BBC4′s “Meet the Skeptics”

Lord Monckton is rather upset with the producers of this show, so much that he filed a legal action for a right of reply according to Bishop Hill.

I was interviewed (captured really, they flagged me down in the conference hall foyer with no notice) by this production group at the Heartland conference last year in Chicago, giving well over an hour’s worth of an interview in which they asked the same question several times in different ways, hoping to get the answer they wanted. This is an old news interviewing trick to get that golden sound bite. I knew what they were doing, and kept giving the answers my way.

Then, they showed me the contract they wanted me to sign (no mention at the beginning before the interview) and I spent several minutes reading it, finally deciding that the contract basically amounted to me giving them all rights to my image, words, and opinion, with specific rights to edit them together in “any way they saw fit”. Yes, as I recall, that was exactly the way it was worded in the contract, and basically gave them a license to create their own alternate “Watts interview” reality as they desired. My years in television news have shown me how editing can be brutally unfair in the hands of somebody skilled, and I basically told them to “stuff it” and refused to sign the contract. They spent the next two weeks via email and phone trying to come up with contract variations to get me to sign and I still refused. The entire affair was rushed and unprofessional in my experience.

The “repeated questioning of the same topic” interview technique of these blokes was a tipoff for me that the interview was a setup. I wanted no part of it and refused to allow them legal rights over me by not signing the contract. After watching the trailer below, I’m glad I stood my ground.

Here’s the BBC video and intro text for the program (note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere):

Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.

Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don’t fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?

The film features Britain’s pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?

This is the trailer, which everyone can view:

h/t to Bishop Hill

UPDATE: James Delingpole of the Telegraph tells of his experience with this outfit:

Nine months ago, when I was at the Heartland conference in Chicago, I was approached by a  louche, affable, dark-haired, public school charmer called Rupert Murray. With his friend Callum he was making a documentary about climate sceptics for the BBC and wondered if I’d like to take part.

“The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.

“Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”

Very true, I thought. It really is about time the BBC examined the issue from the other side. They are a public service broadcaster, after all, not a green investment fund. (Ho ho).

Unfortunately, the ending Delingpole paints is worse that my own, be sure to read his take on it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in media and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to BBC4′s “Meet the Skeptics”

  1. Barry Woods says:

    This actually makes the Horizon program look impartial restrained and balanced….

    They went after James Delingpole as well… see his thoughts on how it was done.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074116/meet-the-sceptics-another-bbc-stitch-up/

    Delingpole:
    “Let me tell you the story so far:

    Nine months ago, when I was at the Heartland conference in Chicago, I was approached by a louche, affable, dark-haired, public school charmer called Rupert Murray. With his friend Callum he was making a documentary about climate sceptics for the BBC and wondered if I’d like to take part.

    “The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.

    “Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”

    Very true, I thought. It really is about time the BBC examined the issue from the other side. They are a public service broadcaster, after all, not a green investment fund. (Ho ho).

    Over the next few months I came to like and trust Murray. He was there filming Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, Lord Leach and me when we debated at the Oxford Union. And he was there to capture our joy and surprise when we won – and to hang out drinking with us, afterwards, like he was our mate. By this stage, we’d all come to accept that Murray was genuinely interested in presenting our case sympathetically. In fact, I must admit, I was really looking forward to seeing the finished product. “God this is going to be fantastic!” I thought. “At long bloody last, the BBC is going to do the right thing – and at feature length too.”

    read the rest; will anybody ever trust the BBC again?

    REPLY: Thanks, I’ve added this to the body of the story – Anthony

  2. Jay Currie says:

    The Leni Riefenstahl, Triumph of the Will homage was adorable. Pretty much put paid to any credibility this dolt might have had.

  3. John Kehr says:

    I almost sprayed coffee all over my computer when that BBC guy said he put aside his bias. This was a pretty clear slander piece.

    It portrays Skeptics as old, gun toting, motorcycle riding, nazi’s. It is truly a stunning piece of propaganda. The only people that are shown as rational are warmists.

    I am glad that you didn’t sign the paper. Smart move on your part. I will try to remember that lesson in the future.

    John Kehr

  4. William Gray says:

    This is more balanced.

  5. John Kehr says:

    What a hit piece this is. It basically portrays all skeptics as mindless, gun toting, motorcycle riding Nazi’s. They jumped all over Godwin’s law in this one.

    I am glad you didn’t sign this one. Smart move that I hope more people can learn from.

  6. Dr A Burns says:

    Trenberth must be joking when he says “They tell lies” . It’s not hard to find plenty of his blatant lies, such as claiming his mate Phil Jones didn’t say “there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” … of course Phil did say that, on BBC.

  7. Policyguy says:

    Lord Monckton rules. This trailer is sanctimonious breast beating at its worst.

    Rupert Murray apparently feels the need to use most every iconic reference he can concoct to make skeptics look like crazed, gun loving, boozing, motorcycle gangers, senile, gay, conservative biggots. I suppose someone could create an equally offensive look at alarmists, but its not worth it. What a pathetic trailer, so probably Nobel worthy.

  8. UK Sceptic says:

    BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.

  9. Oxonpool says:

    You were right not to get sucked into this. The BBC did its usual hatchet job, spinning the story of noble climate scientists against ignorant sceptics.

  10. Ben says:

    There is obviously an organised campaign going on by the BBC and other media agencies – I think sceptics are going to need to communicate with one another as much as possible when approached by these people to ensure that we’re all aware of the latest stitch up being planned. Luckily we have Wattsupwiththat to help.

  11. Rhodrich says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much about this programme. BBC4 is one of those ‘special interest’ channels that very few people watch. If they’d really wanted to give this some exposure, they would have put it on BBC1 or BBC2.

  12. Mycroft says:

    Watched and thought Lord M did not come across too well,but as Anthony has indicated, editing in a skilled way can make an angel seem a devil.
    Clearly the out come was already pre determined and lots of questions and facts not even looked into,and soon as i saw Trenberth i knew what sort of prgramme it was meant to be,title was misleading “meet the sckeptics” only saw two Lord M and Prof Lindzen.??warminista’s and BBC getting desperate two programmes on climate change in two weeks, both dissing the sceptics side of the argument.
    On the bright side good to see the public in USA and Australia not swallowing the AGW BS story,all we need is balanced programme maker and we could get the message across a lot better and show the facts data fudging and adjustments etc.

  13. KenB says:

    Put down by ridicule, suggestion, association and odious editing. Probably the lowest form of TV journalism. Huge money spent on a reporter, to push his networks agenda and what for? really, a nothing result, unless you have a snide agenda in mind. Just about as bad as the Australian female Journalist who was flown all the way to the Antartica, to stand behind “scientists” on the snow, ignore, then brush aside those scientists carefully worded replies to her own pre ordained viewpoint promoting CAGW. The ABC must really fear the truth and consequent loss to their reputation, to trot out that infantile rot.

  14. KenB says:

    Left out BBC alongside the ABC – one is as bad as the other!!

  15. Paul Williams says:

    What do you expect? The BBC have a pension scheme to protect.

    Like Peter Sissons says, the BBC do what the Guardian tells them to.

  16. AleaJactaEst says:

    So we’re all redneck oil fixated gun toting nazi-loving extremists.

    We’re still right about CO2′s effect on the planet.

    What did you expect from the BBC? Balanced journalism?

  17. Michael says:

    Nice to see Alex Jones in the trailer. Some people don’t like his style and get a brain fart when they see or hear his name. Most people have no clue who he is. However, his work on credible documentation and support from many credible personalities is helping him work his way out of the MSM closet, Lord Monckton included. Last week I saw Brad Meltzer’s Decoded Season Finale: Secret Societies, on the History Channel. Brad and his team, for the first time in history, exposed The Bohemian Grove secret society on cable TV.
    Check the entire 45 minute episode if you like on the History Channel website.
    http://www.history.com/shows/brad-meltzers-decoded/videos/playlists/full-episodes#brad-meltzers-decoded-secret-societies

  18. John Lish says:

    Dr A Burns,

    “there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.

  19. Dave (UK) says:

    Rhodrich says:
    February 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

    If they’d really wanted to give this some exposure, they would have put it on BBC1 or BBC2.

    When the BBC sees the coverage in blogs like this, and responses by James Delingpole et al, they will show it on BBC2 in order to widen their audience for this type of stitch-up.

    Not only was the programme a mess, having no logical structure (rather like the woolly thinking of the typical warmist), it attempted to portray sceptics as being among the following types: pensioner, poofter, biker, eccentric, neo-nazi, or coal miner. Yet again, the warmists in the media are resorting to name-calling rather than concentrating on the science.

    As for the science, where was Bob Carter? He is a palaeoclimatologist based in Queensland. If anyone knows anything about the climate, he does. We can only guess that he was not interviewed because the Murray would not have been able to twist anything Carter would say, or that Carter would make it clear that, in fact, Murray is the fool.

  20. Stacey says:

    Anthony
    You were quite right not to sign. The producer/interviewer Murray carried out a complete hatchet job on Monckton.
    The programme in Australia, kept referring to the old age of the audience with long shots of a golf course.
    The majority of the scientists interviewed were the usual darlings,Trenberth, Santer etc.
    The programme concentrated on Monckton, I recall, Prof Lindzen had a very small part compared to the alarmists.
    The usual shots of floods etc, the voice over from Murray how he likes motorbikes and wanted to believe the skeptics but couldn’t because the scientists had proved their case, we must all change our life style.
    Funny really, lots of people sound bited in Oz an the USA and of course the extremist bits broadcast. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation but no British People interviewed on the streets?
    Two complaints made about bias,ageism and alarmism, but nothing will change.
    Sorry wish this could have been more analytical but typing on a phone.

  21. Ian E says:

    As we who know the BBC say, ‘Those who sup with the devil should use a long spoon’!

  22. Robinson says:

    UK Sceptic: BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.

    How do you propose to do that without throwing out your television set?

  23. Bertram Felden says:

    I didn’t watch this, and I didn’t watch the Horizon programme either.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the BBC (or GBC, Greenpeace Broadcasting Corporation) is no more than a propaganda channel these days. It has become a habit of mine to never watch any of their output that has the misnomer ‘science’ in the title or description and to immediately change channels the moment they mention ‘science’ because I know that within milliseconds it will be another AGW diatribe.

    In this way I have managed to avoid hating my television.

  24. Tony says:

    The BBC have gone too far. This programe is SO bad that you can see the deployment complete set of journalistic techniques that constitute and motivate the MSM.

    And as AGW is sustained by the use of just such techniques, we can see that the failure of AGW is also the failure of the MSM.

    So, it ain’t just about the science any more; the stakes are much higher.

  25. Mike Haseler says:

    I think this will all backfire for the BBC.

    The British don’t take kindly to deceitful attacks on individuals. The days when the BBC could just dismiss Lord Monckton as a “Thatcherite” have gone, it’s not the Lords fault that they still exist as they are.

    All this will do is to highlight Lord Monckton in the UK public’s mind and trigger a series of high profile interviews on major TV shows (excluding any run by the BBC) leaving a very sour taste in the mouth of the BBC viewers who are fed up to the back teeth of BBC propaganda on global warming.

  26. Boudu says:

    I am an video editor (some, perhaps would even say skilled) with 25 years experience of editing tv programmes and documentaries. The first thing to remember is that all documentaries are fiction. They tell a story, predetermined by the producer. ‘Meet the Skeptics’ was a great example of clumsy, heavy handed storytelling. Nothing more. The most telling techniques include the way Monckton was seldom given more than 10 seconds to say anything, with cutaways covering obvious edits in his talking in order to make it seem like he is saying something he probably isn’t. It’s easy. I do it everyday, though I tend to do it to enhance understanding not to misrepresent. On the other hand, Monckton’s detractors were given free reign to speak with 30, 40, 45 seconds of screen time to expound their ideas and make their point.

    The part where Monckton was caught (supposedly) looking forlorn as he read the (apparently) devastating report about his address to Congress was pure pathos, made all the more emotional by the sad piano music and then the cut to him sitting alone, in the distance, looking out onto the loch, no doubt contemplating the obvious and terrible mistakes he’d made. Except we didn’t learn what those mistakes were other than a rather lame mis-attribution which he owned up to.

    Murray had a chance here to actually present the sceptics’ case, however much he disagreed with it. Instead he chose to malign and mis-represent through juxtaposition (witness the homophobe and gun-wielding bigots), through use of music (the mournful piano and the buffoonery of Gilbert & Sullivan telling us what to feel), through language (such as the repeated use if the phrase ‘what he thought was true’ and it’s variations and naturally, through selective editing,

    Given the exact same material I could edit a programme that would tell a totally different story. Never be told that a documentary is truth.

  27. Larry in Texas says:

    I remember when a former client of mine was interviewed by BBC World News Service for some environmental piece. The person who interviewed her was only interested in hearing answers he wanted to hear, and wasn’t too interested in detailed answers about the questions he was asking; questions that required, in my client’s mind, more serious answers than just the usual political slogan-type of answers they seemed to be angling for.

    The worst part about BBC is that they don’t even try to be subtle about it. Their agenda is clear: propaganda for the masses. Masses whom they assume to be ignorant enough to con. They are nothing but pond scum, in my view.

  28. Mike Haseler says:

    Rhodrich says: February 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

    I wouldn’t worry too much about this programme. BBC4 is one of those ‘special interest’ channels that very few people watch. If they’d really wanted to give this some exposure, they would have put it on BBC1 or BBC2.

    Rhodrick, then let’s push for it to be on BBC1 or BBC2!! Because the higher the profile for this program, the higher the profile for Lord monckton and so the higher the profile he will have to tour the breakfast shows and late night tv and tell the truth.

