BBC4's "Meet the Skeptics"

I almost sprayed coffee all over my computer when that BBC guy said he put aside his bias. This was a pretty clear slander piece.
It portrays Skeptics as old, gun toting, motorcycle riding, nazi’s. It is truly a stunning piece of propaganda. The only people that are shown as rational are warmists.
I am glad that you didn’t sign the paper. Smart move on your part. I will try to remember that lesson in the future.
John Kehr

What a hit piece this is. It basically portrays all skeptics as mindless, gun toting, motorcycle riding Nazi’s. They jumped all over Godwin’s law in this one.
I am glad you didn’t sign this one. Smart move that I hope more people can learn from.

Lord Monckton rules. This trailer is sanctimonious breast beating at its worst.
Rupert Murray apparently feels the need to use most every iconic reference he can concoct to make skeptics look like crazed, gun loving, boozing, motorcycle gangers, senile, gay, conservative biggots. I suppose someone could create an equally offensive look at alarmists, but its not worth it. What a pathetic trailer, so probably Nobel worthy.

You were right not to get sucked into this. The BBC did its usual hatchet job, spinning the story of noble climate scientists against ignorant sceptics.

I wouldn’t worry too much about this programme. BBC4 is one of those ‘special interest’ channels that very few people watch. If they’d really wanted to give this some exposure, they would have put it on BBC1 or BBC2.

Put down by ridicule, suggestion, association and odious editing. Probably the lowest form of TV journalism. Huge money spent on a reporter, to push his networks agenda and what for? really, a nothing result, unless you have a snide agenda in mind. Just about as bad as the Australian female Journalist who was flown all the way to the Antartica, to stand behind “scientists” on the snow, ignore, then brush aside those scientists carefully worded replies to her own pre ordained viewpoint promoting CAGW. The ABC must really fear the truth and consequent loss to their reputation, to trot out that infantile rot.

What do you expect? The BBC have a pension scheme to protect.
Like Peter Sissons says, the BBC do what the Guardian tells them to.

Nice to see Alex Jones in the trailer. Some people don’t like his style and get a brain fart when they see or hear his name. Most people have no clue who he is. However, his work on credible documentation and support from many credible personalities is helping him work his way out of the MSM closet, Lord Monckton included. Last week I saw Brad Meltzer’s Decoded Season Finale: Secret Societies, on the History Channel. Brad and his team, for the first time in history, exposed The Bohemian Grove secret society on cable TV.
Check the entire 45 minute episode if you like on the History Channel website.
http://www.history.com/shows/brad-meltzers-decoded/videos/playlists/full-episodes#brad-meltzers-decoded-secret-societies

Rhodrich says:
February 1, 2011 at 12:34 am

If they’d really wanted to give this some exposure, they would have put it on BBC1 or BBC2.

When the BBC sees the coverage in blogs like this, and responses by James Delingpole et al, they will show it on BBC2 in order to widen their audience for this type of stitch-up.
Not only was the programme a mess, having no logical structure (rather like the woolly thinking of the typical warmist), it attempted to portray sceptics as being among the following types: pensioner, poofter, biker, eccentric, neo-nazi, or coal miner. Yet again, the warmists in the media are resorting to name-calling rather than concentrating on the science.
As for the science, where was Bob Carter? He is a palaeoclimatologist based in Queensland. If anyone knows anything about the climate, he does. We can only guess that he was not interviewed because the Murray would not have been able to twist anything Carter would say, or that Carter would make it clear that, in fact, Murray is the fool.

As we who know the BBC say, ‘Those who sup with the devil should use a long spoon’!

I remember when a former client of mine was interviewed by BBC World News Service for some environmental piece. The person who interviewed her was only interested in hearing answers he wanted to hear, and wasn’t too interested in detailed answers about the questions he was asking; questions that required, in my client’s mind, more serious answers than just the usual political slogan-type of answers they seemed to be angling for.
The worst part about BBC is that they don’t even try to be subtle about it. Their agenda is clear: propaganda for the masses. Masses whom they assume to be ignorant enough to con. They are nothing but pond scum, in my view.

The BBC? – a bunch of politically controlled anal retentives!
Enough said!
I wonder if they will report on Lisbons ‘reconciliation’ at all? – probably not, unless they do a hatchet job on the attending skeptics?

To the Moncktons and Delingpoles of the world, hang in there guys and take the criticisms without blinking. You guys have a high public profile, and will attract a lot of critics who will try to discredit you. As the public now ‘owns you’ I think you need to take a leaf out of the politicians text book, and ride the blows without responding in kind. Stick to message, dont become paranoid or defensive, and learn from the experience. The truth will out. Think of the exposes of Clinton, Bush and Blair; these guys get up the next day and stare down the camera without blushing.
By the way, Anthony, thanks for a great website. Went to your talk in Hobart Tasmania last year. Fantastic.
Cheers
Andrew

This is the BBC’s attempt to comply with the instruction to give more air time to the sceptic view of Climate change. Failed!
The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer
This is the page that will play old programs. Look up BBCFour and a list will appear.There may be some filtering of out of UK sites but I doubt it. My daughter in Spain can access this site without any problem.
Best of luck Anthony.

It has been obvious to me for some time that the BBC has its own, clear, political agenda. On television, the pictures can be edited to produce the desired message. On live radio, anyone being interviewed who goes “off message” is simply shouted down by aggressive interviewers.
Impartial it is not! Biased it certainly is!
Meet the Skeptics was not only badly made and amateurish, it also completely failed to look at some of the main problems that thinking skeptics have with the data and conclusions drawn from it.

According to the PA report, this program was produced by Jamie Oliver’s production company:
http://www.freshone.tv/about.php
OH dear. That’s the last Jamie Oliver book I’ll ever buy.

At least it showed the real agenda at the end.
The end of democracy and a move to fascism. He was quite clear that this is what we should accept; Based on the concept that the potential for doing nothing for any possible disaster (and it could be anything you wanted to make up), is too much of a risk to take. Even if those actions plundged the world in to a fascist hell, with billions suffering or even dying because of those actions.

