Sunday was speaker orientation and the evening reception/dinner. I met up with Willis Eschencbach, watched and listened to him play the piano in the lobby. I took some photos with my cellphone camera, but they turned out badly. Willis and I had an interesting talk with Gary Sharp about Tuna acting as ARGO buoys.
Apparently the Tuna have a daily habit of feeding near the surface, then diving deep, repeating the process later in the day. Just like the ARGO buoys dive then float to the surface, so do the Tuna.
Somebody (and I don’t recall who) is fitting Tuna with temperature loggers that take a measurement every 20 seconds. Gary says that prelim tunatemp data isn’t showing different than ARGO.
That prompted me to recall a old TV jingle (being in TV for 25 years my head is full of them) that some readers may remember but I added a twist when I recited it at the table with a musical lilt.
Ask any Tuna you happen to see, where’s the global warming? It’s not in the sea!
I thought Willis might need resuscitation he was laughing so hard.
I had an afternoon meeting where I saw some extraordinary data cleaning and homogenization methods applied to surface temperature data to clean up the train wreck that it is now. It was quite impressive and far better than anything I’ve seen from NOAA or NASA. It makes their QC look like, well, Tuna salad. Or maybe a PBJ sandwich.
I met many people, including Donna Laframboise of Toronto who runs “no Frakking Consensus“who seems much younger in person than shown in her photo. I met with E.M. Smith (Chiefio) and Verity Jones (Digging in the Clay) also, and sat with them along with Joe D’aleo at the dinner reception.
Steve McIntyre gave his keynote presentation on the “trick” at dinner, along with Apollo 17 astronaut and Geologist Dr. Harrison Schmitt who talked about his views on current science. Both were well received. It was carried on live video streaming. PJTV is providing live video coverage (streaming and otherwise) at the PJTV CLIMATEGATE 2010 MICROSITE.
Bob Carter gave me his new book to read Climate: the Counter Consensus.
I gave a couple of interviews today. The interview I had in the evening after the keynote dinner with an independent crew working for BBC on some documentary on “The Skeptics” was unscheduled. They caught me in the grand hall asking if it could do an interview. It started out pleasant enough, but soon deteriorated. They had no organization at all and had no idea where to shoot it. They suggested we shoot the interview in my room, because they wanted to have me set in front of my computer. I thought that was more than a bit forward and suggested the foyer, we got there, setup and then after starting decided they didn’t like the setting. They they suggested that we go to the media room (which they apparently just discovered) so they tore down and went there.
After a couple of false starts the questions started coming. I started to wonder where they were going with this, and when they started asking about what I thought about Dr. Phil Jones “wanting to commit suicide” I realized that it wasn’t going to be factual, but more emotionally spun. I told them flat out that question and what went on in Dr. Jones mind/intent wasn’t something I could or would comment on since I have no information beyond the press report.
These two independent filmakers were just kids, early 20’s and were struggling to come up with questions. They kept trying to get me to use the word “fraud” as applied to Dr. Jones. There were about five attempts to do so in questions, asking essentially the same question over and over again in different ways.
They also asked why climate skeptics are so “angry” and why there are so many nasty comments on forums. I pointed out that they should visit some of the entertainment forums where people talk about celebrities like Britney Spears etc if they wanted to see some real vitriols, and that nasty comments are a part of the blogosphere, particularly when anonymous commenting is involved. Alarmists make a lot of nasty comments. Look up dhoghaza and Joe Romm.
The capper came at the end when they asked me to sign a release form. I was shocked, because standard procedure is to have the interviewee look over and sign the release form before the interview.
Reading it was like reading no other release form I’ve ever seen. It had a clause that said “gives us the right to use your content however we see fit” which concerned me because usually an interview for a documentary is limited to that venue. For all I know they may put me on a political comedy show.
Then there was something I’ve never encountered in all my years of television. An oath of “honesty and factual accuracy” was in the release. While I certainly thought I answered honestly and factually, this clause concerned me. When somebody interviews me on a contentious subject like climate, I’m giving my opinion. Opinions are almost always disputed. I was sure mine would be. To have such a clause connected to one’s opinion is just insane because then someone can hold up anything and say “but scientific consensus says..etc…etc…so Mr. Watts lied and violated his contractual oath in the release form”. It’s not a court of law, it’s an interview. Jeez Louise!
The release was obviously written by amateurs, and I refused to sign it. They then admitted that “it’s being revised to ‘simplify it’ and ‘could we send you a revision?’. I said I’d look at it, gave them my card with email address, told them that I thought they had the process backwards and that I was unhappy with being confronted with flawed legal language after giving a good faith interview, and left.
My impression is that whoever hired these two kids for the BBC is in for a peck of trouble down the road. I doubt the documentary on skeptics will be little more than a slam job. We’ll see if they try to use me even though I have NOT signed the release.
That’s an hour of my life I’ll never get back.
How many quadrilllions of quatloos are in the BBC retirement fund that these two kids will never see?
============
Thanks!
Anthony, thanks for taking the time to update us on the goings on in spite of your busy schedule.
Legal issues. They want a release signed? Will the kids at the BBC sign a release saying they didn’t change a single word or phrase in the interview? Contracts are a 2 way street. Has Algore signed his consents under oath?
I am glad the media showed up. To some extent, they may have written their story before they got on the plane. Now they may be unable to land if they go back. The volcanoe caused by melting is still active.
Did the BBC independent filmmakers try to corner you into admitting to being a “birther”, too?