    At the very least, we should all write in and suggest him for question time, any questions, write to the Today program and insist that he is given an opportunity to make his case.

    Sky, ITV will love a bit of BBC bashing … and Monckton is nothing but a colourful character and what do they care if he is pro or anti?

  29. Kev-in-UK says:

    The BBC? – a bunch of politically controlled anal retentives!
    Enough said!

    I wonder if they will report on Lisbons ‘reconciliation’ at all? – probably not, unless they do a hatchet job on the attending skeptics?

  30. Thanks to the wonderful BBC4 program I now know that most (all?) the contributers here are lying, cheating, miscreants who are going to wreck my future because they have absolutely no science to back their positions. And thus the risk of doing nothing while we still have time is simply far too great not to take action now to save the planet from certain doom.

    I am ashamed of the lot of you. Mend your ways, repent immediately and save the planet!

    Of course I trust the BBC; it is the British Broadcasting Corporation after all, jolly what and toodle pip.

    (OK, OK, so I lied: it was as balanced as a one-legged stool.)

  31. Andrew says:

    To the Moncktons and Delingpoles of the world, hang in there guys and take the criticisms without blinking. You guys have a high public profile, and will attract a lot of critics who will try to discredit you. As the public now ‘owns you’ I think you need to take a leaf out of the politicians text book, and ride the blows without responding in kind. Stick to message, dont become paranoid or defensive, and learn from the experience. The truth will out. Think of the exposes of Clinton, Bush and Blair; these guys get up the next day and stare down the camera without blushing.

    By the way, Anthony, thanks for a great website. Went to your talk in Hobart Tasmania last year. Fantastic.

    Cheers

    Andrew

  32. John Trigge says:

    I must run out and get:
    - a gun
    - a motorbike
    - some crack
    - a few teeth removed
    - a Nazi uniform
    - a large 4WD
    - a private jet
    - ?????

  33. John Marshall says:

    This is the BBC’s attempt to comply with the instruction to give more air time to the sceptic view of Climate change. Failed!
    The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer
    This is the page that will play old programs. Look up BBCFour and a list will appear.There may be some filtering of out of UK sites but I doubt it. My daughter in Spain can access this site without any problem.
    Best of luck Anthony.

  34. RichieP says:

    “Rhodrich says:
    February 1, 2011 at 12:34 am
    I wouldn’t worry too much about this programme. BBC4 is one of those ‘special interest’ channels that very few people watch. If they’d really wanted to give this some exposure, they would have put it on BBC1 or BBC2.”

    It’ll be run on BBC2 in fairly short order. That”s the normal pattern for BBC4 programmes.

  35. Grimwig says:

    It has been obvious to me for some time that the BBC has its own, clear, political agenda. On television, the pictures can be edited to produce the desired message. On live radio, anyone being interviewed who goes “off message” is simply shouted down by aggressive interviewers.
    Impartial it is not! Biased it certainly is!
    Meet the Skeptics was not only badly made and amateurish, it also completely failed to look at some of the main problems that thinking skeptics have with the data and conclusions drawn from it.

  36. Christopher Hanley says:

    I’m sorry to say that this sounds like a lamentable ‘own goal’ by the climate rationalists involved who really should know better.

    Don’t sign their contracts, have them sign your contract.

  37. Geckko says:

    According to the PA report, this program was produced by Jamie Oliver’s production company:

    http://www.freshone.tv/about.php

    OH dear. That’s the last Jamie Oliver book I’ll ever buy.

  38. Geckko says:

    I wonder if Jamie Oliver believes “Meet the Skeptics” met with his claimed objectives:

    “at the heart of our programmes will always be honesty, intelligence and, wherever possible, fun.”

  39. Matt Davies says:

    At least it showed the real agenda at the end.

    The end of democracy and a move to fascism. He was quite clear that this is what we should accept; Based on the concept that the potential for doing nothing for any possible disaster (and it could be anything you wanted to make up), is too much of a risk to take. Even if those actions plundged the world in to a fascist hell, with billions suffering or even dying because of those actions.

  40. old44 says:

    Just a tip, when being interviewed, change your tie or jacket every 10 minutes or have a clock in shot behind you. Keep the bastards honest.

  41. John Page says:

    To take one small but interesting example from this juvenile film, they showed Monckton reciting elements from the periodic table to the tune of “I am the very model of a modern major-general” and then proceeded to play the original in the background, implying this suggested Monckton was a dilettante.

    Actually what he was doing was reciting the parody by Tom Lehrer.

    Question: were the narrator and all the filmmakers so ignorant that they did not know of the Lehrer original? Or were they deliberately misrepresenting what Monckton was doing? Answer: almost certainly the latter.

    There was also juvenile stress on members of Monckton’s audience being “elderly”. Apparently they seek refuge from the knowledge that their generation’s life’s work has been in vain and will have to be undone. This was stated as a fact. (So younger people all accept the Green agenda? Tell that to the Republicans.)

    The climategate emails had been “hacked”. No reference to the possibility that they had been leaked. Academics allowed to claim that critics of AGW should be ignored unless they published peer reviewed articles, with no reference to the systematic blocking revealed in the climategate emails.

    We had an Australian academic using the argument from ignorance, saying we couldn’t think what else it could be other than CO2. And we were treated to an Oregon schoolteacher preaching the precautionary principle on a whiteboard without once mentioning costs.

    And the topic of “forcing” was introduced as if it was new to the filmmaker, with him expressing astonishment that the whole argument came down to this. Which of course it doesn’t.

    The floods in Pakistan, China etc were signs of “climate change”. And look at Australia, the film said, look what a dustbowl it is. Er ….

    Such shoddiness would have disgraced an amateur. Yet the BBC paid (our) good money for it.

  42. This Granger is a scoundrel. I hope he gets convicted for slander. It would be an insult to let such calculated mean and deceptive behaviour stay unpunished. Louche, indeed, Delingpole is too kind – Granger’s face is telling.

    I’d like to see a story about what the responses to Delingpole, Booker, Guardian (Komment Macht Frei), Bishop Hill, here, and so on, have to tell. Delingpole already has nearly 1000 responses with loadsa thumbs up. Must be a record. Oh yes, and I wonder about the involvement of Caroline Lucas and others in trying to organize a concerted hate campaign.

    Science, Nurse is not. Honesty or trustworthiness, Granger is not. Impartiality or openness, BBC is not.

  43. Comments to Delingpole have tipped 1000 in the time it took to write my comment above.

  44. Old England says:

    Carefully contrived propaganda . The BBC has revealed through this and the Horizon programme last week that it has a very clear political agenda.

    Time for more complaints to Ofcom and BBC.

    Here is the link to the programme on BBC Iplayer
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mfx6

  45. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Robinson says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:06 am
    UK Sceptic: BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully
    extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.

    “How do you propose to do that without throwing out your television set?”

    There is an easier way…..

  46. The BBC is no longer ‘British’ it is now the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. It has long been nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Liebor Party and the Fabian Society – of course it was going to do a hatchet job on the skeptics, it’s producers are about as objective of a balanced view on anything as Michael Moore’s “Documentary” on the Twin Towers.

    Amazing what you can do with enough footage and soundbites….

  47. Mike Haseler says:

    This is absolutely great!

    The only outcome of this program is going to be to cause 100,000s of people to google “Lord Monckton” and go and watch his stuff on Youtube.

    In short all this program is doing is showing an awful lot of people who have been convinced by Lord Monckton … a view not shared by the self-proclaimed greenie narrating the film, nor the climategate “scientists”.

    The British eccentric characters. I particularly love the line where Monckton says something like: “I got the title by having the good fortune to be born to the right person”.

    He came over as honest, passionate about the subject and eccentric. Your average joe/sandra public will admire the way he can recite the periodic table. That is something they can understand and something that none of the “scientists” seemed capable of.

    It will remind everyone at the end of the summer, how bad the snow was this last winters, how they all felt about climategate and it will show that there are eloquent advocates for the sceptic side that just haven’t had a hearing the BBC.

    In short — the BBC have shot themselves and the alarmists in the foot with this one!

  48. RockyRoad says:

    The BBC must be getting really, REALLY worried about their deceit and deception when it comes to their investment portfolio. Nobody’s buying it anymore. Should the earth continue to cool and winters rage unabated a few more years, they’ll have nothing to retire on. How fitting.

  49. Malaga View says:

    Boudu says: February 1, 2011 at 1:21 am
    The first thing to remember is that all documentaries are fiction.

    Although in this case Aunty Beeb was going for the comedy angle…

    The Meet the Climate Sceptics title was chosen to trigger a memory association with the film Meet the Fockers… the audience are thus prepared to laugh at a program that ridicules strange people who should be regarded as real Fockers.

    On the drive down, Jack informs Greg that he will be studying the Fockers to make sure that they are a good match for the lineage of the family. When they arrive on the island where the Fockers live, Bernie Focker (Dustin Hoffman) affectionately greets everyone with hugs and kisses. Greg slips away to meet his mother Roz (Barbra Streisand) who is a sex therapist specializing in senior sexuality and circumcision posttrauma.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Fockers

    It is becoming increasing apparent that Aunty Beeb is following the family traditions and techniques perfected by cuddly Uncle Joe Stalin. The BBC has always been a State funded propaganda machine… historically it worked to build up its creditability (by telling the truth) so that you would believe the Big Lies that they slipped in for the State… unfortunately for the Beeb (and the longer suffering subjects of the UK State) the situation has now completely reversed… their daily schedules are crammed full of Big Lies and nobody notices when they are telling the truth anymore… such is the state of the Main Lame Stream Media.

  50. Brent Hargreaves says:

    May I echo Andrew’s (01:32) words of encouragement to Mockton and Delingpole? They’re a good counterweight to Al Gore’s highly effective propaganda, and they’re the best we’ve got at the moment. They survived the BBC stitch-ups with dignity intact.

    Oh, for a charismatic and media-savvy scientist! Someone with Richard Lindzen’s credentials, but with oratory/media training.

    Imagine such a hero placing Popperian falsifiability firmly on the agenda, thundering into the microphone: “Are there ANY circumstances in which the Global Warmists would concede defeat? The comman man, with his common sense, DEMANDS an answer! They say the globe is warming. By the tenth anniversary of Climategate they must answer this trillion-dollar question: HOW WARM? They must put up or shut up!”

  51. Kev-in-UK says:

    old44 says:
    February 1, 2011 at 2:11 am

    What a jolly good, absolutely top drawer idea, my good man!!
    Holding a clock (with a second hand of course) would be a cool way to defeat the editors!

  52. When interviewed, perhaps it’s wise to pick up your mobile or whatever and start your own recording of the interview. That might restrict the interviewer’s and editor’s unfair creativity somewhat.

  53. Mark in London says:

    I agree that this was a hatchet job but why did Monckton involve himself – maybe his ego got in the way of his message. He was made to look a fool, but he made it too easy to do it. Monckton needs some serious PR advice, which he should put aside his aristocratic ego to accept.

    P.S. I’ll happily re-film the documentary

  54. Leigh says:

    Yes, but would the BBC have even bothered with this ‘documentary’ if the warmists were winning the argument? Once you get over the offensive nature of the program, it looks more like desperation. I follow the sharemarket here in Australia and I can tell you coal companies are doing fine and cleantech companies are struggling. Governments are looking for money for disaster recovery after the floods, and the ones they are ditching are climate change-related. Follow the money.

  55. Peter Taylor says:

    Anthony – I heard about this programme earlier in the day it was broadcast – and mailed a BBC environment correspondent asking what does a man have to do to be taken seriously as a science critic and get an invitation (I hate the word sceptic – makes us sound like a religious sect). He did not even know the programme had been made!

    I anticipated a round-table intense discussion! What I saw was a road movie. And I have to disagree with other commentators – I thought it was brilliant and very funny.

    It did precisly as PolicyGuy said and made ‘skeptics look like crazed, gun loving, boozing, motorcycle gangers, senile, gay, conservative biggots’

    but that is the point! He made that stick, not by slinging verbal abuse but through the eyes of the camera and the microphone – and however much was not shown, what was is close to the reality of a lot of the sceptics roadshow. We have to face that.

    Lord Monckton, bless him, wore his heart on his sleeve and is obviously very sincere – but he is hardly the best person to review the science and engage in a reasoned discussion. He is a Showman. And when you put yourself in the spotlight like that, you are going to get scrutinised, warts and all. This movie was never about the science – it was about what some eccentric has done with the science.

    It is hard not to see this all as deliberately conspired, but I think it is just a combination of naiveties….Murray saw what he saw and for all the editing, you couldn’t make it up, it was very telling. The same with the Horizon ‘Science under Attack’……Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society) is obviously very sincere. He has no idea there are real arguments with the science. As a medical research biochemist he does not know that splicing instrumental data onto proxies nullifies the calibration – and is very far from normal practice. If he is told it is by other professors…and the rest of the paleoclimatology world stays silent, is it surprising he believes it?

    These programmes will make it even harder for genuine scientific criticism to gain air-time. I am the only British critic with a relevant science degree who has also published a well-received book – one that picks apart the alledged consenus of the IPCC and offers an alternative account of the ‘warming’ (UV, jetstream, cloud changes, solar magnetics, ocean cycles…..all there and fully referenced to the peer-reviewed literature). The book has been covered by the tabloid press and at least one independent TV news channel (Al Jazeera)…so it is certainly known about (gripe – you have not reviewed it at all – perhaps because it is a ‘green’ critique!) – yet I have received not one invitation to discussions, and especially absent are the Greens with whom I have previously worked closely. They refuse to engage and label me a ‘denialist’ without even reading the book.