To take one small but interesting example from this juvenile film, they showed Monckton reciting elements from the periodic table to the tune of “I am the very model of a modern major-general” and then proceeded to play the original in the background, implying this suggested Monckton was a dilettante.
Actually what he was doing was reciting the parody by Tom Lehrer.
Question: were the narrator and all the filmmakers so ignorant that they did not know of the Lehrer original? Or were they deliberately misrepresenting what Monckton was doing? Answer: almost certainly the latter.
There was also juvenile stress on members of Monckton’s audience being “elderly”. Apparently they seek refuge from the knowledge that their generation’s life’s work has been in vain and will have to be undone. This was stated as a fact. (So younger people all accept the Green agenda? Tell that to the Republicans.)
The climategate emails had been “hacked”. No reference to the possibility that they had been leaked. Academics allowed to claim that critics of AGW should be ignored unless they published peer reviewed articles, with no reference to the systematic blocking revealed in the climategate emails.
We had an Australian academic using the argument from ignorance, saying we couldn’t think what else it could be other than CO2. And we were treated to an Oregon schoolteacher preaching the precautionary principle on a whiteboard without once mentioning costs.
And the topic of “forcing” was introduced as if it was new to the filmmaker, with him expressing astonishment that the whole argument came down to this. Which of course it doesn’t.
The floods in Pakistan, China etc were signs of “climate change”. And look at Australia, the film said, look what a dustbowl it is. Er ….
Such shoddiness would have disgraced an amateur. Yet the BBC paid (our) good money for it.

Comments to Delingpole have tipped 1000 in the time it took to write my comment above.

Boudu says: February 1, 2011 at 1:21 am
The first thing to remember is that all documentaries are fiction.

Although in this case Aunty Beeb was going for the comedy angle…
The Meet the Climate Sceptics title was chosen to trigger a memory association with the film Meet the Fockers… the audience are thus prepared to laugh at a program that ridicules strange people who should be regarded as real Fockers.

On the drive down, Jack informs Greg that he will be studying the Fockers to make sure that they are a good match for the lineage of the family. When they arrive on the island where the Fockers live, Bernie Focker (Dustin Hoffman) affectionately greets everyone with hugs and kisses. Greg slips away to meet his mother Roz (Barbra Streisand) who is a sex therapist specializing in senior sexuality and circumcision posttrauma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Fockers

It is becoming increasing apparent that Aunty Beeb is following the family traditions and techniques perfected by cuddly Uncle Joe Stalin. The BBC has always been a State funded propaganda machine… historically it worked to build up its creditability (by telling the truth) so that you would believe the Big Lies that they slipped in for the State… unfortunately for the Beeb (and the longer suffering subjects of the UK State) the situation has now completely reversed… their daily schedules are crammed full of Big Lies and nobody notices when they are telling the truth anymore… such is the state of the Main Lame Stream Media.

old44 says:
February 1, 2011 at 2:11 am
What a jolly good, absolutely top drawer idea, my good man!!
Holding a clock (with a second hand of course) would be a cool way to defeat the editors!

I agree that this was a hatchet job but why did Monckton involve himself – maybe his ego got in the way of his message. He was made to look a fool, but he made it too easy to do it. Monckton needs some serious PR advice, which he should put aside his aristocratic ego to accept.
P.S. I’ll happily re-film the documentary

Anthony – I heard about this programme earlier in the day it was broadcast – and mailed a BBC environment correspondent asking what does a man have to do to be taken seriously as a science critic and get an invitation (I hate the word sceptic – makes us sound like a religious sect). He did not even know the programme had been made!
I anticipated a round-table intense discussion! What I saw was a road movie. And I have to disagree with other commentators – I thought it was brilliant and very funny.
It did precisly as PolicyGuy said and made ‘skeptics look like crazed, gun loving, boozing, motorcycle gangers, senile, gay, conservative biggots’
but that is the point! He made that stick, not by slinging verbal abuse but through the eyes of the camera and the microphone – and however much was not shown, what was is close to the reality of a lot of the sceptics roadshow. We have to face that.
Lord Monckton, bless him, wore his heart on his sleeve and is obviously very sincere – but he is hardly the best person to review the science and engage in a reasoned discussion. He is a Showman. And when you put yourself in the spotlight like that, you are going to get scrutinised, warts and all. This movie was never about the science – it was about what some eccentric has done with the science.
It is hard not to see this all as deliberately conspired, but I think it is just a combination of naiveties….Murray saw what he saw and for all the editing, you couldn’t make it up, it was very telling. The same with the Horizon ‘Science under Attack’……Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society) is obviously very sincere. He has no idea there are real arguments with the science. As a medical research biochemist he does not know that splicing instrumental data onto proxies nullifies the calibration – and is very far from normal practice. If he is told it is by other professors…and the rest of the paleoclimatology world stays silent, is it surprising he believes it?
These programmes will make it even harder for genuine scientific criticism to gain air-time. I am the only British critic with a relevant science degree who has also published a well-received book – one that picks apart the alledged consenus of the IPCC and offers an alternative account of the ‘warming’ (UV, jetstream, cloud changes, solar magnetics, ocean cycles…..all there and fully referenced to the peer-reviewed literature). The book has been covered by the tabloid press and at least one independent TV news channel (Al Jazeera)…so it is certainly known about (gripe – you have not reviewed it at all – perhaps because it is a ‘green’ critique!) – yet I have received not one invitation to discussions, and especially absent are the Greens with whom I have previously worked closely. They refuse to engage and label me a ‘denialist’ without even reading the book.
The sad truth is that the establishments of science and the established media cannot handle the science in a responsible manner – too much is at stake for them, and hence they resort to propaganda. They have all nailed their colours to the carbon mast.
The other sad truth is that the sceptics roadshow is not a good advertisement for the depth of argument that characterises this site – and to which I know you are committed.
Nor are free-market neo-liberal think tanks the best sponsors. The ‘green’ world – which is now all-pervasive as the new carbon orthodoxy, simply dismisses it all as vested interest.
These chickens are coming home to roost! And these programmes are a reflection of truths that we as a sceptical ‘community’ need to face.

