Here’s a collection of excerpts and links from the UK. The ones at the very end are quite telling. h/t to Benny Peiser of the GWPF for their newsletter. – Anthony
MPs Slam ‘Secretive’ Climategate Probes
Two inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive. MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails. –John Ingham, Daily Express, 25 January 2011
…
Graham Stringer, a Labour MP on the Committee, said there are questions over how the scientists chose the figures they used to back up the case for global warming. He said the ‘missing email’ may refer to how researchers tried to further influence how their science is accepted by the scientific community. He said both reports had failed to answer these questions. “It is not a whitewash, it is the establishment looking after their own. They are not looking hard enough at what went wrong.” — Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 25 January 2011
…
The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.—Graham Stringer, MP, Member of the Science and Technology Committee, 17 January 2011
Mr Stringer is saying what many critical observers think. The inquiries were inept, biased and have not closed this affair. The MPs’ report says we should move on but you cannot if you have unfinished business.—Benny Peiser, Daily Express, 25 January 2011
…
“We find it unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the vice-chancellor [of UEA] that the emails still exist,” the committee says.
The Russell panel was also remiss for not holding its evidence sessions in public and for allowing UEA to read its report before it was published – a move that left the inquiry open to allegations that it was not sufficiently independent.
The committee calls on researchers to release “sufficient detail of computer programs, specific methodology or techniques used” to allow others to check their analysis of data. This will “help guard against not only scientific fraud but also the spread of misinformation and unsustainable allegations”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office should also release “clear guidance” on how FoI legislation should be applied to scientific research by the start of the next academic year.
But the committee endorses the UEA reports’ “clear and sensible” recommendations. “It is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and, with greater openness and transparency, move on,” the committee concludes. Paul Jump, Times Higher Education, 25 January 2011
…
How Two Tory MPs Saved CRU
In the formal minutes that appear at the end of the SciTech report, it is possible to read a paragraph that was proposed as an amendment by Graham Stringer. This is important:
“There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened.
The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel.
No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”
This was voted down by the Tories Stephen Mosley and Stephen Metcalfe and the Labour MP, Gregg McClymont.
In other news:
Totally Uncool: Young Britons Least Concerned About Global Warming –
The survey revealed that young people were least concerned about climate change which came last in the average rating of issues, with one in four rating it as the “least important” and 7.1% saying it was the most important issue for them. Only 12% of all respondents believed they had been “adversely affected” by climate change in 2010.
Peter Sissons: ‘The BBC Has Completely Lost It’ –
The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent.
This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.
It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.
Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.
Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.
Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.
His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its environment correspondents downplayed its significance.
Re: the Polar bear on Thames picture,I saw that I thought: “I’d heard it had been
cod in England but this is ridiculous..” The real reason even more…
“COLD” darn it….
In the words of that old song, I can’t get no satisfaction. Well, not from the 3 squeaky clean CRU ‘enquiries’ anyway. It was inevitable that global warming propagandists would seize on this to draw a line under climategate, which they did with gusto. Now, as many sceptics have been saying all along, the enquiries did nothing to address the serious allegations, contenting themselves to tiptoe around the issues and reinvent their scope. Now the truth is beginning to dawn on some influential people, I look forward to at long last, getting some ‘satisfaction.’
The free lunch doesn’t last forever, the masses will eventually concur-at first with silence, a raised eyebrow, maybe pushing away that glass of kool aid- that the king has no clothes on. Every gravy train comes to a stop eventually. What’s ironic is that this hoax would have gone on so much longer if these shucksters didn’t act like five-year-olds every time somebody attempted to take their lollypop out of their mouths.
Peter Sissons has great respect. His views on the BBC are mind-blowing. But we all knew how biased the Grauniad-reading BBC is.
It is pleasing, however, that following the lifting of the embargo on the report of the Science and Technology group, that the msm is reporting it somewhat more readilythan they did the initial Climategate email release.
Douglas DC:
Yeh, no cod left in England. Fished them out years back.