    The sad truth is that the establishments of science and the established media cannot handle the science in a responsible manner – too much is at stake for them, and hence they resort to propaganda. They have all nailed their colours to the carbon mast.

    The other sad truth is that the sceptics roadshow is not a good advertisement for the depth of argument that characterises this site – and to which I know you are committed.

    Nor are free-market neo-liberal think tanks the best sponsors. The ‘green’ world – which is now all-pervasive as the new carbon orthodoxy, simply dismisses it all as vested interest.

    These chickens are coming home to roost! And these programmes are a reflection of truths that we as a sceptical ‘community’ need to face.

  56. Brad says:

    …and the BBC was doing better. I think these uneducated folks should stay under the rug, so folks that know what they are saying can be the skeptical voice. In politics too…

  57. johanna says:

    James Delingpole of the Telegraph tells of his experience with this outfit:

    Nine months ago, when I was at the Heartland conference in Chicago, I was approached by a louche, affable, dark-haired, public school charmer called Rupert Murray.
    ————————————————————————
    Oh James, James, your description of Mr Murray sounds just like the 2 public school boys currently running the UK – and you know what they are like.

    Any relationship between charm and integrity is purely coincidental. In fact, in my experience the real charmers tend to be more slippery, because they can get away with it more easily and often. But then, I speak from the perspective of a woman who has been conned by experts!

    Anyway, as others have said, the default position when dealing with journalists and film-makers is not to trust them. That, unfortunately, is why most politicians are so careful about their rehearsed sound-bytes and the importance of staying ‘on message’.

  58. Alec Y says:

    Robinson
    In answer to your question.
    UK Sceptic: BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.

    How do you propose to do that without throwing out your television set?

    No you just have to stop paying the licence fee. There are well over 1,000 people in the UK who have done just that and have not been prosecuted. The TV Licensing body have no powers to enter your home and the so called detector vans have no equipment inside them capable of detecting a TV. They rely on frightening people with fines etc. but cannot prove anything unless you admit to having a TV. If more people refused to pay then the BBC will lose income and be unable to produce biased programmes like this.

  59. Urederra says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:15 am

    I think this will all backfire for the BBC.

    I have read that a lot during the last year, the ‘no pressure’ and ‘toyota pryus’ ads come to mind, but I fail to see any backfire.

    The brainwash is worse than we thought.

  60. Mac says:

    Why did Monkton say that Obama comes from Kenya?

  61. izen says:

    ‘Lord’ Monckton is the skeptics equivalent of Al Gore.
    Popular with people who are unable/unwilling to engae with the science, but like a slick presentation that tells them what they want to hear.

    At least AL Gore has the sense NOT to ‘go legal’ when the more scientifically preposterous statements he makes are used to ridicule him.

  62. RoyFOMR says:

    Can’t wait till Lord M brings out his report on this piece of puerile propaganda to show what he said versus what was reported.
    The poor BBC have no idea about the self-damage they’ll suffer from the whirlwind that they’ve spawned!

  63. Mike Haseler says:

    If anyone wants a link to that piece about the periodic table so they too can show it to their kids & show them that science can be fun! Here it is:-

  64. TonyBerry says:

    I had the misfortune to watch some of the BBC programme ” Meet the Skeptics” – I didn’t manage all of it because I was so incensed. I was a not so subtle attempt to discredit “Climate Skeptics” and in particular to discredit and denigrate Lord Monckton who the BBC must see as their target. It was a disgraceful programme not worthy of the BBC supposed impartiality. I intent to e-mail the Board of Governors of the BBC and my local MP about the this dishonest use of public funds. Lord Monckton should sue the BBC and at the very least given a right of reply. How low has the BBC sunk.:<(

  65. C Porter says:

    No matter how much we decry these programmes for their editorial distortions and blatant propaganda, the fact is that the BBC are getting their message across to a lot of people and it is effective. The majority of people outside the sceptic community are ignorant of the techniques used to perpetrate this message. And the message gets through many times again second hand. Chris Evans, a very popular radio announcer on BBC radio discussed the first programme with unerring acceptance.

    The BBC are very adept at getting their message across. In the first programme, it was their appeal to authority with Sir Paul Nurse, the new President of the Royal Society associating himself and his shared Nobel Prize with the great scientists of the past, such as Newton, Dalton and Darwin, and with the very professional Nasa who spend 2 billion a year looking down at the earth in order to study its climate. They must be right! The pretty cloud simulations prove it, don’t they. Whereas, on the other side, the association is with crackpots and Luddites. In fact the programme was never about science in general being under attack. The programme was all about climate scientists being under attack. The other examples drawn were just to discredit climate sceptics by association. In the second programme, the theme was to present sceptics purely as followers of the Tea Party, or old people who had had a good life on fossil fuels and who selfishly wanted it to continue, or extravagant lifestyle Americans wishing to feed their fossil fuel addiction. And the poor Lord Monkton was, tongue in cheek, accredited with bringing down the governments of Australia and America. What an evil, dangerous man this must be.

    And in neither programme was the sceptics case given anything like a hearing beyond an occasional sound bite which was always countered by a “scientist.” The BBC were supposed to be having a more balanced policy on climate science and scepticism. This was certainly not it, but I can see any complaints being dismissed in their usual authoritative manner by some smug producer or controller. The BBC are never wrong on such matters! So don’t look to the BBC, or for that matter any other UK broadcaster to make any programme which sets out to explain any alternative theories, or which points out the shortcomings and uncertainties of the received “consensus,” or even the lies, manipulations and deceptions of the alarmist climate community. It’s not going to happen. Were going to have to rely on you gun happy, fuel guzzling Tea Party ultra right wing despotic Americans to get us out of the proverbial on this one.

  66. Jack says:

    Don’t forget the CCX was shut down and the European ETS has been suspended for false credits and millions or billions of euros disappeared.
    So let them make their puerile programs.
    Every day the story stinks even more.
    A documentary on the fraud in the trading would do a lot of damage to the warmists.
    A documentary on the the UN’s attitude would make an even stronger point.

  67. Philhippos says:

    Thoughts:
    A. The reasons for older people refusing the AGW myth are:
    i) that they have experience of previous frauds from Y2K to the wonders of communism;
    ii) that they weren’t brainwashed at school by the mythmakers. Most had a rounder education than is provided now;
    iii) they are concerned about the world they are leaving to their descendants and would actually like any funds available to be spent on cleaning it up and improving today’s environment for all. Older people are better at recycling, picking up litter and reusing rather than wasting materials.
    B. Did they use the 10:10 clip of the adults being blown up because they knew that the schoolroom scene was even more offensive?

  68. LazyTeenager says:

    I found this quote from the article illuminating
    ——
    who can gather huge amounts of material and then edit and assemble the material in a way that they can present a message, the message the producer wishes to convey. This is irrespective of what is actually said, and what interviewees actually intended.
    ——–
    So he does understand Climategate then.

  69. trevor e says:

    yes Ken B saw that one nearly fell off the chair m’self. After listening to the subtle repositions, carefully worded as you say, in the piece to camera by scientific workers who were on the trip – I wondered ‘mmm will the ABC take this opportunity to make their own subtle reposition?’ – silly boy I was. Not yet they are not ready, yet.

  70. Buddenbrook says:

    Isn’t it about the time that the prominent skeptics got together and made themselves a 60-90 minute documentary that covers the key issues and questions?

  71. Stacey says:

    Further to my earlier post I would suggest that people lodge a complaint with the BBC about the ageism in the report. The one thing the pc BBC don’t like is to be thought of as non pc.

    There was losts of dramatic classical music throughout and at the end I was surprised that Murray didn’t bring on the violins.

    They seem to forget that most of their viewers are old and the younger viewers will be old some day.

  72. Robinson says:

    Oh good gawd Stacey. All complaints to the BBC do is make them come out with a statement justifying what they did. It doesn´t seem to inform what they do in the future one iota.

  73. Andrew Holder says:

    I lodged a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints as follows:

    Over the last few years I have followed many website blogs and read scientific papers about AGW (I am a maths graduate) from both the pro and anti camps. Many persuasive arguments originate from the so called “sceptics” and as the months go by it is starting to become clear (to me and many others) that the Earth’s historic natural cycles and ‘skeptic’ science provide a far more believable and plausible account of what is happening in the real World. Rupert Murray clearly shows contempt in the way he has depicted the sceptics as ‘gun toting’, ‘oil-guzzling’ and (incredibly) ‘old’. If the BBC really wants to do serious programs then I suggest you choose a topic that somebody knows something about and who has no underlying agenda. If you have any ounce of dignity I kindly ask that you allow a right of reply to this program with unbaised editing. I think in 30 years time the sceptics will become the mainstream and the IPPC thinktank (and UK met office) will have lost their funding long ago.
    ***********

  74. James Scott says:

    This BBC programme Meet The Climate Skeptics, is typical of mainstream media and their continual one sided view on Global Warming. Despite the fact that we have suffered the two most severe winters in a hundred years, no mention is made of that and their claim that Climate Skeptics cannot get any scientists to support their view is utter nonsense. Any Scientists who disagree with Global Warming, are not allowed to speak on mainstream media. People are controlled by the power of the brainwashing media.
    They have got enough people conditioned to believe in Global Warming, but they will keep up their campaign to make people who question this lie appear as idiots.
    We are in a lot of trouble!!!!

  75. Snotrocket says:

    I watched ‘Meet the Climate Sceptics’ and started to feel that Christopher Monckton was on a hiding to nothing, especially given Murrray’s patronising use of ‘Christopher’ throughout the piece as he flattered to decieve.

    I too felt the need for the interviewee to take back control of the editing by sitting with a clock in shot, and I was NOT surprised that when Murray showed a quick clip of the 10:10 film that he skipped past the part where the children blow up: that would have been too much an own goal.

    The fact is, as I came to think about it, was that Murray was intent on finding something, anything about CM that could be used against him. Eventually he found one citation CM had used in a lecture (at the end of the program) that was not as CM had stated. When challenged, CM immediately put his hand up and explained himself. However, this turned on the fact that the actual argument of the scientific point was not disputed, just the citation. It would be interesting to apply Murray’s strictures then to such a ‘An Inconvenient truth’ and see how many howlers could be found there.

    Penultimately, Murray gave CM a ‘right of reply’ by ‘allowing’ him to make a statement to camera. The disgraceful thing about that was that it was very subtly edited (you can just see CM’s head jerk out of sequence with the flow).

    But finally, after trying to sell himself as a seeker after truth, Murray blew his whole facade away when he stated that the 2010/11 floods in Queensland were the ‘worst since Queensland was founded’!!

  76. Eric Worrall says:

    The BBC have overplayed their hand. They were so desperate to swing people’s emotions, the emotional appeals were clumsy and grossly obvious.

    1. Cut to a soaring eagle while Travesty Trenberth is spouting his rot about “scientists have to tell the truth”.
    2. A minute or two later, Cut to a nasty looking crow staring into the room through a glass window, as Monckton laughs at a private joke.
    3. The first part of Darth Vader’s Star Wars theme song played while showing a pastiche of clips from right wing, skeptical TV channels.
    4. Folksy music playing when showing Tea Party activists, to make them all look like a bunch of hicks.
    5. When Monckton finally got a short chance to reply, at the end of the show, they filtered his voice, and played music over his words, to make him difficult to follow. And cut a chunk out of the middle of his reply.

    I suspect the show will ultimately backfire spectacularly, more so than the 10:10 video. Any educated person who watched it, even people who have never had reason to doubt AGW, will wonder why a settled scientific position needs such grossly obvious appeals to emotion, and crude video propaganda stunts.

  77. dave ward says:

    Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
    http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg

  78. son of mulder says:

    “Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.”

    “Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism”. Oh no he didn’t.

    “to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming”. Oh no he didn’t.

    No wonder this was hidden away on late night BBC 4. It was the worst pile of partisan dingo’s droppings purporting to be a serious documentary that I’ve ever seen.

    An hour with Lindzen, an hour with Mckintyre/Mckitrick, an hour with Spencer, an hour with Monckton (not a fly on selected walls), and hour with Watts, might start to get to the heart of the scepticism and examine the key arguments involved.

    I want my TV licence fee back. He didn’t even ask Trebnerth where the missing heat had gone. Pathetic.

  79. Truthseeker says:

    I watched this program last night thinking at last a program which will bring a bit of balance into the debate. However I turned it off in disgust halfway through. It was obvious right from the start that the objective was to do a demolition job on people who do not buy into the CO2 is evil hypothesis. Also by picking on Christopher Monckton and James Delingpole it was obviously an attempt to portray people who hold an alternative view of the issue of climate change as being eccentric and slightly barmy. I expected better of the BBC.

  80. Mac says:

    Did any of you actually watch this programme? The programme clearly mentioned the UK’s last freezing winters.

    I’ll ask again:

    DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY MONKTON CLAIMED THAT OBAMA CAME FROM KENYA?

  81. artwest says:

    “note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told”

    Almost certainly contractual. For shows commissioned from independent producers or for bought-in shows the BBC usually has the rights to show them within the UK only. If the BBC allowed the world to see them via their website they would be sued by the rights-holders. If they spent a fortune buying worldwide rights unnecessarily and getting nothing for foreign sales they would be castigated by license fee payers.

    The BBCs stance on CAGW is dreadful but let’s not give easy scoring points to warmists by berating the BBC for a not-unreasonable decision.

  82. Steve in SC says:

    What is the bag limit on louches?

  83. jason says:

    I keep telling people this a war.

    This is the fightback after 10:10′s own goal. This is the mobilisation of forces for the big push.

    Fight.

