Lord Monckton is rather upset with the producers of this show, so much that he filed a legal action for a right of reply according to Bishop Hill.
I was interviewed (captured really, they flagged me down in the conference hall foyer with no notice) by this production group at the Heartland conference last year in Chicago, giving well over an hour’s worth of an interview in which they asked the same question several times in different ways, hoping to get the answer they wanted. This is an old news interviewing trick to get that golden sound bite. I knew what they were doing, and kept giving the answers my way.
Then, they showed me the contract they wanted me to sign (no mention at the beginning before the interview) and I spent several minutes reading it, finally deciding that the contract basically amounted to me giving them all rights to my image, words, and opinion, with specific rights to edit them together in “any way they saw fit”. Yes, as I recall, that was exactly the way it was worded in the contract, and basically gave them a license to create their own alternate “Watts interview” reality as they desired. My years in television news have shown me how editing can be brutally unfair in the hands of somebody skilled, and I basically told them to “stuff it” and refused to sign the contract. They spent the next two weeks via email and phone trying to come up with contract variations to get me to sign and I still refused. The entire affair was rushed and unprofessional in my experience.
The “repeated questioning of the same topic” interview technique of these blokes was a tipoff for me that the interview was a setup. I wanted no part of it and refused to allow them legal rights over me by not signing the contract. After watching the trailer below, I’m glad I stood my ground.
Here’s the BBC video and intro text for the program (note: the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere):
Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.
Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don’t fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?
The film features Britain’s pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?
This is the trailer, which everyone can view:
h/t to Bishop Hill
UPDATE: 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. With his friend Callum he was making a documentary about climate sceptics for the BBC and wondered if I’d like to take part.
“The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.
“Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”
Very true, I thought. It really is about time the BBC examined the issue from the other side. They are a public service broadcaster, after all, not a green investment fund. (Ho ho).
Unfortunately, the ending Delingpole paints is worse that my own, be sure to read his take on it.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
When interviewed, perhaps it’s wise to pick up your mobile or whatever and start your own recording of the interview. That might restrict the interviewer’s and editor’s unfair creativity somewhat.
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
Yes, but would the BBC have even bothered with this ‘documentary’ if the warmists were winning the argument? Once you get over the offensive nature of the program, it looks more like desperation. I follow the sharemarket here in Australia and I can tell you coal companies are doing fine and cleantech companies are struggling. Governments are looking for money for disaster recovery after the floods, and the ones they are ditching are climate change-related. Follow the money.
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.
…and the BBC was doing better. I think these uneducated folks should stay under the rug, so folks that know what they are saying can be the skeptical voice. In politics too…
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’.
Robinson
In answer to your question.
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?
No you just have to stop paying the licence fee. There are well over 1,000 people in the UK who have done just that and have not been prosecuted. The TV Licensing body have no powers to enter your home and the so called detector vans have no equipment inside them capable of detecting a TV. They rely on frightening people with fines etc. but cannot prove anything unless you admit to having a TV. If more people refused to pay then the BBC will lose income and be unable to produce biased programmes like this.
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.
Why did Monkton say that Obama comes from Kenya?
‘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.
Can’t wait till Lord M brings out his report on this piece of puerile propaganda to show what he said versus what was reported.
The poor BBC have no idea about the self-damage they’ll suffer from the whirlwind that they’ve spawned!
If anyone wants a link to that piece about the periodic table so they too can show it to their kids & show them that science can be fun! Here it is:-
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmwlzwGMMwc&w=480&h=390]
I had the misfortune to watch some of the BBC programme ” Meet the Skeptics” – I didn’t manage all of it because I was so incensed. I was a not so subtle attempt to discredit “Climate Skeptics” and in particular to discredit and denigrate Lord Monckton who the BBC must see as their target. It was a disgraceful programme not worthy of the BBC supposed impartiality. I intent to e-mail the Board of Governors of the BBC and my local MP about the this dishonest use of public funds. Lord Monckton should sue the BBC and at the very least given a right of reply. How low has the BBC sunk.:<(
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.
Don’t forget the CCX was shut down and the European ETS has been suspended for false credits and millions or billions of euros disappeared.
So let them make their puerile programs.
Every day the story stinks even more.
A documentary on the fraud in the trading would do a lot of damage to the warmists.
A documentary on the the UN’s attitude would make an even stronger point.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
***********
This BBC programme Meet The Climate Skeptics, is typical of mainstream media and their continual one sided view on Global Warming. Despite the fact that we have suffered the two most severe winters in a hundred years, no mention is made of that and their claim that Climate Skeptics cannot get any scientists to support their view is utter nonsense. Any Scientists who disagree with Global Warming, are not allowed to speak on mainstream media. People are controlled by the power of the brainwashing media.
They have got enough people conditioned to believe in Global Warming, but they will keep up their campaign to make people who question this lie appear as idiots.
We are in a lot of trouble!!!!
I watched ‘Meet the Climate Sceptics’ and started to feel that Christopher Monckton was on a hiding to nothing, especially given Murrray’s patronising use of ‘Christopher’ throughout the piece as he flattered to decieve.
I too felt the need for the interviewee to take back control of the editing by sitting with a clock in shot, and I was NOT surprised that when Murray showed a quick clip of the 10:10 film that he skipped past the part where the children blow up: that would have been too much an own goal.
The fact is, as I came to think about it, was that Murray was intent on finding something, anything about CM that could be used against him. Eventually he found one citation CM had used in a lecture (at the end of the program) that was not as CM had stated. When challenged, CM immediately put his hand up and explained himself. However, this turned on the fact that the actual argument of the scientific point was not disputed, just the citation. It would be interesting to apply Murray’s strictures then to such a ‘An Inconvenient truth’ and see how many howlers could be found there.
Penultimately, Murray gave CM a ‘right of reply’ by ‘allowing’ him to make a statement to camera. The disgraceful thing about that was that it was very subtly edited (you can just see CM’s head jerk out of sequence with the flow).
But finally, after trying to sell himself as a seeker after truth, Murray blew his whole facade away when he stated that the 2010/11 floods in Queensland were the ‘worst since Queensland was founded’!!