Regarding the BBC. Living in Blighty, I can attest that the BBC coverage of climate change is highly partisan (they are accused of being infested with lefty liberals, not sure if there is a connection). I don’t know what to think about AGW, but I am sure I can’t trust the BBC to find the truth.
If I had a pound for every time a reporter had said something along the lines of “this is just the sort of extreme event we would expect under climate change” I’d have… well, at least a tenner.
They accept it without thinking. It might be true. I don’t know. But I expect a higher class of investigation from the organisation all brits pay for.
Now is the time to
1.Make a complaint to the BBC regarding the bias (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/) … no not later now!
2. Write to your MP … nothing fancy … just write (http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/)
3. Having written to the BBC and MP, sit back with a glass of scot’s whisky and wait for the fun!
Stringer: “No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, …”
Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.
Stringer: “…and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed.”
They were investigating the e-mails, not surveying the ‘skeptical’ blog-sphere.
When it comes down to it, the ‘skeptics’ still have not found evidence of wrong doing and the world’s climate and oceans continue to change. Maybe you can send FOIA’s to the ice caps and coral reefs – wait, they don’t use e-mail.
Wasn’t there a story that the BBC was investing its pension funds in climate change related businesses or something? I don’t know if it was just a rumour or whether it had been researched properly.
Hold them to the fire, boys! Keep up the good work!
Mike says:
“Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel [sic] to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.”
Um, Mike, you would include critics if you wanted the truth.
And your ridiculous claim that there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the emails is easily refuted. Click on the “Climategate” tab. Pretend you’re an IRS agent.
Will Acton, Davies, and Jones resign in their disgrace?
Stefan, you are correct.
Mike says:
…..”Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.”………
However Mike, I suppose its perfectly fair to have it chaired by Lord Oxburgh, as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable such fine gentlemen would not allow grubby finance to influence them one jot.
Can you please, please, please also add a link to the following:
Tradeable Energy Quotas
^ Sorry to keep mentioning it. However, this is as far as I’m concerned, the most important story for the UK of the month, but it is getting almost no coverage (the only mention I’ve seen is in the Daily Express, and most people would just dismiss it as a result).
I can’t overstate the seriousness of the fact that a parliamentary committee is considering energy rationing as a viable policy.
[Reply: This request should go in Tips & Notes. ~dbs, mod.]
“Heated Climate Change Politics in the UK”
That is precisely it.
UK-based media and blogs are having convulsions. The competing sides act triumphant and demoralised in succession. Even the otherwise most reserved good Bishop of the Hill is coming down hard on the disruption in the comments.
Reports from the combat zone strongly suggests that when the dust settles CAGW skeptics will emerge victorious.
Here is the link to the notes of Prof Kelly (CRU ‘review’), which Graham stringer submitted to the HoCSTC:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/444/444vw11.htm
Prof Kelly notes his various – and imho very serious – concerns about the science, which, as all know, weren’t addressed. I found this one of great interest:
“(i) I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of “computer” experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real “real data” might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.”
No wonder the CRU Whitewash Committee was more concerned about the personal honesty of the CRU scientists rather than dealing with their science …
(His other notes in that link are also well worth reading)
At what point does some prosecutor dust off the British laws regarding stock manipulation?
What a great set of links. Kudos to MP Stringer and Mr Sissons!
Mike says:
…..”Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel [sic] to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.”………
And of course, the panel get to choose who’s ‘hostile.’ After Steve McIntyre filed an FOI request, Jones proudly crowed in one of his emails, how after a couple of hours he convinced the FOI administrator ‘what type of person we are dealing with.’ Yeah Mike – can’t have ‘hostiles’ like Steve McIntyre upsetting the apple card.
That polar bear riding an ice flow on the Thames, is that not proof of global cooling. I mean an image like that was used to show warming in the Arctic.
Mike are you new to the debate?
I was quite annoyed at yesterday’s Horizon, writing a letter to the BBC as a consequence (not the kind of thing I generally do). I’m sure I’m not alone in having this vague sense of irritation today, likely reflected in the comments I’m making at various favourite hang-outs. Judith Curry’s do-gooding is also becoming somewhat annoying. The two sides don’t need counselling; one side needs to just stop making stuff up.