  84. Peter Plail says:

    Rupert Murray’s climate credentials include:
    A former art student, professional oyster shucker and International Editor of the Mexico City News, he started his film career by setting up VPTV where he made vox pops for top London advertising agencies.

    http://www.endofthelinemovie.co.uk/rupert.htm

  85. UK Sceptic says:

    Robinson said: UK Sceptic: BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.

    How do you propose to do that without throwing out your television set?

    The law that governs the BBC (TV) licence is contract law (Statute), not Common Law. I’ll simply refuse to enter into a contract with them and then defend my rights not to be so imposed under Common Law by declaring myself to be a Freeman of the Land. I won’t be the first one to take this course and I suspect I won’t be the last.

  86. ad says:

    Mr Artwest it seems is also a contortionist.

  87. Mike Haseler says:

    Robinson says: February 1, 2011 at 4:23 am

    Oh good gawd Stacey. All complaints to the BBC do is make them come out with a statement justifying what they did. It doesn´t seem to inform what they do in the future one iota.

    Talking of taking donkeys to be castrated! The BBC were howling and eeyoring all the way and you think they wanted to put this program on air!

    The only reason we got this donkey castrated was because thousands of people have already lodged complaints to the BBC and despite almost all being summarily dismissed, the sheer volume forced them to the block!

    I lodged a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints did you?

  88. Dan says:

    Anyone who has watched a Michael Moore film has to realize that in the hands of a skillful editor, anybody can be made to say anything. The only exception might be bonafide psychopathic liar like Castro or Ahmadinejad. I have watched them make mincemeat out of Western interviewers, good ones even. Who can forget Saddam Hussein toying with Dan Rather a few months before the Iraq war?

  89. Kate says:

    BBC COMPLAINTS

    Do you want to complain to the BBC?

    Contact the BBC directly -

    The BBC Trust
    “Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.” – Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.

    Re. AGW bias: Last year, Alison Hastings said this: “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”

    Feel free to throw this back in her face by contacting her directly:

    Alison Hastings
    BBC Trust Unit
    180 Great Portland Street
    London
    W1W 5QZ
    UK

    Telephone: 03700 100 222
    Textphone: 03700 100 212
    Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

    Also write to the BBC Complaints department:

    BBC Complaints
    PO Box 1922
    Darlington
    DL3 0UT
    UK

    There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
    make a complaint via this website:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code
    Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
    (UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)

    or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR

    There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/

    or write:
    Feedback
    PO Box number 67234
    London
    SE1P 4AX
    telephone 03 333 444 544
    feedback@bbc.co.uk

    You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    BBC Statement:

    We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.

    Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?

    We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.

    If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.

    If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.

    Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?

    If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days

    If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.

    Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml

    Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?

    The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.

    Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.

    You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.

    We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Email other BBC programs directly:

    Storyville
    storyville@bbc.co.uk

    Broadcasting House
    broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk

    Newsnight Investigations
    NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk

    Newsnight
    newsnight@bbc.co.uk

    Horizon
    horizon@bbc.co.uk

    Today
    todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Commissioning Editors

    The British Broadcasting Corporation
    BBC White City
    201 Wood Lane
    London
    W12 7TS
    UK
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning

    Knowledge
    George Entwistle
    Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
    (Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)

    Emma Swain
    Head of Knowledge Commissioning
    emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
    Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.

    Krishan Arora
    Independents Executive
    krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
    Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.

    Mary FitzPatrick
    Executive Editor Diversity
    mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
    Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.

    Documentaries
    Charlotte Moore
    Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
    Room 6060
    BBC TV Centre
    Wood Lane
    London
    W12 7RJ
    UK
    charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk

    Emma Willis
    Commissioning Executive Producer
    emma.willis@bbc.co.uk

    Maxine Watson
    Commissioning Executive Producer
    maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk

  90. Pete Hayes says:

    Bet you are glad you missed the beano with Judith now Anthony! Obviously the Beeb did not bother attending!

  91. Robert Stevenson says:

    The BBC seem pathologically incapable of presenting an unbiased view of global warming. On the other hand, some time ago, an excellent documentary on Channel 4 by Martin Durkin presented the arguments of scientists and commentators who do not believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change.* He stated subsequently that too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputations on it. The death of the theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong.
    *This was the only UK programme that I can remember ever doing this.

  92. Pete Hayes says:

    dave ward says:
    February 1, 2011 at 4:32 am
    Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
    http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg

    Interesting Dave! I seem to remember seeing emails from Black to her asking if she now approved! Time for a little digging…again!

  93. Stacey says:

    @ Robinson
    “Oh good gawd Stacey. All complaints to the BBC do is make them come out with a statement justifying what they did. It doesn´t seem to inform what they do in the future one iota.”

    I know that, but you have to keep trying. I think maybe the route is the BBC Trust and this is because campaigning is a breach of the charter.

  94. dave38 says:

    dave ward says:
    Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
    http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg

    So harrabin needs new glasses then! D
    Do you think that we should make donations so he can get some good ones, not the one sided ones her normally uses?

  95. Pull My Finger says:

    Only could stomach 2 minutes, but it makes Micheal Moore’s “documentaries” look fair and balanced.
    GAS!
    GOLF!
    EVIL GUN TOTIN REDNECK AMERICANS!
    AAAAAAAH!

  96. Robert Stevenson says:

    Didn’t tick my email follow-up box.

  97. stephen richards says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    February 1, 2011 at 3:55 am
    I found this quote from the article illuminating
    ——
    who can gather huge amounts of material and then edit and assemble the material in a way that they can present a message, the message the producer wishes to convey. This is irrespective of what is actually said, and what interviewees actually intended.
    ——–
    So he does understand Climategate then.

    Your usual BS. The Climategate emails were not edited they were published complete with all their evidence intact. Evidence of cheating, lying, manipulation etc. You should read them all and Harry’s notes of course.

  98. Arkh says:

    If this has not been already mentioned :
    “(note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere)” you have the same thing when trying to watch videos from US channels website with an IP from outside the US. Must be because of some right agreements.

  99. Duncan says:

    @Boudu

    As a professional video editor you can articulate what we can’t about this show. It would be marvellous if you could write to Ofcom laying out the clear bias, or write at greater length here to further our ability to defend against such rubbish. Cheers!

  100. Pull My Finger says:

    “I expected better of the BBC.”
    Why?
    I have quite literally lost all faith in the intergrity of any media outlet or public figure. Trust no one, believe nothing, question everything.
    Our business leaders are liars, our politicians are liars, ALL of them, practically any scientist you see on TV is a liar, or at least a brain washed grant weasel basking in his 15 minutes of glory.

    I’ve been pretty cynical my entire life but I really think the Dan Rather Texas Air National Guard forgery really did it for me. If someone who was as established and respected as him can either A) tell a flat out lie in an attempt to unseat a president he personally dislikes, or B) is so stupid he is fooled by a document so weakly forged a grade schooler could have blown it up, there is no reason to belive anyone or take anything at face value. Even though it was blantanly obvious Rather was very far left, this scandal really seemed beyond the pale of a network anchor, you like to think they are better than the loopy indie filmmakers armed with a consumer grade digital camcorder.

  101. The Monster says:

    The Bride of Monster was interviewed by a local TV reporter for over a half hour for a story. Apparently she didn’t give the reporter what he wanted; they used THREE WORDS of what she said.

  102. Bruce Cobb says:

    This is a cautionary tale. It shows what they mean by “reconcilliation”. First, gain your trust, then stab you in the back.

  103. MackemX says:

    Complaint sent in, for what it’s worth.

    As far as watching BBC in the US goes, you may habve some joy with this linky:

    http://hackedcabletv.com/splash.php

    It’s sort of a BBC iPlayer plus :-)

  104. George Lawson says:

    Buddenbrook says:
    February 1, 2011 at 4:10 am
    “Isn’t it about the time that the prominent skeptics got together and made themselves a 60-90 minute documentary that covers the key issues and questions?”

    Absolutely. With all the sceptics around the world, some I suppose with a lot of money, I feel an attempt to put a truthful and genuine case for the sceptics should be possible. An hour long reasoned film proffesionaly produced would find many stations willing to show it even if the BBC refused. Maybe there is someone, or some company out there that would be prepared to sponsor it, but at the very least we could seek donations from all of us, channelled through WUWT. We could all put forward subject matter for the film which, in the end, might have more far reaching effects than anything else to stop the dash to AGW madness. Presumably some of the cost of production would in any case be recovered by fees from the broadcasters around the world. It could be a very exciting project. What would your feelings be on the subject Mr. Watts?

  105. Kev-in-UK says:

    Do you suppose we can make an FOI request about how much the BBC paid for this rubbish? And, perhaps more to the point, if they didn’t pay for it – who did?

  106. Alan the Brit says:

    Rhodrich says:
    February 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

    You are right of course, both BBC 3 & BBC4 have low viewing figures despite some very good programmes (this wasn’t one of them I hasten to say, although I only saw half of it due to Choral commitments!). The BBC is blatently biased & prejudiced, but you have to remember this has been steadily going on for some time. Their pension funds depend heavily upon greenie investments so it is in their own best interests & not the public’s who pay for it all! Remember, they waill always start or drop into the narrative “we all know we must cut down our carbon emissions”, or ” due to anthropogenic global warming”, or “because of Climate Change”, always positively reinforcing the lie ala Joseph Geobbels et al.

  107. krb says:

    Don’t worry. No one takes any real notice of the BBC – in Britain at least! We all know them as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

  108. richard verney says:

    I think that we are deluding ourselves if we consider that the BBC have shot themselves in the foot and all of this will backfire on them. I think that the two most pertinent posts are :
    Peter Taylor says at February 1, 2011 at 3:00 am AND C Porter says at
    February 1, 2011 at 3:50 am
    These posts are well worth a close read and pondering upon.

    Lord Monkton is a very good talker and (generally) makes one of the best presenters of the sceptical position, at any rate at a commonsense and general perpective level. Having been engaged in politics and since he should have been well aware of the genearl bias at the BBC, unfortunately, he was rather niaive. It is easy to say, but he should not have allowed himself to be set up in this way, as with just a little more savvy as Anthony has so ably demonstrated this could easily have been avoided.

    One has to bear in mind the audience at which these programmes are targetted. There are people who have strong opinions on either side of the divide and programmes such as these will not alter their views. The programme makers know that. They are targeting the unsure sitting in the middle. It only needs a little presentation one way or another to persude these people to follow one side or the other of the argument. The portrayal of the typical ‘denier’ was not flatering and those people swaying in the middle probably do not associate themselves with the image portrayed, and would wish to distance themselves from such types. This in itself is enough to influence people into siding with the ‘oficial’ onside message.

    The truth of the matter is that the sceptical side has not been presented on MSM and until it does, it will be difficult to enlighten the majority of the citizens who have been brainwashed into believing what the MSM have been presenting to them for the past 15 years. It is only incidents like Climategate (which are unlikely to be regularly repeated) and the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has had 3 cold winters in a row which from a commonsense perspective seems to cast doubt on the ‘official’ message and an increasing sceptism of everything done by or in the name of governments that has allowed the sceptical point of view more exposure.

    It is unrealistic to expect that the sceptical position will ever be afforded air time on MSM and given a balanced opportunity to put its case. As we know the Government and MSM have to much invested in this debate to permit neutrality. The best we can hop for is for Mother Nature to keep acting contrary to AGW. We need a long period of cooling temperatures and harsh winters which in the end will do more than anything to encourage the majority to push for proper answers and to look behind this scam. The fact that the ordinary citizen is now being forced to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets to pay for green taxes and subsidies and given the depressed financial position that most citizens are presently facing will add to the pressure to get to the bottom of this debate and to look behind this scam.

    Governments and the ‘Team’ may be able to make adjustments to temperature records and keep on making proclomations but they cannot hide the snow nor can they hide the increased heating bills. It will be these that make people see through this facade so lets hope Mother Nature plays her part and keeps up the cold for the next 10 years or so.

  109. UK John says:

    Its worse than we thought.

    If you trust a journalist, don’t blame the BBC, even the Prime Minister and the Heir to the British Throne say anyone with a skeptic view is a “flat earther”.

    I was waiting for proof that the Earth is flat !

  110. Jeremy says:

    And Judith Curry wants reconciliation…

    This is the freight train that the bad apples have started, Dr Curry. This is why the level of hostility is so high. It is because the level of acceptable self-righteousness has reached a point where the media believes the ends justify all means. That is the warmist’s fault, and no one else. Your side must answer for that.

  111. Chris Wright says:

    Well, it could have been called ‘Meet the Climate Deniers!”
    The BBC has been instructed by the regulator to make its climate change coverage more balanced. In two weeks they have put out two programs hosted by true believers and with the clear intent to attack and discredit sceptical laymen and scientists. Some balance.

    “Meet the Sceptics” sounds nice and friendly. In fact this program is effectively a sustained attack on Monckton. Several other sceptics appeared very briefly, but probably 90% of the program concentrated on Monckton. I regard Christopher Monckton, although an unusual ‘character’ who, like everyone else, can make mistakes, with high regard. Indeed, it was his two pieces printed several years ago in the Sunday Telegraph (not to be confused with the ultra-warmist Daily Telegraph) that first alerted me to the climate change disaster that threatens our future prosperity and freedoms (of course I’m referring to the AGW delusion).
    Al Gore also helped. In the next issue the Telegraph let Gore reply. Gore’s arguments relied mostly on insulting Monckton and had little to do with science.
    There was a very brief appearance by Richard Lindzen, perhaps thirty seconds. Why fill the program with Monckton with a tiny appearance from Lindzen, one of the world’s foremost climate science? Here’s a possibility: they filmed several hours with Lindzen, but they hated it, because he was speaking for true science, and it waas too difficult to ‘edit’ it to their liking. So they decided to effectively cut him out.
    Trenberth talking about ‘truth’ is sickening. Just one week earlier, on ‘Science under Attack’, we see a NASA climate scientist clearly telling an outrageous lie: that mankind emits far more CO2 than nature. I’m thinking of lodging a formal complaint with the BBC for broadcasting an obvious lie on a factual program. For you guys on the other side of the pond, how about a complaint to NASA? Anthony? There’s more discussion of this lie by a NASA scientist ina recent thread.
    And they wonder why people are losing faith with science….

