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.
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.
This is a cautionary tale. It shows what they mean by “reconcilliation”. First, gain your trust, then stab you in the back.
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 🙂
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. With all the sceptics around the world, some I suppose with a lot of money, I feel an attempt to put a truthful and genuine case for the sceptics should be possible. An hour long reasoned film proffesionaly produced would find many stations willing to show it even if the BBC refused. Maybe there is someone, or some company out there that would be prepared to sponsor it, but at the very least we could seek donations from all of us, channelled through WUWT. We could all put forward subject matter for the film which, in the end, might have more far reaching effects than anything else to stop the dash to AGW madness. Presumably some of the cost of production would in any case be recovered by fees from the broadcasters around the world. It could be a very exciting project. What would your feelings be on the subject Mr. Watts?
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?
Rhodrich says:
February 1, 2011 at 12:34 am
You are right of course, both BBC 3 & BBC4 have low viewing figures despite some very good programmes (this wasn’t one of them I hasten to say, although I only saw half of it due to Choral commitments!). The BBC is blatently biased & prejudiced, but you have to remember this has been steadily going on for some time. Their pension funds depend heavily upon greenie investments so it is in their own best interests & not the public’s who pay for it all! Remember, they waill always start or drop into the narrative “we all know we must cut down our carbon emissions”, or ” due to anthropogenic global warming”, or “because of Climate Change”, always positively reinforcing the lie ala Joseph Geobbels et al.
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.
I think that we are deluding ourselves if we consider that the BBC have shot themselves in the foot and all of this will backfire on them. I think that the two most pertinent posts are :
Peter Taylor says at February 1, 2011 at 3:00 am AND C Porter says at
February 1, 2011 at 3:50 am
These posts are well worth a close read and pondering upon.
Lord Monkton is a very good talker and (generally) makes one of the best presenters of the sceptical position, at any rate at a commonsense and general perpective level. Having been engaged in politics and since he should have been well aware of the genearl bias at the BBC, unfortunately, he was rather niaive. It is easy to say, but he should not have allowed himself to be set up in this way, as with just a little more savvy as Anthony has so ably demonstrated this could easily have been avoided.
One has to bear in mind the audience at which these programmes are targetted. There are people who have strong opinions on either side of the divide and programmes such as these will not alter their views. The programme makers know that. They are targeting the unsure sitting in the middle. It only needs a little presentation one way or another to persude these people to follow one side or the other of the argument. The portrayal of the typical ‘denier’ was not flatering and those people swaying in the middle probably do not associate themselves with the image portrayed, and would wish to distance themselves from such types. This in itself is enough to influence people into siding with the ‘oficial’ onside message.
The truth of the matter is that the sceptical side has not been presented on MSM and until it does, it will be difficult to enlighten the majority of the citizens who have been brainwashed into believing what the MSM have been presenting to them for the past 15 years. It is only incidents like Climategate (which are unlikely to be regularly repeated) and the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has had 3 cold winters in a row which from a commonsense perspective seems to cast doubt on the ‘official’ message and an increasing sceptism of everything done by or in the name of governments that has allowed the sceptical point of view more exposure.
It is unrealistic to expect that the sceptical position will ever be afforded air time on MSM and given a balanced opportunity to put its case. As we know the Government and MSM have to much invested in this debate to permit neutrality. The best we can hop for is for Mother Nature to keep acting contrary to AGW. We need a long period of cooling temperatures and harsh winters which in the end will do more than anything to encourage the majority to push for proper answers and to look behind this scam. The fact that the ordinary citizen is now being forced to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets to pay for green taxes and subsidies and given the depressed financial position that most citizens are presently facing will add to the pressure to get to the bottom of this debate and to look behind this scam.
Governments and the ‘Team’ may be able to make adjustments to temperature records and keep on making proclomations but they cannot hide the snow nor can they hide the increased heating bills. It will be these that make people see through this facade so lets hope Mother Nature plays her part and keeps up the cold for the next 10 years or so.
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 !
And Judith Curry wants reconciliation…
This is the freight train that the bad apples have started, Dr Curry. This is why the level of hostility is so high. It is because the level of acceptable self-righteousness has reached a point where the media believes the ends justify all means. That is the warmist’s fault, and no one else. Your side must answer for that.
