BBC asks WUWT for help

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.

Roger Harrabin

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

About these ads

384 thoughts on “BBC asks WUWT for help

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. “…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

  7. There are no scientists who are sceptical about AGW because they can’t get any funding. Maybe he will settle for a honest one.

  8. 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.’

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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!

  15. 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.

  16. Perhaps Mr. Harribin would also like to speak with a few Canadian scientists, or a few Indian scientists (Himalayan glacier scientists)?

  17. 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.

  18. Harrabin is a long-time good egg. Go for it, people, I mean scientists. (I am not a scientist, sadly, but look forward to the BBC rediscovering its reputation for balance, thanks to Harrabin.)

  19. @Arijigoku

    I don’t think David Bellamy is working – the BBC sacked him for his views on global warming.

  20. In an earlier post, I should have said I was a British geologist.

    If anyone knows of UK academic climate sceptics, it would be Nigel Lawson, who is probably as well connected as you can possibly get in the British Establishment.

  21. Anthony,

    Does this chap have the required background to view climate science as a multidisciplinary field and not a monolith? It would seem to me to be easy to find someone sceptical of models, for example.

  22. This could all be a ruse to shake out any remaining dissenters of the “thermogedon” message in the UK scientific community. :(

    The government honcho Ed Milliband has threatened war against climate change deniers (do they ever think about that phrase?), using their propaganda arm, the BBC would be a natural route for them to pursue and reveal such.

    Also if none are turned up by WUWT sources they can claim that none exist.

    Now where did I leave the meds. :)

  23. I’m an engineer, not a scientist, and an American, but I have some relevant comments for Mr Harrabin. Thank you for having an open mind. Skepticism is part of science. If it can’t be challenged by an outsider, it’s dogma, not science. Third, and most importantly, if you accept the truth of the linked chart, it shows that CO2 concentration in the past is not correlated to global temperature; it has been as much as eleven times higher than currently. How do climate scientists accept this and simultaneously claim that an increase in CO2 will lead to amplified temperature runaway?

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

    Thank you

  24. There is always Philip Stott. Also, isn’t Mike Hulme a skeptic now? Those are the first two that come to mind.

  25. Hi Anthony

    Have you got a long, long spoon?

    Be very careful and very sure before supping with this man.

    He only has one agenda, that is the gospel of the true warmers.

    He has seldom presented a balanced account of any view that opposes his own.

    He never allows discussion of contrary views on his column, (no comments allowed).

    You can see the sub text in his next program already, i.e. that is there are no scientists in the sceptic camp, therefore the sceptic view can be dismissed

    I believe he is an English graduate, so ask him if he is qualified to comment on technical matters?

    I do not see the need to be a scientist to be able to comment on AGW, I am a retired aerospace electronics designer engineer, and I can read a thermometer as well as Hansen or any of the pathetic CRU can!

    Just “Google” on “Roger Harrabin”, and read the hundreds of posts about this guy and his position in the warmist camp

    regards

    Patrick, (in the UK and a long time BBC correspondent disbeliever)

  26. This should be cross posted at CA, Sure to find quite a few scientists/academically involved in climnate science there

  27. Philip Stott is surely the obvious choice – the man is a diamond. More than that, he appears weekly on the BBC! http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html

    However, I wouldn’t trust Harrabin either (though Stott can manage him), nor Richard Black. They are tarred with the BBC climate brush, and there’s no way back for them. They are on my ‘List of fools who write without researching’. I’d better leave it at that as my doctor says that it’s not good for my blood pressure.

  28. The interesting thing about this is that it does not take an academic scientist to point out many of the flaws in AGW. The science really is not that difficult to understand.

    In fact, it’s more likely that an academic would simply believe the consensus science argument is valid without really reviewing the work. Most of them are quite busy in their own areas of research.

  29. Freeman Dyson. though at the Institue for advanced study in Princeton, he is, of course, a Brit!

  30. Lord Monckton is as far as his competencies a scientist. He even has peer-reviewed papers published. They never heard of his name? It’s Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

  31. Prof John Brignell through his wonderful web site ‘Number Watch’ has been at the forefront of UK opposition to AGW for years. Sadly he’s not so well at the moment, but I’m sure he’d love to have the chance to have a go.

  32. Stuck-Record (09:22:56)

    So, the plan is that this Harrabin guy already knows the answer to his question (ie there are no UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW) and then he writes an article detailing how after X days, WUWT could not recommend a single credible UK scientist to challenge the consensus?

    Pretty paranoid, but I think it would be worth investigating before having made this post if your reasons for mistrust have any solid grounding.

  33. Oh dear – Sunny Hundal a Guardian commentator isn’t going to be happy. Today he accuses the BBC of having become a right wing ‘troofer’ supporting organisation due to the fact that it is finally starting to report on Climategate.

  34. @Andy (09:30:33),

    That Register story is nearly two years old. A lot has happened since then, principally – of course – Phil Jones’ comfortable little world being blown out of the water just before the Copenhagen conference. If Richard Black, BBC darling of Phil Jones and Michael Mann, was writing to this blog like that – which, note, HE ISN’T – I might be urging people to question his bona fides. But Harrabin has been an environment correspondent at the BBC for (to my knowledge) nearly 20 years – imagine what it’s been like to work at the BBC while only the Richard Black version of everything was allowed to be broadcast.

  35. Who is that chap who predicts the weather/climate on solar activity? He is a physicist and in academic post.

    Nigel Calder is well known and is a past editor of New Scientist.

    A guarded congratulations on this to WUWT. Please can I join the others who warn to be very very careful how this is presented. The whole point of the programme may be to show what a load of nutjobs we skeptics are. See if you can set any conditions on how you are edited in the final cut.

  36. The ‘real story’ for Harrabin is how the public policy regarding research funding has distorted and politized science in the UK. The absence of skeptics in any scientific field should be a bright red flag. This is particularly true when that absence has a distinctive geographic dimension — no skeptical scientists in the UK, but plenty in other countries. What’s causing this?

    “..the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

    Source: Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

  37. Great opportunity, just make sure you have your facts and credentials in order. It’s Harrabin’s duty to shoot holes in your case. Don’t hold that against him.

    If you can hold your own, then he – and other journalists – will feel more comfortable taking your arguments to alarmists, knowing they won’t be instantly shot down for their source not being “peer reviewed” or “being a scientist.”

    Although very recently we’ve seen instances which bring into question the integrity of the IPCC, CRU and other researchers, it hasn’t negated the overall theory.

    Why? Because the media takes one look at Christopher Monckton and says “he’s not a scientist, he’s not peer reviewed, he doesn’t have a Nobel Prize (really), and we can see straight away he’s overblowing the Haitians eating mud pies.”

    So if you want to defeat NASA, like I’ve said many times in here: you have to trump NASA.

  38. Philip Stott, a prominent biogeographer at the University of London is the first name to come to my mind. He has no use for global warming alarmists.

  39. Be very wary. I would not be the LEAST bit surprised if they try to spring some sort of “gotcha!!” moment on you.

    Picture the BBC as Grima Wormtongue and you should be ok.

  40. Try to find somebody ‘new’ – although I have immense respect for those who have fought this battle for a long time (Stott, Lindzen, Michaels etc.), a new face would show that this is not a small band of inveterate ‘doubters’. Further, I think it should be someone who is involved in the basic science (otherwise we always get the mantra that ‘well, people may have been careless, but the basic science is still valid’) – that is, a specialist in temperature measurements and analysis, and/or someone who understands the impact of greenhouse gases. Maybe a look at participants in the Heartland Institute Conferences?

  41. Hi
    I think Patrick is right. Now RH can say “I asked Anthony Watts if he knew any ‘in post’ climate sceptics…but there are none. Sigh, well I tried”

    It is an odd request – I cannot believe he cannot find them himself. It is his job after all, isnt it – to find stuff out?

    Why does he not ask Christopher Monckton? Surely he is better placed to source such people – maybe he has.

  42. This is simple; just ask the MET office, CRU, or any university
    using the scientific method, to give you a list of scientists studying
    AGW. Otherwise, you’ll just get a list of advocacy groups. Sorry
    Anthony, but this is not an honest request.

  43. Is this man playing nice to get your attention? Perhaps, as others have stated, he is looking for the “there aren’t any” answer. He could then report that “he inquired the biggest, most popular skeptic blog in the world and they came up empty”.

  44. He wants a list of the currently employed who secretly deny the State mantra and its right to dictate the science.

    Riiiight.

    There are sceptical scientists who are not dependent on science for their incomes, one of whom is an actual part of the State; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lilley

    A physicist. The only hard science grounded member I believe. Maybe the only PhD. Definitely the only member of parliament to stand up and object to the Climate Change Bill – you remember, the one where it was snowing outside, in October, for the first time in decades……

    The Speaker actually threatened him into silence. I would bet he has been biding his time. (He used to work for Nigel Lawson)

    Piers Corbyn.

    Harribin was at the recent Weather Action exhibition. Stood at the back with Roger Black. Neither of them would interact. Upon his return to Stazi headquarters he told Paul Hudson to stop writing about climate.
    There has been nothing forthcoming from Harribin as apology for slandering Piers via the BBC website, although not spelling his name correctly might not have helped. Astrophysicists eh? All barmy ;-)

    The salient points, IMHO, are the lack of evidence about anything to do with CO2 and climate at all actually and the metrics, such as sea-levels and temps and their total and utter normalcy in natures’ rise out of an ice age.

    All the rest is distraction.

  45. Anthony,

    I am an American in Oregon, and I watch BBC via their I player. If you use a proxy server based in England, the shows are available.

    FWIW, if you want more details, email me,

    Jack

  46. Sorry to harp on about geologists, however:

    In the 1990s there were several spectacular stock exchange scams, the best known being Bre-X, the $3 billion Indonesian gold deposit that never was.

    As a result our industry has been purged of those who make disingenuous public statements and claims.

    I can tell you without any fear of contradiction that if Jones, Mann, Hansen, Pachauri, Gore etc had followed the equivalent professional guidelines of Australia’s JORC code, or Canada’s NI 43-101 code, their ‘findings’ would have been so full of disclaimers to make their ‘work’ essentially worthless and Copenhagen almost certainly would never have happened.

    So much original data has been lost or more likely deliberately destroyed. All too often the amount or reason for adjustments/manipulations of the original data is unknown or unrecorded. Insufficient adjustments are made for UHI, the data base is skewed towards urban sites, probably representing less than 1% of the Earth’s surface – the list of scientific irregularities, taken as gospel is almost endless.

    But as several posts have commented, I would be extremely cautious with this individual from the BBC, he almost certainly has only one purpose and that is to discredit and distort the truths in the sceptic cause.

  47. I am a Physicist, with three years Geology study also.

    Physics is a science, Geology is a science. I don’t know many physicists who feel comfortable embracing AGW.

    My training in both makes me extremely sceptical about AGW.

    I’m not convinced we should use the term ‘climate science’, until such time as they publically and auditably prove that they are following scientific. It’s a proto-science – still ‘under development’.

  48. Anthony, Maybe you could remind Roger H that categorising science and scientists by nationality does not have a great track record here in Europe. I suggest you go for quality not grid reference. DavidS

  49. I also agree with some of the other posters – proceed with caution. There may be a hidden agenda and honest people are always at risk of innocently blundering into a trap.

  50. Perhaps the story that they should be writing is that the effects of a systematic propaganda campaign, intentional corruption of the peer review and the grant writing process, they have driven skeptical academics either under ground or out of academia.

    That the “appearance” of consensus was a facade created by this Orwellian propaganda campaign and not a valid assessment of the quality of the science.
    They are paying the price for a 20 year long scientific inquisition that has muzzled the loyal opposition to the popular view.

    To restore honest and reputable dissent and the scientific process that absolutely requires the presence of an honerable dissenting voice to test a hypothesis honestly.

    They could do more good for the system by pulling back this curtain of manipulation and inquisition than they could searching for the skeptics. The honorable skeptical scientists will appear of their own initiative when the muzzle has been removed by exposing the corruption in the system and the fact that the public has been intentionally fed one sided information to serve a political and financial agenda, not good science.

    Pull back the curtains and let the sun shine in, and good science will emerge like the spring flowers.

    Larry

  51. Benny Peiser at Liverpool University – if not him, then he probably has some contacts through CCNET

    Surprised that Roger Harrabin couldn’t find anyone and ended up coming to WUWT to ask for help! I thought he was supposed to be a journalist? (sorry – couldn’t resist the dig!)

  52. Peter Miller (09:16:02) :
    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.

    The geologists I know have been saying that AGW was “bad science” since at least 2004. I recently asked one of them why the “rock guys” haven’t been more vocal about why they came to that conclusion early in the game, and he just said, “We like our jobs — and we like *keeping* our jobs.”

  53. Do not trust the journalists. If you do an interview, record it yourself. Record every conversation you have with him.

    He has been exaggerating and lying for years. He is not well intentioned. He will not treat you fairly. He will misquote you. He will outright lie about your positions.

    It is right and proper for you to assume that he is a man totally devoid of any integrity what so ever.

    And remember, he’s gonna retire in a couple of years, so he knows that he does not have to make a public recantation. Unless forced otherwise, he’ll just let the matter drop and hope everyone forgets. He has many more reasons to toe the AGW party line than do you; his career, his credibility, the financial security of his family,…..not to mention being embarrassingly, stupidly wrong.

    The only thing driving Mr. Watts is scientific integrity; it is a dangerous mis-match of motivating forces. Please be careful.

  54. “I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.

    I’m struggling to find anyone …”

    A UK scientist in a “current academic post”, would have a vested interest not to voice any sceptical views. This is like asking a team of scientists who have researched a drug, and found it helpful, to voice sceptical views against it. Though in the case of Climate Science this maynot be impossible.

    Why not suggest to the BBC that they extend their criteria to scientists other than those in a “current academic post”?

  55. There is a strong possibility that the purpose of his article is to show that in spite of the CRU scandal, global warming skeptics still have no legitimacy.

  56. David Bellamy is beyond the pale as far as the BBC are concerned for his skeptacism. So I think he would be worth adding to the list.

  57. PS Bill Tuttle above has stated what I said about geologists. People in “Current academic posts” are there because they have wholeheartedly supported AGW and “Climate Change”, they are not likely to commit hara kiri.

  58. Re not trusting Harrabin, i wouldn’t know, but i have been startled by the quality of Fred Pearce’s pieces in the Guardian given his views and previous articles – the tide has turned a bit.

  59. The problem here is the term ‘climate scientist’. I have heard of Physics, I have heard of Chemistry, I have heard of Geology and Biology. But I have not heard of climate science. Is it something to do with jografy?

    I once coloured in a climate map of Europe. Does that make me one too?

    Harrabin could find what he is looking for in any Physics or Geology department and pretty quickly.

    Go for it Anthony. I think Harrabin and others are desperate for a way out. The zeitgiest is changing.

  60. Dr David Whitehouse
    David Whitehouse, who has a doctorate in astrophysics, was successively BBC Science Correspondent and Science Editor BBC News Online. He is the author of a number of books on solar system astronomy and the history of astronomy.

    Professor Anthony Kelly
    Anthony Kelly FRS, a metallurgical scientist, was formerly Vice-Chancellor of the University of Surrey. He is a former Founding Fellow, and currently a Life Fellow, of Churchill College, Cambridge.

    Dr Terence Kealey
    Terence Kealey, a medical biochemist, is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His latest book is entitled Sex, Science and Profits.

  61. Here is a suggestion… ask yourself UK Scientists to publish something here on WUWT. Forget about the BBC… it’s a trap… else they publish something you wrote in full and without editing it.

  62. Another reason to be suspicious of the BBC is the investment strategy of their pension fund:

    http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html

    And poor old Phil Jones is looking rather haggard in the latest article in the Norwich paper, where he is STILL insisting he’s right:

    http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED02%20Feb%202010%2017%3A04%3A27%3A773

    Quote:
    “It makes me quite worried people are beginning to doubt the climate has warmed up,” he said.

  63. Harrabin’s article sounded good until that last sentence, where I sense he betrayed his AGW side. He wrote “The pity is that it’s public understanding of climate change that’s being damaged, and maybe the planet as well.”

    I would have preferred “The pity is that it’s public understanding of climate change that’s being damaged, and maybe the planet or the world’s economy as well.”

  64. Philip Stott, David Bellamy, Lord Monckton and at a push Nigel Lawson as a knowledgeable non scientist.

    A leopard changing it’s doesn’t seem that likely though.

  65. Seems to me something amiss here! First The Guardian showing a little less bias, now the BBC interested in a project on the weather. I guess it will take a brave scientist to put their head above the parapet. I wonder if the BBC could ask David Bellamy, there is history between them.

    “For Whom the Bell Tolls”.

  66. In my opinion, Mr. Harrabin would be better off investigating why he is having such a difficult time finding skeptical scientists in academia. There are several reasons but this is a sad comment on the state of science in the world of academia. Seems it is difficult to find any sort of balance of opinion in academia whether it be politics, medicine, science, economics, etc. Sad indeed…

  67. The Guardian’s agenda is to quickly weed out tainted scientists so that they can get back on the AGW bandwagon.

  68. The problem in the UK is that there are only really three climate research organisations – Hadley Centre (Met Office), CRU and Reading University. One or two other universities do bits and pieces but ……

    These three are hugely incestuous. Many scientists will have worked for two of them. I can’t think of anyone off-hand who has worked for all three. I think the famous (or is that infamous) Phil Jones worked for the Hadley Centre at one time (though I can’t be certain) and the current Chief Scientist at the Met Office was a Reading Uni Prof until last year.

    The upshot is that there have been no jobs in the UK for climate sceptics (that’s not necessarily deniers) for a long time. Turn up at any of these establishments with an open mind, and you will be working in MacDonald’s.

    On top of that a whole generation of climate science students who have been educated by CRU and Reading have been taught to be warmists. Just like any other religion teaching the fundamentals, they have been quite successful.