    Both programs used a similar method: the presenter was very friendly with the sceptical victims, so they were probably put off guard. This looks like the very worst kind of deceit.

    Finally, there was a very odd sequence near the end. Monckton is shown opening a package of documents. It looks as if he is thunderstruck by the contents, almost as if his world has fallen apart. Then he’s shown standing still in the distance with sad music playing. The commentary leading up to this was casting doubt on Monckton, and this sequence seems to confirm this.
    Most people would interpret this sequence in an obvious way: that Monckton had just seen damning evidence that completely destroys his credibility, and that he has more or less given up.
    I would like to know why Monckton agreed to this sequence. I can only assume the reason they gave was false and that he was deceived.

    After the setbacks of Climategate it looks like the believers are fighting back. But for the BBC to take such a one-sided and distorted approach is outrageous. How can broadcasting two programs in two weeks, both of them presented and made by obvious believers, be balanced? How about a program made by a serious sceptical scientist?
    Chris

  112. andyS says:

    Nothing much changes does it Anthony. Your experience at Heartland brings back memories of tense moments in my cutting-room/ edit suite when as editor I was frequently asked or instructed to seriously and willfully misrepresent the views of someone not following the required line to make the pre-planned point of the documentary or news item in post production. In those days I worked very hard to cultivate a forceful personality, which in reality I completely lack. I very rarely had to pointblank refuse to do something but occasionally a film splicer being hurled across the cutting-room and thudding against the wall to make the point, focussed the mind of the journo or producer wonderfully. Film technology was such a tactile environment!
    To be fair, most of the people I worked with would pretty much let the facts tell the story but these days I very much doubt many of them have jobs or get commissions. Peter Sissons being a case in point.
    A bit like a scrupulous climate scientist in other words. Follow the party line or starve.

  113. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    How boring and predictable would that be?

    That’s what it looks like for the trailer, boring and predictable, especially predictable. So skeptics are gun totin, old toothless rednecks on chopper motorcycles. Whoda thunk the BBC would portray them that way??

    ;O)

  114. Alexander K says:

    Once again, the BBC has displayed it’s real less-than-lovely face; self-serving propaganda and a squeamish dislike of the truth are not wonderful characteristics for a broadcasting ‘service’ that trumpets ‘fairness’, ‘impartiality’ as it’s watchwords and charges a sizeable ‘licence’ fee which one cannot opt out of. I skipped through this scurrilous piece of dishonestly-edited film on I-Player, the Beeb’s way-back machine, as an attempt to watch the entire shoddy mess in real time made me too angry to continue watching. Apart from the dishonest editing and the attempt to cast sceptics as fools who cannot understand ‘the science’ or wilfully misinterpret it for the purposes of wilfully and maliciously delaying what the BBC obviously sees as the inevitable. I was angered, too, by the impression the film attempted to give that people somehow lose the ability to think rationally and logically with the onset of the visible signs of ageing. Many other editing tricks using music and almost subliminal visuals were obviously aimed at further casting sceptics one-dimensional as Harley-riding, banjo plucking hayseeds.
    I am not any kind of hayseed but freely admit that I enjoy motorcycles and motorcycling plus a well-plucked banjo; I also enjoy Impressionist and many other styles of painting, a considerable amount of baroque and modern music, and have more than a passing acquaintance with the great choral works, both as a choirister and as a former choir trainer, plus some knowledge and appreciation of architecture and design.
    This crass and dishonest film is nothing more than a cheap visual and aural fraud.

  115. Mike says:

    I haven’t seen the film and so have no idea if it is fair or not. Certainly the film has a point of view and people watching would know this. But, Monckton is a public figure who has ridiculed others and has the means to distribute his rebuttal of the film. I recall he threatened a suit against Professor John Abraham’s university because of Abraham’s posted lecture critiquing Monckton. Monckton is no friend of free speech.

  116. Marlene Anderson says:

    I can draw no conclusion other than journalist, politician and TV evangelist are the careers of choice for people with a mission to reshape the world using dishonest means to present their own version of the truth.

    Natural justice often takes a long time to come, but come it does.

  117. ImranCan says:

    It makes me ashamed to be British and very ashamed to have been to a British public school. Not so much the viewpoint, but the complete lack of integrity of the film-maker. When he said he was going to out aside bias, he lied. What ever happened to saying what you mean and meaning what you say ? Bloody coward,

  118. 1DandyTroll says:

    I can understand BBC wanting to protect their co-workers’s £8 billion pure green pension fund (and apparently even weapons manufacturer are considered green these days.)

    But what I can’t understand is why one of the last socialist bastion, for that is what BBC is what with it not being able to function on the open and free market without taxpayers hard earned money, squander millions on substandard defense from obvious, might be true drug loving, kooks?

    With all that money on the line I’d go for the vastly more expensive high ground and not the down beaten cheap bush.

  119. Jeremy says:

    I came in this thread to find a link to the video. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a working link to what the BBC played yet. Perhaps BBC doesn’t allow Americans to see because they want to prevent Brits from seeing American commentary on their bias?

    Anyone have a working link to the video in question?

    John Marshall says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:37 am

    …The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer

    Yeah, the site works just fine in the states. However, whenever you try to run a video it loads, then stops and says, “not available in your area.” This reeks of deliberate content blocking by the BBC to me.

    Michael says:
    February 1, 2011 at 12:48 am

    Nice to see Alex Jones in the trailer.

    No, it isn’t. Alex Jones is a nutcase who believes just about any conspiracy theory thrown at him. I’ve heard him on live satellite radio given free reign to spout whatever he wanted. It is incoherent nonsense, less than half of which was backed up by any facts whatsoever. The number of logical fallacies per minute this guy is capable of staggers the imagination. There is no doubt in my mind that he was thrown in to associate the skeptics with a certifiable kook. If I were sitting in the same room with this man, he wouldn’t get half a sentence out the entire time because I would question every single word.

  120. Midwest Mark says:

    This really isn’t surprising at all. The usual modus operandi of the AGW crowd is to fan the fires of fear. In this case, the message conveyed is, “Ignorant, gun-toting Neanderthals are standing in the way of intelligent, life-saving action.” This is nothing new. As more and more contradictory evidence surfaces, the alarms simply become louder and more frantic. Let us not forget previous news stories such as “Human race ‘will be extinct within 100 years’, claims leading scientist” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html) and “Over 4.5 Billion People Could Die From Global-Warming Related Causes by 2012″ (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html).
    These people have been trying, and failing, to scare the hell out of us for years–recall the “cooling earth” scare of the 1970s and the Y2K computer disaster that wasn’t–and will no doubt be drawn to any possible disaster scenario in the future.
    Perhaps this is the result of some strange mental condition: People such as this see an obvious impending catastrophe approaching, but cannot convince the public to buy into the same doom scenario, regardless of the evidence at hand. Maybe this condition could be studied. I wonder if I could get a large government grant…..?

  121. RichieP says:

    “George Lawson says:
    February 1, 2011 at 6:07 am
    Buddenbrook says:
    February 1, 2011 at 4:10 am
    “Isn’t it about the time that the prominent skeptics got together and made themselves a 60-90 minute documentary that covers the key issues and questions?”

    Absolutely. ”

    It’s already been done, remember?
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
    Sure, it’s even worse now but the fundamentals haven’t changed. But I can’t think of any major channel that would dream of running this film or anything like it now, far too scared of the backlash from the warmists and crimatologists.

  122. SteveE says:

    Perhaps we could call it Skepticgate?

  123. Tim Ball says:

    I experienced exactly the same situation as Delingpole and Monckton when I attended the First Heartland Conference in New York. I made a formal complaint to Ofcom, the official agency that said in part,
    “I was a participant in a climate conference in New York from March 2 – 4, 2008, organized by the Heartland Institute. At the end of the first day a person who said they were part of a BBC team interviewing people at the conference approached me. I agreed to an interview. I was very impressed by the presence of the BBC team because most of the major US networks stayed away. My only other interview of note was by a representative of the US National Public Radio (NPR). I was impressed that the BBC was genuinely interested in hearing and understanding all sides of the science of global warming and climate change. I believed this true right up to the showing of the program. I was never told that the interview material was part of a planned program denigrating those who try to pursue the scientific.

    The interview took place in the large foyer outside the main conference room. I spent considerable time before the camera answering questions posed by Ian Stewart all with the belief that I was presenting my knowledge about the so-called skeptics view of climate science. I do not recall the precise length of time of the, interview, but it was more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes. I don’t recall the precise time because of technical interruptions. I do recall Stewart being provocative at times about specific issues. At the end of the interview he asked if I would consent to further interview the next day. I agreed.

    The following day I met with the BBC representatives and was informed Stewart had returned to England overnight. The interview was to continue and I went to a room rented by the BBC and set up as a temporary studio. The interviewer was reading questions from a list and clearly was not very familiar with science or the topic of climate change. This interview lasted a long time of which about 2 hours were on camera. Evidence for this was the batteries had to be replaced and the recording cartridge as well. At no time before or during this session was I told of the intent of the interview. I continued to believe it was to report on the views of the participants including mine.

    I understand that only three quotes from the entire interview were used in the program and one was repeated. Clearly, this cannot possibly represent my knowledge or views on the subject of climate change. More troublesome is that the repeated quote is out of context and as such provocative. I am quoted as suggesting members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be in jail.

    Quotes from the program;

    Professor Tim Ball: If it’s fraud, they should be in jail.

    Professor Tim Ball (at podium): … so the focus on temperature …

    Professor Tim Ball: If it’s fraud, they should be in jail. If, it was incompetence, they should be fired.

    These are serious charges and require the supporting evidence I provided in the taped interview. Absolutely none of that evidence was included in the program. In addition, I was not provided with any opportunity for the right of reply. ”

    The claim was rejected by Ofcom because I signed the same form that Monckton signed, but this was done before the second part of the interview on the second day. I understood the first part was simply to get my views to determine if they were appropriate for the program and the second part was the formal interview from which the data would be used.

  124. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    I have to disagree that skeptics are, in general, what is seen in the trailer. I began searching for what global warming really is in January of 2007. At first all I could find was the Al Gore ilk. But I had seen plenty of that on tv already. As I looked further I began to find people like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Jan Pompe, Sallie Baliunas, Henrick Svensmark, and of course, Anthony Watts, and many more. I don’t see any guns among them. I don’t see they are bitter old people. I don’t see them clinging to mechanisms that burn fossil fuels while all else be damned. And this is my problem with the BBC.

    On the other hand, why did I have to see Kevin Trenberth in the vid? Why does it feature someone from the ClimateGate scandal as a defender of global warming?

    So my conclusion is an obvious one—the documentary is biased in a way I wished it wouldn’t be but am not surprised to find it is.

  125. This happens all the time. Documentaries have an agenda – they have an allotted time to get their view across to the world, and they present in a biased way to get you to drink their Kool-Aid. I live in UK and haven’t watched BBC since 1978. If you don’t want someone making your mind up for you, don’t watch TV, it’s insidious mind control.

    There are lots of people who have complained about entrapment and being misled. A number of scientists complained bitterly about their treatment by ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, others complained about ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ – Richard Dawkins for one, who is just as bad, or worse, in his own documentaries about religion: he can dish it out, it seems, but can’t take it. It seems everyone is in on the act – if you have enough footage, you can always cut it and splice it, and mix certain music etc, to make any message you want. People even make entertainment out of it: we have ‘Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’ and ‘Bruno’ as mainstream examples.

    So this is no new thing. How is it that folk can’t see this coming? Are folk so vain that they can’t turn down an opportunity to be on screen?

  126. Ryan says:

    “are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don’t fully understand? ”

    You’ve got to laugh haven’t you? It’s only complicated because they can’t read a thermometer.

  127. Kate says:

    What has this got to do with WUWT?

    BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO RETHINK DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT’S WEB BLOCKS

    Illegal downloads are believed to cost the creative industries £400m a year

    The British government has announced that it is to look again at plans to block websites that infringe copyright. The controversial measures formed part of its crackdown on net pirates, outlined in the Digital Economy Act (DEA).

    The decision to review it follows a raft of complaints about the workability of the legislation. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has now asked Ofcom to consider the viability of blocking certain websites. “I have no problem with the principle of blocking access to websites used exclusively for facilitating illegal downloading of content,” said Mr Hunt. “But it is not clear whether the site blocking provisions in the Act could work in practice so I have asked Ofcom to address this question,” he added.

    It all started when child porn sites were blocked. Then terrorists sites were blocked. After that, some sites “which facilitated criminal acts”. Further up the sunny slope, sites which “incite hatred and violence on others” were blocked. Today, it is proposed that sites that infringe copyright be blocked. Tomorrow, it may be sites proving to be the biggest thorn in the side of politicians that are blocked. Hmmm… wonder which sites they might be?

    …and the British criticize China for Internet censorship!

  128. Jack Greer says:

    [snip - take your insults elsewhere]

  129. David Ball says:

    [snip - just as bad as the previous comment - tone it down]

  130. Ryan says:

    sick and tired of the Biased BBC. Thinking of jamming their transmissions – with the aid of a shotgun.