Sounds like you had a great time. I’m not surprised by the characterization of the BBC interviewers, as it has been my observation that lately the BBC is not concerned with facts in their documentaries relating to controversial subjects, but merely what has the most shock value. Conservation films like “Life” and “Planet Earth,” ostensibly pieces designed to showcase the wonder and beauty of nature often go down a path of emotional appeals to save mother nature from the evil advances of Mankind. Imagine how much more so a piece labeled “the Skeptics” that deals specifically with those who do not worship the view that the evidence proves we are causing irreparable harm to the great Mother.
The downside of all those excellent wild-life documentaries and the “pro-nature” ethos in the BBC is that we get all those stupid climate-scare stories from the “pro-nature” ethos in the BBC which never stops to consider that being pro-nature doesn’t mean swallowing every bit of nonsense on the environment.
Thanks for taking the time to let us know how you are doing. It’s a shame someone wasn’t filming the BBC filming you, it would have made great U Tube material.
Interesting piece… just to note, when Anthony says these guys were ‘working for the BBC’, I would say it’s quite likely that these were independent film makers hoping to sell something to the BBC, rather than actual BBC employees. The BBC doesn’t make many programs itself any more, a huge amount is bought in from independent production companies.
*******
Ask any Tuna you happen to see, where’s the global warming? It’s not in the sea!
*******
Sorry, Charlie. Only the best tuna get to be Starkist Tuna.
Sounds like you need to get one of those cheap HD video cameras Glenn Reynolds is always talking about and set it up in the corner of the room to capture the whole process in raw form.
Chris Long is correct. The BBC and many media outlets use sub contractors. Sub contractors also sign agreements holding the BBC harmless.
Have fun in the windy city. I am sure a side trip to the massive Carbon climate Trading Exchange would be unique. For 10 cents a ton, carbon credits; get them while they are hot.
Tunamometers! I wonder what unintended consequences that will lead to? It will turn out that some excitedly reported spurious trend will turn out to be tuna mating season or some such.
Thanks for the update, Anthony. Sounds like it will be a great conference.
Don’t worry about the BBC kids. Chris Long could well be right. Besides, now you have a great story to tell!
I doubt they were really from the BBC! They were much too unprofessional.
My father has described to me this very scenario dozens of times. This attempt to corner you and then edit the (snip) out of it later, seems particularly amateurish. Nice to hear you jabbed Willis in his funny bone !!
OT, but someone needs to respond to Krugman’s column, How Will They Spin This?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/how-will-they-spin-this/
re new GISS release showing hottest 12 months on record.
I guess my first response would be to ask, “What were the raw temperature readings?”
What Chris Long 0742 stated is correct, including much work being done “on spec”, but the BBC always have the final say – that’s the way it’s always been done, back to 1920s radio. It also means that they can and may use in future any “archive” material in any way, edited in any way including out-of-sequence and way out of the context in which the interview / recording took place.
Don’t bother signing or even being part of this crock.
There has been a couple of documentaries made by budding journo’s on the BBC.
‘Undercover cop’ and so on.
They always pick their subject and go great guns to incite folk to do or say things controversial.
They would never make a documentary called ‘Undercover biased BBC executive’ that is for sure.
Great update, Anthony. Thank you.
“What’s the best tuna? Chicken of the Sea!”
(Announcer: “Sorry, Charlie. You’re just not good enough for Chicken of the Sea.”)
Wow, way to disabuse the process there! Oh, now that we have asked you all these questions, will you sign this release form saying that we can use your content however we see fit, and on top of that, now that we have all these answers, we will have you sign an oath to answer the questions factually and honestly. So we can edit it to make it look like you are lying, and destroy evidence that you weren’t, and stay within the bounds of our contract. Sounds fair to me.
I see Costa Rica’s Christiana Figueres is taking over Yvo de Boer’s UN climate job. Not too encouraging, since the other prospect was from South Africa and reluctant to cripple developing nation economies with a climate regime.
I seriously envy you, meeting with all those we hear from regularly and have respect for. Thanks for the update.
Don’t worry about ‘The men from Auntie’.
Nice to hear AccuWeather is there!
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
I’ll believe we have turned the corner on climate change when I can read/see/hear objective comments about the ICCC Conference in the mainstream media.
Apparently, it won’t be this year. After the Climategate bump in the road, the media has reinserted the old eight-track cartridge in the player….
Thanks for the heads-up – we need to his the BBC hard if and when your interview, or any comments by BBC personnel traceable to it, show up.
“I realized that it wasn’t going to be factual, but more emotionally spun.”
Which is the problem with the entire issue. Here is what I believe I have been able to learn in my years on this planet:
People tend to have groups that they admire and wish to identify as being a member of. One way they sort out who is and who is not a member of their desired affinity group and how they signify their own affinity are positions on certain issues and possibly even certain buzzwords used in a certain context. Now this has little to do with actual critical thinking. It isn’t a position arrived at through independent research and analysis. It is more about learning an argument and all of its proper buzzwords by rote.
So one wishes to identify with a certain group of kewl kids and repeats their line on various issues. They identify “the opposition” in the same way.
Enter the news organization. The purpose of the news organization is basically to attract eyeballs to advertisement. It gains them eyeballs if they can create a controversy. The more emotional the controversy the better as it tends to keep viewers coming back for more (re: Greta Van Sustern’s “all Aruba all the time”). They are going to attempt to make a caricature of an argument and present the most extreme viewpoints they can find to create the greatest possible contrast. It has little to do with information, it has more to do with rousing emotion and creating controversy.