    The Hadley Centre were in at the beginning of AGW, when John Houghton (first Chairman of the IPCC) was the Director General (post now Chief Executive) of the Met Office, but until 2003 the Hadley were kept pretty separate in a different building in Bracknell, Berkshire. Since 2003 when the Met Office HQ moved to Exeter, the Hadley is much more integrated in the same building. The same people who are driving the warming story now appear to be running the Met Office, and that is why it shows in every pronouncement they make – hot summer, mild winters, warm years, and warmest decades.

  69. I fear I have become deeply cynical and untrusting in my dotage. I am baffled why Harrabin did not simply go to Lawson or Monckton in the first place. I smell a very whiffy rat.

    And I regret to say that for more years than I care to recall I worked with geologists both in and out of academia. Taught many, a few whom still hold chairs around the globe. I have to report I have found among them a number who today outwardly profess belief in man-made climate change. They would appear to do this for one of three reasons: party political, ensuring a regular input of research funding, or, importantly, not giving a Warmer Dean an excuse to block their promotional prospects – plus get their papers published of course.

  70. Vivian Moses

    University College London

    Professor Antony Trewavas edinburgh

    Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen hull uni

  71. @ mpaul (09:54:52), The ‘real story’ for Harrabin is how the public policy regarding research funding has distorted and politized science in the UK.

    Yes, and it looks as if there has been a deliberate policy of skewing the national curriculum: how long have schools in the UK been turning out AGW-ers, I want to know?

  72. The man is completely disingenuous. He was exposed in The Real Global Warming Disaster, written by Christopher Booker (a Brit) for caving in to blog pressure to change a story for the BBC. All he has to do is read the book (don’t tell me he doesn’t know about it) and he will find plenty of names. “Can’t find anybody”? Give me a break.

  73. Mr Harabin needs to clarify his request.

    If he wishes to find “UK scientists in current academic posts” realted to climate science, he may have a long search and will find relatively few. If OTOH he is interested in “UK scientists in current academic posts” in related and unrelated disciplines who, nonetheless, are capable of understanding the science and are sceptical because of that understanding, he potentially would find a huge number. Whether or not they wish to talk to him is another matter.

  74. It’s like a mafia lawyer asking a crime reporter if he knows of any good snitches.

    Just kidding…

    I think good can come of this regardless of the man’s intent. See the MIT Climate gate discussion. Obviously Lindzen was outnumbered there but he clearly came out on top because his arguments were the most rational and the least sensationalist.

  75. Anthony
    That knighthood is looking more realistic by the day!

    The two most prominant sceptics in the Uk are Prof David Bellamy and Prof Jonny Ball. Both have long since been ostricised by the bbc and the MSM, so it would be an unprecedented volte face by Roger Harrabin to talk to them.
    despite my comment last night re ‘the BBC has cracked’ in retrospect, we should all be wary. the old cliches about ‘Greeks bearing gifts’ ( apologies to our Greek readers) and ‘leopards changing their spots’ (apologies to leopards) are still apposite. They are probably just reacting to all the Broadsheet coverage and attempting to show they are ‘impartial’.
    never- the- less we should be magmanamous and give them the benefit of the doubt. it is an earthshattering event when Roger Harabin contacts WUWT, and i for one admire his humility. after all we have only been asking to engage in some grown up discussions for years on the Blogsphere

    I do think it is a good idea to discuss with Monkton, Bishop Hill and other UK blog site authors. there is a wealth of knowledge on the blogsphere.
    we should not, and must not let this opportunity slip by.
    best of luck Anthony, and keep up the good work.

    One day the world will realise what a debt of gratitude we owe for your indefatigutable efforts.

  76. Ross McKitrick, Prof Bob Carter, Dr. Andrei Illarionov, S. Fred Singer, Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., Nir Shaviv, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D., J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Syun Akasofu, Ph.D. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Frank Clemente, Ph.D. Penn State University, David Douglass, Ph.D. University of Rochester, Christopher Essex, Ph.D. University of Western Ontario (Canada), Michelle Foss, Ph.D. University of Texas, Center for Energy Economics, William Gray, Ph.D. Colorado State University, Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Royal School of Technology (Sweden), Kesten Green, Ph.D. Monash University (Australia), Craig Idso, Ph.D. Center for the Study of Carbon
    Dioxide and Global Change, David Legates, Ph.D. University of Delaware, Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Liverpool John Moores University (United Kingdom), Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

  77. Anthony,
    there is a seven-minute link here of Roger Pielke’s Newsnight interview on the BBC News site (rather than BBC iPlayer), which should be visible from outside UK.

  78. Call me untrusting but it maybe wise not to actually name names here, but I guess that’s a job for the moderator.

  79. I have to thank Roger Harrabin for at least one contribution.

    Searching the lists of hundreds of so-called climate skeptics, including scientists and non-scientists, a very interesting trend and difference between the listed skeptics in the United Kingdom versus many other nations anywhere else in the world is becomng quite prominent. It appears as though climate skeptics in the United Kingdom are to be found in private business and retirement, but rarely if ever in academic or government employment. By contrast, climate skeptics are also mostly found in private business in other nations, but their employment in academic and government is far more common than anything found in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

    This peculiar disparity between the UK and the rest of the world suggests there is something about the academic and government institutions of the UK which is discouraging and/or barring skeptics from participating in those institutions and/or enjoying the right of free speech in regard to AGW Alarmism.

    Thanks to Roger Harrabin for highlighting this apparent ongoing problem with scientific free speech in the public institutions of the United Kingdom.

  80. Wouldn’t trust that BBC guy as far as I could throw him.

    Just remember, Anthony, that you’re involved in a bit of a tussle with NOAA right now. The AGW crowd would love to have some journalist do a hit piece on you.

  81. To be even handed Mr Harribin should also find a proper academic mathematical physicist or group of mathematical physicists who can put a proper, rigorous, successfully unchallenged by other mathematical physicists, detailed mathematical, scientific case based on publically validated data that dangerous AGW is over 30% certain based on business as usual growth in the production of anthropic CO2. And he can choose those scientists from anywhere in the world. Because he’s so confident maybe Al Gore could put up a $2M prize to be taken by either the successful team or the last mathematical physicist who causes the proving team to give up. We have plenty of time.

  82. Quoting Harribin:

    “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.”

    It may not be a dearth of skeptical scientists in academia, it might actually be a matter of no one trusting Harribin enough to talk to him. The man has past allegiances and dangerous allegiances that put people on their guard. If any scientist does agree to speak, they should be given a list of questions beforehand and then make sure the interview is recorded independently.

  83. This new departure is entirely due to ME answering a short poll on the BBC news website asking my opinion on its layout and news coverage. I mentioned the lack of balance on AGW SEVERAL times!!! After that, the Beeb had no choice but to find a balanced viewpoint from somewhere. (LOL)

    But seriously, what the guy needs is a sizeable panel of various credible people, otherwise it would be all too easy to single one sceptical expert out and hang him out to dry.

    Anthony – you da MAN on this subject, even Auntie Beeb recognises that!

    His mate Mr Black is even more worrying than Harrabin is.

  84. Don’t fall for it! As soon as you come forward as an AGW skeptic they send you off to the re-education camp.

  85. P.S. There is nothing to be gained from talking to the MSM. They can’t reach anyone with their newspaper you can’t reach with your blog. Less actually. As you noted, you can’t even view some BBC stuff.

    All they can do is filter what you say as it suits them. Take a look back through 20 years of their publication to see what suits them.

  86. Henry Galt (10:02:42) :

    He wants a list of the currently employed who secretly deny the State mantra and its right to dictate the science.

    Riiiight.

    Part of the Ed Miliband war strategy now is to capture and silence the speech of “dangerous” skeptics:

    “‘There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous…’ The danger of climate scepticism, he said, was that it would foster dissent against unpopular decisions such increases in energy bills and investment in wind turbines…” Ed Miliband, UK Climate Secretary

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247459/Ed-Miliband-declares-war-climate-change-sceptics.html#ixzz0eV2vlvTk

    This Stazi attitude has infected the minds of alarmist bloggers now turning brown shirt for the cause. Witness this comment from an alarmist on a popular green site recently:

    “I want to know who is exactly commanding who and how it is being done and since when this has been going on and what hard evidence you have to prove this.”

    Mr. Harrabin is probably just following marching orders from Ed.

  87. What? There are no skeptic scientists in the UK?
    How is that possible?

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/3_Some_Stern_Words_for_the_Tories.html

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/2_Truth_Will_Out.html

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html

    Professor Philip Stott certainly knows where he is talking about!
    Lord Monckton is in Australia and what about Piers Corbyn.

    Oh yes, I see, Mr Harrabin wants them in a current academic position!
    That’s like finding a Jewish shop owner open for business in Germany in 1944.
    Isn’t it a shame they are still talking about “balanced science” over there.

  88. “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.”

    What color eyes did you want on that scientist?
    I think one passed by here, but I’m not sure.

    This is so insulting!

  89. Mr Watts
    The BBC have always promoted green agendas frequently to the point of idiocy, producing programmes that prozelytize the environmental memes ad nauseum.
    I believe Mr Harrabin has even been bullied by environmental campaigners into pulling factual reports,you might ask him about the emails from Jo Abbess (Blog bully crows over BBC climate victory) ,thats one from The Register
    They will no doubt cut you short in favour of any half witted malcontent whos mindset conforms to the BBC groupthink.The BBC is alas no longer what it keeps telling the world it is. Perhaps you can dig out a few nuggets at Biased BBC blogspot,I can only concur with Stuck-Record,
    Do not trust this man.

  90. Thing is:

    There aren’t that many places in the UK where climate science research takes place.

    Met Office and Hadley Centre certainly unlikely to be tolerating skeptics. And I do think that Imperial College may be rather warmist in outlook too…..

    I’d tell Piers Corbyn about this – he’s the most likely to know if there are any.

    http://www.weatheraction.com will guide you to his email address.

  91. Every AGWr. will recognize the following words, of one their forefathers:

    “When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.” “Mein Kampf”

  92. “Freeman Dyson. though at the Institue for advanced study in Princeton, he is, of course, a Brit!”

    As I recall, he renounced his British citizenship and became a U.S. citizen. Something to do with not being able to get British citizenship for his American-born children.

  93. Slightly off topic, but I keep getting emails from David Milliband the UK environment minister. Latest text below, but I have to admit my responses are less than polite:

    Bil,

    For those of us who believe that climate change is the issue of our times, this year is absolutely crucial.

    Internationally, we’ve got to firm up what we got at Copenhagen and then push much further. At home, we’ve got to cut our carbon emissions and challenge the sceptics.

    There’s a lot to do and a lot of priorities to choose from

    In Copenhagen, countries agreed to state their next steps around the 31st January – so why not get your views to me by then?

    Should we spend more of our time focussing on the domestic arena or the international? Is climate finance the key issue or is it the nature of the treaty that we should focus on?

    As someone who cares passionately about t hese issues, I want to know your priorities.

    Tell me what your climate change priorities are for the year

    Of course we can do more than one thing at a time and all of these issues are important – but we do need to prioritise.

    Your campaigning over the last year pushed climate change to the top of the agenda – we need to keep up the push to take on the sceptics and expose those who only pay lip service to our issue.

    Together, we’ll win

    Ed

  94. Jasper Kirkby

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

    Of course that is just a ‘real’ scientist, he probably wouldn’t say anything he wasn’t sure of. That said, I doubt he is losing sleep at night worrying about the earth baking.

    Maybe they are just looking for a negative Gavin Schmitt and think that makes balance. Note anyone who says we aren’t sure Global Warming will be a catastrophe is a skeptic (a healthy thing).

  95. It’s amazing that after reporting on climate change for several years, Harrabin doesn’t know any sceptics and obviously has never spoken to any of them. For too long he has had a direct link to all the alarmists at UEA, CRU, Met Office, Hadley Centre, Reading University. BBC bias is exposed by his lack of knowledge of sceptical scientists.

  96. Isn’t it ironic that the man can’t find himselve the required people?
    He never read something that is skeptical of AGW?
    Watch it!

  97. Trust. From my view as a psychologist, why was he crude and non receptive before now? His behavior tells us he is not to be trusted. Is he trying to “justify” his own bias and now suddenly put on an unbiased face?

    Apologetics that are symbolized by jumping on the band wagon are very shallow. It seems he is facing a trainwreck and now is trying to jump on a safer boat. It is called media bias.

  98. Anthony,

    On reflection, do not accept the premise of the question. WUWT now holds the high ground and you should be negotiating the terms of engagement. The MSM will be doing anything to undermine the credibility of this new sociological phenomenon. Also record all conversations!

    DavidS

    REPLY: I think that is the wrong approach. Cautious bridge building might yield more results – Anthony

  99. Consider this comment of Mr. Harrabin:
    “We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.”

    Commenting:
    Wel, Roger, folks in your line of work were mighty quick to insult those same skeptics and call them every foul name in the book.

    But, no insults for you, eh! Well, aren’t you special!

  100. Anthony
    I have an audio recording of the newsnight programme. If you want me to send it just e-mail me.
    Rod

    REPLY: Thanks, I’m hearing impaired, and with Brit accent and no lip reading (visual) I won’t be able to comprehend much. – Anthony

  101. He asks for “UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.”

    I would suggest ex-patriots only who fill this criteria to emphasize how the UK has a “brain drain”

  102. He plays the big oil big funding card.

    “You have to survey the history of the debate to see why: from the early days when climate science was emerging, the fossil fuel industry funded multi-million dollar campaigns promoting uncertainty to delay action to control emissions. ”

    Climate science emerged thousands of years ago, buddy. where have you been. Frightfull global warming is what has emerged recently.

  103. This strikes me as a deeply duplicitous. note the emphasis on being in a current academic post: a ploy specifically designed to exclude genuine expertise from the broad swathe of independent scientists whilst maintaining the fiction of some kind of balanced view so beloved of the BBC.

    The same famous BBC balance which allows one major figure to present current affairs whilst being an avowed member of the Labour party who not only gave it donations but spoke on it’s behalf.

    It is part of a counterattack as is the Guardian’s apparent change of heart but it is a pretty feeble one in view of how fast events are moving.

    No this merely designed to show that could not find any serious sceptics so they can say nobody was willing to appear. And so cover their collective backsides if the worst comes to the worst, which it likely will.

    Interesting though, I shall put into my submission to the Select Committee.

    Kindest Regards

  104. Anthony may be correct. Keeping in mind that Chamberlain-esque appeasement may feed, not tame the beebeast.

  105. There is also the “500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming” http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Perhaps Roger Harribin should do a report on this topic instead. After all despite the “science being settled” and the pressure of public opinion papers DID get published.

    A determination of how many of these papers were written by “UK scientists in current academic posts” should highlight the state of suppression of independent scientific research in the UK. I leave the work of determining who fits the criteria to Mr Harribin since he is supposed to be an investigative journalist after all.

  106. Retired Dave (10:31:40) :
    The upshot is that there have been no jobs in the UK for climate sceptics (that’s not necessarily deniers) for a long time. Turn up at any of these establishments with an open mind, and you will be working in MacDonalds.

    …Too right. I would never run the risk of being stitched up by the BBC and having my work rubbished just to provide Harrabin with his global warming vindication. My brother-in-law is a Professor of Geomorphology who never believed in the global warming fantasy from the day he first heard it, and he won’t speak to Harrabin either.

    Look for your Aunt Sallys in another country, Harrabin. You are poison to working scientists here.

  107. Phillip Bratby (11:08:59)

    Yes, isn’t that quite amazing. I’m surprised it took so many replies for that to be recognized.

  108. 200 words for the Guardian! – the spam filter did you a favour. You can be quite sure George Monbiot’s scathing response to whatever you said would not be restricted to 200 words. As for the BBC – up until Newsnight last night which was a breath of fresh air – they have been almost as biased as the Guardian. They still haven’t investigated the real scandal which is the apparent scientific fraud in the adjustments to the surface temperature records.

  109. Bill

    Re: your comment: The geologists I know have been saying that AGW was “bad science” since at least 2004. I recently asked one of them why the “rock guys” haven’t been more vocal about why they came to that conclusion early in the game, and he just said, “We like our jobs — and we like *keeping* our jobs.”

    Good point. I forgot to mention something: all the geologists I know work in the private sector, where individualism is encouraged and they are not required to have pre-approved views like those working in the public sector.

    Oops, that brings up another good point: Are there any climate ‘scientists’ working in the private sector?

  110. Anthony,

    Will you be taking Mr Harrabin up on his offer to meet regarding a weather related story?

    Cheers

    Mark

    REPLY: If he pays air fare and lodging to London, sure why not? -A

  111. Struggling to find anyone? Has the world become so tribalized that a professional journalist can’t find someone of an opposing viewpoint?

  112. CRU’s own website might give Mr. Harribin some insight:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    “Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary from ENV/UEA funding was the Director. Every other research scientist relied on ‘soft money’ – grants and contracts – to continue his or her work. Since 1994, the situation has improved and now three of the senior staff are fully funded by ENV/UEA and two others have part of their salaries paid. The fact that CRU has and has had a number of long-standing research staff is testimony to the quality and relevance of our work. Such longevity in a research centre, dependent principally on soft money, in the UK university system is probably unprecedented. The number of CRU research staff as of the end of July 2007 is 15 (including those fully funded by ENV/UEA).

    The early priority of CRU was set against the backdrop of there having been little investigation before the 1960s of past climatic changes and variability, except by geologists and botanists, although there was an excess of theories. The objective of CRU, therefore, was “to establish the past record of climate over as much of the world as possible, as far back in time as was feasible, and in enough detail to recognise and establish the basic processes, interactions, and evolutions in the Earth’s fluid envelopes and those involving the Earth’s crust and its vegetation cover”. The early efforts towards this objective were the interpretation of documentary historical records. This was painstaking and challenging work and progressed through the 1970s.”

    Who would dare to go against the flow when people’s jobs were so tenuous? There’s a Wigley quote I wish I could find right now.

  113. Anthony:

    Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge Univ. is a big AGW skeptic and might know some U.K. climate scientists who are also less than friendly to AGW. Blackburn was the one who first turned me on (years ago) the the late great John Daly’s excellent page Still Waiting for Greenhouse.

    He has a web page here: http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/
    that might have an e-mail to contact him.