Mike Haseler:- Complaint to BBC re. Horizon’s scandalous attack on cAGW dissenters, lack of scientific content and extraordinary bias already sent, although how much good it will do is a moot point. I demanded a similar programme presented by a well respected scientist who has an open mind and will look at the facts.
Paul Nurse has further demeaned the Nobel Prize and he clearly has not made any attempt himself to ‘research’ the subject. He will be very red-faced in the years to come.
Graham Stringer should be congratulated for his attempt to open this can of worms. I really hoped Nurse as the new president of the Royal Society would bring some reason and debate to the climate question but he is even worse, if possible, than Martin Rees.
Mike – you say:-
January 25, 2011 at 9:49 am
Stringer: “No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, …”
Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.
SO WHY WERE THE “INVESTIGATORS” SELECTED THAT HAD SUCH CLOSE LINKS ?
Stringer: “…and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed.”
They were investigating the e-mails, not surveying the ‘skeptical’ blog-sphere.
NO – THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING THE MANIPULATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE EMAILS – A CASE PROVED INCIDENTLY.
When it comes down to it, the ‘skeptics’ still have not found evidence of wrong doing and the world’s climate and oceans continue to change.
YES THEY DID FIND CLEAR EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING REGARDS THE IGNORING OF VALID FoI REQUESTS – IN FACT THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED THIS BREACH BUT THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THE LAW IN THE UK IS WRITTEN WITH A 6 MONTH MORETORIUM ON FoI REQUESTS SUCH THAT THE UoEA/CRU COULD IGNORE THE VALID REQUESTS AND SO BRAKE THE LAW BUT THEY COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED IF THEY IGNORED THE REQUEST FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS!
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER HAS CALLED FOR THE LAW TO BE CHANGED.
Maybe you can send FOIA’s to the ice caps and coral reefs – wait, they don’t use e-mail.
THEY COULD JUST WAIT 6 MONTHS WITH FINGERS IN EARS OR OTHER SUITABLE SENSORY ORGAN WHILST SINGING “LA LA LA LA LA LA”
THAT WOULD WORK FOR A WHILE. – BUT NOT FOR LONG – ACCEPT IT – THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE – THE WARMISTS HAVE LOST ALL CONTROL AND WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY THEY HAD LEFT.
P.S. I never gave two thoughts to Mr Sissons before, but he has just become a hero of mine. 🙂 Given that a news journo must have to keep up to date on a billion different issues, I am well impressed by the fact that he had obviously looked into Global Warming in some depth. It’s impressive that he actually want to journalistically investigate the subject. It seems to make him almost unique.
Re: “It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.
Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.”
Climate science is the tip of the iceberg for laziness in science journalism. Show me an independent science journalist who publishes in the American mainstream. They simply do not exist.
Science journalists have come to see their role as a conveyor belt for information. They think that their job is nothing more than to formulate grammatically correct sentences. Where controversies exist beneath the superficial scientific consensus, science journalists jump at the opportunity to ignore them. They continue to accept the antiquated notion that scientific progress is a paved road. They continue to ignore glaring issues with regards to philosophy of science, and they treat the mystery of space as an opportunity to wonder at the glory of space.
How many times have we seen headlines on physorg or space.com about how some complex cosmological question has finally been solved? They appear to not realize that the solution involves a universe with only 4 or 5% baryonic matter, and solar models which lack much in the way of predictive capabilities.
The science journalists have successfully set the public’s expectations at levels low enough to stall the out-of-the-box, multidisciplinary critical thinking necessary to solve the greatest technical problems mankind has ever attempted.
Real scientists and theorists do not wonder at the mystery of space. They worry that their models and theories might be wrong. Science journalists today are constantly reporting on last decade’s controversy (such as the battle between religion and science). They will read reviews to check if they want to go see a movie this weekend, but they refuse to interview scientific critics. And this leads the public to imagine that all scientists are in agreement.
When people look back on this era, they will place much of the blame for scientific stagnation and misuse of public funds on these “journalists”.
