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.
Never forget that the BBC and the Guardian are the government’s creatures, the state’s newspaper and the state’s broadcaster. They survive only through its good pleasure and they can have no intention of biting the hand that feeds them.
Freeman Dyson has been mentioned but should be re-emphasized.
He presents the hard core climate catastrophists with the very real problem of uncertainty.
Dyson is a scientist and a stubborn skeptic of many claims that lack sufficient support to be considered “settled science” and he has, on multiple occasions, pointed out the very real problems of uncertainty that the copmplexity of the climate system imposes on those who analyze it. Couple that with the sparse historical data of variable quality and firm, absolutist assertions about climate sensitivity are simply not supportable.
It is a skepticism that accepts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, if it is pumped into a closed system long enough you will see changes. But the catastrophists claim certainty over where the thresholds exists and feedback mechanisms create runaway conditions that simply aren’t supported by observation.
Stephen Brown (15:42:36) :
“….Harrabin is looking for a some poor innocent to stand up in all honesty, only to skewer him or her with a carefully constructed ………
”
Wise words… for most of us.
Lord Monckton is well able to handle such a dangerous media beast ‘though.
Aparently has a BBC film crew shadowing his current Australian tour for a Documentary.
He’s also a lot better at putting the Science across than most Scientists,
knows how to handle the media and he seems to thrive on it.
Let’s hope he can be interested, though one’s fears the Media are already running scared of him.
If the head of the IPCC is a railroad engineer and Al Gore is by no means a
scientist and yet they lead the alarmist propaganda…etc…
This BBC request sounds like a setup.
BEWARE the wolf in sheep’s clothing!!
So Mr. Watts you really think the BBC asked you because they can’t find any names themselves?
REPLY: I’m just passing on the request as a courtesy. -A
Pete (14:47:28) :
This is a decent and fair attempt by Harrabin to source contributors. He is diplomatic and fair in his language – and, regardless of what you may think of his reporting, he is an honourable man. He may have reported ad nauseam the ‘alarmist’ science, but for a long, long time they were the only papers which carried the stamp of authority which the BBC is compelled to report.
They can’t report blog posts or their comments. This is an opportunity for people to ‘come out’.
The BBC – despite what many believe – can only report on what they regard as the most authoritative papers on climate science – that is their job, to present the scientific discourse in a way that viewers, readers and listeners will understand.
—————————————————————-
Pete, you are either gullible, or trolling. The BBC is little more than the willing mouthpiece of the current government. If a representative of the government tells them to jump, their only response is ‘how high?’
At one time David Bellamy, a highly qualified and respected biolist, was all over the UK TV screens. He hasn’t been seen in years, he didn’t toe the AGW line.
For those outside the UK who might not know, the BBC is funded by a television tax. Ownership of a reciever means that you are compelled to pay that tax on pain of a criminal conviction, with a penalty that includes possible imprisonment.The level of that tax, and its very existence is government-controlled. The BBC is not independent.
Anthony, please be very careful. As has been pointed out, less than a few hours work would have enabled Harrabin to locate many names. * If * they were willing to talk. The fact that they obviously were not speaks volumes.
Do not take this offer at face value. Assume that it has been carefully crafted before it was made.
Before you even reply, take professional advice. From those well-versed in the dark arts of media spin. I will willingly contribute to the cost. If you add a new tip-jar, I’m sure that many of your posters and readers would do the same.
Please be aware that much evidence indicates that you could be walking into a trap.
Mr. Harrabin
I welcome the possibility that the BBC may at last introduce some balance into the AGW debate, if this is what you intend.
Perhaps as the BBC’s environmental analyst, you could start insisting that BBC articles on the “causes of global warming” are now checked for scientific accuracy. In the following list of “things caused by global warming” the BBC is by far the worst, with scores of alarmist unscientific articles:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I shall be checking to see if the BBC continues to publish these absurd articles.
Unless you are British, you will prbably not have seen BBC Newsnight regularly. It is hosted by Dimbleby, who is nudged now and again by a government minister to keep the story “on message”. It is mostly panelled by Guardianistas, like Polly. Never heard of her, probably not, so take it from us over here, that you will be trashed.
Now that The Mail, The Telegraph and The Times have woken up and started to copy stories from WUWT and CA, the Guardian needs a defence, and that is what is happening right now. Don’t be fooled.