    Tom

  114. Anthony, I recommend Mr Harrabin be asked provide a return favor to post here at WUWT on the topic of why it is that he finds “I’m struggling to find anyone – but there may of course be a number of reasons for this.” It would be professional behaviour for him to accept.

    John

  115. Will they be given anonymity? The reason he is having trouble may be because scientists don’t want to be labelled “deniers” by “da man” (Monbiot) and lose all chance of government grants.

    It really is 1984 in Guardianland. Thought crimes, newspeak etc.

  116. The most openly sceptical scientists are often the wise old retired ones. The ones who have no self-interests – no government grants – to protect, and are old and ugly and hardened enough not to care about any damage to reputation. I think some of these old guys and gals would have a field day if given an outlet to voice their opinions and concerns, and would be a rich source of wisdom.

  117. Delingpole might have some suggestions, but his last piece on this isn’t very encoraging.

    I first met Professor Stott a couple of years ago. He’s emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, and I tracked him down because in those days he was pretty much the ONLY senior scientific academic anywhere in Britain brave enough publicly to dispute the AGW ‘consensus.”

    We had lunch. “There are many more scientists who think the way I do,” he told me. “But they don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet. They don’t want to lose their jobs.” We talked a bit about the loneliness of our position, how impossible it was to place dissenting articles anywhere in the media, how people who thought like us were treated like pariahs.

    Then he lets us know how he really feels:

    Now suddenly it has all changed utterly. And you know what? I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I want warmist politicians like Brown and disgusting Milibands booted out and I want Conservative fellow-travellers who are still pushing this green con trick – that’ll be you, David Cameron, you Greg Clark, you Tim Yeo, you John Gummer, to name but four – to be punished at the polls for their culpable idiocy.

    For years I’ve been made to feel a pariah for my views on AGW. Chris Booker has had the same experience, as has Richard North, Benny Peiser, Lord Lawson, Philip Stott and those few others of us who recognised early on that the AGW thing stank. Now it’s payback time and I take small satisfaction from seeing so many rats deserting their sinking ship. I don’t want them on my side. I want to see them in hell, reliving scenes from Hieronymus Bosch.

    Yeah, maybe it isn’t the Christian way. But screw ‘em. It’s not as though they haven’t all been screwing us for long enough.

  118. I agree Jeremy but in this case it may come down to “accuracy and impartially” – if he selects the source he can become the story.

    It looks like a good opportunity and an honest request on his part. The only question is where you’ll find qualified critics who like throwing themselves under this political bus.

    2010 Background Info:
    BBC Trust to Review Science Coverage
    Outlet’s “accuracy and impartiality” to be scrutinized following criticism
    By Curtis Brainard

    http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/bbc_trust_to_review_science_co.php

  119. The BBC is a political tool. The decision to change tack will have been political.

    I read this as a political back door being opened.

    This is an election year, and with the continuing revelations since Climategate only a political fool would not be preparing for a huge shift in public opinion and, would need a face saving strategy in what may necessitate a u-turn.

    A political someone, at sometime soon, must come out and admit that there is a serious problem with ‘the science’.

    David Cameron (Conservative) is a political fool and is increasing speed in digging a green hole for himself.

    Watch for a shift in thinking from Brown (Labour) and the use of the BBC as a platform to convey it.

    Its also a good time for skeptics to be heard.

  120. Anthony

    Thanks for the snip. Its the first time and I shall ware it like a badge of honour.

    BUT I say again do not get involved with the BBC, Harabin or Black. I have had some very bad experiences with these people. The BBC is not to be trusted. They are well aware of ‘scientists’ with opposing views. They have interviewed Corbyn, Moncton etc in the past and have ridiculed them. They are manipulative and evil. I’ll say it again. You do not need to go any where near them and you would do well not to. Any bridge you build will merely lead to a death by troll at the other side.

  121. I nominate Will Alexander (at climaterealist).

    He has some science that is immediately applicable to droughts in Africa. But his government will not listen.

  122. the other Kate wrote:

    Too right. I would never run the risk of being stitched up by the BBC and having my work rubbished just to provide Harrabin with his global warming vindication. My brother-in-law is a Professor of Geomorphology who never believed in the global warming fantasy from the day he first heard it, and he won’t speak to Harrabin either.”

    Please reconsider. I know this sounds strange. But Harrabin needs to hear that from you!!!!!

  123. Gosh, some of these commentators here would have sent The Prodigal Son away again with a thick ear.

    I’ve read somewhere recently that the BBC Trust decreed that “the science is settled” (ie that global warming was man-made). I don’t carry a candle especially for Harrabin but the BBC is a very peculiar place where, if the official line is that the “science is settled”, it would be reckless (if you don’t want your career to end suddenly) to give the impression that you think otherwise. Especially as the Government had also decided that the science was settled and was busy brain-washing the next generation, too, through the national curriculum.

  124. Remember, this is the Roger Harrabin who changed a slightly sceptical article on BBC online because he came under pressure from climate campaigner Jo Abess.

    I, too, have some experience of him over a programme in the early 2000s about depleted uranium that was markedly one sided. He promised to respond to my concerns but never did.

    I’m wary that his initial assertion that they can’t find any UK academics who are sceptical is part of a ‘set up’

  125. Be careful- I was interviewed in 2006 by a very friendly BBC chap regarding AGW, who took my words out of context and parsed them up to denigrate me and misrepresent my beliefs.
    I would at the least go in with a private, undisclosed recording device. Anything in writing should be time stamped to show what you actually said.
    The BBC is, and has been for years, deeply committed to propaganda-style journalism on this, and likely other, topics.
    If their journalists are finally seeking to regain their integrity, I would apply the proven safety measure of ‘trust, but verify’.

  126. @{Peter Miller (09:16:02) :

    There is a guy here in the UK who posts on blogs as “Slioch” – he is a geologist by training and he definitely believes in AGW – look it up – he is quite fervent

  127. I would bet there are plenty of geologists to be found who would not be uncomfortable about expressing skepticism about what is known about the climate – past, present and future.

  128. “People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”,

    Jeremy Paxman

    Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007

    http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

    You might get a fair interview from the Great Paxo but otherwise be very careful of their trying to skewer you as Cletus’s dimwit cousin. This is a $5 billion p.a. state funded propaganda outfit that is so far up its own fundament that it is in complete denial of that obvious fact.

    Oh and don’t forget the garlic, stake and silver bullets (not for Paxo!).

    If you do come over I know a lot of people would like to buy you a beer or two.

  129. @ Dave B

    Peter Taylor – an excellent nomination.

    He is available on google videos giving a very good presentation on Climate

  130. Anthony,

    I understand why you feel that bridge building is better than confrontation. But to paraphrase John Le Carre, be “ultra, ultra cautious.”

    RH is not just a BBC correspondent. He is also:

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cambridge_media_and_environment#incoming-10446

    As a journalist (if that is what he is), he must know that he looks weak in making this approach. I’d advise asking him what his take is on the “number of reasons for this.”

    Very best regards. You and Mr McIntyre are stars.
    RB

  131. There is nothing about this request that smells sweet. All those proposing a snuggle-up should think about whether they would snuggle up to a black and harabin widow. snake you know !! This stinks !

  132. He can’t have looked very far Professor Stott who was recently interviewed on Radio Fours the World this Weekend 1pm Sunday 30 Jan 2010?

    Robert Carter
    Freeman Dyson

    Who’s the Professor who is an expert in malaria?

    If you come to London I’ll buy you a beer?

    Harrabins next move will be to say that he could not find any scientists who are skeptical?

  133. Anthony,

    There is the possibility that you’re being baited. If the list is short, they could simply turn this into a headline that the stronghold of skepticism could only find a handful of representatives.

  134. Er, didn’t you receive a request for assistance from someone else who then used it all against you?
    By the way, is Harrabin really interested, suddenly, in the BBC being opne or is this a desperate search for retrospective credibility?

  135. basically – watch out, they will stitch you up.

    However having said that – there was as reasonable coverage as we could expect on last night Newsnight.

  136. apologies for postiag corbyn as several people already suggested him- i had searched and ddin’t find but I had mispelled his name :)

  137. g smiley (12:31:23) :

    @{Peter Miller (09:16:02) :

    There is a guy here in the UK who posts on blogs as “Slioch” – he is a geologist by training and he definitely believes in AGW – look it up – he is quite fervent.

    Never seen him post, but if I had to guess he probably is a frustrated individual working in some dead beat, dead end, third rate, university – unfortunately, that describes too many of the universities here, the product of social engineering by our socialist masters.

  138. “I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.”

    Science doesn’t rely on authority figures within the UK establishment.

    However, he could ask any UK climate scientists what are the weaknesses in the IPCC analyses and if they say there are none then the obvious question is why we are funding any further research.

  139. Anthony:

    How about suggesting scientists from the Commonwealth countries? I don’t know whether that would be acceptable, but it would certainly make the list a whole lot longer. There are scientists in India, Canada, Australia, and so on that would seem to make fine candidates.

    My personal favorite is Dr. Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia. He is a folksy no-nonsense type that speaks in plain words, and stands on solid scientific ground. He comes across well in television interviews, and has a fully formed narrative on AGW. (His narrative: is human activity causing dangerous changes in our climate? NO.)

    The latter is possibly the most important. What I find problematic with the likes of Dr. Lindzen, for all his strengths, is that he does not have a story to tell that readily satisfies the curiosity and confusion of lay people. I would extend significant effort towards finding a person who can offer such a narrative.

    The BBC is a media company. It has its feelers out and smells a sea-change. People like Mr. Harrabin will obviously be very cautious in their selection of skeptics, as they need the cover of solid science to begin admitting the uncertainties. I would dispute the idea of John Harrabin as the second coming of Joseph Goebbels. As a journalist he lives inside the zeitgeist, and must be expected to reflect it. His article also points to a desire to protect science.

    He is reaching out. This is the time for skeptical points of view to demonstrate that there can be no mainstream discussion without them.

    Anthony, I would strongly urge you to get help from a capable publicity professional at this point. I would be surprised if there isn’t one on this forum. This is an opportunity to do a whole lot of good. It can also be botched. I would say that the most important issue is to make sure that the skeptic message is as sticky as the alarmist message (polar bears, climate refugees, glacier melt, and so on. Or the message may be entirely different: Impartial science is under attack. It’s entire future hangs in the balance.) I know that this is not necessarily on your plate, but you have an opportunity.

    Proceed with caution, but also with confidence. And kudos to you. Those many nights of thankless work are paying off, ever so slowly.

  140. So Harribin wants to talk to academic in-post AGW sceptics.
    Note that he doesn’t say what it is he wants to talk about.

    Most respondents here assume it’ll be about the science. Don’t bank on it,
    since he’s no scientist, sure as eggs, his main thrust will not be the science of AGW, it’s probable it’ll be in an area where he feels much more in control and an academic wouldn’t be.

    This character is totally untrustworthy, a proven liar, a pal of Jones’ and one of the select band who gathered together a bunch of ‘experts’ who advised the BBC that there was no need to present the sceptic’s case because the science was in.

    Don’t do it is my advice. He’s a beeb-clone and a warmist through-and-through. He’s looking for an edge – or a potential mugging victim.

  141. @{Peter Miller (09:16:02)

    no not frustrated in a university – he is happily living in the Scottish Highlands -He’s been quiet of late on Climate blogs _ wonder why? But quite active prior to Copenhagen/climategate and this cold winter.

  142. Well, I’m not in academia, I’m not a climate scientist, I’m not an Earth scientist, I don’t live in GB but I’d be happy to do the interview. Besides I’m a distant relative of Sir Francis Drake and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of years ago.

    So, exactly what is going to be discussed that can be understood by the BBC audience? The physics of CO2 IR absorption bands? Maybe the affect of ENSO on global weather patterns? How about the statistical analysis of tree ring chronologies?

    Naturally, all of these things would put the audience to sleep. So, why do they want an academic? There’s hundreds of Brits that can discuss cooling for the last 10 years, increasing Arctic ice extent, hiding of data and processes as sell as a few dozen other topics discussed here. What more does he need?

  143. Philip Stott would be a brilliant choice. His ideas can be summarised by a paragraph from a piece he wrote in the Telegraph June 10, 2005:-

    “Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: ‘Is climate changing and in what direction?’

    ‘Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?’

    And: ‘Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?’

    The most fundamental question is: ‘Can humans manipulate climate predictably?’ Or, more scientifically: ‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’

    The answer is ‘No’. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.”

  144. Harrabin, he of re-writes due to Greenie pressure now seeks WUWT to find him “current” UK scientific sceptics.

    If you agree to help, and nobody wants to talk (why should they?) then the BBC can say “even the most powerful online centre of climate “sceptics” It will be in quotes to emphasis our ignorance and deviancy), failed to find anyone who disgrees with the mainstream view. Case closed”.

    This is an ambush. Do not walk into it.

  145. I’d stay well clear of Harrabin. The Beeb Trust need to put on a show of ‘scientific balance’ so he is out looking for a Judy to go with his Punch.

    Harrabin makes a good living reporting on climate science, but instead of doing a proper journo job he has apparently been taking it easy and stooging around with the advocates!

    Now, because his bosses are having their collars felt and they are leaning on him; he is pretty desperate and admits he does not know any proper climate scientists and is reduced to advertising in the Blogosphere!

    The basic problem that the BBC and the MSM have, is one of technique. They have to exaggerate to provide an ‘interesting story” aka a Rumble. Ideally they would like two advocates beating the hell out of each other but as we know proper scientists are not like that, and to quote Yeats ” The best lack all conviction” . And as we have seen over the past year, the Blogosphere is a far better medium for discussing major scientific issues than the MSM, which is precisely why the Beeb and the MSM find themselves on the back foot.

    Also, behind Harrabin and the Beeb, in government we have a ‘Minister of climate-change’ whose job it is to carry out the Warmist policies of the Prime Minister. It follows that his whole political career and those who work for him is directly threatened if the AGW case is shown to be weakening rather than strengthening. So any skeptical scientist who enters the public domain will become a personal threat to him and his party. As we have seen from the Iraq affair, New Labour are not nice people and this is another reason to stay well away from Harrabin and the Beeb/Guardian media.

    The Blogosphere is doing a good steady job of getting at the truth of what is happening, and also cannot be nobbled or muzzled by the likes of Milliband ….. so why bother with Harrabin, Beeb, Guardian and the rest of the MSM. Let the dead bury the dead.

  146. Five (5) scientists who are skeptical of AGW: (unfortunately, they are not UK based)

    Jorgen Peder Steffensen
    Glaciologist
    Curator
    Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics

    Professor John Cristy
    University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

    Dr. Sallie Baliunas
    Astrophysicist, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Stockholm University

    Dr. David Legates
    Climatologist
    Center for Climate Research
    University of Delaware

    GLOBAL WARMING – DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF – 5 PARTS
    Written and directed by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Y3iOFF6LE
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_7QNdysiQ
    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksZ75KnqJA&NR=1
    Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdL-i52wSI&NR=1
    Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xb4jcPqLI&NR=1

    The 5-part video series includes statements from these academics:

    Dr. David Legates
    Climatologist
    Center for Climate Research
    University of Delaware

    A computer model is a very sophisticated computer program that attempts to simulate all of the processes associated with the atmosphere. In particular therefore, what we need to have is as much data as possible to be able to fire the model, to be able to understand the processes. Generally what we find is that many of the processes that work in the climate work at a variety of scales that a computer model simply cannot resolve. One of the things we do not do well in climate models is simulate precipitation. And again precipitation is affected by virtually every component of the climate system, and in turn, every component of the climate system affects precipitation. So precipitation is a very good diagnostic as to how well the climate model is doing. And most climate models don’t do precipitation well at all.

    A computer does only what it is programmed, and in particular, … (part 5 of 5) garbage in , garbage out.

    Dr. Jorgen Peder Steffensen
    Glaciologist
    Curator
    Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics

    Ice from Viking age – 1.5 degrees warmer than today
    Inland icesheet, Greenland, 2003
    NORDGRIP = Greenland icecore project
    DRILL down to rock at bottom of Greenland icesheet – ice core is 3 kilometers in length

    Get temperatures back 10,000 years.

    Greenland temperature was at its coldest in 1875, exactly when humans started measuring temperature by thermometer!!!

    Other core samples from Greenland confirm that the little ice age ended about 140 years ago at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.

    The natural pronounced alteration of warm and cold periods has also been confirmed in other ways:
    >Carbon 14 dating of organic matter from peet bogs and tree rings
    >Data from CyTi caves in China and North Africa

    If Greenland and Antarctica melted tomorrow, sea level would rise about 100 meters. That process would take 2,000 to 3,000 years. If east Antarctica melted, sea level would rise 80 meters. But the temp in East Antarctica is so far below zero, that it will not melt. If temps rised 10 degrees, the result would be more humidity in the atmosphere from the evaporation of sea water, that would increase snowfall significantly in Antarctica, causing the ice to INCREASE. Therefore, if warmer climate, then East Antarctica will grow!!! The warmth of the tropical ocean generates enormous amounts of water vapor which is distributed to the rest of the world and falls as rain or snow. So water vapor, clouds and precipitation play a decisive role in the climate throughout the atmosphere. The United Nations Climate Panel bases its various scenarios on what will happen if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This would not only result in a climatic disaster, the calculations say that more carbon dioxide would also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. It is this cocktail, more carbon dioxide and water that according to the theory must lead to a greenhouse effect many times as great as carbon dioxide on its own. The trouble is, temperature increases in the atmosphere just don’t seem to have happened to the degree that the models predict.

    Professor John Cristy
    University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama

    Used weather satellites – brought together data from 7 or 8 satellites- strung the data together- result: no change in atmospheric temperature!!!!

    Climate scientist once said, “My model is right, it’s the real world that’s wrong.”

    Dr. Sallie Baliunas
    Astrophysicist, Harvard University
    Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

    Dr. Baliunas speaks to the inadequacy of climate models, and to the historical record indicating that 20th century temperatures are well within the normal range.

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Stockholm University

    The Maldives
    Sea level fell 20-30 centimeters in last 30 years, since 1970-1975

    He believes it is from strong evaporation of equatorial waters.