James Delingpole of the Telegraph tells of his experience with this outfit:
Nine months ago, when I was at the Heartland conference in Chicago, I was approached by a louche, affable, dark-haired, public school charmer called Rupert Murray.
————————————————————————
Oh James, James, your description of Mr Murray sounds just like the 2 public school boys currently running the UK – and you know what they are like.
Any relationship between charm and integrity is purely coincidental. In fact, in my experience the real charmers tend to be more slippery, because they can get away with it more easily and often. But then, I speak from the perspective of a woman who has been conned by experts!
Anyway, as others have said, the default position when dealing with journalists and film-makers is not to trust them. That, unfortunately, is why most politicians are so careful about their rehearsed sound-bytes and the importance of staying ‘on message’.

Mike Haseler says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:15 am
I think this will all backfire for the BBC.

I have read that a lot during the last year, the ‘no pressure’ and ‘toyota pryus’ ads come to mind, but I fail to see any backfire.
The brainwash is worse than we thought.

‘Lord’ Monckton is the skeptics equivalent of Al Gore.
Popular with people who are unable/unwilling to engae with the science, but like a slick presentation that tells them what they want to hear.
At least AL Gore has the sense NOT to ‘go legal’ when the more scientifically preposterous statements he makes are used to ridicule him.

No matter how much we decry these programmes for their editorial distortions and blatant propaganda, the fact is that the BBC are getting their message across to a lot of people and it is effective. The majority of people outside the sceptic community are ignorant of the techniques used to perpetrate this message. And the message gets through many times again second hand. Chris Evans, a very popular radio announcer on BBC radio discussed the first programme with unerring acceptance.
The BBC are very adept at getting their message across. In the first programme, it was their appeal to authority with Sir Paul Nurse, the new President of the Royal Society associating himself and his shared Nobel Prize with the great scientists of the past, such as Newton, Dalton and Darwin, and with the very professional Nasa who spend 2 billion a year looking down at the earth in order to study its climate. They must be right! The pretty cloud simulations prove it, don’t they. Whereas, on the other side, the association is with crackpots and Luddites. In fact the programme was never about science in general being under attack. The programme was all about climate scientists being under attack. The other examples drawn were just to discredit climate sceptics by association. In the second programme, the theme was to present sceptics purely as followers of the Tea Party, or old people who had had a good life on fossil fuels and who selfishly wanted it to continue, or extravagant lifestyle Americans wishing to feed their fossil fuel addiction. And the poor Lord Monkton was, tongue in cheek, accredited with bringing down the governments of Australia and America. What an evil, dangerous man this must be.
And in neither programme was the sceptics case given anything like a hearing beyond an occasional sound bite which was always countered by a “scientist.” The BBC were supposed to be having a more balanced policy on climate science and scepticism. This was certainly not it, but I can see any complaints being dismissed in their usual authoritative manner by some smug producer or controller. The BBC are never wrong on such matters! So don’t look to the BBC, or for that matter any other UK broadcaster to make any programme which sets out to explain any alternative theories, or which points out the shortcomings and uncertainties of the received “consensus,” or even the lies, manipulations and deceptions of the alarmist climate community. It’s not going to happen. Were going to have to rely on you gun happy, fuel guzzling Tea Party ultra right wing despotic Americans to get us out of the proverbial on this one.

Thoughts:
A. The reasons for older people refusing the AGW myth are:
i) that they have experience of previous frauds from Y2K to the wonders of communism;
ii) that they weren’t brainwashed at school by the mythmakers. Most had a rounder education than is provided now;
iii) they are concerned about the world they are leaving to their descendants and would actually like any funds available to be spent on cleaning it up and improving today’s environment for all. Older people are better at recycling, picking up litter and reusing rather than wasting materials.
B. Did they use the 10:10 clip of the adults being blown up because they knew that the schoolroom scene was even more offensive?

yes Ken B saw that one nearly fell off the chair m’self. After listening to the subtle repositions, carefully worded as you say, in the piece to camera by scientific workers who were on the trip – I wondered ‘mmm will the ABC take this opportunity to make their own subtle reposition?’ – silly boy I was. Not yet they are not ready, yet.

Further to my earlier post I would suggest that people lodge a complaint with the BBC about the ageism in the report. The one thing the pc BBC don’t like is to be thought of as non pc.
There was losts of dramatic classical music throughout and at the end I was surprised that Murray didn’t bring on the violins.
They seem to forget that most of their viewers are old and the younger viewers will be old some day.

I lodged a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints as follows:
Over the last few years I have followed many website blogs and read scientific papers about AGW (I am a maths graduate) from both the pro and anti camps. Many persuasive arguments originate from the so called “sceptics” and as the months go by it is starting to become clear (to me and many others) that the Earth’s historic natural cycles and ‘skeptic’ science provide a far more believable and plausible account of what is happening in the real World. Rupert Murray clearly shows contempt in the way he has depicted the sceptics as ‘gun toting’, ‘oil-guzzling’ and (incredibly) ‘old’. If the BBC really wants to do serious programs then I suggest you choose a topic that somebody knows something about and who has no underlying agenda. If you have any ounce of dignity I kindly ask that you allow a right of reply to this program with unbaised editing. I think in 30 years time the sceptics will become the mainstream and the IPPC thinktank (and UK met office) will have lost their funding long ago.
***********

Roger Harrabin takes issue with Peter Sissons criticism of the BBC in a letter to the UK “Daily Mail” today:
http://i52.tinypic.com/o6z7ye.jpg

I watched this program last night thinking at last a program which will bring a bit of balance into the debate. However I turned it off in disgust halfway through. It was obvious right from the start that the objective was to do a demolition job on people who do not buy into the CO2 is evil hypothesis. Also by picking on Christopher Monckton and James Delingpole it was obviously an attempt to portray people who hold an alternative view of the issue of climate change as being eccentric and slightly barmy. I expected better of the BBC.