  131. Mike Haseler says:

    richard verney says: February 1, 2011 at 6:23 am

    I think that we are deluding ourselves if we consider that the BBC have shot themselves in the foot

    I asked the fishmonger if he knew who Lord Monckton was … he said: who? He now knows, and we spent a good time discussing the way petrol prices are going up and he is considering whether he can keep going.

    The BBC have been trying to maintain the pretence that there is only one view on the climate (the BBC’s) and they have been doing that by pretending that climate sceptics can and should be denied a voice.

    The BBC have now had to admit that climate scepticism is real, alive, and worst of all: it has a spokesperson! In trying to make Monckton out to be a fool, they have instead given him the status of: “spokesperson for the sceptics” in the UK.

    There is no way now, the BBC can keep Monckton off the screen! And as they say: fool me once … shame on the BBC, fool me twice … shame on Monckton!

  132. David Ball says:

    Sorry dad. You rarely post on WUWT? so I thought I would speak up. Anthony has the media savvy to recognize a trap, as you do. But they still can get ya. The alarmists sure seem intent on quashing any dissent. Hmmmm, wonder why?

  133. David Ball says:

    What was so bad about that comment? It was the truth. These guys are fighting really dirty Anthony, and people should know.

  134. David Ball says:

    Ryan, that sort of comment does not help. Do NOT incite violence. Use the pen. It is mightier than the shotgun anyway.

  135. Elizabeth says:

    I found the trailer to be rather uninteresting. It’s all cheesiness and dull predictability. The entire film is nothing more than an extension of the tired, old caricature of the sceptic. For most AGWers this image cannot be changed despite exposure to contrary evidence. Ironically, in precisely the same manner as their steadfast belief in catastrophic global warming.

    It would not serve Rupert Murray’s preconceived view to talk to people like myself: Young, liberal, educated Albertan, recycler who shops with reusable bags, buys organic vegetables, and lives 100% off grid, using solar for electricity and wood for heat.

    I believe the discerning, intelligent viewer, no matter their views on climate change, won’t get sucked in by this.

  136. JohnWho says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    February 1, 2011 at 4:30 am
    I suspect the show will ultimately backfire spectacularly, more so than the 10:10 video. Any educated person who watched it, even people who have never had reason to doubt AGW, will wonder why a settled scientific position needs such grossly obvious appeals to emotion, and crude video propaganda stunts.

    (Bold mine)

    Exactly one of the things I’ve wondered all along about the AGW concept, from how it is portrayed by “climate scientists”, how it was presented in Gore’s movie, and how the main stream media often reports about it.

  137. Jack Greer says:

    There’s a reason Monckton is so prominently featured. His arguments and methods laid bare will eventually prove a net negative for those who honestly disagree with the high-probability conclusions outlined in the IPCC reports.

  138. Mark T says:

    You can think that, Jack, but only if you’re ignorant enough think there was some process that was used to generate those “high probabilities.” They were guesses, btw, in case you’re also too ignorant to understand why this is a truth.

    Mark

  139. Terri Jackson says:

    Peer review came up. The IPCC 2007 fourth report on climate change had 13 peer reviewed papers. Popular Technology have collated 830 peer reviewed papers all rejecting man made climate change seewww.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html.

  140. George Steiner says:

    I have felt for a long time that the sceptics are mightily naive. They are push over for talented leftwing ideologues. Mr. Watts says he didn’t sign the contract. True. But he gave them over an hour of his time even though he says he knew what they were doing.

    Sceptics will have to learn how to do batle. If they don’t want to it will be their funeral.

  141. sHx says:

    Boudu says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Among all the contribution to this exceptional thread, the one by Boudu is the best and probably the only expert one.

    Given the exact same material I could edit a programme that would tell a totally different story. Never be told that a documentary is truth.

    And what a wonderful experiment that would make in search for ‘truth’, if a professional with a different view were allowed access to the same raw material the BBC used to produce this hatchet job.

  142. Steve C says:

    Ha! Having watched the thing on the iPlayer this afternoon, I just went to the BBC Complaints site and got a 500 Internal Error – quote, “This might be because:
    * We are experiencing abnormal traffic to our network or
    * the service or servers it is on is not currently available.”
    Looks like a *lot* of us are doing the decent thing!

    In other news, the ever-impartial Guardian is reporting that 83% of the British public still believe in “global warming as a man-made danger” – see here.
    We still have work to do.

  143. JJB MKI says:

    I work in the UK TV industry (on the fringes thankfully), and have experienced first hand how depressing any encounter with the BBC is. After years of hard work, a former client (an executive at an independent TV company) had a project commissioned by the BBC, put into production at great expense, then abruptly had the project pulled away and handed to another production company without explanation or compensation. His lawyers told him he had grounds to sue the BBC for the time and money he had lost, but that up against this state funded Goliath with unlimited time and finds to fight him, he would go bankrupt before he won.

    Another friend worked as a producer for the BBC on a freelance contract (they never give permanent positions to those outside the ‘club’). She approached an executive there with a promising idea for a documentary she had worked long and hard on in her spare time, only to have it rejected out of hand. She left the BBC shortly after this, and several months later I saw her documentary screened, exactly as she had planned it in her brief. At no point did the BBC even have the courtesy to tell her they had made her documentary, let alone offer her a job working on it. While at the BBC she witnessed firsthand the back scratching and toadying between BBC executives and the arts / political / intellectual elite, as well as the breathtaking degree of expenses fiddling that would later become public knowledge (though overshadowed by the MPs expenses scandal and kept somewhat quiet in the MSM).

    I fought the BBC when they claimed my intellectual property as their own. I won, but only because I had an equally large organisation fighting my corner.

    At its higher echelons, the BBC are an insular organisation, dominated as much by the public-school, Oxbridge based ‘old boy network’ now as they were fifty years ago. They see themselves as a left-wing, socially progressive, multicultural, enlightened elite, whereas in actual fact they are, and behave like a bunch of snobbish, bullying, bourgeois, reactionary, self-serving Hampstead-centric pseudo intellectuals who simply adore the smell of their own gaseous emissions. They exist in a perpetual state of hand-wringing middle class angst and believe their ill considered, second hand opinions are valid and unassailable by virtue of having fallen from their endlessly flapping jaws. Their urban centred lifestyle leads them to fear nature and see doom in every corner of the natural world, which, but for an endless stream of propaganda from their beloved Tonka Marxist rags like the Guardian, would pass them by entirely. The internal dissonance between their self-image and reality makes them hate themselves and resent the wider public they claim to serve, and forces them further onto any passing cultural bandwagon like ‘AGW’ that, in their eyes, can set them apart from the unwashed masses.

    Of course, the last paragraph is probably a grossly flawed caricature of a group of people based on my own prejudices, but apparently it’s okay to mischaracterise and smear people you disagree with now that the BBC can do it.

  144. Jack Greer says:

    @Mark T
    Monckton is a showman. He uses techniques that have proven effective throughout history. This has nothing to do with the science, no matter your beef about the scientific work or judgments or certainties. Monckton has crossed the very forgiving line of his “technique”, IMHO, and he does so intentionally. It will eventually cost him and those who closely associate themselves with him. No amount of bluster or threatened law suites will matter. I feel much stronger about this than the sensors will allow me to convey here.

  145. Buddenbrook says:

    I agree with Jack Greer, I don’t like “Lord” Monckton either. With his pompousness and trumpet blowing he makes for a perfect caricature. Screaming you are hitler youth to 20-year old hippie girls (and boys) isn’t the smartest thing to do to endear yourself to the larger public.

  146. Joe L. says:

    Reminds me of a classic Simpson’s episode where Homer is made to look bad in a ‘Rock Bottom’ TV episode:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvwnwBbX70k

    Dramatization: May not have happened!

    -J

  147. Mark T says:

    Jack Greer says:
    February 1, 2011 at 10:25 am

    [doesn't matter]

    My comment had nothing to do with Monckton.

    Mark

  148. max_b says:

    The BBC is the UK’s state broadcaster, and tend to broadcast a lot of state propaganda. I used to think I was clever at spotting bit’s and pieces of propaganda. I stopped watching TV a few years ago, picking and choosing what I want to read on the internet instead.

    Nowdays when I catch a bit of TV at a friends, I realise how deluded I was, it’s actually packed wall-to-wall with subtle propaganda. Some of it more overt than others, like this program, but that’s really only the case if you’ve done some of your own research into AGW, most viewers in the UK probably swallowed it whole.

  149. AdrianS says:

    Hats off to Anthony , Lord Monkton and James Delingpole. If they didnt believe we were a threat the AGW proponents wouldnt waste so much time trying to run us down.
    The cancer analogy used by Nurse at his hack at sceptics was fatally flawed– you can check the results of Oncologists and get opinion about thier sucess or otherwise. You cannot do the same about climate scientist. As already explained so well the tricks used by editors to misreprent viewpoints are a propoganda makers dream. It would be lovely to see a programme where AGW was put onto a quasi legal setting where both sides had equal airtime and cross examination was allowed. would be fare and very telling I suspect. You have to remember most civil court cases involve a difference of opinion between either experts or well trained legal teams, and where juries are used “lay” people are supposed to make a judgement on the facts presented to them.
    Lastly I ride a motorcycle so I guess this makes this posts invalid by rendering me too stupid to express an opinion

  150. Bruce Cobb says:

    Lord Monckton does speak the truth, perhaps not always in the manner some would like.
    I prefer to look at what he says, not how he says it, or whatever techniques he uses to get his points accross. Make no mistake, he is a valuable asset to the climate skeptic/realist “cause”. The very ferocity of the attacks against him by rabid Warmistas is testament to that.

  151. 3x2 says:

    Not sure it isn’t an own goal. Bed wetters already hate LCM and “Deniers” know what to expect from anything BBC. That leaves the people who had no idea there was any debate.

  152. max_b says:

    Kate says:
    February 1, 2011 at 8:19 am

    “…and the British criticize China for Internet censorship”

    I tend to find that the UK has a pretty low level of official censorship, but more than makes up for it with a very high level of voluntary self-censorship.

  153. Robert Stevenson says:

    Bruce Cobb says:
    February 1, 2011 at 10:57 am
    Lord Monckton does speak the truth, perhaps not always in the manner some would like.
    I prefer to look at what he says, not how he says it, or whatever techniques he uses to get his points accross.

    If Christopher Monckton is to scupper legislation in Australia and the US he must employ all the attention gathering techniques he possibly can. This is as much a political battle as it is an environmental. Pity he couldn’t scupper our Climate Change Bill which will be economically ruinous to us but of course there is no debate in the UK and the legislation was just rubber stamped by Parliament.

  154. Bryan says:

    A clumsy “hatchet” job.
    Politicians in the UK see.m to be regularly suckered by plausible interviewers.
    Now the technique is being used on climate sceptics.
    The message must be clear.
    Mistrust anyone why sticks a microphone in your face and asks you to go “on the record.”
    The BBC were never going to give a neutral both sides of the story broadcast.

  155. Eric Worrall says:

    Never have I felt like such a slave. I helped pay for this charade of a documentary – if you want to watch TV in the UK, you have to pay an involuntary subscription to the BBC of about $200 / year. And this is the rubbish we get for our forced labor.

  156. son of mulder says:

    “JJB MKI says:
    February 1, 2011 at 10:15 am

    ………they are, and behave like a bunch of snobbish, bullying, bourgeois, reactionary, self-serving Hampstead-centric pseudo intellectuals who simply adore the smell of their own gaseous emissions.”

    I am assured that the BBC is an ecologically sound organisation. They have been years ahead of their time in carbon capture and have usually recycled their gaseous emissions into their TV soap operas, but climate change orthodoxy seems to have inspired them to capture those same emissions now for the making of climate/science documentaries.

    Looks like …., sounds like…., smells like…., is…..

  157. Robert Stevenson says:

    In the BBC4 documentary it was said that the crux of the argument between ourselves (sceptics) and the warmists appears to be climate sensitivity; the warmists contend that a doubling of CO2 to 700ppm in the atmosphere would cause a 2 to 4.5℃ increase in temperature. This (temperature rise) of course is not true, in fact CO2 concentration in air could be doubled to 700ppm without any further contribution to global warming. Summarising spreadsheet analyses I have shown that:
    (1) At 288 K the black-body radiation or total emissive power from Earth is 391W/m^2 (124 Btu/h-ft^2), CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 79.8W/m^2 after 3600m (CO2 absorptivity 0.184 at 350ppm or PcL of 1.24 m.atm) and H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 248W/m^2 after 120m (H2O absorptivity 0.573 for a PwL of 2.77 m.atm). Note the shorter distance for H2O this because it is 100 times greater in concentration than CO2.

    (2) Doubling CO2 to 700ppm would absorb the same 79.8W/m^2 after only 2000m (CO2 absorptivity 0.195 at 700ppm or PcL of 1.4 m.atm).

    The reason there is no correlation between the rise in human caused CO2 and global warming is the rather limited capacity of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation. For CO2, with its characteristic absorption in certain spectral regions, the absorbable wavelengths are filtered out after a relatively short passage (3600 metres) through the earth’s atmosphere, and the transmittance thereafter for the remainder of the radiation approaches unity. The significance of this is that a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 0.035% to 0.07% would not absorb any more heat only reduce the distance from 3600 to 2000 metres for the absorption of the radiant energy in the spectral bands to take place. The heat balance remains unchanged and heat at lower levels of the atmosphere is mixed by convection currents to high altitudes (15 000 metres). This is the reason why there is no correlation between increased levels of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.

