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.
“People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”,
Jeremy Paxman
Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
You might get a fair interview from the Great Paxo but otherwise be very careful of their trying to skewer you as Cletus’s dimwit cousin. This is a $5 billion p.a. state funded propaganda outfit that is so far up its own fundament that it is in complete denial of that obvious fact.
Oh and don’t forget the garlic, stake and silver bullets (not for Paxo!).
If you do come over I know a lot of people would like to buy you a beer or two.
@ur momisugly Dave B
Peter Taylor – an excellent nomination.
He is available on google videos giving a very good presentation on Climate
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6613938246449800148&hl=en#
Anthony,
I understand why you feel that bridge building is better than confrontation. But to paraphrase John Le Carre, be “ultra, ultra cautious.”
RH is not just a BBC correspondent. He is also:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cambridge_media_and_environment#incoming-10446
As a journalist (if that is what he is), he must know that he looks weak in making this approach. I’d advise asking him what his take is on the “number of reasons for this.”
Very best regards. You and Mr McIntyre are stars.
RB
There is nothing about this request that smells sweet. All those proposing a snuggle-up should think about whether they would snuggle up to a black and harabin widow. snake you know !! This stinks !
Professor Robert Carter.
He can’t have looked very far Professor Stott who was recently interviewed on Radio Fours the World this Weekend 1pm Sunday 30 Jan 2010?
Robert Carter
Freeman Dyson
Who’s the Professor who is an expert in malaria?
If you come to London I’ll buy you a beer?
Harrabins next move will be to say that he could not find any scientists who are skeptical?
Anthony,
There is the possibility that you’re being baited. If the list is short, they could simply turn this into a headline that the stronghold of skepticism could only find a handful of representatives.
About Robert Carter. Mr Harrabin, just watch the youtube;
There are four parts;
Er, didn’t you receive a request for assistance from someone else who then used it all against you?
By the way, is Harrabin really interested, suddenly, in the BBC being opne or is this a desperate search for retrospective credibility?
basically – watch out, they will stitch you up.
However having said that – there was as reasonable coverage as we could expect on last night Newsnight.
apologies for postiag corbyn as several people already suggested him- i had searched and ddin’t find but I had mispelled his name 🙂
g smiley (12:31:23) :
@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.
Never seen him post, but if I had to guess he probably is a frustrated individual working in some dead beat, dead end, third rate, university – unfortunately, that describes too many of the universities here, the product of social engineering by our socialist masters.
Guardian is spouting on about Yamal now:-
Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleaguesAncient trees dragged from frozen Siberian bogs do not undermine climate science, despite what the sceptics say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email
” wws (11:37:28) :
Sounds like a job for Diogenes.”
Good one!
How about one of the 31000 scientists that signed the petition project?
http://www.petitionproject.org
“I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW.”
Science doesn’t rely on authority figures within the UK establishment.
However, he could ask any UK climate scientists what are the weaknesses in the IPCC analyses and if they say there are none then the obvious question is why we are funding any further research.
Anthony:
How about suggesting scientists from the Commonwealth countries? I don’t know whether that would be acceptable, but it would certainly make the list a whole lot longer. There are scientists in India, Canada, Australia, and so on that would seem to make fine candidates.
My personal favorite is Dr. Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia. He is a folksy no-nonsense type that speaks in plain words, and stands on solid scientific ground. He comes across well in television interviews, and has a fully formed narrative on AGW. (His narrative: is human activity causing dangerous changes in our climate? NO.)
The latter is possibly the most important. What I find problematic with the likes of Dr. Lindzen, for all his strengths, is that he does not have a story to tell that readily satisfies the curiosity and confusion of lay people. I would extend significant effort towards finding a person who can offer such a narrative.
The BBC is a media company. It has its feelers out and smells a sea-change. People like Mr. Harrabin will obviously be very cautious in their selection of skeptics, as they need the cover of solid science to begin admitting the uncertainties. I would dispute the idea of John Harrabin as the second coming of Joseph Goebbels. As a journalist he lives inside the zeitgeist, and must be expected to reflect it. His article also points to a desire to protect science.
He is reaching out. This is the time for skeptical points of view to demonstrate that there can be no mainstream discussion without them.