Most people don’t have time to dig through an issue and learn enough about it to really come to an informed opinion. They simply look to who they think are the “kewl kids” or the “good guys”, see what their position is on the issue, and adopt it themselves. This causes all sorts of problems when politics becomes involved. Now people adopt a position as a matter of faith in their political beliefs and no argument of logic can overturn a position of faith. It also raises problems with people who DO look at issues and learn about them. One could find themselves concluding that one political side has issue A correct but the other political side has issue B correct. This results in one becoming alienated by people on BOTH sides. This is because it doesn’t matter how many issues you agree with someone on, you are not “with” them if you disagree on even one and adopt the “other side’s” position on it.
What an interesting study people are!
The BBC’s adherence to the parallel universe that is AGW is steadfast; an example may be seen tonight on BBC2 “Springwatch” at 8pm. Chris Packham, the acolyte sans pareil of CCAGW intones breathlessly that “anyone who doubts need only look to nature for proof that mankind’s impact is a very real, complicated and urgent issue.”
Meanwhile, back in the real world of agriculture and commerce, Royal Horticultural Society growers for the Chelsea Flower Show which starts next Monday, have been obliged to move up to 750 varieties back into greenhouses and polytunnels, with one exhibitor observing that this was his 45 show and that this was the most difficult with everything three weeks behind and that nothing had had a chance to grow on.
In the letters section a writer bemoaned the lack of swifts this year which usually arrive in her vicinity around the 6th May.
Yes, we look to nature; and nature, incredulous of the AGW message, fails to feel the balmy winds so typical of R. Gates’s and the BBC’s warming arctic.
The BBC always have young useful idiots running around with cameras. They did it to me many years ago, put me on Panorama and made me look like I was narrating the programme because of the way they edited it when in fact I was just a passer-by who answered some questions and gave an opinion. They didn’t even ask my permission.
Thanks for the diary update Mr Watts, it is always good to get information in live time.
As for the BBC , just be thankful you aren’t an Israeli because they don’t like them much either.
That’s the BBC now! We have a saying here that Lord Reith (founder of the BBC) turns in his grave whenever the BBC do a piece on global warming. I once joked to Fred Singer of SEPP that Lord Reith is spinning so much in his grave now, that someone could attach a coil of wire to him and stick a magnet under his coffin – and we could generate CO2-less electricity out of him – and Fred Singer posted it on his website! I’m afraid the BBC is a shadow of its former self. There are some good bits left, but really not much. Despite the fact that it should be secular, we have to put up with daily ‘godspots’ on the two most popular radio channels. Even someone within the BBC recently quoted that it had been completely taken over by Christian Lesbians – not that there’s anything wrong with lesbians…
Re tuna temp logging: the AWG/PETA crowd will say they only want tunas with the good taste not to hang around with the sceptic crowd. Otherwise they will be Star-Crossed tunas.
The BBC’s one-sided coverage of climate issues is regularly highlighted on the ‘Biased BBC’ blog:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
I’m so glad the internet is making “journalists” obsolete in large part. Too many unqualified, unskilled, and politicized people now occupy the field. It may be hard to find the truth with competing blogs and websites, but the standard media have lost any credibility they once held. Any well-reasoned, fact-supported/documented argument is likely to be more correct than the fluff we get in print.
Sounds like the media crew were just freelancers taking a chance on selling something to the BBC on spec. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BBC has actually never heard of them.
A few of us were ambushed by the BBC at the first Heartland conference in New York. They led us to believe they were covering the conference. In fact they were doing a program ridiculing skeptics and their views. Complaints to Ofcom, the agency responsible for dealing with such problems, did a whitewash but that is the pattern of all UK investigations of climate science and media coverage.
When I read these BBC (or would-be BBC) experiences, it may be a good idea to first find out whether the filmmakers are competent and will be satisfied with the decent rules that one assumes, and if there are reasons to think that the answer could be No, just reject them.
Too bad that such people can’t be forced to make another chicken-of-the-sea commercial rather than propagandist soap operas that make them feel as powerful brown or green shirts.
Anybody else have problems with the live streaming? It worked fine last night and this morning, they never streamed Pat Michaels speech like they said, instead they keep rerunning some loop video. Why can’t PJTV just live cast a certain session of the conference all day?
Anthony, I am disappointed with Steve M’s position about not questioning government’s ability to implement policy as if they can never be challenged. If this a standard view in Canada it is no wonder they let government role all over them. This makes me slightly concerned about Steve’s rationality to all this. His stance on not calling fraud, fraud because of academic precedence is unacceptable? Since when are academics above the law? Most of his explanation on his reasoning came off like doublespeak and I was disappointed to hear it. Don’t get me wrong I respect his professionalism but trying to explain why he does not consider it fraud or rather why it should not matter sounds like excuses. This sort of position is killing us and the reason why he received a standing ovation before the speech and not after. No one wants a witch hunt but Mann and those involved deserve whatever criminal charges that can be brought against them. If the policy stakes were not this high, I would understand leniency but this is not some minor academic dispute.
If what is happening below the surface in the equatorial Pacific is any indication of what will happen at the surface, I think that we are about to undergo a dramatic change. Here is the latest NOAA report. Take a look at page 11.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Tuna Heat Island(THI) ???
Maybe some day they’ll do a documentary on “The Science”.
The BBC probably said – “if you can get some decent interviews with key people we may consider using it”
@Gary Young:
“I’m so glad the internet is making “journalists” obsolete in large part.”
The problem is that there are too many “journalists” and not enough reporters. The difference between a journalist and a reporter, in my opinion, is like that between a painter and a photographer.
People generally have a limited scope of information. We rely on news outlets as sort of the intelligence agency for the masses. Many of us expect the news media to be a mirror where information on events and issues beyond our horizon can be reflected back to us so we might come to our own conclusion. The problem comes in when the information is reported in an “activist” sense and it is skewed one way or another. This skewing can be extremely subtle. It also isn’t new to modern times. Ben Franklin was an absolute scoundrel when it came to “reporting” and would make up events and even craft forged “letters” to the editor (him) in order to influence opinion. Read his autobiography sometime.