  158. AdrianS says:

    maxB & Kate

    Kate says:
    February 1, 2011 at 8:19 am

    “…and the British criticize China for Internet censorship”

    I tend to find that the UK has a pretty low level of official censorship, but more than makes up for it with a very high level of voluntary self-censorship.”

    Your both hitting the nail on the head! Well done
    Adrian

  159. jepe says:

    Anyone with a usenet subscription can download the “documentary/propaganda” via usenet.

    Locate the files with nzbindex or binsearch (search for ‘ storyville sceptics’ ) and dowload it with a binary newsgrabber like lottanzb (linux) or sabnzbd (windows).
    Both newsgrabbers are freeware.

  160. Luboš Motl says:

    I actually liked the preview, a superficially nice movie. I can’t imagine how a decent person could decide, because of this movie – if it is similar to the preview – that the sceptics are either evil or silly.

  161. richcar 1225 says:

    An interview on NPR Sunday with a Guardian columnist revealed that the newspaper’s environmental stance was a deliberate strategy to bring in traffic and it worked. The Guardian hired four environmental reporters and then developed strategic relationships with environmental websites to steer traffic from them to the Guardian. They touted this as a successful on line business model. I am sure the BBC is doing the same thing.

  162. Robuk says:

    John Marshall says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:37 am

    This is the BBC’s attempt to comply with the instruction to give more air time to the sceptic view of Climate change. Failed!
    The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer
    This is the page that will play old programs. Look up BBCFour and a list will appear.There may be some filtering of out of UK sites but I doubt it. My daughter in Spain can access this site without any problem.
    Best of luck Anthony.

    The content recorded through iplayer only lasts 7 days, use a screen grabber like SNAGIT, TO RECORD VIDEO OR STILL IMAGES.

  163. Malaga View says:

    JJB MKI says: the last paragraph is probably a grossly flawed caricature
    I couldn’t see any flaws from here… perhaps you should write some more…
    Just don’t hold back next time :-)

  164. Ralph says:

    Anyone found a copy that will play overseas? I can sometimes get Youtube (but mostly even Youtube is banned).

    .

  165. Mac says:

    No one seems to be able to answer my question: why did Monkton claim that Obama is from Kenya?

    REPLY: Why not ask him? We can’t speak for him. Now quit cluttering up this thread with your rubbish. Also, learn to spell Monckton as well as your own email address properly.- Anthony

  166. Robuk says:

    Mike says:
    February 1, 2011 at 6:53 am

    “I haven’t seen the film and so have no idea if it is fair or not. Certainly the film has a point of view and people watching would know this. But, Monckton is a public figure who has ridiculed others and has the means to distribute his rebuttal of the film. I recall he threatened a suit against Professor John Abraham’s university because of Abraham’s posted lecture critiquing Monckton. Monckton is no friend of free speech.”

    UTTER RUBBISH, in every lecture Monkton gives he clearly states DON`T BELIEVE A WORD I TELL YOU.

  167. Robuk says:

    Jeremy says:
    February 1, 2011 at 7:00 am

    I came in this thread to find a link to the video. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a working link to what the BBC played yet. Perhaps BBC doesn’t allow Americans to see because they want to prevent Brits from seeing American commentary on their bias?

    Anyone have a working link to the video in question?

    John Marshall says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:37 am

    …The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer

    Yeah, the site works just fine in the states. However, whenever you try to run a video it loads, then stops and says, “not available in your area.” This reeks of deliberate content blocking by the BBC to me.

    Try this, open genuine BBC iplayer and follow instructions.

    iPLAYER DOWNLOADER 4.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnapshotmedia.co.uk%2Fiplayer-downloader-4-0%2F&ei=NX5ITZ2cCciKhQex1cTxBA&usg=AFQjCNGpZKIxL_yNprU87k-Vl3lZoh91RA

  168. Billy Liar says:

    Pete Hayes says:
    February 1, 2011 at 5:34 am

    Interesting Dave! I seem to remember seeing emails from Black to her asking if she now approved! Time for a little digging…again!

    I can help you there:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=76

  169. Robuk says:

    Robuk says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 1, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    If you can get the content to run you can also copy it with SNAGIT, its on Pir8t* bay.

  170. Jordan says:

    It was another bad piece of programming by the BBC, but I feel that some of the above reaction is too negative.

    Firstly, the Brits are heartily sick of the grey suited politicians and the drip-drip of climate alarmism.

    We like eccentric politicians who are not afraid to speak up. George Galloway (for all his faults) gained a great deal of respect when he went across to that Senate Committe (?) and gave them a good earful. Monckton would have been like a breath of fresh air to many people who just watched because the title drew them in.

    And the Brits don’t like it when a powerful organisation like the BBC tries to pull down individuals. I dont think that would have gone down well with neutral observers.

    More than that – I don’t think that criticising his audience on the basis of age would have been acceptable to many.

    But – best of all – the programme showed Monckton to be SUCCESSFUL! It attributed the failure of the US and Aussie ETS schemes to Monckton’s campaigns.

    The weak criticism of his misquotation measured up as nothing against the image of Rudd blubbing.

    Chins up folks. The BBC is rattled and it is shooting own goals.

  171. apologies, Murray Granger, I meant Rupert Murray but I was 20

  172. …..(*&$%&^%)(* _)(_)W )N(VWLKJ ************ furious

  173. Peter says:

    Around 41 minutes into the video, they showed a presentation of what was purported to be a measurement of global warming which was much worse than IPCC predictions.
    But, looking closely at the slightly blurry graph, I saw the words, TOPEX Poseidon at the bottom.
    A bit of Googling later and I found the almost identical graph – at least, the cherry-picked few years of sea level rise data which happened to be higher than the IPCC projections.
    I look at it this way – if this AGW business is on the level, then how come they feel so much need to lie and deceive?

  174. TimM says:

    They could have picked a much easier target than Lord Monckton. My god they could have thought about it, maybe asked some intelligent questions. Amateurs! Go get’em Ma’Lord, go get’em!

  175. artwest says:

    ad says:
    February 1, 2011 at 5:11 am – “Mr Artwest it seems is also a contortionist.”

    No, I am just trying to stop fellow sceptics look like easily written-off paranoics because they don’t know what they are talking about.
    Anyone who knows anything about TV rights knows exactly why iPlayer programmes are not available outside the area for which they have been licensed – i.e. the UK. Any broadcaster anywhere has the same problem to deal with in this regard and, if they make material available online at all, have to deal with it in much the same way.

    Let’s criticise the BBC for screening an appalling programme NOT over a sideshow which just makes us look ignorant and hands ammunition to the alarmists.

  176. AntiAcademia says:

    Congratulations Mr. Watts! They believe that we -and the people in general- are total idiots but they only are putting more water on their nauseating Titanic.

    The slow sinking of mainstream media and academia is among the most beautiful things that I have ever seen. I bet more and more people rely on blogs like these one not only for opinion, but for news too.

    Myself I will never ever trust again mainstream media and academia for news and science. Gosh! As near as 5 years ago I read The Economist keynesians analysis as if it actually was science! As far as 3 years ago I believed that man was creating dangerous global warming! Thanks to blogs I am not anymore so naive. THANKS!

  177. John Whitman says:

    PNS (see organizers of the Lisbon Conference) styled communication and reconciliation exhibited by BBC4′s “Meet the Skeptics”?

    Yes.

    John

  178. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    George Steiner says:
    February 1, 2011 at 9:48 am

    Sceptics will have to learn how to do batle. If they don’t want to it will be their funeral.

    Simmer down George.

  179. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    So the entire documentary is intended to marginalize Lord Monckton.

  180. JER0ME says:

    Having at last viewed it, I cannot see it as a complete smear job. I agree it was skewed, and the narrator clearly displays a (calculatedly) growing scepticism of the sceptics throughout the program. That last bit where Monckton views the report and seems ‘devastated’ by it and goes off to mope at the loch is extremely poor. He did give Monckton the chance to say his bit having seen the program and disliked it (kudos there), but obviously not enough was saved from the cutting room floor.

    What I found hilarious was that it seemed that Monckton had single-handedly prevented success of Copenhagen, the US Government, and the Australian government to do ‘something’ about CO2. Go Christopher!

    The only bit that got me growling was the way the ‘science’ of global warming ‘tells us’, and a bit where he says something about ‘measurements prove [AGW]‘ and then goes on to show these ‘measurements’, and they are from yet another model. Can they really not understand the difference between a measurement and a model? Especially after belittling (I thought) Plimer’s simple test on the rocks with a simple acid. As he said – this is something you cannot get from models – an actual measurement!

    Still, I though it was better than nothing. I think it will make people think. I wish Monckton had said (or been allowed to say?) “Don’t trust me – go and look at the evidence yourselves!” which is what he usually says.

  181. Dr A Burns says:

    >>John Lish says:
    >>February 1, 2011 at 12:50 am

    >>Dr A Burns,

    >>“there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ >>testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.

    Thanks John. I’ve sent another email to Kev to let him know. It might get another bite.

  182. JER0ME says:

    JJB MKI says:
    February 1, 2011 at 10:15 am

    At its higher echelons, the BBC are an insular organisation, dominated as much by the public-school, Oxbridge based ‘old boy network’ now as they were fifty years ago. They see themselves as a left-wing, socially progressive, multicultural, enlightened elite, whereas in actual fact they are, and behave like a bunch of snobbish, bullying, bourgeois, reactionary, self-serving Hampstead-centric pseudo intellectuals who simply adore the smell of their own gaseous emissions. They exist in a perpetual state of hand-wringing middle class angst and believe their ill considered, second hand opinions are valid and unassailable by virtue of having fallen from their endlessly flapping jaws.

    Bravo!

  183. JER0ME says:

    Buddenbrook says:
    February 1, 2011 at 10:26 am

    I agree with Jack Greer, I don’t like “Lord” Monckton either. With his pompousness and trumpet blowing he makes for a perfect caricature. Screaming you are hitler youth to 20-year old hippie girls (and boys) isn’t the smartest thing to do to endear yourself to the larger public.

    He did not scream, and if you watch the full video, he justifies his statement perfectly. Those ‘hippies’ where acting exactly as the Hitler Youth acted. In exactly the same way, and with exactly the same lack of understanding why.

    I happen to know a bit about it as my own mother was in the HY, as were a great many children of here age at that time in that place. Very few, if any, understood what they were doing or why.

  184. JER0ME says:

    I assume my post was swallowed by the spam filter as I used the ‘H’ word. I hope it can be retrieved – the word was used legitimately.

  185. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Wait, they were portraying climate skeptics as motorcycle riders, with motorcycles having a smaller carbon footprint and being better for the environment than even a Prius, like that was a bad thing? Those cads!

    Do they really want people to have zero-emission all-electric vehicles, small ones that will significantly reduce urban traffic congestion? Then let’s have government-subsidized Segways for everyone! It won’t cost the government anything, as they can just divert the money from funding for (C)AGW research and doubtful carbon-sequestration “fixes.” This is a real solution that will yield immediate benefits, so why muck around with unproven stuff that won’t bear fruit for decades? Stick a basket on them so they’ll be good for quick shopping trips, and watch those global anthropogenic CO2 emissions drop!

    BTW, I’ll take mine with snow tires. (C)AGW has been so active lately, the snow and ice hasn’t melted away for weeks, and (C)AGW is sending even more right now!

  186. Rob M says:

    Later tonight on BBC5, “Breaking The Oil Habit” discusses the pressing need to reduce our use of fossil fuels… but first, Clarkson and co. pit the new Lamborghini against the Pagani Zonda in Top Gear…………..

    Now that’s what I call balance.

  187. SteveE says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    February 1, 2011 at 7:24 am

    So my conclusion is an obvious one—the documentary is biased in a way I wished it wouldn’t be but am not surprised to find it is.

    ———————–

    Aren’t all documentaries bias though? I wouldn’t expect to find on a documentary about evolution an alternative view point from the church saying we’re all created by god for example and this argument given equal weighting.

  188. Mac says:

    Anthony said: “REPLY: Why not ask him? We can’t speak for him. Now quit cluttering up this thread with your rubbish. Also, learn to spell Monckton as well as your own email address properly.- Anthony”

    Anthony, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the question ‘why did Monckton say that Obama was from Kenya’ bearing in mind the number of Monckton supporters on here. I thought someone might be able to give me an answer. This is a site for skeptics right? Is it not right to also question Monckton’s claims?

    Bearing in mind the number of spelling mistakes I see in the comments on this site, I also think it’s a little unfair to point this out in my particular case.

    Mail address corrected.

  189. barry says:

    Dr A Burns,

    “there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.

    Wrong on two counts.

    Firstly, that is not what Phil Jones said. There is a word missing from that quote that completely changes the meaning you’ve assigned to the statement.

    Secondly, he did not say it in any government hearing (you won’t find it in Hansard). He was replying to a questionnaire given him by the BBC. You can see the actual quote here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    If there’s anyone left, after countless explanations of what Jones was saying, who is interested enough to see the fault in the bit quoted above, look up the meaning of ‘statistical significance’.

    BTW, there is now enough data to say that warming since 1995 is statistically significant. If anyone wishes to continue this meme, they need only change the year to 1996. This time next year, you will need to say ‘since 1997′, and so on.

  190. Tom B says:

    I’m intrigued by the comment of Peter Taylor (February 1, 2011 at 3:00 am). Visiting his link I find myself in disagreement on some of his positions. However, his stance that “climate change” may not be the boogey man we’re all told it is appears to be spot on. I wonder if Peter feels, as I do, that the ongoing demonization of CO2 may – in fact – be anti-environmentalist. That is, since the CAGW issue is clearly identified as a “green” issue when it is widely exposed to be a hoax may irreparably damage true environmental causes as they will be dismissed as yet more green fear mongering.