    Evaporation of tropical seawater moves the masses of water to the poles where it falls as snow.

    Cannot have increased precipitation at location “A” without increased evaporation at location “B”, and that is the balance of the globe.

  147. Roger Pielke Snr for a balanced view of human impacts on climate.

    John Christy is one who actually knows something about global temperature and atmospheric heat content.

    I can’t see why the BBC should restrict itself to Brits. Surely they should go for quality.

    How about Svensmark? Svalgaard has a level headed view. Lindzen is another.

    Ross McKitrick is a must (Canada, British by proxy).

    Chris de Freitas (Auckland, British by proxy)

    Bob Carter (Queensland, Kiwi expat but either way British by proxy)

    Ian Plimer (Aussie, British by proxy)

    Christopher Landsea- balanced viewpoint

    Robert C Balling

    CJ Butler: Armagh Observatory, Nthn Ireland

    Timothy Ball: Climatologist

    Bjarne Andresen: Neils Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen

    WD Braswell: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California

    Ian Castles: Economist and critic of the Stern Review. Former head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics

    L Debontridder: Royal Meteorological Service, Belgium

    Chriss Essex. Prof mathematics, University of Western Ontario

    Robert Giegengack: Chair, Dept Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania.

    David Henderson. Former head of the Economics & Statistics Dept of the OECD

    Kalnay, E. University of Maryland – Impact of land-surface forcings

    William Kinimonth, Former Head, National Climate Centre

    Prof. Hubert Lamb. (founder of the Climate Research Unit, East Anglia University)

    Ahilleas Maurellis. Earth-oriented Sciences division, SRON National Inst for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan, Utrecht, Netherland

    Nils Axel Morner: Sea level expert

    Aksel Wiin-Neilsen. University of Copenhagen. (Former Director, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting; Former Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation)

    Tim Patterson. Prof of Geology, Dept Earth Sciences, Carleton Uni, Ottawa, Canada

    Arthur Rorsch. Prof Molecular Genetics, Leiden University

    Stephen E Schwartz: Brookhaven National Laboratory

    Fred Singer. Prof Emeritus Environmental Science, Uni of Virginia

    Robert E Stevenson- Oceanographer. Consultant, formerly of the US Office of Naval Research and former Secretary General of the International Assn for the Physical Science of the Oceans

    Johnathan Tennyson. Head of the Atomic, Molecular, Optical & positron Physics Group, University College, London

    Hendrik Tennekes: Former Director of Research, Netherlands Royal National Meteorological Institut

    David Beerling, fossil CO2 measurements . Dept Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK

    Prof dr C de Jager (Extensive study of solar influences for the Netherlands Govt)

    Not sure if all these affiliations are still current.

    A Wegaman- Statistician

    There are lots more but thats not a bad start.

    Reply: So why are people not emailing these suggestions directly to Roger Harrabin as he requested? ~ ctm

  148. Anthony, I would have to agree with the cautious approach. This apparent reaching out is carefully planned. He/they will have both ends covered. He will appear to be cordial, but will have a chosen end game in the AGW camps favor. If nobody is willing to take him up, they will confirm that there are no skeptic scientists. My opinion – on their terms – a win – loose game.

  149. David says “The most openly sceptical scientists are often the wise old retired ones. The ones who have no self-interests – no government grants – to protect, and are old and ugly and hardened enough not to care about any damage to reputation. I think some of these old guys and gals would have a field day if given an outlet to voice their opinions and concerns, and would be a rich source of wisdom”.

    I think that is the same reason why the politicians speaking out on this issue are members of the House of Lords rather than MPs from the House of Commons. The latter will have to be elected again soon, the former don”t give a stuff any more, they are there for life and can say what they like. First time I ever saw the advantage of an appointed House.

    Harribin could look at Jonathan Leake’s big article in last Sunday’s “Sunday Times”; there are a couple of names in there who might be happy to speak out in their prticular field of expertise.

  150. Gerry (10:05:52) :

    “Physics is a science, Geology is a science. I don’t know many physicists who feel comfortable embracing AGW.”

    Indeed. And the correct heirarchy is Meteorology is a branch of Physics and Climatolgy is a branch of Meteorolgy.

  151. I would just like to clear up for some posters that the UK is not a US state, nor does it encompass Europe and although an ex-colony Australia is not part of it either. – sorry.

  152. Anthony – by the way well done to you & Joe D’Aleo for your EXCELLENT Surface Temperature Report

    Anything Harrabin does on this is highly suspect.

    He might be looking for a way out of the false picture of Man-made-climate-Change he has been pushing for years but frankly I have no confidence in him and think he should be removed from his post along with the falsity he has been central in creating.

    I have held a number of physics and maths academic posts:-
    [Lab demonstrating & Tutorial work in Imperial College Physics a long time ago when I was doing research and in charge of the tutorial group which included Francis Wilson now of Sky Weather (an example for topicality!), then various lecturing posts at South Bank University and Goldsmiths College University of London where I ran a course on Electromagnetism, and various FEs etc] but of course THESE ARE NOT NOW so he is ruling-out me and various other very well QUALIFIED UK scientists who -eg- also presented at our WeatherAction conference in Imperial College on Oct 28th 09 [Peter Gill, David Bellamy, Hans Schreuder, Prof Philip Hutchinson + Chair John Sanderson. Joe D’Aleo and Kirill Kuzanyan also appeared on weblink].

    Harrabin attended that conference where we soundly refuted man-made climate Change and he clearly decided we were too good to be heard further and set a trap for me in order (I am advised by a source) to try to make me look bad.
    He has not even replied to the public e-mail I sent him pointing out a lie he concocted and published against me. See the link:
    Reply To Article: Met Office’s debate over longer-term forecasts by Roger Harrabin = http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4905

    I feel no inclination to write to Harrabin because I do not trust him. I suspect his game is to declare he has looked high and low in current UK academia and can find none to speak therefore he will infer Man-Made-Climate-Change is all OK.

    If people feel inclined to respond I would suggest they nominate former UK academic post-holders & qualified professional scientists in relevant fields and list – for example (and readers may know of others) – all the UK speakers at our conference
    (= Piers Corbyn, Peter Gill, Dr David Bellamy, Hans Schreuder, Prof Philip Hutchinson, John Sanderson)
    ALL of this list are more qualified and scientifically experienced than all the BBC experts and interviewers and the typical environmentalist types the BBC wheel out for supposedly ‘both’ sides. Please visit http://www.WeatherAction.com for more info on these names.

    As far as I can see the BBC is deliberately seeking to quote unqualified ‘skeptics’ from the UK and prefer foreign ‘expert skeptics’ in order to paint a sort of view that its all OK really in the UK – sceptics are all foreigners – when the truth is otherwise.

    Thanks,
    Piers Corbyn MSc (Astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetSoc (corp), WeatherAction long range weather & climate forecasters

  153. I expect Roger is following this thread.

    Here is a good source:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Of course, given the need to find funding to support academic research, it is as hard to find a skeptic employed in current academic climate research as it is to find a turkey who will vote for thanksgiving or christmas. As we well know from Climategate, it is nigh impossible to get skeptical climate papers published in respected journals. Without respected published results it is even harder to get research grants.

  154. I totally agree with the many who urge ultra caution in any dealings with Harrabin/BBC. Before it commissions any output the “team” must agree on an “angle” – objectives, how presented, etc. In any recorded discussion they may use only 5% in the final cut, and it’s often been noted that the sequence of recording has been changed to give a completely distorted message. Sorry! but that’s what the formerly totally trusted BBC has become. To a great extent they’ve undermined their own credibility.
    It is also a propaganda arm of our present government and has proven direct contacts with ministers (Miliband in this case) and their advisers – the wires buzz between the two on a routine basis – so this could be part of the Miliband “war”.

  155. Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography). He is well known to the BBC and has often been invited to comment, so Roger Harrabin should be well aware of him.

    Stott’s blog essay of last Saturday is magnificent:

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html

  156. When he says he’s having trouble I hope he has already found:

    DR SONJA BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
    UNIVERSITY OF HULL

    As she has written to the BBC on the topic.

  157. Professor (Emeritus) John Brignell, University of Southhampton

    Now just because he’s emeritus doesn’t mean his views are any less valid. I regularly consult with a Professor Emeritus for the main reason that he is the top of his field.

  158. Congrats to Anthony and all the other hard working persons who labored to keep the skeptical voice alive. I nominate Henrik Svensmark. Not British, but certainly an articulate and informed skeptic with a powerful alternative model of the basic underlying causes of climate change on the planet.

  159. Helen Roe at Queen’s University Belfast and Graham Swindles from the University of Bradford have put themselves forward to speak at the Heartland Institute gathering in Chicago in May. From their description they are both current employed as academics teaching Geography. I don’t know anything about their stance on this issue but if they are willing to speak in that company then I presume they are of a sceptical frame of mind .
    However I think it would be polite to check with them both before putting their names forward. As a Brit I have had to suffer the BBC’s tendentious coverage of this topic over the years and would advise any sceptic sitting down to sup with a BBC environmental reporter to go equipped with a long spoon.

  160. congrats Anthony. have been wondering lately when these MSM journos in uk (where i live) would get around to giving you some airtime – so to speak. I’m skeptical – oh the irony – they have obviously been instructed by their editors to get some balance into the thing, the BBC announced as much when they launched an inquiry into their coverage of the whole debate some weeks ago.

    i just cant believe they have not been taking a peak at sites such as yours and the literally dozens of others that have been pointing out the problems with ‘the consensus’ for years.

  161. I agree wholeheartedly with those who have nominated Bob Carter – he is, indeed, no-nonsense and straight to the point. By the way, Christopher Monckton is playing to packed houses in Australia at the moment, despite the media’s continuing attempts to discredit him.

  162. just one problem Anthony, you cant really say ‘no’. they will [perhaps] try to do a hatchet job, but given the current sensitivities on this issue at home right now, the hatchet job could be exposed whereas a refusal to be a part of the balance might look suspect, you can be sure they would flag it that way at least.

  163. I apologize up front for this but isn’t this a great opportunity for Science and isn’t this a true indicator “The Science Community” can’t “figure out a way” to solve the communication issue with the public insightfully?

    We like to blame the press but where does the buck stop without commitment from Science?

    In my opinion, this is a perfect opportunity to bring scientists into a public round-table discussion – each side by side with their respective organizations.

    I guess the question is, are you smart enough to sell a world-wide media event and can you negotiate with BBC over the details on their behalf? ; )

  164. The UK scientist who best understands the role of CO2 in the atmosphere is Jack Barrett. Jack crossed swords with the IPCC on a number of occasions in the 1990s. He tends to adopt a low key profile these days so I’m not sure he’d be willing to participate. Another, who has already been mentioned, is Richard Courtney. Richard posts on WUWT from time to time.

  165. g smiley (13:05:29) :

    @{Peter Miller (09:16:02)

    no not frustrated in a university – he is happily living in the Scottish Highlands -He’s been quiet of late on Climate blogs _ wonder why? But quite active prior to Copenhagen/climategate and this cold winter.

    OK, then I suggest he is one of those many Scottish socialists with an evenly balanced view on life – in other words, a chip on each shoulder, one of spite and one of envy.

    Consequently, he believes AGW offers a golden opportunity to substantially increase taxes for those with less pointless lives than himself.

  166. There is something wrong with this picture. When an honest debate is set up, it is not the prerogative of one side to select all the participants.

    Each side should choose their own representatives. But of course the alarmist side has been spanked in debates with skeptics, so now Harrabin is trying to stack the deck in this project by getting to pick the writer himself. Looks to me like he’s ethics-challenged.

  167. I also am very suspicious of Harrabin. I understand that bridges need to be built, but this is proposal does not fill me with confidence.

    Harrabin has a strong track record of presenting AGW stories as if there is no disagreement with them beyond a few kooks. You might like to ask him if he has ever done a story with a skeptic before and whether you could have a reference?

    You should also ask him why the scientist has to be a UK citizen and in a current UK academic post. Point out strongly that skeptics are not employed by UK universities in Climate Science posts, and that that is the reason he is having trouble finding one.

    It would be like running a program discussing the BBC license fee (which is how the BBC is funded), and asking for the names of some current BBC employees who think the license fee should be lowered….

  168. piers corbyn (13:58:25) :

    Anthony – by the way well done to you & Joe D’Aleo for your EXCELLENT Surface Temperature Report

    Anything Harrabin does on this is highly suspect.

    I’d give Harrabin a chance. It’s true that he was a major cheerleader for AGW for a number of years, but some time back he (I think) was the victim of an aggressive verbal assault by Al Gore since when, I’ve noticed, he’s been a bit more even-handed.

  169. Hi everybody.
    Exciting times!
    Peter Taylor would be a solid choice. I can recommend his stimulating and well argued book ‘Chill’.
    His environmentalist credentials are beyond dispute and his style would make him ideal.
    However I am not certain that he is currently in an academic post but has been much consulted by governments and NGOs on various environmentalist issues.

  170. I’m just smiling like a fool – the answer is pretty easy. Each world-wide science org. or university sponsors an internet media event to present scientific facts. The peer-review rebuts and the final presentation ends up pointing to the process that was lacking and the elevates understanding.

    Pretty healthy and promotes hard Science?

  171. Seriously, some of you need to grow up.

    A journalist has merely asked you to put up or shut up. If you can’t put up, then have the dignity to shut up.

  172. It seems that they are beginning to realise that the game has changed forever. The Guardian, The BBC, whoever next? They are in retreat, but they may be most dangerous when cornered. I sense that people higher up in these organisations have ‘got the wind up’ and maybe Harrabin and co are getting instructions from their superiors. None of them wants to be caught out now… Thanks to Anthony and all at WUWT for persistence and honesty and telling it straight.

  173. Been said I presume….

    Harrabin is going to conclude (in writing)

    …a search for aqualified acedemic in the UK, who does not believe in AGW, proved fruitless. Not ONE acedemic in England believes that GW is anything but man-made.

    I’d bet five bucks on it. Bah.

    And of course, as everyone has already said, Darwinism has selected out of academe any soul who would not toe the AGW line. “Adapt or die” works both ways. No place for truth and questioning any more. Pretty damn sad.

  174. The insistence on scientists in current academic posts would disqualify such eminent academics as Philip Stott and Steven Hawking, mentioned earlier.

    This requirement suggests to me a hidden agenda in Harrabin’s approach.

    It is also surprising that he doesn’t mention climate scientists. I had understood from comments by most of the warmist MSM that only climate scientists were qualified to comment on climate matters, but now it seems that any scientist will do as long as they are working. Now, there is the catch, if they are working they are unlikely to want to put their heads above the parapet, even though there is evidence that cracks are starting to appear in the AGW edifice. I imagine it will take many more months if not years before they feel confident enough to risk their longer term funding by expressing anti-establishment opinions.

  175. It might be worthwhile responding to this. But I would forget about bridge-building and think of it as a game to be played.
    It is a good sign.

  176. This is a decent and fair attempt by Harrabin to source contributors. He is diplomatic and fair in his language – and, regardless of what you may think of his reporting, he is an honourable man. He may have reported ad nauseam the ‘alarmist’ science, but for a long, long time they were the only papers which carried the stamp of authority which the BBC is compelled to report.

    They can’t report blog posts or their comments. This is an opportunity for people to ‘come out’.

    The BBC – despite what many believe – can only report on what they regard as the most authoritative papers on climate science – that is their job, to present the scientific discourse in a way that viewers, readers and listeners will understand.

    You can read elsewhere, and I’ve had a long day so can’t be bothered to find a link, that they accepted the IPCC as the main authority on this and it was for this and other related reasons that they dropped their standard procedure of ensuring a conflicting view must be included in all reports.

    The tide has turned – the IPCC is now compromised – but they need proper, working scientists to come forward to satisfy public scepticism – and, crucially, their own, rigorous editorial guidelines.

    I have a lot of time for Roger Harrabin, and I believe he is genuinely interested in informing his audience about the science of climate change. He’s a good man – and I’m a sceptic.

    So, if someone is reading this, is involved in current research, then now is your chance.

    I do believe the fear of being ostracised has diminished considerably.

  177. Perhaps the BBC needs help with its pension fund now that the whole Carbon Trading scam is falling to pieces and green jobs have been shown to be a gold-plated turd.

    Follow the money.

    Which defined-benefit pension funds in the US were betting heavily on the same action?

  178. Freeman Dyson
    Freeman Dyson
    Freeman Dyson

    and Philip Stott. But Dyson is one of the handful of ‘celebrity’ scientists out there on a name-recognition par with Hawking and Feynman etc.

  179. I still don’t understand

    – a BBC correspondent who has worked for 20 years in the field doesn’t know of any sceptic in post! If he reflects on this fact, he should recognise something has gone horribly horribly wrong, either with his network of contacts (and journalism skills) or UK research or both

    – anyone can google to find out the name of prominent sceptics. Is he trying to find an unknown sceptic for the BBC to flatten? Has he bothered going through the list of global warming scientist sceptics to find anyone from there? Why come to you Anthony? Is he trying to find someone you specifically know is sceptic who is not well known – if so, to reveal that person may put their career in jeopardy IMO

    The BBC through Newsnight last night and also the Guardian this week have clearly signalled an editorial change in approach to global warming. This is significant. And the approach to you may be a part of that. But we don’t know yet what their new position is.

    I would proceed with extreme caution.

  180. Oh – and this:

    “We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.”

    is of course an insult!

  181. but for a long, long time they were the only papers which carried the stamp of authority which the BBC is compelled to report.

    They can’t report blog posts or their comments. This is an opportunity for people to ‘come out’.

    Can I just clarify this? In terms of the blizzard of debate, the BBC decided that they needed to look at what was regarded worldwide as the most authoritative body on this subject – and that was the IPCC.

    The BBC, in light of recent events, have obviously revised and are revising that – with a vengeance.

  182. Any sceptic scientist who watched climate wars knows what to expect from the BBC. They will be cut to look like idiots!

    Incidentally, from that same program, watching M. Mann; I got the impression of a spoiled little brat, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, & that was cut to be favourable LOL

    DaveE.