The difference is that in the not so distant past, we had many more news outlets to choose from. San Francisco had over a dozen daily newspapers in 1900. It was our family tradition dating back several generations to take at least two newspapers … the Republican paper and the Democrat paper because my Dad said that in order to find out what was really going on, you had to “add the two together and divide by seven”. You don’t have that choice today. Most cities and even many regions are “one paper” towns. And even then, many papers are owned by the same publisher. The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and 15 other newspapers around the country and web sites such as about.com
The company that owns the San Francisco Chronicle (Hearst Corp.) also owns 15 other newspapers, 29 TV stations, 15 magazines, and several cable entertainment channels. So if you read the San Francisco Chronicle and Esquire magazine and watch ESPN you are getting a good part of your world view from the same source. Or the woman who reads the Houston Chronicle, reads Cosmo, and watches A&E … same thing.
What the Internet has done is reduced the cost of producing content for global consumption to something many more people can afford. It has returned us to an era where we have more perspectives to choose from. But it is still up to the consumer to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is a lot of junk out there and some real gems.
Anthony, I think you just received a not-so-gentle reminder–skepticism applies to all things: global warming alarmists who stand to make a profit, car salesmen telling you they’re on your side in the battle against the sales manager, and media news crews claiming they want to present your side of an argument.
I’ve been interviewed dozens of times by local, national, and foreign TV, makers of documentaries, etc, as part of my day job. I agree that the documentary you describe is most likely a producer hoping to sell the show the the BBC. There is a standard “release” form that they all use with small changes, but this one sounds far different. They all have the “in perpetuity” clause, though.
They all get the information wrong to some extent; it’s just life in the real world. I’ve never been the subject of an attack piece, but by far the least accurate – by a wide margin – was an international documentary (sorry, no names). We complained to the writer on that one. He apologized and explained that the editor changed it to make a better story. Wrong, but more interesting.
Tilo Reber says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:14 am
If what is happening below the surface in the equatorial Pacific is any indication of what will happen at the surface, I think that we are about to undergo a dramatic change. Here is the latest NOAA report. Take a look at page 11.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
—————
No, not really Tilo. The only thing “dramatic” is your characterization of a normal cooling phase after an El Nino. Here’s the “dramatic” summary from the same report:
A transition from El Niño to ENSO-neutral is underway.
• Sea surface temperatures are decreasing across much of the Pacific Ocean.
• Based on current observations and dynamical model forecasts, a transition to
ENSO-neutral conditions is expected by June 2010, which will continue into the
Northern Hemisphere summer 2010.
• Although many models predict ENSO-neutral conditions, there is a growing
possibility of La Niña developing during the second half of 2010.
In summary, nothing unusual or out of the ordinary for the end of an El Nino, and the potential beginning of a La Nina, though that’s far from certain.
Overall, ocean heat content globally remains high:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Either the usual clowns and monkeys of the mainstream media circus, or simply clowns and monkeys attempting to join that circus. Always striving to please the ringmasters.
The BBC has been in the ranks of the alarmists since forever. This is the organisation that sat on the Climategate emails for several weeks before an exasperated whistleblower resorted to releasing them across the net.
I have also seen two BBC programs in which the host performed a highly original twist on Gore’s ‘Massive-Hockey-Stick-Graph-And-Crane’ propaganda stunt. One of these simply substituted a tall ladder in place of the crane. And the other program had its host (David Attenborough) walk across a massive HS graph laid out on the studio floor with an aerial camera looking down from way above as he made strides along the straight line and then up the curve of the HS.
Another BBC program I saw (it may have been the same one as with the ladder stunt) had a Michael Mann interview, in which MM defended his HS (this was after Steve Mac’s debunking) saying that several independent studies had verified the HS and therefore his HS was robust. And the host just nodded and smiled. And I had to run to the bathroom to be physically sick. It was common knowledge by then that random numbers fed into his model produced a HS, but the BBC clearly wasn’t interested in inconvenient truths like that.
So please, my American friends, don’t be in any doubt as to the BBC’s agenda.
Crosspatch said:
One could find themselves concluding that one political side has issue A correct but the other political side has issue B correct. This results in one becoming alienated by people on BOTH sides. This is because it doesn’t matter how many issues you agree with someone on, you are not “with” them if you disagree on even one and adopt the “other side’s” position on it.
Crosspatch, you are right. That’s politics. Divide and rule.
Most of all, of course, on issue C – climate. We divide, and they rule.
I think the proper response is to NEVER sign a “release” form.
If these puppies are so “weakkneed” as to need a “release” form, they deserve NOT to be doing “journalism”.
One word for them, similar to “Chickens of the Sea”…Kowards…
Ed Caryl
Ed, sorry but your are wrong. The BBC has moved a very long way from its original high standards of impartiality and professionalism. Every program now has a climate change element to it and based on the false premises it has been advocating for some years.
Naw, R Gates; Tilo’s correct. Kelvin’s kabooming equinoctially and the rate of heat loss over the last month is unprecedented in recent monitoring.
========================
I recall a spur-of-the-moment interview with Monkton on the “Climate Wars” series. Monckton was caught in a hotel lobby, and compared poorly to the quiet office environment granted to other interviewees. It gave the impression of contrary opinion on the informal fringe.
