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
Beware! This is a spurious attempt to discredit the sceptical side of the AGW debate by claiming that no sceptical British scientist could be identified.
It would take a very brave scientist to appear on the Beeb and express a sceptical viewpoint. This is how Prof David Bellamy was treated when he did just that.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677
Roger Pielke Snr for a balanced view of human impacts on climate.
John Christy is one who actually knows something about global temperature and atmospheric heat content.
I can’t see why the BBC should restrict itself to Brits. Surely they should go for quality.
How about Svensmark? Svalgaard has a level headed view. Lindzen is another.
Ross McKitrick is a must (Canada, British by proxy).
Chris de Freitas (Auckland, British by proxy)
Bob Carter (Queensland, Kiwi expat but either way British by proxy)
Ian Plimer (Aussie, British by proxy)
Christopher Landsea- balanced viewpoint
Robert C Balling
CJ Butler: Armagh Observatory, Nthn Ireland
Timothy Ball: Climatologist
Bjarne Andresen: Neils Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
WD Braswell: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California
Ian Castles: Economist and critic of the Stern Review. Former head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics
L Debontridder: Royal Meteorological Service, Belgium
Chriss Essex. Prof mathematics, University of Western Ontario
Robert Giegengack: Chair, Dept Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania.
David Henderson. Former head of the Economics & Statistics Dept of the OECD
Kalnay, E. University of Maryland – Impact of land-surface forcings
William Kinimonth, Former Head, National Climate Centre
Prof. Hubert Lamb. (founder of the Climate Research Unit, East Anglia University)
Ahilleas Maurellis. Earth-oriented Sciences division, SRON National Inst for Space Research, Sorbonnelaan, Utrecht, Netherland
Nils Axel Morner: Sea level expert
Aksel Wiin-Neilsen. University of Copenhagen. (Former Director, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting; Former Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organisation)
Tim Patterson. Prof of Geology, Dept Earth Sciences, Carleton Uni, Ottawa, Canada
Arthur Rorsch. Prof Molecular Genetics, Leiden University
Stephen E Schwartz: Brookhaven National Laboratory
Fred Singer. Prof Emeritus Environmental Science, Uni of Virginia
Robert E Stevenson- Oceanographer. Consultant, formerly of the US Office of Naval Research and former Secretary General of the International Assn for the Physical Science of the Oceans
Johnathan Tennyson. Head of the Atomic, Molecular, Optical & positron Physics Group, University College, London
Hendrik Tennekes: Former Director of Research, Netherlands Royal National Meteorological Institut
David Beerling, fossil CO2 measurements . Dept Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK
Prof dr C de Jager (Extensive study of solar influences for the Netherlands Govt)
Not sure if all these affiliations are still current.
A Wegaman- Statistician
There are lots more but thats not a bad start.
Reply: So why are people not emailing these suggestions directly to Roger Harrabin as he requested? ~ ctm
Anthony, I would have to agree with the cautious approach. This apparent reaching out is carefully planned. He/they will have both ends covered. He will appear to be cordial, but will have a chosen end game in the AGW camps favor. If nobody is willing to take him up, they will confirm that there are no skeptic scientists. My opinion – on their terms – a win – loose game.
Britains voice in the world is becoming smaller and smaller. Ignore him.
David says “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”.
I think that is the same reason why the politicians speaking out on this issue are members of the House of Lords rather than MPs from the House of Commons. The latter will have to be elected again soon, the former don”t give a stuff any more, they are there for life and can say what they like. First time I ever saw the advantage of an appointed House.
Harribin could look at Jonathan Leake’s big article in last Sunday’s “Sunday Times”; there are a couple of names in there who might be happy to speak out in their prticular field of expertise.
supercritical (13:23:28) :
hear hear ditto ditto
Gerry (10:05:52) :
“Physics is a science, Geology is a science. I don’t know many physicists who feel comfortable embracing AGW.”
Indeed. And the correct heirarchy is Meteorology is a branch of Physics and Climatolgy is a branch of Meteorolgy.
I would just like to clear up for some posters that the UK is not a US state, nor does it encompass Europe and although an ex-colony Australia is not part of it either. – sorry.
Anthony – by the way well done to you & Joe D’Aleo for your EXCELLENT Surface Temperature Report
Anything Harrabin does on this is highly suspect.
He might be looking for a way out of the false picture of Man-made-climate-Change he has been pushing for years but frankly I have no confidence in him and think he should be removed from his post along with the falsity he has been central in creating.
I have held a number of physics and maths academic posts:-
[Lab demonstrating & Tutorial work in Imperial College Physics a long time ago when I was doing research and in charge of the tutorial group which included Francis Wilson now of Sky Weather (an example for topicality!), then various lecturing posts at South Bank University and Goldsmiths College University of London where I ran a course on Electromagnetism, and various FEs etc] but of course THESE ARE NOT NOW so he is ruling-out me and various other very well QUALIFIED UK scientists who -eg- also presented at our WeatherAction conference in Imperial College on Oct 28th 09 [Peter Gill, David Bellamy, Hans Schreuder, Prof Philip Hutchinson + Chair John Sanderson. Joe D’Aleo and Kirill Kuzanyan also appeared on weblink].
Harrabin attended that conference where we soundly refuted man-made climate Change and he clearly decided we were too good to be heard further and set a trap for me in order (I am advised by a source) to try to make me look bad.
