is truly a dangerous route.
There are more than a few down under too. Dr. Bob Carter of James Cook University is my favorite.
http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/staff/adjunct/JCUDEV_014954.html
Mr Harrabin says…..
“We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.” [Bit rude, that remark.]
He is more likely to find scientists via WUWT than insults.
He obviously does not look at RealClimate!
I’m a skeptical skeptic. I figure that it’s far more likely that they will try to cast as dim a light as possible on AGW skeptics.
I see he framed the request with “in current academic posts”. Hmmmm,….
Perhaps Mr. Harribin would also like to speak with a few Canadian scientists, or a few Indian scientists (Himalayan glacier scientists)?
After a couple decades of quashing dissent, it looks like the UK’s media have finally wised up. Unfortunately, thanks to Phil Jones and crew and government disincentives, skeptics are a rare commodity. Oh well, better late than never.
While the media seems to still be hanging onto AGW, they are also looking at some serious ethical breeches; let’s face it — a story is still a story.