They could spin your interview into something along these lines:
Narrator: “Anonymous climate sceptics gather around blogs like ‘Watt’s Up With That’. The debate is acrimonious, as the blog owner explains”
Watts: “you should visit some of the entertainment forums where people talk about celebrities like Britney Spears if you want to see some real vitriol … nasty comments are a part of the blogosphere, particularly when anonymous commenting is involved”
Narrator: “These types of comments have driven respected scientists who are the target of the hateful comments to consider suicide”
Watts: “what goes on in Dr. Jones mind isn’t something I could or would comment on since I have no information beyond the press report”
I hope it doesn’t go that way. But it would be worth preparing yourself.
Anthony – if you get the opportunity could you please inform the video director that watching a speaker talking about a chart is not as interesting as seeing the chart he’s talking about!!!
R. Gates
“The only thing “dramatic” is your characterization of a normal cooling phase after an El Nino.”
Don’t consider it dramatic if you like. I consider a change from subsurface equatorial water anomalies being mostly warm or hot to being mostly cool or cold as dramatic. I don’t care if it’s happened before. I also think that the amount of subsurface cool water that has developed, and is continuing to develop, serves as an indicator that we will not go to ENSO neutral conditions, but rather to La Nina conditions. And if we do get La Nina condition, then we are heading for 14 years of no global warming. I consider that more dramatic than a chunk of ice breaking off Antartica. Now there is something that is dirt ordinary.
Anthony, You just enjoy the conference.
All that talking about Tuna, you just got a couple of bottom feeders excited there.
We in the UK are sort of eyeing the remit of our funding of such creatures at the moment, we’ll just add it to the list.
The BBC abandoned any semblance of balance and impartiality in its climate change reporting years ago. A while back its science coverage in the news was run by a qualified scientist called David Whitehouse (a PhD) and very good it was too. But I guess that it was hard being a scientist among the english graduates of this world (such as Roger Harrabin) and their science coverage has been going downhill ever since, to the point where its reputation has been severely damaged. the BBC trust has been so concerned by BBC News poor science coverage that it has called for a special report. I bet that, like the CRU enquiries, will be another whitewash.
My husband answers questions for the press as the representative of his trade association. I won’t give the details except to say it’s not oil, but it is in an industry
that comes under alot of scrutiny from the press. A few years ago, he was interviewed
by BBC’s Jonathan Bell. Bell asked him lots of leading questions, essentially trying to prove his agenda. Unfortunately for Bell my husband was not able to substantiate Bell’s claims.
The kicker is this, the next day as Bell made his report on the BBC, he just trotted out his “facts” regardless of truth. You see they don’t want the whole story only what serves the narrative.
PBS frontline, cut and slice the story to our satisfaction. NPR was pretty much the same. After a two hour interview, the reporter didn’t even get the name right. Now he reserves the right to see and amend any final product before he will agree to any interview.
bbc propaganda on bbc2 as i write (springwatch signs of change with chris packham)
I guess you could try contacting the New PM Mr Cameron, since his party were firing guns into the sky about the BBC in the lead up to the election. And his guru, Archie Norman is now running the main commercial competitor, so he may be prepared to listen to your issues in a friendly way…..
Maybe it’s time for a counter ‘contract’ to be signed by all BBC reporters. in which the rights of someone like yourself are encapsulated in a legally robust document……..?
Tuna are unique fishes. They have no swim bladder which in other fish can cause barotrauma when suddenly changing depth in the water column.
Also tuna are effectively warm blooded. This allows them to operate over a wide range of temperatures like when diving below thermoclines. Swordfish are also deep divers but they have a method of warming just the blood coming to their brain. So after a sustained deep dive swordfish are often seen sunning themselves on the surface of the water in a stupor and are easily approachable.
Great idea tagging these fish with sensors. We have lots of needs to better understand the life cycles of these fish and here is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
Love the Charley Tuna ditty!
REAL “TUNAMOMETERS”. This is not a joke. The following is the FAO paper on Fish catches related to temperatures:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
If you don´t want to read all the document see graph at page 50:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
What it is remarkable that this is a document from UN´s FAO and it forecasts temperatures to 2100, it openly contradicts IPCC non-sense.
They were probably trying to get a rough doc together to pitch to the BBC, and also using the BBC name to get interviews which they would not have got otherwise.
I have just watched the BBC Springwatch programme. Look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/springwatch .
How on earth do you counter this?
I lost count of the number of times that the presenters stated categorically that runaway Global Warming is an undisputed fact, accepted by the “vast majority of scientists”, and that it is almost certainly caused by human produced CO2.
eric anderson says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
“OT, but someone needs to respond to Krugman’s column, How Will They Spin This?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/how-will-they-spin-this/
re new GISS release showing hottest 12 months on record.
I guess my first response would be to ask, “What were the raw temperature readings?”
__________________________________________________________________________
These were satellite readings of the troposphere.
Remember the oceans cover 70% of the earth. The readings show heat moving out of the ocean and into the atmosphere as it heads for outer space. (Yeah, Yeah CO2 might bounce a little back but the thunderheads whisk that heat up pretty fast)
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifted from the cool phase to the warm phase around 1976, and has recently switched back to the cool phase. El Nino (hot) has switched into neutral. The result of this “heat transport” into the atmosphere is “The decrease in upper ocean heat content from March to April was 1C – largest since 1979″
In other words we are looking at a downturn in ocean temps for about 30 years. Add a solar funk and volcanoes and I doubt anyone will be worried about “Global Warming” 5 to 10 years from now.
I have just spent several minutes trying to get onto the “Blog” part of the Springwatch pages without success. Has anyone else tried and how did you get on?
Is this an opening salvo in the 2012 Democratic primary? Bill Clinton calls CO2 plant food.
============
Kudos to Anthony, getting infomation out during conference, not easy.