“note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told”
Almost certainly contractual. For shows commissioned from independent producers or for bought-in shows the BBC usually has the rights to show them within the UK only. If the BBC allowed the world to see them via their website they would be sued by the rights-holders. If they spent a fortune buying worldwide rights unnecessarily and getting nothing for foreign sales they would be castigated by license fee payers.
The BBCs stance on CAGW is dreadful but let’s not give easy scoring points to warmists by berating the BBC for a not-unreasonable decision.

I keep telling people this a war.
This is the fightback after 10:10’s own goal. This is the mobilisation of forces for the big push.
Fight.

Robinson said: UK Sceptic: BBC – time to say goodbye to the money you forcefully extract from my pocket by means of legal menaces.
How do you propose to do that without throwing out your television set?
The law that governs the BBC (TV) licence is contract law (Statute), not Common Law. I’ll simply refuse to enter into a contract with them and then defend my rights not to be so imposed under Common Law by declaring myself to be a Freeman of the Land. I won’t be the first one to take this course and I suspect I won’t be the last.

BBC COMPLAINTS
Do 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: Last year, Alison Hastings said this: “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”
Feel free to throw this back in her face by contacting her directly:
Alison Hastings
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
UK
Telephone: 03700 100 222
Textphone: 03700 100 212
Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
Also write to the BBC Complaints department:
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
Call 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 (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR
There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
or write:
Feedback
PO Box number 67234
London
SE1P 4AX
telephone 03 333 444 544
feedback@bbc.co.uk
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC Statement:
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 other BBC programs directly:
Storyville
storyville@bbc.co.uk
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commissioning Editors
The British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning
Knowledge
George Entwistle
Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
(Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)
Emma Swain
Head of Knowledge Commissioning
emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.
Krishan Arora
Independents Executive
krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.
Mary FitzPatrick
Executive Editor Diversity
mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.
Documentaries
Charlotte Moore
Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
Room 6060
BBC TV Centre
Wood Lane
London
W12 7RJ
UK
charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk
Emma Willis
Commissioning Executive Producer
emma.willis@bbc.co.uk
Maxine Watson
Commissioning Executive Producer
maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk

@ Robinson
“Oh good gawd Stacey. All complaints to the BBC do is make them come out with a statement justifying what they did. It doesn´t seem to inform what they do in the future one iota.”
I know that, but you have to keep trying. I think maybe the route is the BBC Trust and this is because campaigning is a breach of the charter.

Only could stomach 2 minutes, but it makes Micheal Moore’s “documentaries” look fair and balanced.
GAS!
GOLF!
EVIL GUN TOTIN REDNECK AMERICANS!
AAAAAAAH!

LazyTeenager says:
February 1, 2011 at 3:55 am
I found this quote from the article illuminating
——
who can gather huge amounts of material and then edit and assemble the material in a way that they can present a message, the message the producer wishes to convey. This is irrespective of what is actually said, and what interviewees actually intended.
——–
So he does understand Climategate then.
Your usual BS. The Climategate emails were not edited they were published complete with all their evidence intact. Evidence of cheating, lying, manipulation etc. You should read them all and Harry’s notes of course.

@Boudu
As a professional video editor you can articulate what we can’t about this show. It would be marvellous if you could write to Ofcom laying out the clear bias, or write at greater length here to further our ability to defend against such rubbish. Cheers!

The Bride of Monster was interviewed by a local TV reporter for over a half hour for a story. Apparently she didn’t give the reporter what he wanted; they used THREE WORDS of what she said.

Complaint sent in, for what it’s worth.
As far as watching BBC in the US goes, you may habve some joy with this linky:
http://hackedcabletv.com/splash.php
It’s sort of a BBC iPlayer plus 🙂

Do you suppose we can make an FOI request about how much the BBC paid for this rubbish? And, perhaps more to the point, if they didn’t pay for it – who did?

Don’t worry. No one takes any real notice of the BBC – in Britain at least! We all know them as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

Its worse than we thought.
If you trust a journalist, don’t blame the BBC, even the Prime Minister and the Heir to the British Throne say anyone with a skeptic view is a “flat earther”.
I was waiting for proof that the Earth is flat !

Well, it could have been called ‘Meet the Climate Deniers!”
The BBC has been instructed by the regulator to make its climate change coverage more balanced. In two weeks they have put out two programs hosted by true believers and with the clear intent to attack and discredit sceptical laymen and scientists. Some balance.
“Meet the Sceptics” sounds nice and friendly. In fact this program is effectively a sustained attack on Monckton. Several other sceptics appeared very briefly, but probably 90% of the program concentrated on Monckton. I regard Christopher Monckton, although an unusual ‘character’ who, like everyone else, can make mistakes, with high regard. Indeed, it was his two pieces printed several years ago in the Sunday Telegraph (not to be confused with the ultra-warmist Daily Telegraph) that first alerted me to the climate change disaster that threatens our future prosperity and freedoms (of course I’m referring to the AGW delusion).
Al Gore also helped. In the next issue the Telegraph let Gore reply. Gore’s arguments relied mostly on insulting Monckton and had little to do with science.
There was a very brief appearance by Richard Lindzen, perhaps thirty seconds. Why fill the program with Monckton with a tiny appearance from Lindzen, one of the world’s foremost climate science? Here’s a possibility: they filmed several hours with Lindzen, but they hated it, because he was speaking for true science, and it waas too difficult to ‘edit’ it to their liking. So they decided to effectively cut him out.
Trenberth talking about ‘truth’ is sickening. Just one week earlier, on ‘Science under Attack’, we see a NASA climate scientist clearly telling an outrageous lie: that mankind emits far more CO2 than nature. I’m thinking of lodging a formal complaint with the BBC for broadcasting an obvious lie on a factual program. For you guys on the other side of the pond, how about a complaint to NASA? Anthony? There’s more discussion of this lie by a NASA scientist ina recent thread.
And they wonder why people are losing faith with science….
Both programs used a similar method: the presenter was very friendly with the sceptical victims, so they were probably put off guard. This looks like the very worst kind of deceit.
Finally, there was a very odd sequence near the end. Monckton is shown opening a package of documents. It looks as if he is thunderstruck by the contents, almost as if his world has fallen apart. Then he’s shown standing still in the distance with sad music playing. The commentary leading up to this was casting doubt on Monckton, and this sequence seems to confirm this.
Most people would interpret this sequence in an obvious way: that Monckton had just seen damning evidence that completely destroys his credibility, and that he has more or less given up.
I would like to know why Monckton agreed to this sequence. I can only assume the reason they gave was false and that he was deceived.
After the setbacks of Climategate it looks like the believers are fighting back. But for the BBC to take such a one-sided and distorted approach is outrageous. How can broadcasting two programs in two weeks, both of them presented and made by obvious believers, be balanced? How about a program made by a serious sceptical scientist?
Chris

