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.
Struggling to find anyone? Has the world become so tribalized that a professional journalist can’t find someone of an opposing viewpoint?
Another vote for Peter Taylor.
Well qualified, onside, and cognisant of the political and academic currents.
Gail Combs (11:31:48)
It is depressing how many expatriates are expatriots.
CRU’s own website might give Mr. Harribin some insight:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
“Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary from ENV/UEA funding was the Director. Every other research scientist relied on ‘soft money’ – grants and contracts – to continue his or her work. Since 1994, the situation has improved and now three of the senior staff are fully funded by ENV/UEA and two others have part of their salaries paid. The fact that CRU has and has had a number of long-standing research staff is testimony to the quality and relevance of our work. Such longevity in a research centre, dependent principally on soft money, in the UK university system is probably unprecedented. The number of CRU research staff as of the end of July 2007 is 15 (including those fully funded by ENV/UEA).
The early priority of CRU was set against the backdrop of there having been little investigation before the 1960s of past climatic changes and variability, except by geologists and botanists, although there was an excess of theories. The objective of CRU, therefore, was “to establish the past record of climate over as much of the world as possible, as far back in time as was feasible, and in enough detail to recognise and establish the basic processes, interactions, and evolutions in the Earth’s fluid envelopes and those involving the Earth’s crust and its vegetation cover”. The early efforts towards this objective were the interpretation of documentary historical records. This was painstaking and challenging work and progressed through the 1970s.”
Who would dare to go against the flow when people’s jobs were so tenuous? There’s a Wigley quote I wish I could find right now.
Anthony:
Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge Univ. is a big AGW skeptic and might know some U.K. climate scientists who are also less than friendly to AGW. Blackburn was the one who first turned me on (years ago) the the late great John Daly’s excellent page Still Waiting for Greenhouse.
He has a web page here: http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/
that might have an e-mail to contact him.
Tom
Anthony, I recommend Mr Harrabin be asked provide a return favor to post here at WUWT on the topic of why it is that he finds “I’m struggling to find anyone – but there may of course be a number of reasons for this.” It would be professional behaviour for him to accept.
John
I have not seen the names Alister McFarquhar and Richard S. Courtney mentioned.
Will they be given anonymity? The reason he is having trouble may be because scientists don’t want to be labelled “deniers” by “da man” (Monbiot) and lose all chance of government grants.
It really is 1984 in Guardianland. Thought crimes, newspeak etc.
The most openly sceptical scientists are often the wise old retired ones. The ones who have no self-interests – no government grants – to protect, and are old and ugly and hardened enough not to care about any damage to reputation. I think some of these old guys and gals would have a field day if given an outlet to voice their opinions and concerns, and would be a rich source of wisdom.
Delingpole might have some suggestions, but his last piece on this isn’t very encoraging.
Then he lets us know how he really feels:
I agree Jeremy but in this case it may come down to “accuracy and impartially” – if he selects the source he can become the story.
It looks like a good opportunity and an honest request on his part. The only question is where you’ll find qualified critics who like throwing themselves under this political bus.
2010 Background Info:
BBC Trust to Review Science Coverage
Outlet’s “accuracy and impartiality” to be scrutinized following criticism
By Curtis Brainard
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/bbc_trust_to_review_science_co.php
Harrabin’s Notes: Reforming the IPCC climate body
The BBC is a political tool. The decision to change tack will have been political.
I read this as a political back door being opened.
This is an election year, and with the continuing revelations since Climategate only a political fool would not be preparing for a huge shift in public opinion and, would need a face saving strategy in what may necessitate a u-turn.
A political someone, at sometime soon, must come out and admit that there is a serious problem with ‘the science’.
David Cameron (Conservative) is a political fool and is increasing speed in digging a green hole for himself.
Watch for a shift in thinking from Brown (Labour) and the use of the BBC as a platform to convey it.
Its also a good time for skeptics to be heard.
Anthony
Thanks for the snip. Its the first time and I shall ware it like a badge of honour.
BUT I say again do not get involved with the BBC, Harabin or Black. I have had some very bad experiences with these people. The BBC is not to be trusted. They are well aware of ‘scientists’ with opposing views. They have interviewed Corbyn, Moncton etc in the past and have ridiculed them. They are manipulative and evil. I’ll say it again. You do not need to go any where near them and you would do well not to. Any bridge you build will merely lead to a death by troll at the other side.
I nominate Will Alexander (at climaterealist).
He has some science that is immediately applicable to droughts in Africa. But his government will not listen.
the other Kate wrote:
Too right. I would never run the risk of being stitched up by the BBC and having my work rubbished just to provide Harrabin with his global warming vindication. My brother-in-law is a Professor of Geomorphology who never believed in the global warming fantasy from the day he first heard it, and he won’t speak to Harrabin either.”
Please reconsider. I know this sounds strange. But Harrabin needs to hear that from you!!!!!
Roger Pielke’s Newsnight interview should be ok outside uk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8496089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8495875.stm
Gosh, some of these commentators here would have sent The Prodigal Son away again with a thick ear.
I’ve read somewhere recently that the BBC Trust decreed that “the science is settled” (ie that global warming was man-made). I don’t carry a candle especially for Harrabin but the BBC is a very peculiar place where, if the official line is that the “science is settled”, it would be reckless (if you don’t want your career to end suddenly) to give the impression that you think otherwise. Especially as the Government had also decided that the science was settled and was busy brain-washing the next generation, too, through the national curriculum.
Freeman Dyson is now an American citizen but is really British.
Nigel Calder.
How about Piers Corbyn
website:
http://www.weatheraction.com/
He prdicted this segere winter (in UK) six months prior – He uses Solar activity
Sorry – predicted and severe
Remember, this is the Roger Harrabin who changed a slightly sceptical article on BBC online because he came under pressure from climate campaigner Jo Abess.
I, too, have some experience of him over a programme in the early 2000s about depleted uranium that was markedly one sided. He promised to respond to my concerns but never did.
I’m wary that his initial assertion that they can’t find any UK academics who are sceptical is part of a ‘set up’
Be careful- I was interviewed in 2006 by a very friendly BBC chap regarding AGW, who took my words out of context and parsed them up to denigrate me and misrepresent my beliefs.
I would at the least go in with a private, undisclosed recording device. Anything in writing should be time stamped to show what you actually said.
The BBC is, and has been for years, deeply committed to propaganda-style journalism on this, and likely other, topics.
If their journalists are finally seeking to regain their integrity, I would apply the proven safety measure of ‘trust, but verify’.
@ur momisugly{Peter Miller (09:16:02) :
There is a guy here in the UK who posts on blogs as “Slioch” – he is a geologist by training and he definitely believes in AGW – look it up – he is quite fervent
I would bet there are plenty of geologists to be found who would not be uncomfortable about expressing skepticism about what is known about the climate – past, present and future.