As for the Beeb Dweebs, seems if one wants to present a formal case against the AGW theory, one needs their own media branch.
The Net has made that easier, cheaper, immediate and now days vital. A non partisan, impartial documentary, unbiased documentary would be corporately unwelcomed in this world of failed rockstar journalism and the media circus. My gut feeling is people are hungry for old school reporting, sans spin, glitter, glam and BS.
Anyone got an idea about a budget for such? Despite the ecnomic times, I reckon the WUWT crowd could pony up enough to put one together. We could create a small production house called the “Better Broadcasting Company”, and invite David Bellamy to host it. That would twist some knickers.
eric anderson says:
May 17, 2010 at 8:23 am
OT, but someone needs to respond to Krugman’s column, How Will They Spin This?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/how-will-they-spin-this/
Eric, that was a trip into the ninth circle of Hell, the comments were beyond Post Normal, many were just Postal. Its like some kind of Post Modern Climate Jihad, almost like a Green Radical Islam, “Kill the unbeliever!”, “Burn the Heretics!”.
Plus his graphics suck, anyone can use a chart to back an argument, if Paul wants to know how Skeptics would spin this, …we wouldn’t, because we DON’T.
R. Gates says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:59 am
Tilo Reber says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:14 am
If what is happening below the surface in the equatorial Pacific is any indication of what will happen at the surface, I think that we are about to undergo a dramatic change. Here is the latest NOAA report. Take a look at page 11.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
——————————————————————————————————————
No, not really Tilo. The only thing “dramatic” is your characterization of a normal cooling phase after an El Nino….
Overall, ocean heat content globally remains high:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
____________________________________________________________________
That graph is old it ends in January. There was a drop of 1C/month from March to April 2010. The chart does show parts of the 60 year cycle and that we are now headed back down in heat content of the ocean.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/the-decrease-in-upper-ocean-heat-content-from-march-to-april-was-1c-largest-since-1979/
David, UK says:
May 17, 2010 at 11:08 am
The BBC has been in the ranks of the alarmists since forever…..
So please, my American friends, don’t be in any doubt as to the BBC’s agenda.
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks to the internet we are now aware that the BBC pensions are invested in carbon trading…. Talk about vested interests!
And in the mean time, the BBC is once more peddling its propaganda as often as it can now that it thinks that the Climategate scandal is subsiding. I have just seethed through watching a one hour programme in which the presenter, Chris Packham, has given his personal take on Climate Change. The only evidence he presented was that spring was coming earlier in the UK by an average of 11 days and that it must be anthropogenic because the majority of scientists and in the same breath, politicians think it is so. It shows the level of confidence that the BBC has in its absolute control of the propaganda war in that we have just experienced a series of cold summers and winters culminating in the harshest winter in many years and the BBC glibly passes this off as just weather.
You could have driven a juggernaut through the arguments, but without a right of reply, the BBC just gets away with murder. It makes your blood boil at the injustice of it all.
Why AGW has become a dogma and corrupted the scientific method:
There has formed an opportunistic cabal comprised of Big Business (Cap’n Trade), Big Government (carbon tax), Big Science (billions for research), Big Eco-Green (billions for wind and solar), Big Media (Gore/Suzuki and a new global warming apocalypse story every day) , Big Socialism (IPCC and U.N. wealth re-distribution) money, money, money follow the money. AGW has now become a holy cause formed out of the un-holy alliance outlined above.
I laud those who take on the money machine of this scope (I’ve never seen anything like it), good luck your going to need it.
Somebody (and I don’t recall who) is fitting Tuna with temperature loggers that take a measurement every 20 seconds. Gary says that prelim tunatemp data isn’t showing different than ARGO.
QUESTION: Do they have to account for the tuna’s “body heat bias” and does that “body heat bias” fluxuate with the depth of the dive (think wind chill or in this case, “water chill factor”)?
Since you didn’t do any bomb throwing and didn’t give them permission to manipulate what you said into what they wanted you to have said, I doubt you will ever hear from them again.
There is a big difference between the excellent BBC science department and the BBC political ethos. Sadly the latter has thoroughly imposed itself on the former.
Hang in there Anthony. Best advice on legal documents: don’t try to be your own attorney!
There are bound to be some savvy physicists there at the conference, see if you can get some real insight into the recent unprecedented drop in the temperature of the oceans in relation to sea waters thermal conductivity, being rather small, the transfer will be slow.
I had expected this multi-year pause in cooling of the oceans to actually start to be apparent. Has to do with the rate at which the thermocline can contract in response to the loss of heat in the upper layers. (You know, the missing energy). See if you can gather some real science behind this aspect. Mother nature is doing what she always will do, of course, following proper physics!
and where can i see the videos?
Hmmm, maybe a good idea asking for an ID Card?
Anyway;
Roger Simon;
“What a relief it is the public is finally turning against this. And we have men like Monckton and Lindzen to thank for it, as well as many others at the conference. Steve McIntyre, whom I will be interviewing Monday, comes quickly to mind.”
Here;
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/05/16/talking-climate-in-the-windy-city/?singlepage=true
Never, ever trust anyone at all who says, “I’m from the BBC …”
They will twist, re-edit and mis-quote to their heart’s delight. It is how they operate, it’s just too easy to spot whilst watching their miserable offerings to the UK audiences.
The BBC is now interested in only one thing and that is the propagation and proliferation of their own extremely left-wing ideology which has been nurtured by 13 years of equally socialist Labour government (who held the purse strings).
OT
My favorite financial blog Zero Hedge includes volcano studies.