  183. I was going to warn you about Harrabin, but reading through all these posts it seems not to be needed.

    He has consistently pushed AGW on the BBC over the past year or so. I finally wrote a complaint to his producer about an exceptionally outrageous piece. No reply of course, but he was suddenly off the air for six weeks, so I thought I had made a difference. No such luck!

    Latest ploy is to apparently present both sides, but the sting is always in the tail – in the last phrases of his own summary.

  184. BTW. David Bellamy qualifies as he has a chair at Durham University. He lives in Bishop Auckland which is quite near to me, (20 miles).

    No secrets, all public record.

    DaveE.

  185. Anthony needs to note this comment from the Guardian, explaining why they seem to be addressing the skeptical line for the first time. It seems they are building the story into a big ‘disproof’ of the skeptical position. Find it at:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Question – What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?

    Many thanks for your comments and questions. The fall-out from the hacked UEA emails is the hottest story in climate science at the moment and a lot of claims about what they tell us have been flying around since they were made public in November.

    The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.

    We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.

    Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc

    The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.

    J Randerson

  186. From the Susan Watts narration on BBC’s Newsnight, 2 Feb.: “Away from the anxious frenzy of how climate science is being conducted there’s quiet contemplation from all sides over what comes next for climate policy when the turmoil subsides. Deep in the Buckinghamshire countryside a splinter group of climate experts is about to begin a three-day strategy meeting. They say they’re not climate skeptics but they are disenchanted with the way the world’s governments have responded to climate science. They say Kyoto – and now Copenhagen – have failed, and what’s needed is a radical re-think of the world of climate science and how it interacts with international politics. Newsnight’s been given exclusive access to their meeting. Some of those at the meeting were happy to be identified, others not.”

    I think “others not” is the key phrase here. What do they fear? If non-skeptical but disillusioned scientists are afraid to speak on the record, is it any wonder that skeptical voices are so rare in British academia?

  187. Proceed with great caution, they will edit what you say and make you look stupid.

    Don’t go near this fellow

  188. Anthony,
    If the BBC and Roger were to publicly admit their guilt with regard to advocacy journalese, renounce their stated policy on climate reporting and give full details of who was at That Meeting that lead to the policy then there may be a foundation for tentative trust. Given that WUWT has a rapidly expanding global audience you may be in a position to request this…

  189. Peter Miller (09:16:02) :
    Steve Goddard (09:22:57) :

    I’m a geologist and sceptic too. I did see some geologists as signatories on that pro-AGW list which was released not long after Climategate.

  190. What about Jasper Kirkby, the particle physicist leading the CERN FULL CLOUD experiment? He’s a British scientist in an ‘academic’ post, he is certainly sceptical s. l. , as all true scientists should be, but whether or not he qualifies depends on Harrabin’s precise definition of ‘sceptical’. It is not clear-cut but rather a continuum of views on the state of knowledge and on the magnitudes of natural v anthropogenic processes and perceptions of negative or positive enviro-socialogical effects.

    Here is a link to a useful Kirkby downloadable pdf paper

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf

  191. John (14:24:43) :
    I guess the question is, are you smart enough to sell a world-wide media event and can you negotiate with BBC over the details on their behalf? ; )
    __________________________
    That’s why a professional publicist would be a good thing. This publicist should make himself/herself available to help set up the interview on behalf of whoever goes on air, and work with the interviewee on his or her narrative.

    No one here doubts that the skeptics have the goods. It’s the framework that is critical.

    Reply: You volunteering Tor? I’ll personally vouch for you to Mr. Watts in spite of your [snip] [snip] Norwegian attitude. ~ charles the moderator

  192. Hi Anthony,
    As a brit, and someone who has come to distrust the BBC ( I was quite a lefty in my youth, I have realised that the BBC lies by omission, and what I believed from them in my youth was only half the story, in full context, the opposite view was just as convincing).
    Do not trust the BBC, do not trust Harribin.

    Somebody famously once said that you can tell a mans character by the company he keeps. If RH had any real chracter, he would have left this debacle years ago, once it was obvious that ENSO held sway, and the CO2 theory was a myth, or at least he would have reported on it.
    Are we to assume he is a stupid man? I do not think so, so we can only judge him by the company he keeps. Personally, I could not broadcast stuff I knew to be false, or at least suspect. He has chosen too do so. I cry no tears for RH.

    Ok, as a Brit, I have to say that we are a people obsessed with ‘class’ structure, so what I am going to say now is maybe lost on our American friends but here goes…

    Piers corbyn
    Piers, I love your telly spots, the way you almost threw up when that Russian guy was pretending there was no maleria in the early 1900s was brilliant. I would be like you, frustrated that people could so blatantly lie. Trouble is, we are a snob culture, the Guardinistas look at your hair, accent, and turn off. Thats not my view, but its the view of our crap elitist establishment. The fact that you run a private enterprise is also a no no…’its easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle’ is the potent stuff of our upbringing…anyone with the audacity to run a business gets stuffed in our country. Sorry, its not you.

    Viscount Moncton
    Love the way you fight fire with fire. But sometimes you overcook it, Lucia suggests you don’t need to push the envelope quite so far. I don’t want you to become Michael Mann or Al Gore with the chartmanship. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you do need to push hard.
    Your involvement with Mrs T is going to set half the country (that half that does not realise that she was, overall, right – and remember I was on picket lines at the time) against you. Too much baggage. Sorry, its not you.

    David Bellamy
    Love the way you stuck to your views when lesser people went with the flow. But there is a generation that does not know who you are now, you would be spun as ‘out of touch’. Sorry, its not you.

    Ian Pilmer
    Whilst you may be right, Monbiot made you look like ‘red neck old man’…sorry, its not you.

    Philip Stott
    Possible. Academic that plays into our snob culture. Comes over as everyones fav teacher. Perhaps a bit too connected with the right of the political spectrum.

    Roy Spencer
    Sorry but the religion question would straw man the debate (though RJP as a someone who believes in re-incarnation gets a free pass of course…)

    Ok…did I miss anyone? Apologies if so. The thing is RH did his homework. He knows no one is going to stick their neck out – they saw what happened to David Bellamy.

    Personaly, I think you (we) need to produce a 10min clip which we insist is aired in its complete form, with clips from various people around the world covering salient points. The GGWS was almost it, but overcooked it, and the audience was not ready back then.
    I would certainly have Bob Tisdales ENSO explanation as a prominent place, alongside all the competing theories and such to show there is really little need for CO2 as a driver, as its pretty much all wrapped up naturally (and spun with temp tweaks).
    Points that make us skeptics should be stated as near one liners – Manns Hockey Stick debacle with He Who Must Not Be Named, the Yamal trees and Briffas ‘confession ref the MWP. Pielke Sr’s ‘wheres the OHC that you promised Mr Hanson’ article. EM Smiths march of the Thermometers. Anthonys SS UHI check. The Steig Antartica joke.
    We should just do a list of all the things that observationally suggest CO2 is not a driver. We then say its very complex, we do not know. But we know enough to say its not CO2.

    Thats it. If the BBC declines to show it, we tell the world, there is face book etc.

    RH is trying to protect his turf. Do not give him what he wants (which is either “no-one willing to debate” or an edited hatchet job).
    Give him something he does not want – a filmed slot he cannot edited and dare him to show it. And then suggest following ‘debate’ be held in a proper forum that they can film if they wish….alongside Fox and You-Tube.

    Apologies to all the names I’ve slandered above and who’s shoes I readily admit I’m not fit to clean (theres that British ‘I know my place’ stuff again) and please understand its nothing personal, without all you guys we would be even more down the road to 1984.

    I need to add here, on my list…

    Richard Lindzen
    Would be perfect..has a beard. Always good to have a beard, esp a big ‘I have not trimmed this for 111 years’ one like Richards. I’d love to meet this guy.

    Roger Pielke Jr
    Really really good on TV. Would make opponents look shrill. But Roger is a lukewarmer (no problem there, maybe I am too) and is not ‘british’

  193. Some posters seem to have missed the point … that the AGW movement, like most of our our current politics, is a creature of the MSM. And the Titanic scale of the Copenhagen disaster not only killed-off AGW, but it has also killed off the power of the MSM. And, by extension, large chunks of our current political processes, too !

    Frankly, who needs issues to be somehow made real by the MSM these days ?

    Why should a return to proper climate science await a televisual ‘Dog & Pony show’ for it to be authenticated, validated, declared orthodox, and put on the agenda as it were?

    Here, on Anthony’s excellent blog and in other places, is where you will find the new public forum. It is here in the Blogosphere that you will find proper meetings of minds, and discussions with consequence, rather than the Gog-Magog one-way transmissions of the MSM.

    The MSM no longer controls the formation of ‘public opinion’ and the setting of the ‘political agenda’.

  194. I would suspect that while he’d prefer UK, he might take some non-Candadian commonwealth types (Aussies) and then other english-speaking Euros as preferable over Americans and Canadians. . . just because American and Canadian skeptics (as we’ve seen all too often) have been heavily vilified as in the pockets of big oil. Harder to do that Aussies and most Euros (outside the Russians).

    Jennifer Marohasy probably knows some Aussies to point at for him. . .

  195. @Peter Miller (14:27:20) :
    OK, then I suggest he is one of those many Scottish socialists etc

    actually he is english not sure of his politics but he is a keen environmentalist – not that there is anything wrong with working for a clean, healthy environment- he possibly has an agenda for which AGW provides the nourishment

  196. Anthony,
    This may have been posted under an earlier heading, but is worth a reminder before you engage with the BBC:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=109

    It is from Harmless Sky, “Jeremy Paxman, the BBC, Impartiality, and Freedom of Information” and this, in turn, refers to this document:

    The BBC Trust
    FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL
    Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century, June 2007

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

    The report, on page 40, states:

    “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.”

    Guess who they are!

    “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.”

    It goes on to say:

    “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.”

    Note the words: “minority opinions”.

    Harmless Sky makes this comment:
    “Years of watching the BBC’s coverage of this subject – with growing astonishment – during which numerous ‘scientific experts’ who clearly hold very partisan views on climate change, have been interviewed to provide viewers with what they were lead to believe were objective opinions on the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, has made me despair of BBC impartiality. I am thinking of people like George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Professor Chris Rapley, Lord May of Oxford, Sir David King and Professor Tom Burke in particular. Anyone who has followed this controversy will be well aware that, although such people may be experts on the subject, they are anything but impartial or objective.”

    In an attempt to discover whether the BBC had organised this seminar in order to acquaint itself with the issues, or whether the purpose had been to obtain some kind of spurious authority for an editorial policy that had long since become ingrained in their news coverage, I thought that it would be worth trying to find out who had been invited to advise them. Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations I made the following request to the BBC for information:

    1. What was the name or title given to this seminar?
    2. Where and when was this seminar held?
    3. When did the seminar start and when did it end.
    4. A copy of the invitation that was sent to prospective participants.
    5. The agenda for the seminar together with any notes that were provided for the participants.
    6. The names of all those who were invited to attend the seminar as participants, observers or in any other capacity together with their job description, organizational affiliation’s or any other information relating to their eligibility for being invited to be present.
    7. The names of all those who attended the seminar as participants, observers or in any other capacity together with their job description, organizational affiliation’s or any other information relating to their eligibility for being invited to be present.
    8. Any minutes, notes, electronic communications, recorded material or other records of the proceedings of the seminar.

    After an exchange of letters, the application was referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office for adjudication. After a delay of almost a year, they are just beginning to investigate. Future developments will be reported on this blog. (For fuller details of the above and for future developments, follow the Harmless Sky link.)

    I hope a new wind is blowing at the BBC; it would make the UK TV licence better value.

  197. I give up – all the subsequent posts cite conspiracy and sweat paranoia…

    As do all the former.

    Engage with the man – he’s genuinely interested.

    Is there anyone out there?

  198. Why , you must ask, are the the Two main defenders of AGW, in the MSM, the BBC & the Guardian, all of a sudden coming out with this show of even handedness ???

    Come on you Sceptics. Think about it.

    How could the Guardian be so incompetent as to break with their Own, very first ever, ‘exclusive’ Expose on the Chinese Ground station data yesterday, which Proff. Jones was able to defend , and so effectively, on the BBC almost the same day ?

    No, he was primed and ready for it.
    It would be no surprise if the Guardian also knew it would be so easy defend.

    Is this just designed to put you off your guard ?

    Does it herlad a new style of attack journalism, realising the sceptics cann’t be dismissed and have to be taken seriously – not their arguments ‘though, just the threat they present ?

  199. Mr. Harrabin’s article gives reason to conclude that he is still very much of the warmist faith, and hopes fervently that there will be solid science supporting his beliefs “that increasing levels of CO2 are stressing the planet beyond its capacity for self-regulation.

    I come at this last as a person with an undergraduate degree in biology, postgraduate training in medicine, and such “scientific” credentials as might be expected of a practicing physician who first began directing patients to disrobe for indignities back in the Ford Administration.

    This understood, however, I have what might be called a fairly robust idea of homeostatic mechanisms on both the micro and macro levels, and I find it difficult to credit the concept that the very small present (or anticipated future) levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels could or would overload the Earth’s chemical and biological sequestration modalities, thereby “stressing the planet beyond its capacity for self-regulation.”

    Is there really any justification for Mr. Harrabin’s sustained grope at AGW alarmism, or is he (in the immortal words of Mel Brooks) “just jerking off?

  200. Mike Spilligan (13:59:08) : “In any recorded discussion they may use only 5% in the final cut, and it’s often been noted that the sequence of recording has been changed to give a completely distorted message.”

    If I were ever interviewed on camera by the BBC (BWAHAHA!) I’d insist on having a friend/colleague also record the interview, with the right to put my version on the internet (e.g. YouTube) after the program aired.

    Paranoid? You bet!

  201. watt in the world is going on?

    does President Obama know about this change in tide in the global warming world??

  202. Anthony,
    I live in the UK, I listen to the BBC (mostly Radio 4) and I frequent their news web-site. I would urge you to consider a lot of the advice given in this thread, the most apposite being to avoid having anything to do with Mr. Harrabin.
    He is BBC to the core. The Corporation is funded, via the licence fee (yes, we in the UK need a licence to watch TV) which is administered by the Government. The Beeb is very little more than the propaganda arm of our increasingly-vicious Socialist Government. Milliband the Younger has declared ‘war’ on the unbelievers and AGW heretics within the last couple of days.
    Harrabin serves the same masters. He is searching for a presently employed academic ‘sceptic’? To step forward as a presently employed academic sceptic would be the fast track to being an un-employed academic!
    Harrabin is looking for a some poor innocent to stand up in all honesty, only to skewer him or her with a carefully constructed set of questions and suggestions laced with innuendo.
    I recommend that you rebuff him gently but firmly on the grounds that, until you receive unsolicited agreements from the individuals concerned you are unable to give any names to him. Please, please keep the BBC at arm’s length; be polite with them but try very hard to have little to do with them. They are not to be trusted. At all.

  203. Richard Tol who has been blogging with us on EU referendum and has worked with Pachauri (I think) I have not had time to read the thread sorry if this has been suggested

    Prof. Dr. Richard S.J. Tol
    •Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland
    •Associate, Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University and Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science,Hamburg, Germany
    •Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    •Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    •Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Address: Whitaker Square, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland
    +353 1 8632000/2120 (voice) richardsjtol (skype) +353 1 8632100 (fax)
    richard.tol(at)esr

  204. @Stuck-Record (09:22:56) :
    “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”

    I can only agree. Please, please

    Do not trust this man.
    Repeat.
    Do not trust this man.
    Repeat.
    Do not trust this man.
    Repeat.
    Do not trust this man.
    Repeat

  205. Skeptics are gradually gaining ground, but so often only after dire lessons have been learned regarding how NOT to be sacrificed and eaten alive by warmists. Harrabin’s piece today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8496365.stm clearly shows he still believes the warmist line implicitly. I think Harrabin needs to understand skeptics’ experiences here, and show he has understood by framing his invite to show this. I think the first requirement should be for Harrabin to read this WUWT thread and respond.

    Having said that, I do want to emphasise four Brits here. And get Harrabin to concede that his request for UK academic scientists has already loaded the dice.
    (1) Richard Courtney. Not a paid academic scientist IIRC. He understands the history of the vicious-circle that has biassed academia here more and more, that goes back to Maggie Thatcher.
    (2) Peter Taylor. Not a paid academic scientist. He is beautifully cool in media situations, has written a whole book against AGW, has an excellent CV as Greenpeace advisor and qualified scientist – until he fell out with Greenpeace over their inexcusably bad partisan science.
    (3) Christopher Monckton. Not a paid academic scientist. Just a brilliant mathematician who understands IPCC and can debate even with ordinary people as well as the most highly qualified, to demonstrate on how many levels the whole thesis is fraudulent science, bad economics, and bad for everyone.
    (4) Martin Durkin, director of The Great Global Warming Swindle. Not a paid academic scientist but he sure knows his climate science rather better than most paid climatologists. I don’t know what has happened to him. Here http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/Ward-Durkin.htm is a superb record of email exchange he had with the infamous Bob Ward.

    I also want to name some UK scientists I know personally who meet Harrabin’s specifications.
    (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Cannot give the name as they have to stay anonymous while working to expose the bad science. If known, they would lose their job and prospects in the current climate of opinion.
    (2) yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Cannot give the name as they have to stay anonymous while working to expose the bad science. If known, they would lose their job and prospects in the current climate of opinion.

    No doubt there are many more, who are unknown to me for identical reasons. Certainly I know some more, personally, who have been threatened, suffered removal of wheel-nuts, etc. Harrabin needs to understand this, and he needs to know that we know.

    I’ll try to email a gentler version of this to Harrabin. Make sure he cannot fault me by the presence of anything he can call an insult.

  206. @ Pete (15:28:13) :

    “I give up – all the subsequent posts cite conspiracy and sweat paranoia…
    As do all the former.
    Engage with the man – he’s genuinely interested.
    Is there anyone out there?”

    It’s not paranoia, it’s bitter, fully justified experience. The evidence is crystal clear. He’s only interested in silencing the sceptical criticism of his religion and if he has to appear open-handed to do it, he will. He has “… a lean and hungry look. Such men are dangerous.”