The Guardian is putting out these stories so that they can be gently eased over (nothing to see here chaps, now lets all move on), and it is no coincidence that Prof Jones suddenly, after months of silence appears on BBC to defend the Guardian story. The BBC is no more now than a government mouthpiece. In this household, the Radio 4 flagship programme “Today” is known as the “Tractor production figures”
Believe us, we have seen it many times over here, the BBC will edit things to suit them, then get Moonbat to trash you.
Don’t believe for one moment that there will be an open debate with real data allowed etc., you will be trashed as some sort of internet geek, who spends too much time on computers.
@Jose A Veragio (15:28:36) :
‘Come on you Sceptics. Think about it.’
Don’t know about every1 else, but I did. Don’t read too much into things, there’s always a logical ending.
This is what I sent
Dear Roger Harrabin
I read your request at Watts Up With That, have responded there, and am responding with similar content here.
Skeptics are gradually gaining ground, but so often only after dire lessons have been learned. They have experienced being sacrificed and eaten alive by AGW believers. This is not meant as an insult, merely as a description of what they have experienced, as the WUWT thread in response to your invitation hints, and, in places, testifies with evidence. Your piece today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8496365.stm clearly shows you still believe in “anthropogenic global warming”. I think you need to understand skeptics’ experiences, and show you have understood by framing your invite to show this. After you have read the rest of this email, please read the WUWT thread and respond. Please understand that people there are not trying to hurl insults gratuitously, but to express what are often long histories of being hurt by the MSM and BBC and even yourself in particular.
Unfortunately, your request for UK academic scientists has already loaded the dice. I would name two UK scientists I know personally who meet your specifications, but I cannot give the names as they have to stay anonymous while working to expose the bad science. If known, they would lose their job and prospects in the current climate of opinion. No doubt there are many more, who are unknown to me for identical reasons. Certainly I know some more, personally, who have been threatened, suffered removal of wheel-nuts, etc. You need to understand this, and you need to know that we know. We do not want revenge or discourtesy. On the contrary, many of our number converted to skepticism first on account of the far higher level of courtesy in the skeptics blogs and other milieu. But still, we have been insulted, intimidated, expelled, discredited, and so on. Often such discreditation has followed what seemed like a welcoming, openminded invitation. David Bellamy is one such sufferer. Piers Corbyn, an able astrophysicist, is another. We want to see that this unacceptable media style of treating dissidents has stopped and is being made amends for, before we will be comfortable to trust you and the BBC again. Yet we would like to heal past wounds and quarrels and would like to meet you on this, if we can be sure you have not laid another trap
[4 UK experts named here as in my earlier post…]
A reply would be much appreciated.
Sincerely
Lucy Skywalker (my online name)
“View from the Solent (16:30:32) :
For those outside the UK who might not know, the BBC is funded by a television tax. Ownership of a reciever means that you are compelled to pay that tax on pain of a criminal conviction, with a penalty that includes possible imprisonment.The level of that tax, and its very existence is government-controlled. The BBC is not independent.”
In fact at one time in the UK, there were three tax tiers. One for a mains powered radio, if you had no black and white TV. B&W TV’s, which covered mains powered radios, and of course, colour TV’s (After transmissioins were broadcast in colour of course) which covers all mains radio and TV receivers. TV adverts depicting “detector” vans driving around checking if an address had paid up if it was receiving TV singnals. If not, you received a nasty shock in the mail a few days later. The UK has been a little USSR for a long time.
And as others has suggested, be cautious with anyone (With possible exception to JC, Jeremy Clackson and crew) from the BBC who requests information.
So why does this chap need skeptic scientists when the IPCC is run by railway engineer that writes slutty novels?
Anthony,
HEADS UP! He works for the BBC and will be able to use a team of researchers. If they can’t find any UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW, then nobody can. I would think they would like to keep their posts! The email does not give any details as to what he is really proposing to do, and I would seriously suspect his motives.
I have had reason to deal with these people in the past. They will have a vague idea of what they want to do, but the final cut will depend on what comes out of interviews and discussions, and what will make the best story. NOTHING is ‘off the record’ to these people.