“Just to add to the ink needs of European central banks, the Iceland met office reports that it has recorded a small earthquake at the Katla volcano. With Europe already pretty much bankrupt, and the only reason why Europe is still quoted being due to ECB, IMF and Fed backstops, the last thing needed by the troubled continent is the next major volcanic explosion to terminate airline travel indefinitely. As earthquakes tend to not be an indicator of volcanic stability, the most anticipated volcanic explosion in human history may finally be a fact quite soon. We are confident the HFT lobby will somehow determine that volcanic ash clouds add liquidity to the market. Stay tuned. ”
Katla Earthquake May Presage Next Volcanic Explosion
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/katla-earthquake-may-presage-next-volcanic-explosion
… and we in the UK have to, by law, PAY a licence fee to have a television, this money goes to the BBC. We have to PAY for the drivel which the Beeb produces whether or not we agree.
Anthony as someone who has fished for tuna in three oceans I’m not sure that this experiment will be very effective. Typically tuna seek out a certain temperature range so wherever the tuna go is likely to be in the same temperature range. We would look at the satellite surface temps and look for temperature breaks which is where the tuna would be, also we’d monitor the surface temp and troll on the ‘right’ side of the break.
Who says they were with the BBC?
Did you record the interview for your own sake?
cmdocker says: “bbc propaganda on bbc2 as i write (springwatch signs of change with chris packham)”
We just love Springwatch and Autumnwatch. But I suffered this too (and my wife joined in with incredulity – my scepticism seems to be spreading).
The chap who filmed mountain hairs in their white coats against the dark heather and bracken. How many years ago was the film taken? At least one – perhaps two or three years agi. I’d be very surprised if it was this year given that the Scottish highlands are still well covered in snow half way through May.
On the spread of lung worms in dogs. Are we to assume it has nothing to do with keeping dogs in warm, centrally heated houses?
And on mosquitoes in the UK. Nothing to do with exotic fruit shipments: Kenya yesterday, Tesco (UK supermarket) today?
The list goes on. There were frost fairs on the Thames a couple of hundred years ago – so nobody seriously suggests the UK climate hasn’t been warming. (Well, perhaps the purveyors of hockey sticks – but they don’t count.)
Colin Porter says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:49 pm
And in the mean time, the BBC is once more peddling its propaganda as often as it can now that it thinks that the Climategate scandal is subsiding. I have just seethed through watching a one hour programme ….
You could have driven a juggernaut through the arguments, but without a right of reply, the BBC just gets away with murder. It makes your blood boil at the injustice of it all.
______________________________________________________________________
Thank goodness for the internet. It has definitely changed the playing field. Without it the political interests could run right over us.
I spend a lot of time out in the public and there has been a sea change in attitudes towards CAGW here in the USA. Even those who are still believers can now see the carbon tax rip off aspect. They feel used and violated and angry.
R. Gates says:
May 17, 2010 at 10:59 am
Where has all the heat gone? It went up, after giving us a fair El Nino. I’m looking at the higher probablility that La Nina is in the offing, and lower probabilities to ENSO neutral/deep La Nina. I do question NOAA’s forecast of above normal Western US.
Sure doesn’t seem to fit the pattern, but anything can happen. It’s predictions, might as well enjoy them.
Well I had this conference at the top of my list of things to do this year; along with going back to NZ to attend the Distinguished Alumni Dinner and presentations; but the Obamapelosi spending spree put the Kibosh on both of those.
With the massive tax increases; and some unemployed family having no chance at a government climate research grant; I had to close the shutters; and put on the survival suit.
I’m glad that some of the local regulars here were able to make it; no way I can fake a job related excuse to go; since we have no interest in either up or down effects of the Climate change/green energy gravy trains; and I certainly can’t convince any evil big oil company to pay my way.
But next year; I will crawl on my hands and knees over broken glass; naked in a blizzard; and uphill both ways to make at least the climate science conference; and probably the Alumni thing as well, since I am expected to attend.
I’d really like to hear what Prof Lindzen or Dr Roy Spencer have to say, when enclosed under the dome of silence.
So much for academic freedom; when you can’t speak openly because of politics.
The latest Alumni mag under its Student Life section; has an article about some LLB student who is an “environmental Officer” with the University’s Environmental Programme; and was one of 12 NZ youth delegates to the big Copenhagen bust in December. Well their heading says “Hopenhagen or Flopenhagen ?”
Frankly it disturbs me that NZ would send law students to what purportedly was a climate science affair; and with no interest in anything but somehow passing some legally binding treaty to enforce behavior of people around the world.
As I see it, New Zealand has precisely nothing to gain (but misery) from any climate treaty; since it too; like the United States, is not permitted to offset its “carbon footprint”; with its massive tree farming operations that along with its agriculture likely make it a net carbon sink; which the USA is.
They are going to be hearing from me; about putting legal basketry ahead of dealing with the clear inconsistencies in the suppoedly settled science. Seems to me that the science has only just started to materialize; and it is not looking too good for unnatural variability; or CO2 drive versus H2O Feedback regulation. And with Countries like Japan employing global warming geo-engineering to extend crop seasons, and cause “global warming”; just what is the point in other countries signing on to their own economic demise; when even Europe is not abiding by their Kyoto promises; and India/China/Indonesia just plan to carry on with business as usual (which maybe they should).
Hopefully, we will here some conference news from Anthony and the others pretty soon.
I’ve got a new phrase to describe what is done to temp data via the hockey team’s homogenization tricks: Bake n’ Fake.
We have to watch the media. Someone somewhere has decided that the thing to do about those pesky climate skeptics is to try to put them all in the same boat as creationists and anti-science right wing religious nutcases. I’ve heard several media commentaries that have pushed that meme this week.
