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.
I read with interest Roger Harrabin’s somewhat disingeuous posting. I invited him to a brilliant presentation by Prof Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton attended by prestigious scientists in London last december, a week before COP 15. He did not bother to respond, nor anyone from the BBC. Polly Toynbee of the Guardian was positively rude in her refusal. Too many scientists have found their carreers curtailed in recent years by going against government policy. Most of those on public pay are part of the conspiracy. Why does not the BBC give some airtime to Prof David Bellamy, Sir Patrick Moore, Dr Benny Peiser of Liverpool University, Bjorn Lomborg, an international expert. What about John Etherington, a leading ecologist? Whilst we are about it, what about admission the BBC trust has a very direct interest in perpuating the myth of AGW. Don’t pretend to be surprised.
Godfrey Bloom, Member of the European Parliament.
Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee
Environment Commitee
Dear Mr Harribin,
Further to your request, before proceeding any further, I would appreciate clarification of the following question:
What is your rationale for restricting the scope of your research to ‘scientists in ***current academic posts***’? (my emphasis). This does not seem to have any basis in logic, as there are many capable scientists outside academia, whether employed or otherwise, who would be just as qualified – and just as entitled IMO – to comment on the issues surrounding climate change controversies as those you specify. If you have any reasons to offer why only the views of those in your chosen niche should be given credence, I would be most interested to hear them, as I find the request as framed most puzzling.
I am delighted to hear that you are looking for ‘scientists and not insults’. There are many who would feel that this comment is insulting in itself, but I’m sure you intended no offence.
There are also many who would welcome precisely such an attitude from those who routinely, loudly and very publicly respond to any questioning of global warming alarmism with utterly unacceptable and often thoroughly despicable insults – the exceptionally nasty pejorative ‘deniers’, with its implicit Holocaust connotations, being among the very worst. I am particularly pleased that you are firmly opposed to any further attempts to shut down reasoned debate on these serious issues, and look forward to your continued efforts to extend the same courtesy to those with whom you disagree as you quite rightly expect to be offered to those with whom you do.
As for ‘the difficulties of reporting climate change’ … here, I’m afraid, words fail me, and I must bid you goodbye.
Yours etc.
BBC Impartiality exposed
The Biased-BBC web site exposes the reporting bias of the BBC, so there are many subjects under discusion! This article describes a major research and communications initiative on Global Warming by the BBC World Service Trust:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/broken-trust.html
It refers to a BBC Trust document titled “Talking loud and clear about climate change in Africa” and states:
“The drive to help people understand issues such as climate change and to have the opportunity to speak and act is at the heart of our work”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/trust/whatwedo/where/africa/2009/06/090602_africa_talks_climate_news.shtml
Its good to know that the BBC is so impartial !!!
What I find most disingenuous about Harrabin’s stance is that he is on the side of the argument that professes to want to be more open and transparent yet here he is being anything but!
You couldn’t make it up.
Did they think of asking Lord Monkton?
It should be easy for Roger Harrabin to get several scientists in the UK who are AGW skeptics.
First thing I would do is check the list of 165 scientists that signed the recent Copenhagen climate challenge, i.e. have gone on record that they are skeptical of the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
Turns out there are 9 signatories from the UK:
David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy & Environment.
Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and Environment Forum, UK
James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist, Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Of course there are many more UK scientists who are skeptical of some aspect of the AGW premise, but this list should give Harrabin a good start.
Max
Daniel H: Mike Hulme is most certainly not a sceptic, he is a firm believer but has changed tack to a softee, softee, catchee monkey approach. He now complains about hysteria but his Tyndall Centre of which he was founding director, has produced as much hysteria as any, and is responsible for pushing such things as carbon credit cards and increased taxes on flying.
Treat with caution, as with Harrabin. They both can see the political climate changing and want to be on the right side, as of course do Fred Pearce and Geoffrey Lean, also currently playing both sides into the middle.
If you think I am being over-cynical, I have been following these people for years and know what they have written and said.
I suggest Benny Peiser would be a good starting point for contacts.
tread warily Anthony.
i have sounded out 4 close friends on this issue.
1. a retired British ambassador who worked with the infamous Crispin Tickle who advised Maggie Thatcher to invent Man Made Global Warming in order to defeat Arthur Scargill and the militant coal miners in the dark days of the seventies (when Newsweek warned us all about the coming Ice Age) He says do not trust the BBC.
2. A close family member who is a PHD doing important research at a top British University. He says he would be amazed if any of his contemporaries would dare question the Mantra of MMGW as their careers would be in jepordy. (nice country but no one wants to live there).