    I think Peter is also correct that Lord Monckton has become (as much as it pains me to say it, since I enjoy his presentations) the Sarah Palin of the skeptical point of view. Mere mention of his name sends CAGW proponents into a frothing rage.

  191. Peter says:

    Barry,

    You might want to follow your own ‘statistical significance’ link and then follow some other links off of it – like ‘Pitfalls and criticism’

    Oh, and while you’re at it, do you know of any way of fitting a reliable trend to the last 15 years worth of data which is not going to be significantly affected by the next 15 years worth of data – when we get it?

  192. barry says:

    Peter, your comments are orthogonal to my point, which is about semantics. If you are familiar with the basic meaning of statistical significance, perhaps you could assist in setting the record straight on what Jones’ comments actually refer to.

  193. Vince Causey says:

    Lubos,

    “I can’t imagine how a decent person could decide, because of this movie – if it is similar to the preview – that the sceptics are either evil or silly.”

    Well, Lubos, maybe it was the stereotypical images – images of rednecks toting guns, rednecks in pickup trucks with rifles on them, old people muttering incoherently, shots of heads at podiums shouting liars, frauds and interspliced with shots of tornadoes that depicts the very climate change that the sceptics are sceptical of – maybe for the British viewers, these images portray a dysfunctional, raging right-wing, libertarian, anti government and anti science sub sect in a distant hinterland, that is strange and frightening.

  194. Robert Stevenson says:

    When climate change scientist A scott Denning said on the BBC 4 ‘sceptics’ documentary ” Why is the planet not warming, is there some mysterious mechanism that’s getting rid of all the warming”, that statement didn’t sound very scientific.What he should have said was, ” We ought perform a heat or energy balance on earth’s atmosphere thus, ‘energy in’ minus ‘energy out’ equals ‘energy accumulation’. The accumulation in this equation equals warming if positive, cooling if negative and if zero, no temperature change.
    Energy is input by radiation, conduction and convection. Radiation input can be absorbed, reflected or transmitted but only absorbed radiation will affect atmospheric temperature. Clearly the main energy output fom the atmosphere will ultimately be radiation to space.
    At present accumulation is hovering around zero as earth’s temperature is stable. Without an atmosphere earth’s surface would be at an equilibrium temperature of minus 18℃. In reality, the air temperature near the ground is, however, plus 15℃, the difference of 33℃ being due to trace gases CO2 and H2O water vapour.
    The air temperature will not continue to rise indefinitely with trace gas increase because CO2 molecules in particular with their absorption bands at 2.8, 4.5 and 15 microns have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the ” open radiation window” between 7 and 13 microns. This would be even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide.

  195. Peter says:

    Barry,

    Yes, it was semantics. Phil Jones chose his words carefully so as to make his case as strongly as he could without resorting to lying.

  196. Roger Knights says:

    Instead he chose to malign and mis-represent through … use of music (the mournful piano and the buffoonery of Gilbert & Sullivan telling us what to feel)

    Don’t forget “Ride of the Valkyries”–three guesses what association that was meant to suggest.

    Mike Haseler says:
    February 1, 2011 at 1:15 am

    I think this will all backfire for the BBC. ,,, All this will do is to highlight Lord Monckton in the UK public’s mind and trigger a series of high profile interviews on major TV shows ….

    I agree; especially in light of the Horizon program, the scoffers are positioned to demand a right of a counterpoint program.

  197. barry says:

    Yes, it was semantics. Phil Jones chose his words carefully so as to make his case as strongly as he could without resorting to lying.

    Actually, Peter, the words ‘statistical significance’ were not carefully chosen by Jones. It was the point of the question put to him:

    “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    Comments such as the one upthread I quoted typify the misunderstanding between the word significance – meaning importance – and the concept of statistical significance.

    This meme has amazing traction, considering how simple it is to correct and how often this has been done. Because it is not complicated, I think unwillingness is the cause, rather than incapacity.

  198. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From barry on February 2, 2011 at 5:01 am:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    If there’s anyone left, after countless explanations of what Jones was saying, who is interested enough to see the fault in the bit quoted above, look up the meaning of ‘statistical significance’.

    BTW, there is now enough data to say that warming since 1995 is statistically significant. (…)

    Really? From the BBC Q&A:

    B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    As you have indicated, it was a lack of enough data that was keeping the 1995-2009 trend from being statistically significant, which would be at 95% significance level per the esteemed Dr. Jones.

    For 15 years, 1995 to 2009, the calculated rate was +0.12°C/decade. For 2002 to 2009, 8 years, it was -0.12°C/decade. Wow, that must have been some warming for those 7 years, from 1995 to 2001.

    After converting the years elapsed into decades, adding up the degrees, we get:
    0.12*1.5 = -0.12*0.8 + X*0.7 where X is the 1995 to 2001 rate
    (trivial algebra)
    X=0.39°C/decade from 1995 to 2001.
    Wow, that’s impressive. Shame I missed the press release about that unprecedented rate of warming. There should have been one, since the highest rate reported in the BBC Q&A, 1975 to 1998, was a mere 0.166°C/decade, just 43% of the 1995 to 2001 rate.

    From your helpful Wikipedia link:

    Statistical significance can be considered to be the confidence one has in a given result. In a comparison study, it is dependent on the relative difference between the groups compared, the amount of measurement and the noise associated with the measurement. In other words, the confidence one has in a given result being non-random (i.e. it is not a consequence of chance) depends on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the sample size.

    Expressed mathematically, the confidence that a result is not by random chance is given by the following formula by Sackett:[5]

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/9/e/b9e3c70729fa428ca28c19bcbf1e32a5.png
    confidence = signal/noise * (sample size)^(1/2)

    From 1995 to 2009, 15 years of data, the trend wasn’t statistically significant. Now with 2010 added, thus 16 years of data, according to you it is. Let’s examine the effect on the relevant multiplier in the equation, the square root of sample size:
    (15)^(1/2)= 3.87 at 3 significant digits.
    (16)^(1/2)=4.00
    4.00/3.87=1.03
    Wow, that multiplier went up just 3%, and that made all the difference.

    And are you saying there really is now a statistically significant rate of warming since 1995, as your words imply?
    For fun, let’s use a rate that’s at least positive for 1995-2010, 0.01°C/decade:
    0.01*1.6 = -0.12*0.8 + 0.39*0.7 + Y*0.1 where Y is the 2010 “rate”
    (trivial algebra)
    Y = -1.6°C/decade!
    Wow, that 1995 to 2001 rate was so impressive, the planet could have cooled at an unprecedented rate in 2010 and there would still be a positive rate of warming for 1995-2010. We could have started a catastrophic plunge into a global glaciation period, and still be suffering from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming!

    Let’s use a more reasonably alarming rate of warming for 1995 to 2010, 0.10°C/decade. Nope, that yields Y = -0.12°C/decade for 2010, still cooling. That’s also the same rate for the preceding 8 years.

    What will it take for 1995-2010 to have the same rate as 1995-2009? 2010 will need a “rate” of +0.15°C/decade. That would be quite a turnaround after an 8 year stretch at -0.12°C/decade.

    Well, with that 3% increase in that multiplier, with that increase in the amount of data now making the 1995 to 2010 rate of global warming statistically significant, I guess you better go ahead and post the amount of that rate, with links please. Since it should likely be around only 2/3 to 3/4 of the rate of the historic periods of great warming given in the BBC Q&A, and less than a third of that unprecedented 1995-2001 rate, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations still steadily rising and the positive feedbacks kicking in while the tipping points are passed, it should be interesting.

  199. barry says:

    kadaka, nothing you have written bears on my point. With each attempt to discuss orthogonal issues, over-complicating a straightforward misinterpretation of Jones comments (now obfuscated by you focusing on an aside), my opinion that skeptics who know better are unwilling to admit that the Jones quote is misunderstood is reinforced.

    Here is the original comment that I replied to.

    “there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.

    You or Peter could confirm the error in the quotation marks. I’m 95% confident that you won’t. :-)

  200. eadler says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    February 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    …..

    You can dispense with all of the cherry picking calculations.

    In the real world, the steady positive radiative forcing due to GHG’s is modulated by fluctuating forces such as the solar cycle, and El Nino/La Nina. This can cause periods of cooling when the natural forces produce cooling which temporarily overwhelm the effect of elevated GHG’s, and accelerated warming when the natural forces and GHG forcing are both acting to warm the earth’s surface.

    Your excitement over these fluctuations is a form of scientific masturbation. It may be exciting and pleasurable to you, but it is not really science.

  201. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From barry on February 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm:

    You or Peter could confirm the error in the quotation marks. I’m 95% confident that you won’t. :-)

    Hope you didn’t bet any money on that. I’ve been careful to use “statistically-significant” when referencing the line, even linking it to the BBC piece, which I’ve bookmarked. Thus I can confirm that, yes, “statistically-” was left out.

    I just usually avoid the pedantry of pointing out the error, especially when it’s used for a quip rather than a statement of fact used in building an argument.

    Now, please stop incorrectly using your Big Word of the Day by talking of things ‘orthogonal to your point.” You’re one dimension short of talking about right angles, those things would have to come off your line of reasoning. Straight from your point would come a ray.

    Meanwhile you had said:

    BTW, there is now enough data to say that warming since 1995 is statistically significant. If anyone wishes to continue this meme, they need only change the year to 1996. This time next year, you will need to say ‘since 1997′, and so on.

    This indicates that 16 years of data makes it statistically-significant, but with only 15 years of data it is not statistically-significant. This ignores the signal to noise ratio, which is an error, especially as the trend from 1995 will continue to get smaller if we continue to have a cooling trend from 2002 onward.

    The major significance of the Jones quote, though, is revealed in the first line of that Wikipedia Statstical significance entry:

    In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

    Since the warming trend from 1995 to 2009 was not statistically-significant, it could have just been a random walk. That’s what’s important.

    Now then, can you supply either your own work or links to other work that shows the trend from 1995 to 2010 (to present) is statistically-significant?

  202. Peter says:

    Barry,

    Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    A: Yes…

    He agrees that there’s been no statistically-significant warming

    A: (cont)…but only just.

    And it’s there that his statement becomes nonsense. It’s either statistically significant, or it’s not. Saying it’s ‘almost’ so is like saying that someone’s ‘almost’ pregnant.
    If it’s not statistically significant then it means, in this context, that it can’t be reliably extracted from the noise, ie we can’t say for sure whether or not the trend exists.

    And yes, I did see the omitted ‘statistically’ you were referring to, but, in the light of the above, does that really make a difference?

    Why are you defending him so much?

  203. barry says:

    Since the warming trend from 1995 to 2009 was not statistically-significant, it could have just been a random walk. That’s what’s important.

    Important?

    Why do you think the period was selected? As Lindzen and Lubos Motl pointed out, the time period was the longest annual period possible to just fall short of statistical significance. These were questions “gathered from climate sceptics.” The take-away message here – the import – is that the skeptics didn’t want a serious discussion of trends, just a talking point that they could cite. Why else select 1995 – 2009 at that point in time?

    Someone else has done the work for 2010: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/02/no-statistical-warming-since-1995-wrong/

  204. barry says:

    And it’s there that his statement becomes nonsense. It’s either statistically significant, or it’s not. Saying it’s ‘almost’ so is like saying that someone’s ‘almost’ pregnant.

    No, it’s not the same. See the above link in my previous post.

    The 95% (or 5%) confidence level is often conventionally described as being an absolute cut-off, but statistically it simply describes the likelihood of a result being different from zero. Other conventions apply a 90% confidence level for the null hypothesis to be rejected, in which case the HadCRU data would have been statistically significant, and others apply 99%, in which case HadCRU data would not become statistically significant for quite some time to come.

    I’m not defending Jones. I pointed out an error. Two actually, one of which you’ve finally verified (thank you for that). Perhaps you feel I’m defending him because you are out to get him?

  205. barry says:

    This indicates that 16 years of data makes it statistically-significant, but with only 15 years of data it is not statistically-significant. This ignores the signal to noise ratio, which is an error, especially as the trend from 1995 will continue to get smaller if we continue to have a cooling trend from 2002 onward.

    You are quite correct. The noise determines the amount of data required. And other temperature data sets (like satellite data, which are noisier) would require longer time periods to achieve statistical significance. By contrast, the September sea ice anomaly data sets achieve statistical significance with shorter time periods because the data is less noisy.

    I simplified to make a point. Although it is not perfectly accurate, it aids a more basic comprehension, which I felt was useful for those not well-versed in statistical significance – ie, the contributors who made the original comments.

    I am happy to say I bet wrong on your and Peter’s replies. Of course, I was goading you a little.

    (Another aside) – if we take Peter’s strict interpretation of statistical significance, there has been no cooling trend since 2002, for the reasons he laid out. Any chance you might rebut his point in order to validate your own? ;-)

  206. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From eadler on February 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm:

    In the real world, the steady positive radiative forcing due to GHG’s is modulated by fluctuating forces such as the solar cycle, and El Nino/La Nina.

    That’s it? A deceptive shift from the CO2 that Jones et al rail against, to greenhouse gases in general of which water vapor alone swamps out and overrides any CO2 signal?

    Your excitement over these fluctuations is a form of scientific masturbation. It may be exciting and pleasurable to you…

    Ummm, yeah, right. Look, I understand you’re unlikely to get another stimulating spanking over at Willis’ article. But there’s nothing “mutual” going on here, so stop asking me for another.

  207. Peter says:

    Barry,

    As far as I’m concerned, a 95% confidence level is barely acceptable in any branch of science, let alone 90%

Comments are closed.