If you have to read only one article today from the recent heated debate in the UK, it has to be Peter Sissons’ account of his time at the BBC. It is an excerpt from his upcoming book that will prove popular and controversial especially with regard to BBC’s Climate Change reporting.
In the article, Sissons relates again how the mighty Roger Harrabin was bullied into toeing the line by an activist, and he adds his own experience:
Incidentally, I got curious about the last paragraph and did a little digging on the web. I could not locate a video of the interview between Sissons and Lucas
But I found the observation of the “listener from one of the sceptical climate-change website” that Sissons mentions in the last paragraph. It is right under our feet:
While the BBC and its community is dazed and confused, Peter Sissons, Mick J, Anthony Watts and the WUWT community takes a bow.
It’s worth demonstrating the exact alterations whereby Stringer’s essential words were left out. Italics are the words of the final, official text that replace Stringer’s
deletedwords. Highlights are my own.98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science.
There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions.Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held.The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that “the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal”.132 While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations.In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.FYI here is my article on rural temperature records that makes nonsense of the above claim that “the general issues on overall global temperature… are all pretty unequivocal”
“When it comes down to it, the ‘skeptics’ still have not found evidence of wrong doing and the world’s climate and oceans continue to change”
Blimey – and they call us the deniers…
Mike says:
January 25, 2011 at 9:49 am
They were investigating the e-mails, not surveying the ‘skeptical’ blog-sphere.
______________
Um, if “they were invetigating the emails”, then why didn’t they do a thorough analysis and report on the subject of the deleted emails? Why did they not demand proof that no emails had been deleted?
“Wasn’t there a story that the BBC was investing its pension funds in climate change related businesses or something? I don’t know if it was just a rumour or whether it had been researched properly.”
Not a rumour but fact. The Beeb has millions of its pension pot invested in eco funds.
I hope you’ll excuse me for not being exuberant over this news… I’ll defer my enthusiastic response until more MPs climb onboard this train.
@Mike (January 25, 2011 at 9:49 am)
You write: “When it comes down to it, the ‘skeptics’ still have not found evidence of wrong doing”
Say what????
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
Take the time to read this and then try to repeat what you just wrote without laughing.
UK MPs – some at least – are at last beginning to move!
This is the year to seize the time and sharpen the debate and defeat the GW anti-science cult. Usefully the Chancellor blamed the weather in December for poor economic figures. It is now clear that the Met Office all along had been saying mild (until it actually was very cold); however the Chancellor hasn’t yet come to us – WeatherAction – for advice!
The contribution by Graham Stringer MP – a scientist – is excellent. He gave a superb presentation at a fringe meeting we (Climate Sense/ClimateRealists/WeatherAction) held at the Labour Party Conference last Autumn and Sammy Wilson MP gave an excellent Report at our Climate Fools Day meeting in The Houses of Parliament on Oct 27th – Report on home page http://www.weatheraction.com
For the need to sharpen not compromise in the debate see (was via twitter) ‘Climate Debate should be made MORE POLARIZED not less…’ – comment under Australia thread http://bit.ly/enVLJq
“It is not a whitewash, it is the establishment looking after their own. They are not looking hard enough at what went wrong.”
How is that not a whitewash?
Science Under Attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql
“Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded – from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.”
Lucy, why aren’t you writing up your stuff for publication?
The comments left by climate scientist EFS_Junior in other threads demonstrate that, with your quality work, you’d be an outstanding luminary in the field.
Fox, investigate hen house.
Why oh why was Peter Sissons not given the job of hosting that ‘Horizon’ program? Oh, right – he might have asked Phil Jones and the rest some awkward questions and we can’t have that on the BBC can we?
Vorlath:
My thoughts exactly.
Douglas DC says:
“I’d heard it had been cod in England but this is ridiculous..”
That’s a whole different can of worms over here. Bureaucracy gone mad, probably the same people who are now self appointed Climate Guardians.
See
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread650562/pg1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7103363.stm
http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/will-you-join-hugh-fearnley-whittingstalls-fish-fight/
and it’s been going on for years.
IF YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN TO THE BBC
Contact the BBC directly –
The BBC Trust
“Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.” Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.
