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
Lucy: If your two anonymous academic skeptics were to appear in shadowed profile with their voices electronically modified, the way whistleblowers do on “60 minutes,” it would send a silent message about the state of discourse in GB.
Mark Fawcett (11:48:20) :
Anthony,
Will you be taking Mr Harrabin up on his offer to meet regarding a weather related story?
REPLY: If he pays air fare and lodging to London, sure why not? -A
Anthony, if you do make it over, and are at a loose end, drop me a line and I’ll more than happily get you a few pints in :o)
Cheers
Mark
I think Dr David Bellamy would be fine if he’s prepared to do it. If Roger Harribin and the BBC don’t like having David Bellamy that will show that they are not serious about having proper balance.
That’s a tough one… I don’t think there are too many scientists willing to put their careers and reputations on the line.
If they are skeptical, they most likely prefer to keep their thoughts to themselves and just continue to go with the flow quietly minding their own business and staying out of the politico.
Not amused is correct about the risk to careers. Lord Nigel Lawson (former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed out that he was only able to write his excellent book – An Appeal to Reason – because he was retired. A lamentable but acute, in my opinion, comment on the independence of thought in the UK of scientists and politicians.
The danger here is that Harrabin is well aware of the numbers of sceptical scientists in current acadmic posts, and also that they are unlikely to rock the boat for fear of losing either their funding or positions. So, having already stated that he “can’t find any”, he is making a token request for those who would raise their heads above the parapet in the certain knowledge that there will be few takers. When he eventually produces his film/programme, the bias will inevitably be towards warmism, and he’ll be at pains to point out that “few sceptic scientists could be found” to support the alternative view.
I believe it’s a trap – don’t trust him an inch – not yet, anyway – the leopard doesn’t change his spots…
Just a quick “heads-up” on the BBC licensing issues.
Here in the Uk, and generally speaking, we are very proud of the BBC. The BBC is funded by license payers – i.e. everyone in the UK that has a TV. That’s right, to have a TV in the UK, you have to buy a TV license at about £120 per annum – and it doesn’t matter whether you ever watch the BBC!
This money funds all of the BBC TV and radio programming (the World Service)as well as the web site and other more peripheral things.
The BBC iPlayer is a facility that allows us to watch re runs on-line, free of charge (providing we are in the UK) and is undoubtedly the best “player” around.
Remember, there are no commercial advertisements on the BBC and hence no breaks in programs.
The BBC is unique, is a national treasure and we love the fact that other countries haven’t got the same.
Because the BBC is funded by the license payers, it is deemed to be “ours” (i.e. we have paid for it) and it therefore shouldn’t be offered free to the rest of the world – although there is an ongoing debate as to whether this might change.
I hope this helps.
As if holding a current academic post makes one more qualified than a scientist who does not hold a current academic post!
Fact is that holding down a current academic post will mean that you have to toe the line and shut up about being skeptical – smart move Mr Harrabin!
… just a quick follow up on my comment above.
The BBC have the rights to screen the Superbowl in the UK. Can you guys in the USA imagine a 4 hour continuous broadcast without a single commercial break?
[Our bladders would burst! ~dbs]
Be careful Anthony – BBC has a history of stultifying (although they may appear benevolent) people who’s views not exactly match “mainstream”.
Some-one mentioned David Evans. He is very motivated but I believe his background which is mainly mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering may not fill the bill.
Prof Bob Carter would be an excellent choice but he is essentially a marine geologist:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
I would be seeking more information from Mr Harribin before I would recommend any-one to go forward into the battle zone. His motives may or may not be genuine.
Speaking of Lord Monckton, he has been recently treated disgracefully by much of the MSM here in Australia. On the ABC last night he was set shamefully by the ABC which rather than giving him a live interview presented an edited doco which included 3 AGW advocates to set every scene.
See the doco here (Climate Wars Lord Monkton visits Australia):
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
and Andrew Bolt’s discussion on the piece:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/
If this is the type of end product Mr Harribin is after I would tread warily. You need much more info before proceeding.
There’s a few sceptical Brits according to the list on the following link:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
Dr Jack Barrett- Chemist and Spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College
James Woudhuysen -Professor of Forecasting – De Montford University
Dr Wilson Flood – Royal Society of Chemistry
John Kettley – Atmospheric Scientist, formerly at the Met Office
Nigel Marvin – BBC Wildlife presenter
Alan Titchmarch – BBC Presenter
Lenny Smith – Statistician, LSE
Dr Richard Courtney – Atmospheric Science Consultant
It’s potentially a neat trap isn’t it.
If he’s genuine then the an oppotunity to get the non-alarmist message out may be missed.
If however he’s not genuine any inexperienced volunteer may be set up for a fall.
But if nobody volunteers then he can report there are no UK working skeptical scientists.
It really needs lots of ‘scientists’ who are in post and sceptical to contact him with a message along the lines that ‘I qualify and am a sceptic but do not trust the BBC to represent me fairly so no thank you.
Then his only story would be that nobody trusts the BBC!
Dear Anthony Watts,
Do you have any idea who the source of the leaked emails might be? We are having trouble finding any suspects. There may be a number of reasons for this.