3. Professor at well known British Uni. ditto to 2. above.
4. Retired Prof. would be willing to state the case against MMGW, but is disqualified by Roger Harabin’s rules.
All four suggest that you get back to R Harabin and tell him you will come out to play provided he removes the caveat of serving acedemic experts being allowed to perform. tell him you will play if he is willing to open up the discussion to include all experts whether empolyed in acedemia or otherwise. (and take your attorney along – that’s from me!) they say that any British Acedemic who does not toe the ‘part line’ will soon find themselves looking for alternative employment.
a sad state of affairs, but we must remember that 1984 is a bit like ground hog day, which our american cousins are more familiar with.
BTW – there has been some discussion on the web as to why the USA MSM is not covering MMGW scandals as the UK media are finally doing. i have an idea which came to me from our local Scottish paper.
i notice virtually all the stories come from the ‘wires’ AP UP and Reuters. all three are happily in bed with the warmists, as are Gates and Google with Gore. (the infamous 3 G’s) i am not normally a conspirasy theorist, but if we were to look under the bed covers we should not be surprised with what we find.
Dave Waterman (01:10:33) :
It would help if it were more accurate. The BBC receives £3billion from the licence payers most of whom it has been shown tend not to watch it except for some purile programming such as Strictly come ;;;; whatever. This is a sum that most TV stations can only dream of. They pay excessively and like bankers give themselves wonderful bonuses for taking in £3B which is done for them and this collection is also paid (tax office workers) by the Brits.
There are many more people that now buy their television from Murdoch’s AGW empire, SKY, paying upto ~ £50 per month on top of the licence, of course. The BBC news is now childish, biased and dramatised to become entertainment and their readers must be youngish and capable of other forms of entertainment such as dancing and singing. David Bellamy may or may not have been dropped from the schedules because of his beliefs but he was just another in a long line of presenters with grossly exaggerated movements and voices the fashion for which continues but a little more muted. Perhaps he didn’t fit in with the requirement for younger, more virile presenters.
What is Harrabin really trying to achieve with his memo to Anthony?
Let’s not be cynical. Let’s assume he is honestly asking for help in finding some scientists who are skeptical of the AGW premise.
Does this make sense?
Harrabin is basically a reporter. He should know that a letter was written to the UN Secretary General in December 2009 stating:
and challenging
This letter was signed by over 100 scientists, including 9 from the UK.
As the environmental analyst for BBC, Harrabin must certainly know this, if he is worth his salt.
So is his request really a “curve ball”? Is he trying to demonstrate that there ARE NO UK scientists who are sceptical of the AGW premise?
His request specifically asks for “UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW”. Does this exclude UK scientists who are either retired or are working in non-academic posts?
As many posters have already remarked here, openly speaking out against the AGW premise may be career limiting for academic scientists in the UK today, so that many skeptics may simply be hesitant to go on record, thereby proving Harrabin’s point that there ARE NO UK scientists who are skeptical of the AGW premise, and, therefore, that (as Robert Watson proclaimed over 10 years ago) “the science is settled”.
Let’s see how this plays out.
Max
Probably Harabin gets a reward from Milliband for each employed UK skeptic he comes up with.
Lest we forget Harrabin’s earlier behaviour.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html
Every genuine scientist should be at least a little bit ‘sceptical’ by definition, but I agree with debreuil (and others); Jasper Kirkby of CERN is a good choice. A big ‘cosmoclimatologist’.
The question is out there: has Harrabin “changed his spots”?
Has he sensed that there is change in the wind for the AGW premise?
Is he opportunistically moving to the side that appears to be gaining the upper hand as the various Climategate revelations and current cooling take their toll?
Or is he an ideologue, setting a trap to “prove” that “the science is settled” (at least among UK scientists with academic tenure)?
If so, his plot is very likely to backfire.
It is also very unlikely to turn back the tide, which has clearly turned against AGW.
Let’s see how astute Harrabin is.
Max
I heard on New Hampshire Public Radio this evening the BBC radio program “One Planet” focused on Climategate etc with interviews with the IPCC’s Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, David Holland and the CRU’S acting director, Peter Liss.
Michael Williams does a decent job interviewing the guests, and pressuring van Ypersele and Liss when they’re not as forthcoming as he’d like. OTOH, he shares tea and sandwiches with Holland.
All very out of character for the program!
At the end, he notes how much CO2 was released in producing the program. He mentioned 239 Kg, and commented something like “some day and one day soon we hope to work out exactly what that means.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0060ckj
There are far too many comments to read here Andrew and as an occassional commentator but regular visitor I would like to add the following.
First, the previous 368 comments have plenty of suggestions with respect to qualified scientists from which Mr. Harribin may seelect for his requirements.
Secondly, I would suggest that you refer Mr. Harribin to a third party who might be better placed to the information he requires. For example, The Heartland Institute in the US comes to mind.
I am sure you will be helpful in your response. Having said that, each and every suggestion in this blog thread is currently in the public domain and serves as a record to which Mr. Harribin may refer. As such, and given the vast resources at hand to Mr. Harribin and the BBC, there is really not much one has to add is there?
