I received this email this morning from Roger Harribin, the BBC’s environmental analyst. It’s interesting because I received an email from the Guardian yesterday asking if I’d like to write a 200 word guest piece. Unfortunately it somehow ended up in my spam filter (which I found this morning) so I missed the 3 PM GMT deadline today.
Here’s what Mr. Harrabin wrote. I hope WUWT readers will come to aid, especially since skeptics are now apparently getting a voice in UK MSM.
From: Roger Harrabin – Internet
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 6:10 AM
To: [Anthony]
Subject: BBC query
Dear Mr Watts,
I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.
I’m struggling to find anyone – but there may of course be a number of reasons for this. Please could you post my request on your website – and ask people to email roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk.
We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.
It strikes me that it might be useful to meet sometime to discuss a project I am planning on the weather.
I enclose my latest column
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8491154.stm
which touches on the difficulties of reporting climate change FYI.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours
Roger Harrabin
If you know of a skeptical scientist in the UK that may be interested, please advise them of this. Thanks to all for your consideration. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UK scientist who best understands the role of CO2 in the atmosphere is Jack Barrett. Jack crossed swords with the IPCC on a number of occasions in the 1990s. He tends to adopt a low key profile these days so I’m not sure he’d be willing to participate. Another, who has already been mentioned, is Richard Courtney. Richard posts on WUWT from time to time.
g smiley (13:05:29) :
@ur momisugly{Peter Miller (09:16:02)
no not frustrated in a university – he is happily living in the Scottish Highlands -He’s been quiet of late on Climate blogs _ wonder why? But quite active prior to Copenhagen/climategate and this cold winter.
OK, then I suggest he is one of those many Scottish socialists with an evenly balanced view on life – in other words, a chip on each shoulder, one of spite and one of envy.
Consequently, he believes AGW offers a golden opportunity to substantially increase taxes for those with less pointless lives than himself.
There is something wrong with this picture. When an honest debate is set up, it is not the prerogative of one side to select all the participants.
Each side should choose their own representatives. But of course the alarmist side has been spanked in debates with skeptics, so now Harrabin is trying to stack the deck in this project by getting to pick the writer himself. Looks to me like he’s ethics-challenged.
I also am very suspicious of Harrabin. I understand that bridges need to be built, but this is proposal does not fill me with confidence.
Harrabin has a strong track record of presenting AGW stories as if there is no disagreement with them beyond a few kooks. You might like to ask him if he has ever done a story with a skeptic before and whether you could have a reference?
You should also ask him why the scientist has to be a UK citizen and in a current UK academic post. Point out strongly that skeptics are not employed by UK universities in Climate Science posts, and that that is the reason he is having trouble finding one.
It would be like running a program discussing the BBC license fee (which is how the BBC is funded), and asking for the names of some current BBC employees who think the license fee should be lowered….
piers corbyn (13:58:25) :
Anthony – by the way well done to you & Joe D’Aleo for your EXCELLENT Surface Temperature Report
Anything Harrabin does on this is highly suspect.
I’d give Harrabin a chance. It’s true that he was a major cheerleader for AGW for a number of years, but some time back he (I think) was the victim of an aggressive verbal assault by Al Gore since when, I’ve noticed, he’s been a bit more even-handed.
Hi everybody.
Exciting times!
Peter Taylor would be a solid choice. I can recommend his stimulating and well argued book ‘Chill’.
His environmentalist credentials are beyond dispute and his style would make him ideal.
However I am not certain that he is currently in an academic post but has been much consulted by governments and NGOs on various environmentalist issues.
I’m just smiling like a fool – the answer is pretty easy. Each world-wide science org. or university sponsors an internet media event to present scientific facts. The peer-review rebuts and the final presentation ends up pointing to the process that was lacking and the elevates understanding.
Pretty healthy and promotes hard Science?
Seriously, some of you need to grow up.
A journalist has merely asked you to put up or shut up. If you can’t put up, then have the dignity to shut up.
It seems that they are beginning to realise that the game has changed forever. The Guardian, The BBC, whoever next? They are in retreat, but they may be most dangerous when cornered. I sense that people higher up in these organisations have ‘got the wind up’ and maybe Harrabin and co are getting instructions from their superiors. None of them wants to be caught out now… Thanks to Anthony and all at WUWT for persistence and honesty and telling it straight.
Been said I presume….
Harrabin is going to conclude (in writing)
…a search for aqualified acedemic in the UK, who does not believe in AGW, proved fruitless. Not ONE acedemic in England believes that GW is anything but man-made.
I’d bet five bucks on it. Bah.
And of course, as everyone has already said, Darwinism has selected out of academe any soul who would not toe the AGW line. “Adapt or die” works both ways. No place for truth and questioning any more. Pretty damn sad.
The insistence on scientists in current academic posts would disqualify such eminent academics as Philip Stott and Steven Hawking, mentioned earlier.
This requirement suggests to me a hidden agenda in Harrabin’s approach.
It is also surprising that he doesn’t mention climate scientists. I had understood from comments by most of the warmist MSM that only climate scientists were qualified to comment on climate matters, but now it seems that any scientist will do as long as they are working. Now, there is the catch, if they are working they are unlikely to want to put their heads above the parapet, even though there is evidence that cracks are starting to appear in the AGW edifice. I imagine it will take many more months if not years before they feel confident enough to risk their longer term funding by expressing anti-establishment opinions.
It might be worthwhile responding to this. But I would forget about bridge-building and think of it as a game to be played.
It is a good sign.