Anthony, I would strongly urge you to get help from a capable publicity professional at this point. I would be surprised if there isn’t one on this forum. This is an opportunity to do a whole lot of good. It can also be botched. I would say that the most important issue is to make sure that the skeptic message is as sticky as the alarmist message (polar bears, climate refugees, glacier melt, and so on. Or the message may be entirely different: Impartial science is under attack. It’s entire future hangs in the balance.) I know that this is not necessarily on your plate, but you have an opportunity.
Proceed with caution, but also with confidence. And kudos to you. Those many nights of thankless work are paying off, ever so slowly.
So Harribin wants to talk to academic in-post AGW sceptics.
Note that he doesn’t say what it is he wants to talk about.
Most respondents here assume it’ll be about the science. Don’t bank on it,
since he’s no scientist, sure as eggs, his main thrust will not be the science of AGW, it’s probable it’ll be in an area where he feels much more in control and an academic wouldn’t be.
This character is totally untrustworthy, a proven liar, a pal of Jones’ and one of the select band who gathered together a bunch of ‘experts’ who advised the BBC that there was no need to present the sceptic’s case because the science was in.
Don’t do it is my advice. He’s a beeb-clone and a warmist through-and-through. He’s looking for an edge – or a potential mugging victim.
He wants a scientist, no insults? Send him the big guy from this american Bullshit programme.
@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.
Well, I’m not in academia, I’m not a climate scientist, I’m not an Earth scientist, I don’t live in GB but I’d be happy to do the interview. Besides I’m a distant relative of Sir Francis Drake and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple of years ago.
So, exactly what is going to be discussed that can be understood by the BBC audience? The physics of CO2 IR absorption bands? Maybe the affect of ENSO on global weather patterns? How about the statistical analysis of tree ring chronologies?
Naturally, all of these things would put the audience to sleep. So, why do they want an academic? There’s hundreds of Brits that can discuss cooling for the last 10 years, increasing Arctic ice extent, hiding of data and processes as sell as a few dozen other topics discussed here. What more does he need?
Philip Stott would be a brilliant choice. His ideas can be summarised by a paragraph from a piece he wrote in the Telegraph June 10, 2005:-
“Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: ‘Is climate changing and in what direction?’
‘Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?’
And: ‘Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?’
The most fundamental question is: ‘Can humans manipulate climate predictably?’ Or, more scientifically: ‘Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’
The answer is ‘No’. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.”
Harrabin, he of re-writes due to Greenie pressure now seeks WUWT to find him “current” UK scientific sceptics.
If you agree to help, and nobody wants to talk (why should they?) then the BBC can say “even the most powerful online centre of climate “sceptics” It will be in quotes to emphasis our ignorance and deviancy), failed to find anyone who disgrees with the mainstream view. Case closed”.
This is an ambush. Do not walk into it.
I’d stay well clear of Harrabin. The Beeb Trust need to put on a show of ‘scientific balance’ so he is out looking for a Judy to go with his Punch.
Harrabin makes a good living reporting on climate science, but instead of doing a proper journo job he has apparently been taking it easy and stooging around with the advocates!
Now, because his bosses are having their collars felt and they are leaning on him; he is pretty desperate and admits he does not know any proper climate scientists and is reduced to advertising in the Blogosphere!
The basic problem that the BBC and the MSM have, is one of technique. They have to exaggerate to provide an ‘interesting story” aka a Rumble. Ideally they would like two advocates beating the hell out of each other but as we know proper scientists are not like that, and to quote Yeats ” The best lack all conviction” . And as we have seen over the past year, the Blogosphere is a far better medium for discussing major scientific issues than the MSM, which is precisely why the Beeb and the MSM find themselves on the back foot.
Also, behind Harrabin and the Beeb, in government we have a ‘Minister of climate-change’ whose job it is to carry out the Warmist policies of the Prime Minister. It follows that his whole political career and those who work for him is directly threatened if the AGW case is shown to be weakening rather than strengthening. So any skeptical scientist who enters the public domain will become a personal threat to him and his party. As we have seen from the Iraq affair, New Labour are not nice people and this is another reason to stay well away from Harrabin and the Beeb/Guardian media.