    Don’t do it, don’t trust either the BBC or the Guardian. Record every transaction.

  207. It seems to me that Mr. Harrabin might be invited to use Surface Stations as a resource. What he does with it would be worth watching.

  208. Dave N (15:52:52) :

    You might like to ask Roger Pielke Jr how he fared with the beeb, too.

    He came over well.

    Back to my nominations. Take a look at this site

    http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/

    David Bellamy is a co-host but, no disrespect to David, Jack Barrett is the expert. There isn’t much JB doesn’t know about a CO2 molecule. The site is wonderful source of information relating to the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.

  209. Never forget that the BBC and the Guardian are the government’s creatures, the state’s newspaper and the state’s broadcaster. They survive only through its good pleasure and they can have no intention of biting the hand that feeds them.

  210. Freeman Dyson has been mentioned but should be re-emphasized.

    He presents the hard core climate catastrophists with the very real problem of uncertainty.

    Dyson is a scientist and a stubborn skeptic of many claims that lack sufficient support to be considered “settled science” and he has, on multiple occasions, pointed out the very real problems of uncertainty that the copmplexity of the climate system imposes on those who analyze it. Couple that with the sparse historical data of variable quality and firm, absolutist assertions about climate sensitivity are simply not supportable.

    It is a skepticism that accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, if it is pumped into a closed system long enough you will see changes. But the catastrophists claim certainty over where the thresholds exists and feedback mechanisms create runaway conditions that simply aren’t supported by observation.

  211. Stephen Brown (15:42:36) :
    “….Harrabin is looking for a some poor innocent to stand up in all honesty, only to skewer him or her with a carefully constructed ………

    Wise words… for most of us.

    Lord Monckton is well able to handle such a dangerous media beast ‘though.

    Aparently has a BBC film crew shadowing his current Australian tour for a Documentary.

    He’s also a lot better at putting the Science across than most Scientists,
    knows how to handle the media and he seems to thrive on it.

    Let’s hope he can be interested, though one’s fears the Media are already running scared of him.

  212. If the head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer and Al Gore is by no means a
    scientist and yet they lead the alarmist propaganda…etc…

    This BBC request sounds like a setup.

    BEWARE the wolf in sheep’s clothing!!

  213. Pete (14:47:28) :

    This is a decent and fair attempt by Harrabin to source contributors. He is diplomatic and fair in his language – and, regardless of what you may think of his reporting, he is an honourable man. He may have reported ad nauseam the ‘alarmist’ science, but for a long, long time they were the only papers which carried the stamp of authority which the BBC is compelled to report.

    They can’t report blog posts or their comments. This is an opportunity for people to ‘come out’.

    The BBC – despite what many believe – can only report on what they regard as the most authoritative papers on climate science – that is their job, to present the scientific discourse in a way that viewers, readers and listeners will understand.
    —————————————————————-

    Pete, you are either gullible, or trolling. The BBC is little more than the willing mouthpiece of the current government. If a representative of the government tells them to jump, their only response is ‘how high?’

    At one time David Bellamy, a highly qualified and respected biolist, was all over the UK TV screens. He hasn’t been seen in years, he didn’t toe the AGW line.

    For those outside the UK who might not know, the BBC is funded by a television tax. Ownership of a reciever means that you are compelled to pay that tax on pain of a criminal conviction, with a penalty that includes possible imprisonment.The level of that tax, and its very existence is government-controlled. The BBC is not independent.

    Anthony, please be very careful. As has been pointed out, less than a few hours work would have enabled Harrabin to locate many names. * If * they were willing to talk. The fact that they obviously were not speaks volumes.
    Do not take this offer at face value. Assume that it has been carefully crafted before it was made.
    Before you even reply, take professional advice. From those well-versed in the dark arts of media spin. I will willingly contribute to the cost. If you add a new tip-jar, I’m sure that many of your posters and readers would do the same.
    Please be aware that much evidence indicates that you could be walking into a trap.

  214. Mr. Harrabin
    I welcome the possibility that the BBC may at last introduce some balance into the AGW debate, if this is what you intend.
    Perhaps as the BBC’s environmental analyst, you could start insisting that BBC articles on the “causes of global warming” are now checked for scientific accuracy. In the following list of “things caused by global warming” the BBC is by far the worst, with scores of alarmist unscientific articles:

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    I shall be checking to see if the BBC continues to publish these absurd articles.

  215. Unless you are British, you will prbably not have seen BBC Newsnight regularly. It is hosted by Dimbleby, who is nudged now and again by a government minister to keep the story “on message”. It is mostly panelled by Guardianistas, like Polly. Never heard of her, probably not, so take it from us over here, that you will be trashed.

    Now that The Mail, The Telegraph and The Times have woken up and started to copy stories from WUWT and CA, the Guardian needs a defence, and that is what is happening right now. Don’t be fooled.

    The Guardian is putting out these stories so that they can be gently eased over (nothing to see here chaps, now lets all move on), and it is no coincidence that Prof Jones suddenly, after months of silence appears on BBC to defend the Guardian story. The BBC is no more now than a government mouthpiece. In this household, the Radio 4 flagship programme “Today” is known as the “Tractor production figures”

    Believe us, we have seen it many times over here, the BBC will edit things to suit them, then get Moonbat to trash you.

    Don’t believe for one moment that there will be an open debate with real data allowed etc., you will be trashed as some sort of internet geek, who spends too much time on computers.

  216. @Jose A Veragio (15:28:36) :

    ‘Come on you Sceptics. Think about it.’

    Don’t know about every1 else, but I did. Don’t read too much into things, there’s always a logical ending.

  217. This is what I sent

    Dear Roger Harrabin
    I read your request at Watts Up With That, have responded there, and am responding with similar content here.

    Skeptics are gradually gaining ground, but so often only after dire lessons have been learned. They have experienced being sacrificed and eaten alive by AGW believers. This is not meant as an insult, merely as a description of what they have experienced, as the WUWT thread in response to your invitation hints, and, in places, testifies with evidence. Your piece today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8496365.stm clearly shows you still believe in “anthropogenic global warming”. I think you need to understand skeptics’ experiences, and show you have understood by framing your invite to show this. After you have read the rest of this email, please read the WUWT thread and respond. Please understand that people there are not trying to hurl insults gratuitously, but to express what are often long histories of being hurt by the MSM and BBC and even yourself in particular.

    Unfortunately, your request for UK academic scientists has already loaded the dice. I would name two UK scientists I know personally who meet your specifications, but I cannot give the names as they have to stay anonymous while working to expose the bad science. If known, they would lose their job and prospects in the current climate of opinion. No doubt there are many more, who are unknown to me for identical reasons. Certainly I know some more, personally, who have been threatened, suffered removal of wheel-nuts, etc. You need to understand this, and you need to know that we know. We do not want revenge or discourtesy. On the contrary, many of our number converted to skepticism first on account of the far higher level of courtesy in the skeptics blogs and other milieu. But still, we have been insulted, intimidated, expelled, discredited, and so on. Often such discreditation has followed what seemed like a welcoming, openminded invitation. David Bellamy is one such sufferer. Piers Corbyn, an able astrophysicist, is another. We want to see that this unacceptable media style of treating dissidents has stopped and is being made amends for, before we will be comfortable to trust you and the BBC again. Yet we would like to heal past wounds and quarrels and would like to meet you on this, if we can be sure you have not laid another trap

    [4 UK experts named here as in my earlier post…]

    A reply would be much appreciated.
    Sincerely
    Lucy Skywalker (my online name)

  218. “View from the Solent (16:30:32) :

    For those outside the UK who might not know, the BBC is funded by a television tax. Ownership of a reciever means that you are compelled to pay that tax on pain of a criminal conviction, with a penalty that includes possible imprisonment.The level of that tax, and its very existence is government-controlled. The BBC is not independent.”

    In fact at one time in the UK, there were three tax tiers. One for a mains powered radio, if you had no black and white TV. B&W TV’s, which covered mains powered radios, and of course, colour TV’s (After transmissioins were broadcast in colour of course) which covers all mains radio and TV receivers. TV adverts depicting “detector” vans driving around checking if an address had paid up if it was receiving TV singnals. If not, you received a nasty shock in the mail a few days later. The UK has been a little USSR for a long time.

    And as others has suggested, be cautious with anyone (With possible exception to JC, Jeremy Clackson and crew) from the BBC who requests information.

  219. So why does this chap need skeptic scientists when the IPCC is run by railway engineer that writes slutty novels?

  220. Anthony,

    HEADS UP! He works for the BBC and will be able to use a team of researchers. If they can’t find any UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW, then nobody can. I would think they would like to keep their posts! The email does not give any details as to what he is really proposing to do, and I would seriously suspect his motives.

    I have had reason to deal with these people in the past. They will have a vague idea of what they want to do, but the final cut will depend on what comes out of interviews and discussions, and what will make the best story. NOTHING is ‘off the record’ to these people.

    I do not believe that the Guardian or anyone else has had a change of heart, such people do not have epiphanies. They are throwing the few bad apples out of the cart, but the cart will carry on. I note that all these recent articles still state that the science is sound. They have realised they are losing ground at the moment, so are working to regain it. Know your enemy, it is true for both sides. We have an election due in the UK, and Milliband has effectively declared war on the sceptics, so expect those in the MSM who support his side to help all they can. Remember these are media professionals. So was Goebbels. It works, sad to say, they know how to move the masses.

    AGW will not die overnight, it will slowly fade away. It is not an arguement that can be won overnight. People do not like to be proven wrong, it is more comfortable to just slowly move with the slowly changing times. The BBC will not change overnight, if it takes a different view on AGW, it will slowly go silent on the issue, and gradually start showing the occasional program with a different viewpoint. “Slowly slowly catchee monkey.”

  221. I could’nt be bothered to read all 290 posts so I don’t know if Christopher Monkton was nominated. ( actually he was ) but the reason I would suggest him; is because he admits he’s a layman (like me) but he can actually put the scientific point of view over without losing it. He is always calm and collected even when the pressure is against him.
    He may not have a degree in climatology, but has Rajenda Pachaurie???

  222. @Veronica: 10:59 I did the same thing! Told them I used to give them a 10 and it was now a 6 because of their disgraceful reporting on climate change.

    Those outside the UK can torrent the Newsnight edition with Roger Pielke from http://www.uknova.com.

    (UK Expat in Hong Kong)

  223. An Open Comment to Mr. Harrabin of the BBC by John Whitman

    Mr. Harrabin, it was with interest that I read your email in this WUWT post. I had not previously been very familiar with your journalistic record until Anthony Watts decided to post the email.

    Having now done some review of your journalistic record with respect to “fairness and balance”, particularly on the issue of AGW, it appears there is some historical bias in your journalism toward AGW. I am not criticizing you, just observing.

    I think that some reaching out is needed between the media and individuals who are more open to questions regarding AGW (aka skeptics). Timing, though, is important and I am not positive that this is an appropriate time for a reaching out given the significant issues on AGW playing out now in the world media.

    However, I have a suggestion for you which I would consider evidence of the potential for you being more fair and balanced in the future. Please spend some time here at WUWT. Come post and comment here on WUWT under your own name. Direct interaction here on an open and one-on-one basis could establish a higher confidence in reaching out to you. By posting here you will also become very familiar with excellent sites that cross post with WUWT.

    John Whitman (my real name)

  224. I think a more interesting question is: which scientists have evidence that global warming is man-made and would they allow other scientists to review and check their work by being given access to all the data and any code used?

    I’m betting scientists from various disciplines would be more likely to come forward and help in such reviews in order to put climate research and its conclusions back on track.

  225. If Mr. Harrabin wants to communicate with AGW skeptics from the field of physics, I recommend he contact either:

    Gerhard Gerlich (g.gerlich@tu-bs.de)
    Institut fur Mathematische Physik
    Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
    Mendelssohnstrasse 3
    D-38106 Braunschweig
    Federal Republic Of Germany

    or

    Ralf D. Tscheuschner (ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov)
    Postfach 60 27 62
    D-22237 Hamburg
    Federal Republic of Germany

    Neither of these gentlemen resides in England, and I’m not even sure either speaks English. However, I am studying their paper: “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009). Although I don’t have the necessary experience to understand everything they say, I do have the background to understand part of it; and the part I do understand rings true.

  226. Yep, I was thinking the same thing.

    David Evans is an Australian scientist that was a warminist to start with and was involved in helping write up carbon trading schemes and models before becoming a skeptic… This was when the Tropic Tropospheric hot spot failed to appear as per the climate models….. So he would probably be a good source for a newspaper wanting some answers.

    Ian Plimer would know of some British counterparts I’m sure. His book “Heaven and Earth. The missing Science” quotes a large quantity of scientific papers that damage the AGW hypothesis.

  227. Anon (17:15:48) :

    So why does this chap need skeptic scientists when the IPCC is run by railway engineer that writes slutty novels?
    ———————————————————–

    DAMMIT!!! You will buy me an new key board!

    I just snorted coffee all over it. Damn near broke a rib laughing… :-)

  228. Anthony, by far the best response would be an invitation to post his questions here and let the blogosphere answer them. That will give him all the nuance he needs.

  229. Judging by the CRU emails climate science in the UK looks a bit like a one-party state. Finding a current UK scientist who is a sceptic is a bit like finding a member of the opposition in in Saddam’s Iraq – they’re not in the country. Or in the case of climate science, they’re no longer in academia.

  230. Lucy: If your two anonymous academic skeptics were to appear in shadowed profile with their voices electronically modified, the way whistleblowers do on “60 minutes,” it would send a silent message about the state of discourse in GB.

  231. Mark Fawcett (11:48:20) :

    Anthony,

    Will you be taking Mr Harrabin up on his offer to meet regarding a weather related story?

    REPLY: If he pays air fare and lodging to London, sure why not? -A

    Anthony, if you do make it over, and are at a loose end, drop me a line and I’ll more than happily get you a few pints in :o)

    Cheers

    Mark

  232. I think Dr David Bellamy would be fine if he’s prepared to do it. If Roger Harribin and the BBC don’t like having David Bellamy that will show that they are not serious about having proper balance.

  233. That’s a tough one… I don’t think there are too many scientists willing to put their careers and reputations on the line.

    If they are skeptical, they most likely prefer to keep their thoughts to themselves and just continue to go with the flow quietly minding their own business and staying out of the politico.

  234. Not amused is correct about the risk to careers. Lord Nigel Lawson (former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed out that he was only able to write his excellent book – An Appeal to Reason – because he was retired. A lamentable but acute, in my opinion, comment on the independence of thought in the UK of scientists and politicians.

  235. The danger here is that Harrabin is well aware of the numbers of sceptical scientists in current acadmic posts, and also that they are unlikely to rock the boat for fear of losing either their funding or positions. So, having already stated that he “can’t find any”, he is making a token request for those who would raise their heads above the parapet in the certain knowledge that there will be few takers. When he eventually produces his film/programme, the bias will inevitably be towards warmism, and he’ll be at pains to point out that “few sceptic scientists could be found” to support the alternative view.

    I believe it’s a trap – don’t trust him an inch – not yet, anyway – the leopard doesn’t change his spots…

  236. Just a quick “heads-up” on the BBC licensing issues.

    Here in the Uk, and generally speaking, we are very proud of the BBC. The BBC is funded by license payers – i.e. everyone in the UK that has a TV. That’s right, to have a TV in the UK, you have to buy a TV license at about £120 per annum – and it doesn’t matter whether you ever watch the BBC!

    This money funds all of the BBC TV and radio programming (the World Service)as well as the web site and other more peripheral things.

    The BBC iPlayer is a facility that allows us to watch re runs on-line, free of charge (providing we are in the UK) and is undoubtedly the best “player” around.

    Remember, there are no commercial advertisements on the BBC and hence no breaks in programs.

    The BBC is unique, is a national treasure and we love the fact that other countries haven’t got the same.

    Because the BBC is funded by the license payers, it is deemed to be “ours” (i.e. we have paid for it) and it therefore shouldn’t be offered free to the rest of the world – although there is an ongoing debate as to whether this might change.

    I hope this helps.

  237. As if holding a current academic post makes one more qualified than a scientist who does not hold a current academic post!

    Fact is that holding down a current academic post will mean that you have to toe the line and shut up about being skeptical – smart move Mr Harrabin!

  238. … just a quick follow up on my comment above.

    The BBC have the rights to screen the Superbowl in the UK. Can you guys in the USA imagine a 4 hour continuous broadcast without a single commercial break?

    [Our bladders would burst! ~dbs]

  239. Be careful Anthony – BBC has a history of stultifying (although they may appear benevolent) people who’s views not exactly match “mainstream”.

  240. Some-one mentioned David Evans. He is very motivated but I believe his background which is mainly mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering may not fill the bill.

    Prof Bob Carter would be an excellent choice but he is essentially a marine geologist:

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

    I would be seeking more information from Mr Harribin before I would recommend any-one to go forward into the battle zone. His motives may or may not be genuine.

    Speaking of Lord Monckton, he has been recently treated disgracefully by much of the MSM here in Australia. On the ABC last night he was set shamefully by the ABC which rather than giving him a live interview presented an edited doco which included 3 AGW advocates to set every scene.

    See the doco here (Climate Wars Lord Monkton visits Australia):

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/

    and Andrew Bolt’s discussion on the piece:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/

    If this is the type of end product Mr Harribin is after I would tread warily. You need much more info before proceeding.

  241. There’s a few sceptical Brits according to the list on the following link:

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

    Dr Jack Barrett- Chemist and Spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College
    James Woudhuysen -Professor of Forecasting – De Montford University
    Dr Wilson Flood – Royal Society of Chemistry
    John Kettley – Atmospheric Scientist, formerly at the Met Office
    Nigel Marvin – BBC Wildlife presenter
    Alan Titchmarch – BBC Presenter
    Lenny Smith – Statistician, LSE
    Dr Richard Courtney – Atmospheric Science Consultant

  242. It’s potentially a neat trap isn’t it.
    If he’s genuine then the an oppotunity to get the non-alarmist message out may be missed.
    If however he’s not genuine any inexperienced volunteer may be set up for a fall.
    But if nobody volunteers then he can report there are no UK working skeptical scientists.