How boring and predictable would that be?
That’s what it looks like for the trailer, boring and predictable, especially predictable. So skeptics are gun totin, old toothless rednecks on chopper motorcycles. Whoda thunk the BBC would portray them that way??
;O)

I haven’t seen the film and so have no idea if it is fair or not. Certainly the film has a point of view and people watching would know this. But, Monckton is a public figure who has ridiculed others and has the means to distribute his rebuttal of the film. I recall he threatened a suit against Professor John Abraham’s university because of Abraham’s posted lecture critiquing Monckton. Monckton is no friend of free speech.

It makes me ashamed to be British and very ashamed to have been to a British public school. Not so much the viewpoint, but the complete lack of integrity of the film-maker. When he said he was going to out aside bias, he lied. What ever happened to saying what you mean and meaning what you say ? Bloody coward,

I came in this thread to find a link to the video. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a working link to what the BBC played yet. Perhaps BBC doesn’t allow Americans to see because they want to prevent Brits from seeing American commentary on their bias?
Anyone have a working link to the video in question?

John Marshall says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:37 am
…The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer

Yeah, the site works just fine in the states. However, whenever you try to run a video it loads, then stops and says, “not available in your area.” This reeks of deliberate content blocking by the BBC to me.

Michael says:
February 1, 2011 at 12:48 am
Nice to see Alex Jones in the trailer.

No, it isn’t. Alex Jones is a nutcase who believes just about any conspiracy theory thrown at him. I’ve heard him on live satellite radio given free reign to spout whatever he wanted. It is incoherent nonsense, less than half of which was backed up by any facts whatsoever. The number of logical fallacies per minute this guy is capable of staggers the imagination. There is no doubt in my mind that he was thrown in to associate the skeptics with a certifiable kook. If I were sitting in the same room with this man, he wouldn’t get half a sentence out the entire time because I would question every single word.

“George Lawson says:
February 1, 2011 at 6:07 am
Buddenbrook says:
February 1, 2011 at 4:10 am
“Isn’t it about the time that the prominent skeptics got together and made themselves a 60-90 minute documentary that covers the key issues and questions?”
Absolutely. ”
It’s already been done, remember?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
Sure, it’s even worse now but the fundamentals haven’t changed. But I can’t think of any major channel that would dream of running this film or anything like it now, far too scared of the backlash from the warmists and crimatologists.

I experienced exactly the same situation as Delingpole and Monckton when I attended the First Heartland Conference in New York. I made a formal complaint to Ofcom, the official agency that said in part,
“I was a participant in a climate conference in New York from March 2 – 4, 2008, organized by the Heartland Institute. At the end of the first day a person who said they were part of a BBC team interviewing people at the conference approached me. I agreed to an interview. I was very impressed by the presence of the BBC team because most of the major US networks stayed away. My only other interview of note was by a representative of the US National Public Radio (NPR). I was impressed that the BBC was genuinely interested in hearing and understanding all sides of the science of global warming and climate change. I believed this true right up to the showing of the program. I was never told that the interview material was part of a planned program denigrating those who try to pursue the scientific.
The interview took place in the large foyer outside the main conference room. I spent considerable time before the camera answering questions posed by Ian Stewart all with the belief that I was presenting my knowledge about the so-called skeptics view of climate science. I do not recall the precise length of time of the, interview, but it was more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes. I don’t recall the precise time because of technical interruptions. I do recall Stewart being provocative at times about specific issues. At the end of the interview he asked if I would consent to further interview the next day. I agreed.
The following day I met with the BBC representatives and was informed Stewart had returned to England overnight. The interview was to continue and I went to a room rented by the BBC and set up as a temporary studio. The interviewer was reading questions from a list and clearly was not very familiar with science or the topic of climate change. This interview lasted a long time of which about 2 hours were on camera. Evidence for this was the batteries had to be replaced and the recording cartridge as well. At no time before or during this session was I told of the intent of the interview. I continued to believe it was to report on the views of the participants including mine.
I understand that only three quotes from the entire interview were used in the program and one was repeated. Clearly, this cannot possibly represent my knowledge or views on the subject of climate change. More troublesome is that the repeated quote is out of context and as such provocative. I am quoted as suggesting members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be in jail.
Quotes from the program;
Professor Tim Ball: If it’s fraud, they should be in jail.
Professor Tim Ball (at podium): … so the focus on temperature …
Professor Tim Ball: If it’s fraud, they should be in jail. If, it was incompetence, they should be fired.
These are serious charges and require the supporting evidence I provided in the taped interview. Absolutely none of that evidence was included in the program. In addition, I was not provided with any opportunity for the right of reply. ”
The claim was rejected by Ofcom because I signed the same form that Monckton signed, but this was done before the second part of the interview on the second day. I understood the first part was simply to get my views to determine if they were appropriate for the program and the second part was the formal interview from which the data would be used.