We are looking for scientists, of course.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours
Roger Harrabin
Another (belated) vote for Peter Taylor. For anyone who is unfamiliar with him, this article (from Februray 2009) is worth reading for an introduction:
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/warming-cooling/article-662783-detail/article.html
I noticed Peter also made a comment or too on the recent (and excellent) essay ‘Beyond Debate?’ by Martin Cohen (in Times Higher Education Supplement, 10th Dec 2009): in which he addresses the philosophical aspects of the AGW movement, (keywords: Cascade Theory, madness of crowds):
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
But as others have said, watch out, despite the apparent change of tune, the BBC is still promoting unashamedly spinning AGW for Schmit and GISS, e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8493168.stm
Like others before, I find this a curious request. Harrabin could ask the Royal Society, the appropriate research funding council or the Foundation for Science and Technology (it used to be a neutral platform) here:
http://www.foundation.org.uk/
He knows, or should know, all about these and how to contact them – if not the BBC science editor can introduce him to them. He should also contact Lord Lawson`s new Foundation here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
He may be genuine, he may be genuine but naive or he may be devious. I do not know. The advice I received, very many years ago when being trained to respond to requests for TV interviews, was only to do it live. If it was recorded, I was advised, you will be edited to suit the aims and mindset of the programme maker – not your aims. Do not expect balance.
If I knew of any sceptical scientists I would not name them myself. It should be up to them to identify themselves if they are willing to do so.
It so happens I heard some of the early discussions (in the early 1990s) about climate change at the Foundation for Science and Technology I mentioned above. Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office, was advancing the man made climate change thesis. He was, at that time, fiercely opposed by one of his predecessors who said it was all rubbish (or words to that effect).
I am no longer up to date or in contact with these circles. My impression is that the received gospel in official circles is that AGW is true. That is the present governments position. It is advanced in somewhat hysterical terms by references to “flat earthers” (by Gordon Brown, the PM) and “declaration of war” (by Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State). Unfortunately David Cameron (the Conservative party leader and likely next PM) seems to be of the same mind – though he faces grass roots opposition within his own party.
Meantime, keep up the good work.
BBC criticised for scientific ‘cheap sensationalism’
The BBC has been accused of “exaggerating” the threat of global warming to the oceans in a documentary.
Shown on BBC One last week, the programme contained “wilful factual errors” including the assertion that there will be no fish left in the sea in fifty years time, according to campaigners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7128624/BBC-criticised-for-scientific-cheap-sensationalism.html
Roger Knights (17:47:53) :
“He’s a warmist, alas.”
That’s disappointing, although Einstein thought plate tectonics was rubbish, or words to that effect.
Do not trust a word Harrabin says. He is a fully paid up AGW believer and activist through his journalism.
Just look at his latest piece on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8496365.stm
That piece is a personal defence of the IPCC and all it stands for.
There is no way this man is remotely capable of writing an objective article concerning scepticism of AGW, which leads me to suspect that there is something underhand about his request and what he intends to do with the information received.
I think before putting forward a suggestion, we’d need to better understand the terms of reference of any proposed interview.
If it is to be a discussion of Earth’s climate history and the use (and presentation) of proxy data and models versus direct observation, then someone from a geological or physical geography (glaciology) background would be most suitable. I could have a possible candidate – reasonably well known (in academia) geology/geochemistry professor approaching retirement age.
If the discussion is going to be about the maths and statistics of reconstructions, about the withholding of data, about distortion in presentation and about correlation not being causation, then the best people would be McIntyre & McKitrick, especially if Ross M currently holds an academic position in the UK.
I’d be most interested though if a physicist or physical chemist were put forward, to discuss fundamentals of radiative physics, heat transfer and the energy-retaining effects of CO2. I keep seeing people on here saying that there are many physicists that are skeptical of big AGW, but other than Freeman Dyson, no names proposed.
Obviously, if the basic physics can be undermined (and in a manner that is reasonably comprehensible), the rest of the AGW story falls by the way-side
(btw I’m another sceptical British geologist, PhD but not in academia)
Having said the above though, I would recommend a one Jasper Kirkby – a British particle physicist working at CERN – whose research may well have significant implications the ‘climate science’ and ‘climate scientists’ (using BBC-style scare quotes).
Here’s a fascinating lecture given by Kirkby which everyone should view (if they haven;t already):
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
However, I doubt Kirkby will talk to Harrabin – I know if I were him, I wouldn;t.
Anthony
Have a look at the job the ABC in Australia pulled on Monckton with there 7:30 Report of last night (Wed). It was quite puerile. Given the ABC and BBC are in lock step this is possibly what is being considered, but I am happy to be proved wrong.
“Mark Fawcett (00:18:01) :
Mark Fawcett (11:48:20) :
Anthony,
Will you be taking Mr Harrabin up on his offer to meet regarding a weather related story?
REPLY: If he pays air fare and lodging to London, sure why not? -A
Anthony, if you do make it over, and are at a loose end, drop me a line and I’ll more than happily get you a few pints in :o)
Cheers
Mark”
Anthony, just stay away from Theakston Old Peculiar, Bishops Tipple, Horndean Speacial Brew (Very nice), Courage Directors, London Pride etc etc…to name just a few…LOL
I know I can’t drink them now, been away from the “old country” too long.
I cannot find a link, and not surprised really. But, I am sure, I have a vague reallection, in the late 1970’s a prominant “botanist” stated we were heading for an ice age.
Bellamy was not that “botanist” as the person I am thinking about had a brother in the “acting” space.
Does this mean that the BBC is part of the highly organised, big oil funded denial machine??? I guess they are getting fair and balanced like fox news 😉 maybe rolling stone can add them to the list of people killing the planet