    It really needs lots of ‘scientists’ who are in post and sceptical to contact him with a message along the lines that ‘I qualify and am a sceptic but do not trust the BBC to represent me fairly so no thank you.

    Then his only story would be that nobody trusts the BBC!

  243. Dear Anthony Watts,

    Do you have any idea who the source of the leaked emails might be? We are having trouble finding any suspects. There may be a number of reasons for this.

    We are looking for scientists, of course.

    I look forward to hearing from you

    Yours
    Roger Harrabin

  244. Another (belated) vote for Peter Taylor. For anyone who is unfamiliar with him, this article (from Februray 2009) is worth reading for an introduction:

    http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/warming-cooling/article-662783-detail/article.html

    I noticed Peter also made a comment or too on the recent (and excellent) essay ‘Beyond Debate?’ by Martin Cohen (in Times Higher Education Supplement, 10th Dec 2009): in which he addresses the philosophical aspects of the AGW movement, (keywords: Cascade Theory, madness of crowds):

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2

    But as others have said, watch out, despite the apparent change of tune, the BBC is still promoting unashamedly spinning AGW for Schmit and GISS, e.g.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8493168.stm

  245. Like others before, I find this a curious request. Harrabin could ask the Royal Society, the appropriate research funding council or the Foundation for Science and Technology (it used to be a neutral platform) here:

    http://www.foundation.org.uk/

    He knows, or should know, all about these and how to contact them – if not the BBC science editor can introduce him to them. He should also contact Lord Lawson`s new Foundation here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

    He may be genuine, he may be genuine but naive or he may be devious. I do not know. The advice I received, very many years ago when being trained to respond to requests for TV interviews, was only to do it live. If it was recorded, I was advised, you will be edited to suit the aims and mindset of the programme maker – not your aims. Do not expect balance.

    If I knew of any sceptical scientists I would not name them myself. It should be up to them to identify themselves if they are willing to do so.

    It so happens I heard some of the early discussions (in the early 1990s) about climate change at the Foundation for Science and Technology I mentioned above. Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office, was advancing the man made climate change thesis. He was, at that time, fiercely opposed by one of his predecessors who said it was all rubbish (or words to that effect).

    I am no longer up to date or in contact with these circles. My impression is that the received gospel in official circles is that AGW is true. That is the present governments position. It is advanced in somewhat hysterical terms by references to “flat earthers” (by Gordon Brown, the PM) and “declaration of war” (by Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State). Unfortunately David Cameron (the Conservative party leader and likely next PM) seems to be of the same mind – though he faces grass roots opposition within his own party.

    Meantime, keep up the good work.

  246. BBC criticised for scientific ‘cheap sensationalism’
    The BBC has been accused of “exaggerating” the threat of global warming to the oceans in a documentary.
    Shown on BBC One last week, the programme contained “wilful factual errors” including the assertion that there will be no fish left in the sea in fifty years time, according to campaigners.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7128624/BBC-criticised-for-scientific-cheap-sensationalism.html

  247. Roger Knights (17:47:53) :

    “He’s a warmist, alas.”

    That’s disappointing, although Einstein thought plate tectonics was rubbish, or words to that effect.

  248. Do not trust a word Harrabin says. He is a fully paid up AGW believer and activist through his journalism.

    Just look at his latest piece on the BBC website:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8496365.stm

    That piece is a personal defence of the IPCC and all it stands for.

    There is no way this man is remotely capable of writing an objective article concerning scepticism of AGW, which leads me to suspect that there is something underhand about his request and what he intends to do with the information received.

  249. I think before putting forward a suggestion, we’d need to better understand the terms of reference of any proposed interview.

    If it is to be a discussion of Earth’s climate history and the use (and presentation) of proxy data and models versus direct observation, then someone from a geological or physical geography (glaciology) background would be most suitable. I could have a possible candidate – reasonably well known (in academia) geology/geochemistry professor approaching retirement age.

    If the discussion is going to be about the maths and statistics of reconstructions, about the withholding of data, about distortion in presentation and about correlation not being causation, then the best people would be McIntyre & McKitrick, especially if Ross M currently holds an academic position in the UK.

    I’d be most interested though if a physicist or physical chemist were put forward, to discuss fundamentals of radiative physics, heat transfer and the energy-retaining effects of CO2. I keep seeing people on here saying that there are many physicists that are skeptical of big AGW, but other than Freeman Dyson, no names proposed.

    Obviously, if the basic physics can be undermined (and in a manner that is reasonably comprehensible), the rest of the AGW story falls by the way-side

    (btw I’m another sceptical British geologist, PhD but not in academia)

  250. Having said the above though, I would recommend a one Jasper Kirkby – a British particle physicist working at CERN – whose research may well have significant implications the ‘climate science’ and ‘climate scientists’ (using BBC-style scare quotes).

    Here’s a fascinating lecture given by Kirkby which everyone should view (if they haven;t already):

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

    However, I doubt Kirkby will talk to Harrabin – I know if I were him, I wouldn;t.

  251. Anthony

    Have a look at the job the ABC in Australia pulled on Monckton with there 7:30 Report of last night (Wed). It was quite puerile. Given the ABC and BBC are in lock step this is possibly what is being considered, but I am happy to be proved wrong.

  252. “Mark Fawcett (00:18:01) :

    Mark Fawcett (11:48:20) :

    Anthony,

    Will you be taking Mr Harrabin up on his offer to meet regarding a weather related story?

    REPLY: If he pays air fare and lodging to London, sure why not? -A

    Anthony, if you do make it over, and are at a loose end, drop me a line and I’ll more than happily get you a few pints in :o)

    Cheers

    Mark”

    Anthony, just stay away from Theakston Old Peculiar, Bishops Tipple, Horndean Speacial Brew (Very nice), Courage Directors, London Pride etc etc…to name just a few…LOL

    I know I can’t drink them now, been away from the “old country” too long.

  253. I cannot find a link, and not surprised really. But, I am sure, I have a vague reallection, in the late 1970’s a prominant “botanist” stated we were heading for an ice age.

    Bellamy was not that “botanist” as the person I am thinking about had a brother in the “acting” space.

  254. Does this mean that the BBC is part of the highly organised, big oil funded denial machine??? I guess they are getting fair and balanced like fox news ;-) maybe rolling stone can add them to the list of people killing the planet

  255. Anthony,

    Do not trust this man, or that corporation. Our views, and arguments, are anathema to them.

    You are already making a HUGE difference in this debate. My advice from afar would be to simply stay the course and not get distracted by offers such as these. Having vital resources like WUWT, CA, etc, unfairly dismissed in such a forum would be devastating. It’s simply not worth the risk.

    Please do not trust them.

  256. Firstly, do not trust this greenie reporter one inch, ney a millimetre. He is as duplicitous as they come. He has too many grubby fingers in too many All the neagtive comments about are absolutely right, he would slit your throat as soon as look at you from an environmental reporting issue! I am still to find coverage of WeatherAction’s October seminar at which both Harrabin & Richard Black attended. Trust neither.

    As to scientists in academia, well there is the rub, probably none currently. But in private practice, there is Piers Corbyn, Stephen Wilde, & of course former IPPC reviewer Richard S. Courteney in Cornwall. What about any other former British reviewers? What about Prof Paul Reiter at the Pastuer Institute, Paris, expert on malaria & vector borne diseases? He should be able to put a wet cloth on the claims about disease spread thro’ AGW, & about how brow beaten some scientists were by bureaucrats at the IPCC to delvier a particular conclusion.

  257. The BBC are clearly considered by CRU as a media gate keeper for al things climate related, just take a look at roger harradins, Richard Blacks pronouncements and partiality (the whole agw theory is the bbc’s mantra)

    So they are actually complicit in not allowing the debate..
    They even comlinaed to ofcom about channel 4 showing the great global warming scandal!

    CRU’s attitude stinks: (climate gate emails)

    A qualified person (Paul Hudson) comments on a proccess that might explain the plateauing or cooling in the last decade….

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    And INSTANTLY he is dismissed as a sceptic:

    climate gate email:
    Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
    Steve,
    You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday
    wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
    cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
    other skeptics views.

    Which gets a reply!!!! (travesty, lack of warming!!!)

    Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    > > > > > Hi all
    > > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
    > > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
    > > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
    > > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
    > > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
    > > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
    > > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
    > > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
    > > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
    > > > > > freezing weather).
    > > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
    > > > > > planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
    > > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
    > > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
    > > > > > (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
    > > > > > The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
    > > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
    > > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
    > > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
    > > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.

    Then they say better have a word with the BBC:

    Michael Mann wrote:
    > > > > > > extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
    > > > > > > BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard
    > > > > > > Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
    > > > > > > can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met
    > > > > > > Office.
    > > > > > > We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile
    > > > > > > it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say
    > > > > > > about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
    > > > > > > mike

    So Paul HUdson is just a ‘weatherman’ note the dismissive language. is now a sceptic
    So Richard Black BBC environment corrspondent – qualifications unknown
    So Roger Harridan environment editor – english degree.

    Paul Hudson bio:
    Paul was born and brought up in Keighley, near Bradford, and after reading geophysics and planetary physics at Newcastle University, he joined the Met Office and did two years at Leeds Weather Centre. He combined this with a two-year stint as Number Two weather presenter for BBC Look North and for the BBC local radio stations in Leeds, York, Humberside and Sheffield.

  258. Perhaps this investigative reporter could simply have referred to the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), Nigel Lawson’s newly established think-tank.
    Not that hard, is it?

  259. Since Benny Peiser runs the remarkably effective CCNet newsletter from Britain I am quite certain he could name dozens, possibly hundreds. This looks to me like Harrabin trying to cover himself by saying the BBC are & have always been willing to report sceptics but had to contact America to find any.

  260. Much as I despise the BBC and Harrabin in particular, please bear this in mind: there is to be an investigation within the BBC (by the BBC Trust) this spring as to whether it is impartial on science reporting, specifically “accuracy and impartiality”. OK, we all know the answer to that, but it has to be seen to be going through the motions.

    Richard Tait, the chair of the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee says, “Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, genetically modified crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.”

    With an investigation starting in a few weeks, Harrabin had better get his house in order, at least to the extent that he can pull the wool over the investigation.

    If no response is received when a BBC journalist asks a fair question then the BBC will claim that it couldn’t report the sceptical position because none was forthcoming. No spokesman could be found. The BBC does this all the time “We invited body XYZ onto the programme, but XYZ said that no spokesman was available”. And it then goes on to present a one-sided argument.

    Remember as well that Channel Four got mildly rapped by Ofcom when it aired the Great Global Warming Swindle because it had not given sufficient time for persons in the documentary to get back to them with comments. The BBC will want to make sure it can claim that it has given opportunity.

    Quite frankly, in terms of co-operating with Harrabin, you’ll be damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

  261. jaymam (00:22:03) :

    I think Dr David Bellamy would be fine if he’s prepared to do it. If Roger Harribin and the BBC don’t like having David Bellamy that will show that they are not serious about having proper balance.

    No – not David Bellamy. He’s a nice guy who’s heart is in the right place , but he tends to use dodgy anecdotes and will get torn apart by anyone who knows what they’re talking about. Even Monbiot gave him a rough ride.

    I’ll repeat – Barrett (that’s 3 times), Courtney (twice) and Wilson Flood. Many of the others mentioned simply don’t have the depth of scientific background and will get murdered in a debate. Philip Stott’s ok though. He speaks well and has a good all round knowledge.

  262. The BBC is a political animal, an elction is coming soon, a change of government is in the wind The Consevatives have already signalled dissatisfaction with many aspects of the BBC’s operation, veiled threats of funding cuts, restructuring are in the pipeline. Heads will roll.
    Senior Officers like Harribin are very very well paid, and his performance as environmental analyst has been blatently biased and lacking in objectivity. He could well be on a hit list already.

    I think this of his approach has two objectives, he’s obviously been reading WUWT or had his staff do it for him, is impressed by the rating that WUWT has gained over the last year or so, and needs to try and preserve his job.
    The contributers to the list have given him all the information he needs to understand the problem he has.
    He isn’t trusted , niether is the BBC when it comes to Climate Science in particular.

    Start looking for another job Roger ! Or show some real courage and report honestly- much harder to do.

  263. If you want to apply for a public position in the UK as part of the application progress you are now asked about your views on AGW I believe.

    I guess that if you don’t have pro AGW views you don’t get the job.

    Presto! No one who works in such positions has anti-AGW views.

  264. The problem is getting someone to go on the record. It’s a risk reward thing:

    Risk: Be accused of being a killer of unborn babies. Less likelihood of being published after being labelled a crackpot. Lose all your grant applications and lose out on promotions putting your tenure in jeopardy. Receive loads of hate mail accusing you of being an oil industry shill.

    Reward: Five minutes on TV for pitiful remuneration with a host like Greenboy Dimbleby who talks over you, cuts your answers short and introduces you as a crank while allowing an unqualified zealot like Porrit to lie, exaggerate and insult you repeatedly without any redress or constraint.

    Off the record I’m sure their are plenty of skeptical scientists willing to talk. On the record though precious few will be brave or stupid enough to stick their head above the parapet. Even Bellamy – a man who went to jail for his environmentalist beliefs – was treated abominably. So what chance does anyone else have? What the hell happened to freedom of speech, investigative journalism and objective science anyway

    Happily some of the BBC are asking the right things and getting confessions about the real green agenda – predictably being insulted for it too:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2010/01/the_problem_with_hidden_agendas.html

    If there are any real investigations to be carried out, it isn’t likely to be coming from those who were cheer-leading the excesses in the first place – unless they are jumping ship. Send the guys who caused the problem to fix it? Now what does that remind me of…

  265. ‘I’m struggling to find’

    While the offer engagement might seem welcome, this alone, from a person of supposed decades immersion in the field, suggests the quality of any output is unlikely to be worth much. It reads more like a broadcast-only, ‘by the numbers only’, ‘well I tried’ piece to show willing, or the bosses, at best, than a genuine, polite solicitation.

    A career checking an in-box for press releases from only those one is comfortable dealing with or whose views one shares, suggests a mindset that has long since given up on professional integrity or objectivity.

    And even now, at last moved to expand horizons, the BBC has shown, often of late, that a lot can indeed get ‘sorted’ in post, especially if the high-ups in editorial mutter darkly about how unsettled science can sabotage the value of pension funds if ‘events’ don’t get ‘interpreted’ ‘correctly’.

    Proceed with caution, if not with the simple view that beyond a silly title within a once respected media organisation (if sadly offering all seduced access to an often spoonfed audience by way of critical faculties in the many millions) this person’s background, body of work and record to date make him hardly worth dealing with unless you are a passionate activist from some extreme seeking a greater truth to be assisted in emerging.

  266. It’s a bit rich for Harrabin to be insisting on ‘skeptical [sic] scientists’ in ‘current academic posts’ when he knows that any in that position will have been forced to keep a low profile, not least because of his and the BBC’s uncritical promotion of AGW! As for asking you, who’s meant to be the investigative journalist..?!

  267. Steve Goddard (09:22:57) :

    I’m a geologist working for an oil and gas company and know several geologists including the most senior in our company who believe in MMGW.

  268. Anthony,

    I have to agree absolutely with the views of Robert Christopher (15:23:35), Stephen Brown (15:42:36) & Cold Englishman (16:35:15).

    I have reported before on this excellent blog on my efforts to get straight (or any, Goddamnit!) answers from Mark Thompson, BBC Director General. This has been going on for over 3 years and until I engaged my MP in June last year I got precisely nowhere.

    The latest situation is that my MP, at my request, referred this to the Parliamentary Select Commitee and I am promised an answer imminently.

    If Thompson thinks this has gone away, he is very much mistaken! I will keep you posted but, in the meantime, take heed of the advice….and keep up the good work!

  269. —– Original Message —–
    From: Martin Atkins
    To: Roger Harrabin – Internet
    Sent: Thu Feb 04 02:25:25 2010
    Subject: UK scientists

    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is an Emeritus Reader in Geography at the
    University of Hull in Kingston-upon-Hull England, and part of the “Environment and Spaces of Governance.

    Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of
    Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

    ============================================

    From: “Roger Harrabin – Internet”
    To:

    Thanks. I know them. But neither are academics with tenure. Best. Rh

  270. Dave McK (23:46:17) :

    “Don’t run! We are your friends!”

    “We ask only that you trust us. Simply trust us.”

  271. MartinGAtkins (07:51:53) : | Reply w/ Link

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Martin Atkins
    To: Roger Harrabin – Internet
    Sent: Thu Feb 04 02:25:25 2010
    Subject: UK scientists

    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is an Emeritus Reader in Geography at the
    University of Hull in Kingston-upon-Hull England, and part of the “Environment and Spaces of Governance.

    Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of
    Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

    ============================================

    From: “Roger Harrabin – Internet”
    To:

    Thanks. I know them. But neither are academics with tenure. Best. Rh

    It tells the whole story. From the beginning it is the retired and the professor emerituses who have been vocal in their skepticism of global warming because they have nothing to lose. No grants, no blocking of publications.

    If this fellow Harriobin dismisses retired professors, wh by years of experience, should be on the top of the knowledge pyramid, he is not worth the effort.
    It seems that as peer review having been debunked, it is being substituted by “academics with current tenure”.

    There is a list of skeptical peer reviewed publications. Lets have a look if there are any British academics there. If not, it speaks a lot of the stranglehold on research in the UK by Jones et al.

  272. How about adding an archaeologist? They have been using relative sizes of tree rings far longer than any climate scientist, and prbably have a much larger sample size from around the world than the UEA appear to have used. They have less to loose too, as any archaeologist who tries to re-write dendrochronology will have major problems.