This happens all the time. Documentaries have an agenda – they have an allotted time to get their view across to the world, and they present in a biased way to get you to drink their Kool-Aid. I live in UK and haven’t watched BBC since 1978. If you don’t want someone making your mind up for you, don’t watch TV, it’s insidious mind control.
There are lots of people who have complained about entrapment and being misled. A number of scientists complained bitterly about their treatment by ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, others complained about ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ – Richard Dawkins for one, who is just as bad, or worse, in his own documentaries about religion: he can dish it out, it seems, but can’t take it. It seems everyone is in on the act – if you have enough footage, you can always cut it and splice it, and mix certain music etc, to make any message you want. People even make entertainment out of it: we have ‘Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’ and ‘Bruno’ as mainstream examples.
So this is no new thing. How is it that folk can’t see this coming? Are folk so vain that they can’t turn down an opportunity to be on screen?

What has this got to do with WUWT?
BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO RETHINK DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT’S WEB BLOCKS
Illegal downloads are believed to cost the creative industries £400m a year
The British government has announced that it is to look again at plans to block websites that infringe copyright. The controversial measures formed part of its crackdown on net pirates, outlined in the Digital Economy Act (DEA).
The decision to review it follows a raft of complaints about the workability of the legislation. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has now asked Ofcom to consider the viability of blocking certain websites. “I have no problem with the principle of blocking access to websites used exclusively for facilitating illegal downloading of content,” said Mr Hunt. “But it is not clear whether the site blocking provisions in the Act could work in practice so I have asked Ofcom to address this question,” he added.
It all started when child porn sites were blocked. Then terrorists sites were blocked. After that, some sites “which facilitated criminal acts”. Further up the sunny slope, sites which “incite hatred and violence on others” were blocked. Today, it is proposed that sites that infringe copyright be blocked. Tomorrow, it may be sites proving to be the biggest thorn in the side of politicians that are blocked. Hmmm… wonder which sites they might be?
…and the British criticize China for Internet censorship!

[snip – just as bad as the previous comment – tone it down]

What was so bad about that comment? It was the truth. These guys are fighting really dirty Anthony, and people should know.

I found the trailer to be rather uninteresting. It’s all cheesiness and dull predictability. The entire film is nothing more than an extension of the tired, old caricature of the sceptic. For most AGWers this image cannot be changed despite exposure to contrary evidence. Ironically, in precisely the same manner as their steadfast belief in catastrophic global warming.
It would not serve Rupert Murray’s preconceived view to talk to people like myself: Young, liberal, educated Albertan, recycler who shops with reusable bags, buys organic vegetables, and lives 100% off grid, using solar for electricity and wood for heat.
I believe the discerning, intelligent viewer, no matter their views on climate change, won’t get sucked in by this.

There’s a reason Monckton is so prominently featured. His arguments and methods laid bare will eventually prove a net negative for those who honestly disagree with the high-probability conclusions outlined in the IPCC reports.

Peer review came up. The IPCC 2007 fourth report on climate change had 13 peer reviewed papers. Popular Technology have collated 830 peer reviewed papers all rejecting man made climate change seewww.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html.

Boudu says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:21 am
Among all the contribution to this exceptional thread, the one by Boudu is the best and probably the only expert one.
Given the exact same material I could edit a programme that would tell a totally different story. Never be told that a documentary is truth.
And what a wonderful experiment that would make in search for ‘truth’, if a professional with a different view were allowed access to the same raw material the BBC used to produce this hatchet job.

I work in the UK TV industry (on the fringes thankfully), and have experienced first hand how depressing any encounter with the BBC is. After years of hard work, a former client (an executive at an independent TV company) had a project commissioned by the BBC, put into production at great expense, then abruptly had the project pulled away and handed to another production company without explanation or compensation. His lawyers told him he had grounds to sue the BBC for the time and money he had lost, but that up against this state funded Goliath with unlimited time and finds to fight him, he would go bankrupt before he won.
Another friend worked as a producer for the BBC on a freelance contract (they never give permanent positions to those outside the ‘club’). She approached an executive there with a promising idea for a documentary she had worked long and hard on in her spare time, only to have it rejected out of hand. She left the BBC shortly after this, and several months later I saw her documentary screened, exactly as she had planned it in her brief. At no point did the BBC even have the courtesy to tell her they had made her documentary, let alone offer her a job working on it. While at the BBC she witnessed firsthand the back scratching and toadying between BBC executives and the arts / political / intellectual elite, as well as the breathtaking degree of expenses fiddling that would later become public knowledge (though overshadowed by the MPs expenses scandal and kept somewhat quiet in the MSM).
I fought the BBC when they claimed my intellectual property as their own. I won, but only because I had an equally large organisation fighting my corner.
At its higher echelons, the BBC are an insular organisation, dominated as much by the public-school, Oxbridge based ‘old boy network’ now as they were fifty years ago. They see themselves as a left-wing, socially progressive, multicultural, enlightened elite, whereas in actual fact they are, and behave like a bunch of snobbish, bullying, bourgeois, reactionary, self-serving Hampstead-centric pseudo intellectuals who simply adore the smell of their own gaseous emissions. They exist in a perpetual state of hand-wringing middle class angst and believe their ill considered, second hand opinions are valid and unassailable by virtue of having fallen from their endlessly flapping jaws. Their urban centred lifestyle leads them to fear nature and see doom in every corner of the natural world, which, but for an endless stream of propaganda from their beloved Tonka Marxist rags like the Guardian, would pass them by entirely. The internal dissonance between their self-image and reality makes them hate themselves and resent the wider public they claim to serve, and forces them further onto any passing cultural bandwagon like ‘AGW’ that, in their eyes, can set them apart from the unwashed masses.
Of course, the last paragraph is probably a grossly flawed caricature of a group of people based on my own prejudices, but apparently it’s okay to mischaracterise and smear people you disagree with now that the BBC can do it.