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
Nothing much changes does it Anthony. Your experience at Heartland brings back memories of tense moments in my cutting-room/ edit suite when as editor I was frequently asked or instructed to seriously and willfully misrepresent the views of someone not following the required line to make the pre-planned point of the documentary or news item in post production. In those days I worked very hard to cultivate a forceful personality, which in reality I completely lack. I very rarely had to pointblank refuse to do something but occasionally a film splicer being hurled across the cutting-room and thudding against the wall to make the point, focussed the mind of the journo or producer wonderfully. Film technology was such a tactile environment!
To be fair, most of the people I worked with would pretty much let the facts tell the story but these days I very much doubt many of them have jobs or get commissions. Peter Sissons being a case in point.
A bit like a scrupulous climate scientist in other words. Follow the party line or starve.
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)
Once again, the BBC has displayed it’s real less-than-lovely face; self-serving propaganda and a squeamish dislike of the truth are not wonderful characteristics for a broadcasting ‘service’ that trumpets ‘fairness’, ‘impartiality’ as it’s watchwords and charges a sizeable ‘licence’ fee which one cannot opt out of. I skipped through this scurrilous piece of dishonestly-edited film on I-Player, the Beeb’s way-back machine, as an attempt to watch the entire shoddy mess in real time made me too angry to continue watching. Apart from the dishonest editing and the attempt to cast sceptics as fools who cannot understand ‘the science’ or wilfully misinterpret it for the purposes of wilfully and maliciously delaying what the BBC obviously sees as the inevitable. I was angered, too, by the impression the film attempted to give that people somehow lose the ability to think rationally and logically with the onset of the visible signs of ageing. Many other editing tricks using music and almost subliminal visuals were obviously aimed at further casting sceptics one-dimensional as Harley-riding, banjo plucking hayseeds.
I am not any kind of hayseed but freely admit that I enjoy motorcycles and motorcycling plus a well-plucked banjo; I also enjoy Impressionist and many other styles of painting, a considerable amount of baroque and modern music, and have more than a passing acquaintance with the great choral works, both as a choirister and as a former choir trainer, plus some knowledge and appreciation of architecture and design.
This crass and dishonest film is nothing more than a cheap visual and aural fraud.
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.
I can draw no conclusion other than journalist, politician and TV evangelist are the careers of choice for people with a mission to reshape the world using dishonest means to present their own version of the truth.
Natural justice often takes a long time to come, but come it does.
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 can understand BBC wanting to protect their co-workers’s £8 billion pure green pension fund (and apparently even weapons manufacturer are considered green these days.)
But what I can’t understand is why one of the last socialist bastion, for that is what BBC is what with it not being able to function on the open and free market without taxpayers hard earned money, squander millions on substandard defense from obvious, might be true drug loving, kooks?
With all that money on the line I’d go for the vastly more expensive high ground and not the down beaten cheap bush.
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?
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.
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.
This really isn’t surprising at all. The usual modus operandi of the AGW crowd is to fan the fires of fear. In this case, the message conveyed is, “Ignorant, gun-toting Neanderthals are standing in the way of intelligent, life-saving action.” This is nothing new. As more and more contradictory evidence surfaces, the alarms simply become louder and more frantic. Let us not forget previous news stories such as “Human race ‘will be extinct within 100 years’, claims leading scientist” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html) and “Over 4.5 Billion People Could Die From Global-Warming Related Causes by 2012″ (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html).
These people have been trying, and failing, to scare the hell out of us for years–recall the “cooling earth” scare of the 1970s and the Y2K computer disaster that wasn’t–and will no doubt be drawn to any possible disaster scenario in the future.
Perhaps this is the result of some strange mental condition: People such as this see an obvious impending catastrophe approaching, but cannot convince the public to buy into the same doom scenario, regardless of the evidence at hand. Maybe this condition could be studied. I wonder if I could get a large government grant…..?
“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.
Perhaps we could call it Skepticgate?
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.
I have to disagree that skeptics are, in general, what is seen in the trailer. I began searching for what global warming really is in January of 2007. At first all I could find was the Al Gore ilk. But I had seen plenty of that on tv already. As I looked further I began to find people like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Jan Pompe, Sallie Baliunas, Henrick Svensmark, and of course, Anthony Watts, and many more. I don’t see any guns among them. I don’t see they are bitter old people. I don’t see them clinging to mechanisms that burn fossil fuels while all else be damned. And this is my problem with the BBC.
On the other hand, why did I have to see Kevin Trenberth in the vid? Why does it feature someone from the ClimateGate scandal as a defender of global warming?
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.
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?