He has not even replied to the public e-mail I sent him pointing out a lie he concocted and published against me. See the link:
Reply To Article: Met Office’s debate over longer-term forecasts by Roger Harrabin = http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4905
I feel no inclination to write to Harrabin because I do not trust him. I suspect his game is to declare he has looked high and low in current UK academia and can find none to speak therefore he will infer Man-Made-Climate-Change is all OK.
If people feel inclined to respond I would suggest they nominate former UK academic post-holders & qualified professional scientists in relevant fields and list – for example (and readers may know of others) – all the UK speakers at our conference
(= Piers Corbyn, Peter Gill, Dr David Bellamy, Hans Schreuder, Prof Philip Hutchinson, John Sanderson)
ALL of this list are more qualified and scientifically experienced than all the BBC experts and interviewers and the typical environmentalist types the BBC wheel out for supposedly ‘both’ sides. Please visit http://www.WeatherAction.com for more info on these names.
As far as I can see the BBC is deliberately seeking to quote unqualified ‘skeptics’ from the UK and prefer foreign ‘expert skeptics’ in order to paint a sort of view that its all OK really in the UK – sceptics are all foreigners – when the truth is otherwise.
Thanks,
Piers Corbyn MSc (Astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetSoc (corp), WeatherAction long range weather & climate forecasters
I expect Roger is following this thread.
Here is a good source:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Of course, given the need to find funding to support academic research, it is as hard to find a skeptic employed in current academic climate research as it is to find a turkey who will vote for thanksgiving or christmas. As we well know from Climategate, it is nigh impossible to get skeptical climate papers published in respected journals. Without respected published results it is even harder to get research grants.
I totally agree with the many who urge ultra caution in any dealings with Harrabin/BBC. Before it commissions any output the “team” must agree on an “angle” – objectives, how presented, etc. In any recorded discussion they may use only 5% in the final cut, and it’s often been noted that the sequence of recording has been changed to give a completely distorted message. Sorry! but that’s what the formerly totally trusted BBC has become. To a great extent they’ve undermined their own credibility.
It is also a propaganda arm of our present government and has proven direct contacts with ministers (Miliband in this case) and their advisers – the wires buzz between the two on a routine basis – so this could be part of the Miliband “war”.
Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography). He is well known to the BBC and has often been invited to comment, so Roger Harrabin should be well aware of him.
Stott’s blog essay of last Saturday is magnificent:
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
When he says he’s having trouble I hope he has already found:
DR SONJA BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN
UNIVERSITY OF HULL
As she has written to the BBC on the topic.
KeithGuy,
WOW – that link was really interesting and very very scary.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677
Thank you.
I wonder what Stephen Hawking thinks?
Professor (Emeritus) John Brignell, University of Southhampton
Now just because he’s emeritus doesn’t mean his views are any less valid. I regularly consult with a Professor Emeritus for the main reason that he is the top of his field.
Congrats to Anthony and all the other hard working persons who labored to keep the skeptical voice alive. I nominate Henrik Svensmark. Not British, but certainly an articulate and informed skeptic with a powerful alternative model of the basic underlying causes of climate change on the planet.
RICHARD S. COURTNEY, PHD
IPCC reviewer
Helen Roe at Queen’s University Belfast and Graham Swindles from the University of Bradford have put themselves forward to speak at the Heartland Institute gathering in Chicago in May. From their description they are both current employed as academics teaching Geography. I don’t know anything about their stance on this issue but if they are willing to speak in that company then I presume they are of a sceptical frame of mind .
However I think it would be polite to check with them both before putting their names forward. As a Brit I have had to suffer the BBC’s tendentious coverage of this topic over the years and would advise any sceptic sitting down to sup with a BBC environmental reporter to go equipped with a long spoon.
congrats Anthony. have been wondering lately when these MSM journos in uk (where i live) would get around to giving you some airtime – so to speak. I’m skeptical – oh the irony – they have obviously been instructed by their editors to get some balance into the thing, the BBC announced as much when they launched an inquiry into their coverage of the whole debate some weeks ago.
i just cant believe they have not been taking a peak at sites such as yours and the literally dozens of others that have been pointing out the problems with ‘the consensus’ for years.
DR JOHN FERGUSON (Retired)
University of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Simple Google search:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
Dozens of UK Skeptics in the first link that I opened. Did I misunderstand something here? What does he mean he can’t find any?
Give him enough rope to hang himself.
I agree wholeheartedly with those who have nominated Bob Carter – he is, indeed, no-nonsense and straight to the point. By the way, Christopher Monckton is playing to packed houses in Australia at the moment, despite the media’s continuing attempts to discredit him.
just one problem Anthony, you cant really say ‘no’. they will [perhaps] try to do a hatchet job, but given the current sensitivities on this issue at home right now, the hatchet job could be exposed whereas a refusal to be a part of the balance might look suspect, you can be sure they would flag it that way at least.
I apologize up front for this but isn’t this a great opportunity for Science and isn’t this a true indicator “The Science Community” can’t “figure out a way” to solve the communication issue with the public insightfully?
We like to blame the press but where does the buck stop without commitment from Science?
In my opinion, this is a perfect opportunity to bring scientists into a public round-table discussion – each side by side with their respective organizations.
I guess the question is, are you smart enough to sell a world-wide media event and can you negotiate with BBC over the details on their behalf? ; )