This is a decent and fair attempt by Harrabin to source contributors. He is diplomatic and fair in his language – and, regardless of what you may think of his reporting, he is an honourable man. He may have reported ad nauseam the ‘alarmist’ science, but for a long, long time they were the only papers which carried the stamp of authority which the BBC is compelled to report.
They can’t report blog posts or their comments. This is an opportunity for people to ‘come out’.
The BBC – despite what many believe – can only report on what they regard as the most authoritative papers on climate science – that is their job, to present the scientific discourse in a way that viewers, readers and listeners will understand.
You can read elsewhere, and I’ve had a long day so can’t be bothered to find a link, that they accepted the IPCC as the main authority on this and it was for this and other related reasons that they dropped their standard procedure of ensuring a conflicting view must be included in all reports.
The tide has turned – the IPCC is now compromised – but they need proper, working scientists to come forward to satisfy public scepticism – and, crucially, their own, rigorous editorial guidelines.
I have a lot of time for Roger Harrabin, and I believe he is genuinely interested in informing his audience about the science of climate change. He’s a good man – and I’m a sceptic.
So, if someone is reading this, is involved in current research, then now is your chance.
I do believe the fear of being ostracised has diminished considerably.
Perhaps the BBC needs help with its pension fund now that the whole Carbon Trading scam is falling to pieces and green jobs have been shown to be a gold-plated turd.
Follow the money.
Which defined-benefit pension funds in the US were betting heavily on the same action?
Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson
Freeman Dyson
and Philip Stott. But Dyson is one of the handful of ‘celebrity’ scientists out there on a name-recognition par with Hawking and Feynman etc.
I still don’t understand
– a BBC correspondent who has worked for 20 years in the field doesn’t know of any sceptic in post! If he reflects on this fact, he should recognise something has gone horribly horribly wrong, either with his network of contacts (and journalism skills) or UK research or both
– anyone can google to find out the name of prominent sceptics. Is he trying to find an unknown sceptic for the BBC to flatten? Has he bothered going through the list of global warming scientist sceptics to find anyone from there? Why come to you Anthony? Is he trying to find someone you specifically know is sceptic who is not well known – if so, to reveal that person may put their career in jeopardy IMO
The BBC through Newsnight last night and also the Guardian this week have clearly signalled an editorial change in approach to global warming. This is significant. And the approach to you may be a part of that. But we don’t know yet what their new position is.
I would proceed with extreme caution.
Oh – and this:
“We are looking for scientists, of course – not insults.”
is of course an insult!
but for a long, long time they were the only papers which carried the stamp of authority which the BBC is compelled to report.
They can’t report blog posts or their comments. This is an opportunity for people to ‘come out’.
Can I just clarify this? In terms of the blizzard of debate, the BBC decided that they needed to look at what was regarded worldwide as the most authoritative body on this subject – and that was the IPCC.
The BBC, in light of recent events, have obviously revised and are revising that – with a vengeance.
Any sceptic scientist who watched climate wars knows what to expect from the BBC. They will be cut to look like idiots!
Incidentally, from that same program, watching M. Mann; I got the impression of a spoiled little brat, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, & that was cut to be favourable LOL
DaveE.
I was going to warn you about Harrabin, but reading through all these posts it seems not to be needed.
He has consistently pushed AGW on the BBC over the past year or so. I finally wrote a complaint to his producer about an exceptionally outrageous piece. No reply of course, but he was suddenly off the air for six weeks, so I thought I had made a difference. No such luck!
Latest ploy is to apparently present both sides, but the sting is always in the tail – in the last phrases of his own summary.
BTW. David Bellamy qualifies as he has a chair at Durham University. He lives in Bishop Auckland which is quite near to me, (20 miles).
No secrets, all public record.
DaveE.
Anthony needs to note this comment from the Guardian, explaining why they seem to be addressing the skeptical line for the first time. It seems they are building the story into a big ‘disproof’ of the skeptical position. Find it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Question – What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?
Many thanks for your comments and questions. The fall-out from the hacked UEA emails is the hottest story in climate science at the moment and a lot of claims about what they tell us have been flying around since they were made public in November.
The Guardian’s editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions, but that does not mean we are blind to contradictory evidence. It would be remiss of us journalistically to ignore a story like this where the actions of leading scientists are being seriously called into question.
We asked Fred to do a thorough investigation into some of the unanswered questions.
Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of “hiding” temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no. But it would be wrong of us not to have asked them. The aim of this investigation (which continues tomorrow) was to produce a more nuanced account of what went on behind the scenes of climate science than has appeared elsewhere. Some of it is not pretty, but significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.
J Randerson
Global warming is a paradigm
From the Susan Watts narration on BBC’s Newsnight, 2 Feb.: “Away from the anxious frenzy of how climate science is being conducted there’s quiet contemplation from all sides over what comes next for climate policy when the turmoil subsides. Deep in the Buckinghamshire countryside a splinter group of climate experts is about to begin a three-day strategy meeting. They say they’re not climate skeptics but they are disenchanted with the way the world’s governments have responded to climate science. They say Kyoto – and now Copenhagen – have failed, and what’s needed is a radical re-think of the world of climate science and how it interacts with international politics. Newsnight’s been given exclusive access to their meeting. Some of those at the meeting were happy to be identified, others not.”
I think “others not” is the key phrase here. What do they fear? If non-skeptical but disillusioned scientists are afraid to speak on the record, is it any wonder that skeptical voices are so rare in British academia?
Proceed with great caution, they will edit what you say and make you look stupid.
Don’t go near this fellow