Re. AGW bias, write to:
Alison Hastings
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
UK
Phone: 03700 100 222
Textphone: 03700 100 212
Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
Write: BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UT
UK
There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
make a complaint via this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code
ring BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
(UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)
or write to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR
You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.
We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.
Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?
We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.
If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.
If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.
Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?
If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days
If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.
Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?
The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.
Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.
We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email BBC programs directly:
Broadcasting House
broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight Investigations
NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight
newsnight@bbc.co.uk
Horizon
horizon@bbc.co.uk
Today
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk
What I find interesting is that if you click on the polar bear picture and read the article there are no comments zip, nada, zero hmmmmmmmm things might be changing for the better.
Incredibly, it is the alarmists that are trying to fix the climate at a specific temperature and time. They contradict themselves by saying each weather event is extreme and proof of catastrophe, even when the proof – such as previous floods in Queensland were higher. So why are they using massive taxation to fix this particular temperature range when they tell you it is a catastrophic range.
The dead give away was right from the start when they started saying, ” the science is in”. In what? And of course proclaiming consensus when millions of people know Einstein’s(?) famous statement about only needing one fact to refute general opinion.
Other pea and thimble tricks are to say the troposphere would warm first and fastest as definitive proof. When that was found not to be true, they blamed the radiosondes, thousands of them, for not conforming to the computer modeling.
Similar to ocean temperatures, they were supposed to be warming but in fact thousands of individual measurements showed this not be true, so they blamed the measuring devices.
There are many more of these pea and thimble tricks, not excluding adopting post normal science where you can decide by gut feel what the result should be and alter the data to fit. Hundreds of years of scientific method thrown out, of which the very essence is replicability of the experiment. These people refuse to release their data so the same results can be achieved independently and therefore gain gravitas.
These people are contemptible.
Sounds like the very definition of whitewash to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_(censorship)
“To whitewash is to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data.[1] It is especially used in the context of corporations, governments or other organizations.”
Maybe you just have a “cod” in your sinuses? 😉
Only those defending a faith equate “critical” (involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc) with “hostile”.
Katabasis says:
January 25, 2011 at 10:17 am
‘ Sorry to keep mentioning it. However, this is as far as I’m concerned, the most important story for the UK of the month, but it is getting almost no coverage (the only mention I’ve seen is in the Daily Express, and most people would just dismiss it as a result).
I can’t overstate the seriousness of the fact that a parliamentary committee is considering energy rationing as a viable policy.
[Reply: This request should go in Tips & Notes. ~dbs, mod.]’
Mods (dbs?) – with respect, this is highly relevant here as it certainly fits with the title of the thread and is the most egregious demonstration of what’s in store for us in the UK if we’re not very careful. The introduction of such a charge upon us would be similar to the poll tax in Thatcher’s time, only much much worse. It would lead directly to increased deaths from hypothermia (amongst many other problems), to the constriction of vast areas of people’s lives, in a vast and comprehensive form of central government control. Who needs ID cards when everyone, count ’em, could be controlled in the minutest detail by way of energy credits? And how much corruption would there be? And who will assess it all? Do we trust them? (/sarc on the latter)
[In your last post you made a request for a link to be added. Requests should go in Tips & Notes so Anthony is sure to see them. ~dbs]
Well it seems the Labour MP Gregg McClymont who voted Graham Stringer down on his amendment has an interest in carbon emissions,climate change,don’t know in what context though.
Strange he should vote something down you’re interested in ??
See Hear under topics of interest
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gregg_mcclymont/cumbernauld,_kilsyth_and_kirkintilloch_east
Bottom line: critics accused climate scientists of being secretive and misleading. UEA was asked to investigate itself. The investigation that UEA performed has been found to be secretive and misleading. QED.
Great post, but can someone introduce a policy of stopping references to greenhouse zealots as ‘religious’ figures? I’m a protestant and I wish emerods upon the house of global warming alarmism simply on empirical grounds. The term ‘religion’ should be replaced here with ‘pseudo-religion’ or ‘cult’.