I agree with Jack Greer, I don’t like “Lord” Monckton either. With his pompousness and trumpet blowing he makes for a perfect caricature. Screaming you are hitler youth to 20-year old hippie girls (and boys) isn’t the smartest thing to do to endear yourself to the larger public.

Jack Greer says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:25 am

[doesn’t matter]

My comment had nothing to do with Monckton.
Mark

Never have I felt like such a slave. I helped pay for this charade of a documentary – if you want to watch TV in the UK, you have to pay an involuntary subscription to the BBC of about $200 / year. And this is the rubbish we get for our forced labor.

Anyone with a usenet subscription can download the “documentary/propaganda” via usenet.
Locate the files with nzbindex or binsearch (search for ‘ storyville sceptics’ ) and dowload it with a binary newsgrabber like lottanzb (linux) or sabnzbd (windows).
Both newsgrabbers are freeware.

An interview on NPR Sunday with a Guardian columnist revealed that the newspaper’s environmental stance was a deliberate strategy to bring in traffic and it worked. The Guardian hired four environmental reporters and then developed strategic relationships with environmental websites to steer traffic from them to the Guardian. They touted this as a successful on line business model. I am sure the BBC is doing the same thing.

JJB MKI says: the last paragraph is probably a grossly flawed caricature
I couldn’t see any flaws from here… perhaps you should write some more…
Just don’t hold back next time 🙂

No one seems to be able to answer my question: why did Monkton claim that Obama is from Kenya?
REPLY: Why not ask him? We can’t speak for him. Now quit cluttering up this thread with your rubbish. Also, learn to spell Monckton as well as your own email address properly.- Anthony

Jeremy says:
February 1, 2011 at 7:00 am
I came in this thread to find a link to the video. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a working link to what the BBC played yet. Perhaps BBC doesn’t allow Americans to see because they want to prevent Brits from seeing American commentary on their bias?
Anyone have a working link to the video in question?
John Marshall says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:37 am
…The BBC has no control on who views their programs. They beam to satellite so all is available with a Sky box. ie. most of Europe can receive Sky broadcasts. This may be difficult in the US though but it is available on the internet through-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer
Yeah, the site works just fine in the states. However, whenever you try to run a video it loads, then stops and says, “not available in your area.” This reeks of deliberate content blocking by the BBC to me.
Try this, open genuine BBC iplayer and follow instructions.
iPLAYER DOWNLOADER 4.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsnapshotmedia.co.uk%2Fiplayer-downloader-4-0%2F&ei=NX5ITZ2cCciKhQex1cTxBA&usg=AFQjCNGpZKIxL_yNprU87k-Vl3lZoh91RA

Robuk says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 1, 2011 at 1:50 pm
If you can get the content to run you can also copy it with SNAGIT, its on Pir8t* bay.

apologies, Murray Granger, I meant Rupert Murray but I was 20

Around 41 minutes into the video, they showed a presentation of what was purported to be a measurement of global warming which was much worse than IPCC predictions.
But, looking closely at the slightly blurry graph, I saw the words, TOPEX Poseidon at the bottom.
A bit of Googling later and I found the almost identical graph – at least, the cherry-picked few years of sea level rise data which happened to be higher than the IPCC projections.
I look at it this way – if this AGW business is on the level, then how come they feel so much need to lie and deceive?

ad says:
February 1, 2011 at 5:11 am – “Mr Artwest it seems is also a contortionist.”
No, I am just trying to stop fellow sceptics look like easily written-off paranoics because they don’t know what they are talking about.
Anyone who knows anything about TV rights knows exactly why iPlayer programmes are not available outside the area for which they have been licensed – i.e. the UK. Any broadcaster anywhere has the same problem to deal with in this regard and, if they make material available online at all, have to deal with it in much the same way.
Let’s criticise the BBC for screening an appalling programme NOT over a sideshow which just makes us look ignorant and hands ammunition to the alarmists.

PNS (see organizers of the Lisbon Conference) styled communication and reconciliation exhibited by BBC4′s “Meet the Skeptics”?
Yes.
John

So the entire documentary is intended to marginalize Lord Monckton.

>>John Lish says:
>>February 1, 2011 at 12:50 am
>>Dr A Burns,
>>“there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ >>testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.
Thanks John. I’ve sent another email to Kev to let him know. It might get another bite.

Buddenbrook says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:26 am

I agree with Jack Greer, I don’t like “Lord” Monckton either. With his pompousness and trumpet blowing he makes for a perfect caricature. Screaming you are hitler youth to 20-year old hippie girls (and boys) isn’t the smartest thing to do to endear yourself to the larger public.

He did not scream, and if you watch the full video, he justifies his statement perfectly. Those ‘hippies’ where acting exactly as the Hitler Youth acted. In exactly the same way, and with exactly the same lack of understanding why.
I happen to know a bit about it as my own mother was in the HY, as were a great many children of here age at that time in that place. Very few, if any, understood what they were doing or why.

Wait, they were portraying climate skeptics as motorcycle riders, with motorcycles having a smaller carbon footprint and being better for the environment than even a Prius, like that was a bad thing? Those cads!
Do they really want people to have zero-emission all-electric vehicles, small ones that will significantly reduce urban traffic congestion? Then let’s have government-subsidized Segways for everyone! It won’t cost the government anything, as they can just divert the money from funding for (C)AGW research and doubtful carbon-sequestration “fixes.” This is a real solution that will yield immediate benefits, so why muck around with unproven stuff that won’t bear fruit for decades? Stick a basket on them so they’ll be good for quick shopping trips, and watch those global anthropogenic CO2 emissions drop!
BTW, I’ll take mine with snow tires. (C)AGW has been so active lately, the snow and ice hasn’t melted away for weeks, and (C)AGW is sending even more right now!

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
February 1, 2011 at 7:24 am
So my conclusion is an obvious one—the documentary is biased in a way I wished it wouldn’t be but am not surprised to find it is.
———————–
Aren’t all documentaries bias though? I wouldn’t expect to find on a documentary about evolution an alternative view point from the church saying we’re all created by god for example and this argument given equal weighting.