With apologies to any creationist anti-science right wing extremist nutcases who might be present, a lot of us don’t want to be put in that boat. I’m an atheist; I’m middle of the road politically; I think creationists are borderline crazy; and I’m a scientist in my day job. However I’m also very skeptical about the current paradigm in climate science.
If memory serves me right, I believe the original jingle was:
Ask any MERMAID you happen to see,
“What’s the best tuna?”
Chicken of the Sea
Funny bit, though
The sign-off line ought to be
“Sorry, GAVIN, only the best tuna get to be “real climate” data
Mr Mann is not allowed to be taken to task. The order has gone out to all persons of influence. From whom and why anybody guess.
Wow, that tuna stuff gets confusing. Jessica Simpson thought “Chicken of the Sea” was chicken, which is understandable since white albacore tuna was referred to as chicken of the sea “way back when” by fishermen. And these days PETA wants fish to be known as Sea Kittens so people will think twice about eating any fish.
Tuna, chicken, kitten… Guess if we eat more Asian cooking it won’t be a problem, then we’ll just cook up whatever animal protein we can find.
Anyone up for some Sea Chick Kitty? I found this old Vietnamese recipe online…
Re: kadaka (KD Knoebel) on May 17, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Whoops, looks like I goofed up a link somehow. “white albacore tuna was referred to as chicken of the sea” should have been linked a Wikipedia article. Sorry about that.
old construction worker says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Gary said they had two temperature sensors, one inside and one outside of the fish. The heat of the tuna (as I understand it) comes from the action of the muscles, so if it is exerting it warms up. But what do I know? …
William Gray says:
May 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm
———————–
It’s called professionalism… Why put yourself in the position to be called a hate monger…
Ignoring the Mann issue right now is pragmatic and savvy…
Thanks for the updates, Anthony!
Here’s Sen. Jim Inhofe’s comments about the Heartland conference, delivered on the floor of the US Senate:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a880900c-802a-23ad-45e0-6ac1d20af80f&Issue_id=
Were any Danish or Chicagoan chicken ranchers doing pro bono work at the conference, I am just exercising a litle bit of intellectual interest, in the interests of of this blog’s current affairs.
The usual bedwetters [Lord Monckton’s most excellent term] in the blogosphere are whining about this conference — which they will not attend — while turning a blind eye to the world’s biggest freeloaders’ conference.
Here’s what I’ve posted (it’s still in moderation):
How will we spin this?: Two words — El Nino. Those who read a dioxide-deviationist blog like WUWT would be aware of this, unlike the out-of-touch sarcastic commenters above (except Don K). Further, it’s our opinion that this up-tick will be succeeded later this year, or early next year, by a down-ticking La Nina like the one that followed the up-spike in 1998.
Wanna bet (and take it out of my hide)? You can wager on the GISS temperature anomalies for coming months (May, June, and July), for 2010, for the next five years, etc., at https://www.intrade.com
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 17, 2010 at 5:52 pm
old construction worker says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Somebody (and I don’t recall who) is fitting Tuna with temperature loggers that take a measurement every 20 seconds. Gary says that prelim tunatemp data isn’t showing different than ARGO.
QUESTION: Do they have to account for the tuna’s “body heat bias” and does that “body heat bias” fluxuate with the depth of the dive (think wind chill or in this case, “water chill factor”)?
Gary said they had two temperature sensors, one inside and one outside of the fish. The heat of the tuna (as I understand it) comes from the action of the muscles, so if it is exerting it warms up. But what do I know? …
Tuna possess a rete mirabili which is a counter current heat exchanger which keeps the inner temperature warmer than the skin temperature so that they can operate in lower water temperatures.
rbateman, re “. . . NOAA’s forecast of above normal Western US.”
We are having temperatures that are below “normal” in California this Spring. It’s snowing again today in the Sierras near Yosemite, and a cold rain is falling in Los Angeles. ‘
The Sierra snowpack is at almost 150 percent of “normal” for this time of year. One has to wonder how all that snow got there, when CO2 is warming the planet so very, very much.
I suspect that the cause is the particular strain of CO2 in California: undisciplined, anti-authoritarian, and not about to take orders on how it is to behave, from IPCC or anybody else.
Anthony,
The New BBC = The Old Monty Python
Great Story,
JG2
John Galt II says:
“The New BBC = The Old Monty Python”
I see the new BBC as Monty Python’s Ministry of Truth, without the humor.
oldseadog says:
May 17, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I have just watched the BBC Springwatch programme. Look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/springwatch .
How on earth do you counter this?
Join me and complain to the BBC about the content.
Tuna are being fitted with temperatue sensors? So that’s what I broke my tooth on in my tuna sandwich yesterday!
DaveF says:
May 18, 2010 at 2:29 am
“Tuna are being fitted with temperatue sensors? So that’s what I broke my tooth on in my tuna sandwich yesterday!”
Where do you think the Tuna get all the mercury we get warned about?
BBC Radio 4 this morning apparently referred to the gathering in Chicago as “the convention for climate change deniers.” (or something like that).
R. Gates: May 17, 2010 at 10:59 am
Not really Tilo. The only thing “dramatic” is your characterization of a normal cooling phase after an El Nino.
All cooling is *normal*. Only *warming* can be dramatic, Tilo, even if it’s only +.0027C and the instrument has a +/-.2C calibration error and there’s a +2C uncorrected siting error in the station located 1,200 km from the “measured” location.
Yeesh. Read the memos, people!!!11!eleven!!!1!
*koff*
Sandyinderby,
I’m fed up complaining to the BBC; they never answer the question asked and always slant the reply to a comment.