  273. Here’s a question for an expert in climate modelling. Starting from today’s global greenhouse gas configuration run the models with the following change. Force the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to decrease at the rate it is currently increasing, allow the consequent changes to other atmospheric constituents eg methane, water vapour/clouds etc to change dependant purely on the the atmosphere’s feedback. After running the model until CO2 level is zero allow it to continue at zero for a further 800 years. I’d like to see the resultant graph of global average temperature vs CO2 level. Then start to run the growth of CO2 forward until it reaches current levels and continue forward until CO2 levels are 3x current levels then stop CO2 growth and continue for a further 800 years. A

  274. Thanks Anthony for the heads-up. I contacted Mr Harrabin about this because it seemed to me I fitted his bill, but it turns out he only wants in-post Academics in “relevant disciplines” [not molecular biology]. People like the excellent Lord Monckton, David Bellamy and Piers Corbyn are relevant but not in-post.

    I actually do know one skeptical [and quite prominent] earth scientist but he is scared. Quote: “I agree with you, but if I said that, I’d lose my job.” I think if there is a story here it’s about the worrying monoculture of British Academia which is actually even worse in our secondary schools where, irrespective of your personal views, as a teacher you *MUST* spout the drowny-wowny boily-woily bunny stories [aka National Curriculum] or be sacked. *AND* you have to read the Guardian!

  275. I read with interest Roger Harrabin’s somewhat disingeuous posting. I invited him to a brilliant presentation by Prof Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton attended by prestigious scientists in London last december, a week before COP 15. He did not bother to respond, nor anyone from the BBC. Polly Toynbee of the Guardian was positively rude in her refusal. Too many scientists have found their carreers curtailed in recent years by going against government policy. Most of those on public pay are part of the conspiracy. Why does not the BBC give some airtime to Prof David Bellamy, Sir Patrick Moore, Dr Benny Peiser of Liverpool University, Bjorn Lomborg, an international expert. What about John Etherington, a leading ecologist? Whilst we are about it, what about admission the BBC trust has a very direct interest in perpuating the myth of AGW. Don’t pretend to be surprised.

    Godfrey Bloom, Member of the European Parliament.
    Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee
    Environment Commitee

  276. Dear Mr Harribin,

    Further to your request, before proceeding any further, I would appreciate clarification of the following question:

    What is your rationale for restricting the scope of your research to ‘scientists in ***current academic posts***’? (my emphasis). This does not seem to have any basis in logic, as there are many capable scientists outside academia, whether employed or otherwise, who would be just as qualified – and just as entitled IMO – to comment on the issues surrounding climate change controversies as those you specify. If you have any reasons to offer why only the views of those in your chosen niche should be given credence, I would be most interested to hear them, as I find the request as framed most puzzling.

    I am delighted to hear that you are looking for ‘scientists and not insults’. There are many who would feel that this comment is insulting in itself, but I’m sure you intended no offence.

    There are also many who would welcome precisely such an attitude from those who routinely, loudly and very publicly respond to any questioning of global warming alarmism with utterly unacceptable and often thoroughly despicable insults – the exceptionally nasty pejorative ‘deniers’, with its implicit Holocaust connotations, being among the very worst. I am particularly pleased that you are firmly opposed to any further attempts to shut down reasoned debate on these serious issues, and look forward to your continued efforts to extend the same courtesy to those with whom you disagree as you quite rightly expect to be offered to those with whom you do.

    As for ‘the difficulties of reporting climate change’ … here, I’m afraid, words fail me, and I must bid you goodbye.

    Yours etc.

  277. BBC Impartiality exposed

    The Biased-BBC web site exposes the reporting bias of the BBC, so there are many subjects under discusion! This article describes a major research and communications initiative on Global Warming by the BBC World Service Trust:

    http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/broken-trust.html

    It refers to a BBC Trust document titled “Talking loud and clear about climate change in Africa” and states:

    “The drive to help people understand issues such as climate change and to have the opportunity to speak and act is at the heart of our work”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/whatwedo/where/africa/2009/06/090602_africa_talks_climate_news.shtml

    Its good to know that the BBC is so impartial !!!

  278. What I find most disingenuous about Harrabin’s stance is that he is on the side of the argument that professes to want to be more open and transparent yet here he is being anything but!

    You couldn’t make it up.

  279. It should be easy for Roger Harrabin to get several scientists in the UK who are AGW skeptics.

    First thing I would do is check the list of 165 scientists that signed the recent Copenhagen climate challenge, i.e. have gone on record that they are skeptical of the premise that AGW is a serious threat.

    http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64

    Turns out there are 9 signatories from the UK:

    David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.

    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy & Environment.

    Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom

    Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and Environment Forum, UK

    James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England

    Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.

    Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

    John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom

    Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist, Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom

    Of course there are many more UK scientists who are skeptical of some aspect of the AGW premise, but this list should give Harrabin a good start.

    Max

  280. Daniel H: Mike Hulme is most certainly not a sceptic, he is a firm believer but has changed tack to a softee, softee, catchee monkey approach. He now complains about hysteria but his Tyndall Centre of which he was founding director, has produced as much hysteria as any, and is responsible for pushing such things as carbon credit cards and increased taxes on flying.

    Treat with caution, as with Harrabin. They both can see the political climate changing and want to be on the right side, as of course do Fred Pearce and Geoffrey Lean, also currently playing both sides into the middle.

    If you think I am being over-cynical, I have been following these people for years and know what they have written and said.

    I suggest Benny Peiser would be a good starting point for contacts.

  281. tread warily Anthony.

    i have sounded out 4 close friends on this issue.

    1. a retired British ambassador who worked with the infamous Crispin Tickle who advised Maggie Thatcher to invent Man Made Global Warming in order to defeat Arthur Scargill and the militant coal miners in the dark days of the seventies (when Newsweek warned us all about the coming Ice Age) He says do not trust the BBC.

    2. A close family member who is a PHD doing important research at a top British University. He says he would be amazed if any of his contemporaries would dare question the Mantra of MMGW as their careers would be in jepordy. (nice country but no one wants to live there).

    3. Professor at well known British Uni. ditto to 2. above.

    4. Retired Prof. would be willing to state the case against MMGW, but is disqualified by Roger Harabin’s rules.

    All four suggest that you get back to R Harabin and tell him you will come out to play provided he removes the caveat of serving acedemic experts being allowed to perform. tell him you will play if he is willing to open up the discussion to include all experts whether empolyed in acedemia or otherwise. (and take your attorney along – that’s from me!) they say that any British Acedemic who does not toe the ‘part line’ will soon find themselves looking for alternative employment.
    a sad state of affairs, but we must remember that 1984 is a bit like ground hog day, which our american cousins are more familiar with.

    BTW – there has been some discussion on the web as to why the USA MSM is not covering MMGW scandals as the UK media are finally doing. i have an idea which came to me from our local Scottish paper.
    i notice virtually all the stories come from the ‘wires’ AP UP and Reuters. all three are happily in bed with the warmists, as are Gates and Google with Gore. (the infamous 3 G’s) i am not normally a conspirasy theorist, but if we were to look under the bed covers we should not be surprised with what we find.

  282. Dave Waterman (01:10:33) :

    It would help if it were more accurate. The BBC receives £3billion from the licence payers most of whom it has been shown tend not to watch it except for some purile programming such as Strictly come ;;;; whatever. This is a sum that most TV stations can only dream of. They pay excessively and like bankers give themselves wonderful bonuses for taking in £3B which is done for them and this collection is also paid (tax office workers) by the Brits.

    There are many more people that now buy their television from Murdoch’s AGW empire, SKY, paying upto ~ £50 per month on top of the licence, of course. The BBC news is now childish, biased and dramatised to become entertainment and their readers must be youngish and capable of other forms of entertainment such as dancing and singing. David Bellamy may or may not have been dropped from the schedules because of his beliefs but he was just another in a long line of presenters with grossly exaggerated movements and voices the fashion for which continues but a little more muted. Perhaps he didn’t fit in with the requirement for younger, more virile presenters.

  283. What is Harrabin really trying to achieve with his memo to Anthony?

    Let’s not be cynical. Let’s assume he is honestly asking for help in finding some scientists who are skeptical of the AGW premise.

    Does this make sense?

    Harrabin is basically a reporter. He should know that a letter was written to the UN Secretary General in December 2009 stating:

    there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes

    and challenging

    supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate

    This letter was signed by over 100 scientists, including 9 from the UK.

    As the environmental analyst for BBC, Harrabin must certainly know this, if he is worth his salt.

    So is his request really a “curve ball”? Is he trying to demonstrate that there ARE NO UK scientists who are sceptical of the AGW premise?

    His request specifically asks for “UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW”. Does this exclude UK scientists who are either retired or are working in non-academic posts?

    As many posters have already remarked here, openly speaking out against the AGW premise may be career limiting for academic scientists in the UK today, so that many skeptics may simply be hesitant to go on record, thereby proving Harrabin’s point that there ARE NO UK scientists who are skeptical of the AGW premise, and, therefore, that (as Robert Watson proclaimed over 10 years ago) “the science is settled”.

    Let’s see how this plays out.

    Max

  284. Every genuine scientist should be at least a little bit ‘sceptical’ by definition, but I agree with debreuil (and others); Jasper Kirkby of CERN is a good choice. A big ‘cosmoclimatologist’.

  285. The question is out there: has Harrabin “changed his spots”?

    Has he sensed that there is change in the wind for the AGW premise?

    Is he opportunistically moving to the side that appears to be gaining the upper hand as the various Climategate revelations and current cooling take their toll?

    Or is he an ideologue, setting a trap to “prove” that “the science is settled” (at least among UK scientists with academic tenure)?

    If so, his plot is very likely to backfire.

    It is also very unlikely to turn back the tide, which has clearly turned against AGW.

    Let’s see how astute Harrabin is.

    Max

  286. I heard on New Hampshire Public Radio this evening the BBC radio program “One Planet” focused on Climategate etc with interviews with the IPCC’s Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, David Holland and the CRU’S acting director, Peter Liss.

    Michael Williams does a decent job interviewing the guests, and pressuring van Ypersele and Liss when they’re not as forthcoming as he’d like. OTOH, he shares tea and sandwiches with Holland.

    All very out of character for the program!

    At the end, he notes how much CO2 was released in producing the program. He mentioned 239 Kg, and commented something like “some day and one day soon we hope to work out exactly what that means.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0060ckj

  287. There are far too many comments to read here Andrew and as an occassional commentator but regular visitor I would like to add the following.

    First, the previous 368 comments have plenty of suggestions with respect to qualified scientists from which Mr. Harribin may seelect for his requirements.

    Secondly, I would suggest that you refer Mr. Harribin to a third party who might be better placed to the information he requires. For example, The Heartland Institute in the US comes to mind.

    I am sure you will be helpful in your response. Having said that, each and every suggestion in this blog thread is currently in the public domain and serves as a record to which Mr. Harribin may refer. As such, and given the vast resources at hand to Mr. Harribin and the BBC, there is really not much one has to add is there?

  288. I’d be very cautious of any dealings with the BBC.

    They had a very detailed agenda to support the Copenhagen conference.

    Every other day, for a couple of months before the conference, they published scaremonger stories linked to AGW. All the environmental team at the BBC was complicit in this.

    To further the complicity there has not been a single story since.

    Again, be very aware and astute about ANY form of contact.

  289. anna v (08:05:22) :

    If this fellow Harriobin dismisses retired professors, whith years of experience, should be on the top of the knowledge pyramid, he is not worth the effort.

    I took him at face value but he turned out to be a troll. Even if you found a scientist within his narrow range of parameters his next line would be “Oh but he/she is not involved in climate research”.

    The funny thing is, he’s shot his own feet off. Any credibility he hoped to gain has only exposed his duplicity. Perhaps Michael Mann could teach Roger Harrabin how to set the perfect echo chamber.

    Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones. :- 1196872660.txt

    I will look into the American Geophysical Union Fellowship situation as soon as possible. I don’t read Energy and Environment; it gives me indigestion—I don’t even consider it peer-reviewed science, and in my view we should treat it that way, i.e., don’t cite anything appearing in it, and if journalists ask us about a paper, simply explain that it’s not peer-reviewed science, and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor, has even admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!

    Mann has his own definition of what peer-review is!

  290. The BBC likes to portray itself as the non-partisan representative of the great British public.
    All British citizens are raised with this perspective. Auntie Beeb is how it is known.

    However if you watch the BBC with a critical eye, as I have done for some years now, and especially if it is on a subject about which you have above average knowledge you will see that it is very partisan and far from impartial. The appointed director general of the BBC is a non science graduate, a devout Roman Catholic and gets paid £834, 000 per annum. How can this background not colour his judgement. Consequently global warming is the BBC’s view.

    Here is an attempt by a BBC journalist to address this matter. Read the article and then read the comments form those who study the BBC’s position.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climate_issue.html

    QED the BBC is very partial.

    Most of the staff who work at the BBC will be left of centre non science based graduates. The first bit suits me because I am left of centre myself but I am also science based. For the BBC the argument is over. The default position for all scientists should be that of skeptic. As Einstein said (paraphrase) ” no amount of theory can prove me right but one experiment can prove me wrong.

    Take a look at this graph presentation from Attenborough showing what the climate models ‘prove’. Then critically analyse it and you will see what I mean.

    Where is all the discussion on the other computer climate models that prove no such thing.

    The politics and dogma and hi-jacking of the IPCC by people like railway engineer (and apparently now ‘High Priest’) Rajendra Pachauri (who cannot believe his luck at getting away with what he does, getting paid to fly around the world to lecture sinners on how they need to reduce their carbon footprint. Ha Ha) that has arisen around this subject means that the science is under threat.

    And in all this that is the greater loss.

  291. Here’s a BBC anecdote. In December i was with a friend, she’s at London Uni studying broadcast media, and had to do a radio interview as part of her course. I sent her to interview Delingpole on Climategate, he’s a friend too.

    She did that, and that course was reviewed by the head of BBC World News.

    he gave her good marks for the interview, but said two things:

    1 He had never heard of Climategate

    2 Was she aware that Delingpole was a 5-star nutcase

    This was about a month after Climategate broke.

  292. wrt litesp33d above –

    as a non science graduate, devout practising Catholic, but only on an adequate pension (including Old Age Pension), i was wondering which part of (is it?) Mark Thompson’s CV disqualifies him from being impartial?
    I am regularly indulged on Sceptical Blogs sites as a committed AGW agnostic, and if you are saying that being Roman Catholic in any way questions my Climate Faith, then i will feel a bit sad.
    In the true spirit of peer review, i must admit you do have a valid point. when one considers so many of our church movers and shakers have abandoned their true faith to worship at the shrine of Al Gore, it is hardly surprising.
    BTW i have an ongoing correspondence with a prominent Cardinal who has sold his soul to the warmists. so far i have failed to convert him but the dialogue is continuing.

    regards.

  293. I spoke with Roger Harrabin yesterday. He did seem genuine enough. I did hear him recount his bad experience of Al Gore and like others had told me, it did leave a bad taste in his mouth.
    Those of you read my article yesterday should understand that someone like me is better placed to stick their head above the parapet rather than Anthony, etc.

    http://www.climategate.com/bbc-says-lets-talk-to-climate-skeptics-initiative-to-debate-starts#comments

    It is only fair to take someone as you find him. I’m keeping an open mind. He has proven to me he has cordial relations with Philip Stott- not the evidence of a hard core alarmist.

    But I’ve set Roger a challenge to prove his sincerity and from that we will all get a measure of the man.

  294. “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 – ….”

    ————-

    Mike Hulme
    Guardian – Friday 5 February 2010 15.23 GMT
    “A little less hubris from the IPCC might have made Pachauri more careful about using phrases such as ‘voodoo science’. And a little less deference to science that ‘demands action’, and a more honest articulation of the ethical and political reasons for their proposed actions, would have left climate change campaigners in a stronger position.

    • Mike Hulme is professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom”

    ———–

    I am suspicious of you Roger. Why ask?:

    “I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.”

    instead of

    “I am trying to talk to UK scientists who are sceptical about AGW.”

    or

    “I am trying to talk to UK Earth scientists who are sceptical about AGW.”

  295. A little late but, is this not the Roger Harrabin that had a run in with Jo Abbess who made the threat that, if he (and Roger Black?) did not change an article on cooling, she would blackball them? I am sure Anthony had something on WUWT.
    I also seem to remember Harrabin on the BBC blog tried to wriggle out of it but our good old Internet showed that her emails destroyed his excuses.

  296. I wouldnt count your chickens, in my opinion the BBC have a habit of bringing in the opposition to their favoured view so they can ‘expose’ them. Unfortunately, AGW is their favoured view partly because of a perceived left wing bias, (though it is not a left wing/right wing issue)-most BBC staff vote to the left and partly because that is the official view.
    There are reasonable people on both side of the GW issue unfortunately it seems the sceptics side has been kept out of things both subtley and clandestinely.

  297. So far itr is only the claims that are not based on peer review that have been shown to be fraudulent. We still have to discover what the climnategate Emails have revealed, that most of the Peer Reviewed literature on climate science is corrupt, distorted and even fabricated. How many people know that the model assumptions are ridiculous, that the claimed results of models are exclusively from those paid to produce them. Who realises that the only surface temperatues ever measureed are one daily reading of the maximum and the minimum, necer any sort of average. And what about the elaborate experiments that show that the sea level in twelve Pacific Islands has not changed since 2000?

    They will probably only notice these after a few more snowstorms in Washington DC.,

  298. UK Sceptics:

    Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor – Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom

    Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom

    Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom

    John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom

    Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist, Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom

    The above signed the Copenhagen Climate Challenge: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64

  299. Oh and these two:

    Derek Anthony Smith, MSc (Lond), PhD, CChem, CEng, Professor, Engineering Faculty, QMC London Univ; Consultant in Alternative Energy, London, United Kingdom

    Phillip Hutchinson, BSc, PhD (Physics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne), CEng, CPhys, F.Inst.Phys, FREng (Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering), Emeritus Professor, Royal Military College of Science, former Head of the School Engineering at Cranfield University, Chairman of the European Research Community in Flow, Turbulence and Combustion (ERCOFTAC), 1994 – 2000, Chairman of the International Energy Agency Executive Committee on Emissions Reduction and Improved Efficiency in Combustion and continues as co Chairman of the Strategy sub committee, London, United Kingdom

    From here:

    http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65

Comments are closed.