“His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. ”
I have never seen any evidence that this instruction was ever followed through. Can anyone out there confirm that it was? If it was not, surely any lack of action would rate as contempt of court?.
Or is it, move along there, nothing to see.
david elder says: “… can someone introduce a policy of stopping references to greenhouse zealots as ‘religious’ figures? I’m a protestant and I wish emerods upon the house of global warming alarmism simply on empirical grounds. The term ‘religion’ should be replaced here with ‘pseudo-religion’ or ‘cult’.”
Maybe you should read this…
Global Warming ruled “a religion” in Britain
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7672/
David Elder
Sorry, but belief in climate change has been ruled as akin to a religion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html#
Katabasis wrote:
Tradeable Energy Quotas
http://www.appgopo.org.uk/documents/TEQ_18Jan2011.pdf
“Sorry to keep mentioning it. However, this is as far as I’m concerned, the most important story for the UK of the month, but it is getting almost no coverage (the only mention I’ve seen is in the Daily Express, and most people would just dismiss it as a result).”
I agree with Katabasis. The document published in association with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil (APPGOPO) clearly promotes the idea of limiting access to energy by plebs like you and me so that our movements would also be limited as in war time.
The idea is intolerable in a democracy in peace time.
Dr T G Watkins says: “Mike Haseler:- Complaint to BBC re. Horizon’s scandalous attack on cAGW dissenters, lack of scientific content and extraordinary bias already sent, although how much good it will do is a moot point.”
Dr T, whilst I have to agree with you (I may have made as many as 100 complaints without once getting anything approaching a considered response), unfortunately, if you don’t complain they will just assume that the world agrees with the inward-looking group think at the BBC.
Also, you have to remember this is a numbers game. The more people who complain, the higher up the “problem” list the global warming issue will come and the more they will be forced to do something.
I’ve absolutely no doubt that if enough people complain the BBC will start broadcasting sceptic material. The problem is not convincing the BBC … the problem is convincing global warming sceptics that it really is worth complaining.
sHx says:
January 25, 2011 at 11:05 am
Thanks for the bow but obviously Anthony is the real star by providing this platform and content. I happened to be watching the right channel at the right time. 🙂
I tried at the time to locate a recording and wrote the BBC to play it again on one of their review programmes but they obviously had other ideas. 🙂
The second interview by Peter Sissons is available here. Not quite so dramatic but has its own value.
http://tinyurl.com/6yq6342
Mike says; “….and the world’s climate and oceans continue to change. ”
Yeah, just like they did prior to the industrial revolution. Just like they did prior to the middle age warm period. Just like they did prior to the onset of human civilization. Just like they did prior to…
The best bit is the massive lump of Expanded Polystyrene floating down the Thames in the video. If that’s not green, then nothing is. Don’t forget to sweep up all those bits of foam on the factory floor, boys!
I’m hoping for a re-eruptive plume – a reversal of Iapetus closure*. Somewhere along that southern highland border / Roman line. Some terranes are just ill-fitted.
*’62 Austin Atlantics welcome
😉
UK residents – do not dispair.
In past years, there were a number of enquiries into the NSW police force.
Each enquire found that there was NO institutional corruption.
Still there was disquiet in the community.
Eventually there was yet another enquity.
This time with a judge with an enquiring mind, properly funded with forensic researchers and under cover police to do the leg work.
That enquiry came to a different conclusion.
End of story.
Eventually there will be yet another enquiry into climate science and the results will be different.
It just need perserverence.
Keep on, keeping on.
Too true blue.
The truth will always out, but some of us may not have sufficient puff in us to see it happen.
Remember folks, the BBC’s naturalist Chris Packham (from BBC Spring Watch) delivered a 1-hour programme last year about the catastrophic effects upon natural habitats and wildlife as the world heats up to unprecedented levels due to CO2. I mentioned this wonderful propaganda on one of the WUWT threads at the time, but no one picked up on it. Can anyone still find the web link to this programme?
Until they begin to see our side of the debate, maybe the BBC might consider a some other programme suggestions:
Unifizzy Challenge
Boffins from PepsiCo, Schweppes & Coke compete to see who produces the most man-made CO2 from their global sales of carbonated drinks.