Roger,
Here is your man:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks
Paul Dennis
“Dennis’s own research, which dates fluctuating temperatures in ice cores stretching back thousands of years, does not support the more catastrophic current predictions of runaway global warming.”
Looks like Paul Dennis of CRU fits the bill. He seems to be at the same level of scientist (Phil Jones of CRU) who contributes to the IPCC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks
I’d be very cautious of any dealings with the BBC.
They had a very detailed agenda to support the Copenhagen conference.
Every other day, for a couple of months before the conference, they published scaremonger stories linked to AGW. All the environmental team at the BBC was complicit in this.
To further the complicity there has not been a single story since.
Again, be very aware and astute about ANY form of contact.
anna v (08:05:22) :
If this fellow Harriobin dismisses retired professors, whith years of experience, should be on the top of the knowledge pyramid, he is not worth the effort.
I took him at face value but he turned out to be a troll. Even if you found a scientist within his narrow range of parameters his next line would be “Oh but he/she is not involved in climate research”.
The funny thing is, he’s shot his own feet off. Any credibility he hoped to gain has only exposed his duplicity. Perhaps Michael Mann could teach Roger Harrabin how to set the perfect echo chamber.
Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones. :- 1196872660.txt
Mann has his own definition of what peer-review is!
The BBC likes to portray itself as the non-partisan representative of the great British public.
All British citizens are raised with this perspective. Auntie Beeb is how it is known.
However if you watch the BBC with a critical eye, as I have done for some years now, and especially if it is on a subject about which you have above average knowledge you will see that it is very partisan and far from impartial. The appointed director general of the BBC is a non science graduate, a devout Roman Catholic and gets paid £834, 000 per annum. How can this background not colour his judgement. Consequently global warming is the BBC’s view.
Here is an attempt by a BBC journalist to address this matter. Read the article and then read the comments form those who study the BBC’s position.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climate_issue.html
QED the BBC is very partial.
Most of the staff who work at the BBC will be left of centre non science based graduates. The first bit suits me because I am left of centre myself but I am also science based. For the BBC the argument is over. The default position for all scientists should be that of skeptic. As Einstein said (paraphrase) ” no amount of theory can prove me right but one experiment can prove me wrong.
Take a look at this graph presentation from Attenborough showing what the climate models ‘prove’. Then critically analyse it and you will see what I mean.
Where is all the discussion on the other computer climate models that prove no such thing.
The politics and dogma and hi-jacking of the IPCC by people like railway engineer (and apparently now ‘High Priest’) Rajendra Pachauri (who cannot believe his luck at getting away with what he does, getting paid to fly around the world to lecture sinners on how they need to reduce their carbon footprint. Ha Ha) that has arisen around this subject means that the science is under threat.
And in all this that is the greater loss.
Here’s a BBC anecdote. In December i was with a friend, she’s at London Uni studying broadcast media, and had to do a radio interview as part of her course. I sent her to interview Delingpole on Climategate, he’s a friend too.
She did that, and that course was reviewed by the head of BBC World News.
he gave her good marks for the interview, but said two things:
1 He had never heard of Climategate
2 Was she aware that Delingpole was a 5-star nutcase
This was about a month after Climategate broke.
Still think the BBC is fair, and wants to air your views:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8499702.stm
Same old Same old.
wrt litesp33d above –
as a non science graduate, devout practising Catholic, but only on an adequate pension (including Old Age Pension), i was wondering which part of (is it?) Mark Thompson’s CV disqualifies him from being impartial?
I am regularly indulged on Sceptical Blogs sites as a committed AGW agnostic, and if you are saying that being Roman Catholic in any way questions my Climate Faith, then i will feel a bit sad.
In the true spirit of peer review, i must admit you do have a valid point. when one considers so many of our church movers and shakers have abandoned their true faith to worship at the shrine of Al Gore, it is hardly surprising.
BTW i have an ongoing correspondence with a prominent Cardinal who has sold his soul to the warmists. so far i have failed to convert him but the dialogue is continuing.
regards.
I spoke with Roger Harrabin yesterday. He did seem genuine enough. I did hear him recount his bad experience of Al Gore and like others had told me, it did leave a bad taste in his mouth.
Those of you read my article yesterday should understand that someone like me is better placed to stick their head above the parapet rather than Anthony, etc.
http://www.climategate.com/bbc-says-lets-talk-to-climate-skeptics-initiative-to-debate-starts#comments
It is only fair to take someone as you find him. I’m keeping an open mind. He has proven to me he has cordial relations with Philip Stott- not the evidence of a hard core alarmist.
But I’ve set Roger a challenge to prove his sincerity and from that we will all get a measure of the man.