I do not believe that the Guardian or anyone else has had a change of heart, such people do not have epiphanies. They are throwing the few bad apples out of the cart, but the cart will carry on. I note that all these recent articles still state that the science is sound. They have realised they are losing ground at the moment, so are working to regain it. Know your enemy, it is true for both sides. We have an election due in the UK, and Milliband has effectively declared war on the sceptics, so expect those in the MSM who support his side to help all they can. Remember these are media professionals. So was Goebbels. It works, sad to say, they know how to move the masses.
AGW will not die overnight, it will slowly fade away. It is not an arguement that can be won overnight. People do not like to be proven wrong, it is more comfortable to just slowly move with the slowly changing times. The BBC will not change overnight, if it takes a different view on AGW, it will slowly go silent on the issue, and gradually start showing the occasional program with a different viewpoint. “Slowly slowly catchee monkey.”
He’s a warmist, alas.
I could’nt be bothered to read all 290 posts so I don’t know if Christopher Monkton was nominated. ( actually he was ) but the reason I would suggest him; is because he admits he’s a layman (like me) but he can actually put the scientific point of view over without losing it. He is always calm and collected even when the pressure is against him.
He may not have a degree in climatology, but has Rajenda Pachaurie???
@veronica: 10:59 I did the same thing! Told them I used to give them a 10 and it was now a 6 because of their disgraceful reporting on climate change.
Those outside the UK can torrent the Newsnight edition with Roger Pielke from http://www.uknova.com.
(UK Expat in Hong Kong)
An Open Comment to Mr. Harrabin of the BBC by John Whitman
Mr. Harrabin, it was with interest that I read your email in this WUWT post. I had not previously been very familiar with your journalistic record until Anthony Watts decided to post the email.
Having now done some review of your journalistic record with respect to “fairness and balance”, particularly on the issue of AGW, it appears there is some historical bias in your journalism toward AGW. I am not criticizing you, just observing.
I think that some reaching out is needed between the media and individuals who are more open to questions regarding AGW (aka skeptics). Timing, though, is important and I am not positive that this is an appropriate time for a reaching out given the significant issues on AGW playing out now in the world media.
However, I have a suggestion for you which I would consider evidence of the potential for you being more fair and balanced in the future. Please spend some time here at WUWT. Come post and comment here on WUWT under your own name. Direct interaction here on an open and one-on-one basis could establish a higher confidence in reaching out to you. By posting here you will also become very familiar with excellent sites that cross post with WUWT.
John Whitman (my real name)
Scientist schmiatist! What they need to do is talk to a weatherman!!!
I think a more interesting question is: which scientists have evidence that global warming is man-made and would they allow other scientists to review and check their work by being given access to all the data and any code used?
I’m betting scientists from various disciplines would be more likely to come forward and help in such reviews in order to put climate research and its conclusions back on track.
If Mr. Harrabin wants to communicate with AGW skeptics from the field of physics, I recommend he contact either:
Gerhard Gerlich (g.gerlich@tu-bs.de)
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrasse 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic Of Germany
or
Ralf D. Tscheuschner (ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov)
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
Neither of these gentlemen resides in England, and I’m not even sure either speaks English. However, I am studying their paper: “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009). Although I don’t have the necessary experience to understand everything they say, I do have the background to understand part of it; and the part I do understand rings true.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing.
David Evans is an Australian scientist that was a warminist to start with and was involved in helping write up carbon trading schemes and models before becoming a skeptic… This was when the Tropic Tropospheric hot spot failed to appear as per the climate models….. So he would probably be a good source for a newspaper wanting some answers.
Ian Plimer would know of some British counterparts I’m sure. His book “Heaven and Earth. The missing Science” quotes a large quantity of scientific papers that damage the AGW hypothesis.
Anon (17:15:48) :
So why does this chap need skeptic scientists when the IPCC is run by railway engineer that writes slutty novels?
———————————————————–
DAMMIT!!! You will buy me an new key board!
I just snorted coffee all over it. Damn near broke a rib laughing… 🙂
Anthony, by far the best response would be an invitation to post his questions here and let the blogosphere answer them. That will give him all the nuance he needs.
Judging by the CRU emails climate science in the UK looks a bit like a one-party state. Finding a current UK scientist who is a sceptic is a bit like finding a member of the opposition in in Saddam’s Iraq – they’re not in the country. Or in the case of climate science, they’re no longer in academia.
It probably has something to do with this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241049/BBC-announces-review-science-coverage-month-revealed-ignored-Climategate-leaked-emails.html
My advice would be to have a chat with Lord Monckton.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.