The Emissions Factor Part 3 – The Bakery
If you enjoyed the first two episodes (Part 1 – The Winery, Part 2 – The Brewery), you’ll love this. From yeast to bicarbonate of soda, we lift the lid on how much CO2 rises up annually from the entire world’s bread, cake and snack foods manufacture. The statistics are food for thought. Don’t miss next week’s instalment; Part 4 – Descaling Kettles.
Pardon Me
A fast-paced elimination quiz where contestants get to eat as many deliberately cultivated brussel sprouts and baked beans as possible. Amazingly, 55% Nitrogen, 20% of flammable oxygen/methane/hydrogen & 25% Carbon Dioxide ensues. Armageddon.
Drown, Crash & Burn
A controversial documentary about removing all the world’s manufactured CO2 from self-inflatable life jackets, car air bags and as used in all propellants for every fire extinguisher in order to prevent the Earth from warming up.
Has anyone got any other programme suggestions?
Brilliant thread Anthony. Thanks.
GeeJam
So 12% of young British folk thought they had been ‘adversely affected’ by climate change in 2010?
I’d lay odds that most of that 12% were referring to the arctic conditions of Nov/Dec rather than any sort of warming BS, either that or the brainwashing is worse than I thought.
CET record should tell Brits all we need to know about our little bit of the climate, and that’s the bit that is likely to ‘adversely affect’ us atm.
Yes there were two investigations plus that by the Royal Society which came to the same conclusions as the other two. None of the investigations looked at the science and all said that one of the others would look at the science.
crossopter 10:36
They stopped making Austin Atlantics in 1952. 🙂
david, that word is bugging me. I can’t find it or any near-homonym or plausible misspelling in my personal vocabulary, or the online dictionary. What is it?
P.S. You get to capitalize Protestant, just like Catholics and Jews and Muslims do. It’s only fair.
The inquiries were inept, biased and have not closed this affair.
I think the word they are looking for is “predetermined”.
@GeeJam
“Remember folks, the BBC’s naturalist Chris Packham (from BBC Spring Watch) delivered a 1-hour programme last year about the catastrophic effects upon natural habitats and wildlife as the world heats up to unprecedented levels due to CO2. I mentioned this wonderful propaganda on one of the WUWT threads at the time, but no one picked up on it. Can anyone still find the web link to this programme?”
I watched this risible apology of an analysis by Packham. I still have it on my PVR, and would be happy to copy it to an appropriate repository for others to view.
It will be too long in 1 piece for Youtube, but I could chop it into pieces, if necessary.
I will have a go later today….
Man got smart, stood up, and wished emerods on himself.
=================
Good old Peter Sissons. I’d really like to see that Lucas eco-fascist lose her rag. Does any one have a copy of the interview that they can upload to the Internet?
Thanks for the response and good luck Tony B.
First broadcast 17 May 2010 on BBC2
In the meantime, if you Google ‘Signs of Change with Chris Packham’, in between all the references to TV listings, there’s a few links and clips, such as . . . .
“As global warming becomes more of a problem, this may pose a real risk to the mountain hare. The on-average warmer winters we are having in the UK means there is less snow and . . . .”
er right, ok then.
In recent months the BBC has been airing high profile partisan propoganda disguised as impartial scientific comment by members of the UK Science establishment.
First there was the Huw Wheldon lecture by Brian Cox, arguing that anyone who didn’t accept that Climate Change was driven by humans was crazy, and that skeptical views should not therefore be reported.
Now there has been the outrageously slanted Horizon programme by Sir Paul Nurse, pretending independant thought but not allowing skeptical views to be properly explained or backed up while warmists were given a sympathetic hearing.
In both cases the line was: this is the consensus, anybody challenging it is wrong and a crank, we know best.
That is a fundamentally unscientific approach to any scientific problem.
Somewhere out there in the Main Stream Media of the World a young reporter/writer missed a chance to cash in on the Fraud of the Century. Climate-Gate and the subsqeuent CYA shenanigans of its culprits continue to this day. A reasoned, neutral, non-political writer, with the support of a reasoned Editor would be in the 15th month of a lucrative career.