The Blogosphere is doing a good steady job of getting at the truth of what is happening, and also cannot be nobbled or muzzled by the likes of Milliband ….. so why bother with Harrabin, Beeb, Guardian and the rest of the MSM. Let the dead bury the dead.
Five (5) scientists who are skeptical of AGW: (unfortunately, they are not UK based)
Jorgen Peder Steffensen
Glaciologist
Curator
Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics
Professor John Cristy
University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Astrophysicist, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Stockholm University
Dr. David Legates
Climatologist
Center for Climate Research
University of Delaware
GLOBAL WARMING – DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF – 5 PARTS
Written and directed by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Y3iOFF6LE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_7QNdysiQ
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksZ75KnqJA&NR=1
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdL-i52wSI&NR=1
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xb4jcPqLI&NR=1
The 5-part video series includes statements from these academics:
Dr. David Legates
Climatologist
Center for Climate Research
University of Delaware
A computer model is a very sophisticated computer program that attempts to simulate all of the processes associated with the atmosphere. In particular therefore, what we need to have is as much data as possible to be able to fire the model, to be able to understand the processes. Generally what we find is that many of the processes that work in the climate work at a variety of scales that a computer model simply cannot resolve. One of the things we do not do well in climate models is simulate precipitation. And again precipitation is affected by virtually every component of the climate system, and in turn, every component of the climate system affects precipitation. So precipitation is a very good diagnostic as to how well the climate model is doing. And most climate models don’t do precipitation well at all.
A computer does only what it is programmed, and in particular, … (part 5 of 5) garbage in , garbage out.
Dr. Jorgen Peder Steffensen
Glaciologist
Curator
Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics
Ice from Viking age – 1.5 degrees warmer than today
Inland icesheet, Greenland, 2003
NORDGRIP = Greenland icecore project
DRILL down to rock at bottom of Greenland icesheet – ice core is 3 kilometers in length
Get temperatures back 10,000 years.
Greenland temperature was at its coldest in 1875, exactly when humans started measuring temperature by thermometer!!!
Other core samples from Greenland confirm that the little ice age ended about 140 years ago at the coldest point in the last 10,000 years.
The natural pronounced alteration of warm and cold periods has also been confirmed in other ways:
>Carbon 14 dating of organic matter from peet bogs and tree rings
>Data from CyTi caves in China and North Africa
If Greenland and Antarctica melted tomorrow, sea level would rise about 100 meters. That process would take 2,000 to 3,000 years. If east Antarctica melted, sea level would rise 80 meters. But the temp in East Antarctica is so far below zero, that it will not melt. If temps rised 10 degrees, the result would be more humidity in the atmosphere from the evaporation of sea water, that would increase snowfall significantly in Antarctica, causing the ice to INCREASE. Therefore, if warmer climate, then East Antarctica will grow!!! The warmth of the tropical ocean generates enormous amounts of water vapor which is distributed to the rest of the world and falls as rain or snow. So water vapor, clouds and precipitation play a decisive role in the climate throughout the atmosphere. The United Nations Climate Panel bases its various scenarios on what will happen if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This would not only result in a climatic disaster, the calculations say that more carbon dioxide would also increase the amount of water in the atmosphere. It is this cocktail, more carbon dioxide and water that according to the theory must lead to a greenhouse effect many times as great as carbon dioxide on its own. The trouble is, temperature increases in the atmosphere just don’t seem to have happened to the degree that the models predict.
Professor John Cristy
University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama
Used weather satellites – brought together data from 7 or 8 satellites- strung the data together- result: no change in atmospheric temperature!!!!
Climate scientist once said, “My model is right, it’s the real world that’s wrong.”
Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Astrophysicist, Harvard University
Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Dr. Baliunas speaks to the inadequacy of climate models, and to the historical record indicating that 20th century temperatures are well within the normal range.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Stockholm University
The Maldives
Sea level fell 20-30 centimeters in last 30 years, since 1970-1975
He believes it is from strong evaporation of equatorial waters.
Evaporation of tropical seawater moves the masses of water to the poles where it falls as snow.
Cannot have increased precipitation at location “A” without increased evaporation at location “B”, and that is the balance of the globe.