Dr A Burns,
“there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.

Wrong on two counts.
Firstly, that is not what Phil Jones said. There is a word missing from that quote that completely changes the meaning you’ve assigned to the statement.
Secondly, he did not say it in any government hearing (you won’t find it in Hansard). He was replying to a questionnaire given him by the BBC. You can see the actual quote here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
If there’s anyone left, after countless explanations of what Jones was saying, who is interested enough to see the fault in the bit quoted above, look up the meaning of ‘statistical significance’.
BTW, there is now enough data to say that warming since 1995 is statistically significant. If anyone wishes to continue this meme, they need only change the year to 1996. This time next year, you will need to say ‘since 1997’, and so on.

Barry,
You might want to follow your own ‘statistical significance’ link and then follow some other links off of it – like ‘Pitfalls and criticism’
Oh, and while you’re at it, do you know of any way of fitting a reliable trend to the last 15 years worth of data which is not going to be significantly affected by the next 15 years worth of data – when we get it?

Lubos,
“I can’t imagine how a decent person could decide, because of this movie – if it is similar to the preview – that the sceptics are either evil or silly.”
Well, Lubos, maybe it was the stereotypical images – images of rednecks toting guns, rednecks in pickup trucks with rifles on them, old people muttering incoherently, shots of heads at podiums shouting liars, frauds and interspliced with shots of tornadoes that depicts the very climate change that the sceptics are sceptical of – maybe for the British viewers, these images portray a dysfunctional, raging right-wing, libertarian, anti government and anti science sub sect in a distant hinterland, that is strange and frightening.

Barry,
Yes, it was semantics. Phil Jones chose his words carefully so as to make his case as strongly as he could without resorting to lying.

Yes, it was semantics. Phil Jones chose his words carefully so as to make his case as strongly as he could without resorting to lying.

Actually, Peter, the words ‘statistical significance’ were not carefully chosen by Jones. It was the point of the question put to him:

“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

Comments such as the one upthread I quoted typify the misunderstanding between the word significance – meaning importance – and the concept of statistical significance.
This meme has amazing traction, considering how simple it is to correct and how often this has been done. Because it is not complicated, I think unwillingness is the cause, rather than incapacity.

kadaka, nothing you have written bears on my point. With each attempt to discuss orthogonal issues, over-complicating a straightforward misinterpretation of Jones comments (now obfuscated by you focusing on an aside), my opinion that skeptics who know better are unwilling to admit that the Jones quote is misunderstood is reinforced.
Here is the original comment that I replied to.

“there’s been no significant warming for the past 15 years” was part of Phil Jones’ testimony to a UK Parliament select committee. You’ll find it in Hansard.

You or Peter could confirm the error in the quotation marks. I’m 95% confident that you won’t. 🙂

From barry on February 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm:

You or Peter could confirm the error in the quotation marks. I’m 95% confident that you won’t. 🙂

Hope you didn’t bet any money on that. I’ve been careful to use “statistically-significant” when referencing the line, even linking it to the BBC piece, which I’ve bookmarked. Thus I can confirm that, yes, “statistically-” was left out.
I just usually avoid the pedantry of pointing out the error, especially when it’s used for a quip rather than a statement of fact used in building an argument.
Now, please stop incorrectly using your Big Word of the Day by talking of things ‘orthogonal to your point.” You’re one dimension short of talking about right angles, those things would have to come off your line of reasoning. Straight from your point would come a ray.
Meanwhile you had said:

BTW, there is now enough data to say that warming since 1995 is statistically significant. If anyone wishes to continue this meme, they need only change the year to 1996. This time next year, you will need to say ‘since 1997′, and so on.

This indicates that 16 years of data makes it statistically-significant, but with only 15 years of data it is not statistically-significant. This ignores the signal to noise ratio, which is an error, especially as the trend from 1995 will continue to get smaller if we continue to have a cooling trend from 2002 onward.
The major significance of the Jones quote, though, is revealed in the first line of that Wikipedia Statstical significance entry:

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance.

Since the warming trend from 1995 to 2009 was not statistically-significant, it could have just been a random walk. That’s what’s important.
Now then, can you supply either your own work or links to other work that shows the trend from 1995 to 2010 (to present) is statistically-significant?

Since the warming trend from 1995 to 2009 was not statistically-significant, it could have just been a random walk. That’s what’s important.

Important?
Why do you think the period was selected? As Lindzen and Lubos Motl pointed out, the time period was the longest annual period possible to just fall short of statistical significance. These were questions “gathered from climate sceptics.” The take-away message here – the import – is that the skeptics didn’t want a serious discussion of trends, just a talking point that they could cite. Why else select 1995 – 2009 at that point in time?
Someone else has done the work for 2010: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/01/02/no-statistical-warming-since-1995-wrong/

This indicates that 16 years of data makes it statistically-significant, but with only 15 years of data it is not statistically-significant. This ignores the signal to noise ratio, which is an error, especially as the trend from 1995 will continue to get smaller if we continue to have a cooling trend from 2002 onward.

You are quite correct. The noise determines the amount of data required. And other temperature data sets (like satellite data, which are noisier) would require longer time periods to achieve statistical significance. By contrast, the September sea ice anomaly data sets achieve statistical significance with shorter time periods because the data is less noisy.
I simplified to make a point. Although it is not perfectly accurate, it aids a more basic comprehension, which I felt was useful for those not well-versed in statistical significance – ie, the contributors who made the original comments.
I am happy to say I bet wrong on your and Peter’s replies. Of course, I was goading you a little.
(Another aside) – if we take Peter’s strict interpretation of statistical significance, there has been no cooling trend since 2002, for the reasons he laid out. Any chance you might rebut his point in order to validate your own? 😉

Barry,
As far as I’m concerned, a 95% confidence level is barely acceptable in any branch of science, let alone 90%