This coming Monday, there’s a Storyville programme about climate sceptics (http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=84470095). The director, Rupert Murray, previously produced the informative End Of The Line documentary (http://endoftheline.com/film/the_team/). It’ll be interesting to discover whether “Meet the Climate Sceptics” is yet another biased BBC production.
For the people that think a Polar Bear can’t swim:
“A polar bear swam continuously for over nine days, covering 426 miles, animal researchers were astonished to discover.”
Naturally it is blamed on global warming.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/polar-bear-swimming-for-9-days-over-426-miles-no-ice.php?campaign=top_news#
To show how much Eden TV knows about “Natural History” the blurb attached to the Polar Bear on the supposed iceberg states that the “sculpture” was set to float down the River Thames from Greenwhich to the Houses of Parliament at Westminster.
Greenwhich is nearer the sea than Westminster so they set the thing to “float” UP river!!
“Greenwhich is nearer the sea than Westminster so they set the thing to “float” UP river!!”
The river Thames is tidal up to Teddington Lock and so it is possible for the assembly to travel upstream on a strong flood tide.
This of course would require input from a greenie with a knowledge of the natural order of things such as tides, and access to tide tables to discover the most propitious time for it to be launched, An analytical mathematical brain would also be a prerequisite.
However, an analytical mathematical brain could not have been taken in by the AGW religion.
My guess is they just got lucky.
Mick J says:
January 25, 2011 at 4:26 pm
…
I tried at the time to locate a recording and wrote the BBC to play it again on one of their review programmes but they obviously had other ideas. 🙂
The second interview by Peter Sissons is available here. Not quite so dramatic but has its own value.
http://tinyurl.com/6yq6342
Hey, good to hear from you. So you were still around to hear it. Excellent! 🙂
Nick Clegg video isn’t as dramatic, but he is certainly surprised by the questioning. When Peter Sissons asks Clegg “we’ve set some of the most ambitious climate targets in the world. What difference is that going to make to the world”, Clegg takes it to mean, what can we do to achieve these targets?” This is done often on purpose by politicians in order to evade pointed questions, but in that video Nick Clegg seems to genuinely believe he’s answering the right question. Only later does he realise that he is not being questioned about the strength of his Green credentials. And the video ends with a grim expression on Sissons’ face.
Now that Peter Sissons have written a book about about his experiences at the BBC and talks about that specific day, the Clegg video you linked -and even more so the Lucas interview that cannot be located- have become somewhat historical documents, as examples of BBC standing up to the excesses of the CAGW movement. 🙂
Maybe you should contact Sissons. He might have a copy, or might know how to obtain one. I’d really like to see it. Not just because politicians losing their cool on live TV makes great viewing. 🙂
MackemX, the latest poll in Australia shows climate change as only 3 rd on the list of most important things to tackle. It came in at 10%, roughly the vote the greens get at election time. The more they chant slogans as if they are important revelations, the more people are seeing through them.
Nope. They got a motorboat and a rope. Much more reliable!
Heh. In the US, it comes in last or second last on any list, however long. I believe I saw one last year where it ranked 21st out of 21.
@
Dave (UK) says:
January 26, 2011 at 9:16 am
This coming Monday, there’s a Storyville programme about climate sceptics (http://www.tvguide.co.uk/detail.asp?id=84633237). The director, Rupert Murray, previously produced the informative End Of The Line documentary (http://endoftheline.com/film/the_team/). It’ll be interesting to discover whether “Meet the Climate Sceptics” is yet another biased BBC production.
*******************************
Reading the bios of the people involved, I would be astonished beyond all measurable medical/psychological historical (hysterical?) records if it is anything other than yet more eco-loon propaganda.
The BBC is incapable of being un-biased on this subject.
I used to be such a supporter of the BBC, but now I feel unable to trust anything which emanates from them, whether “documentary” or “news” – everything they say/do is driven by their leftist/PC agenda.
The BBC is well overdue for fundamental reform – its power to influence opinion has been completely abused in recent years.