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.
Congratulations Mr. Watts! They believe that we -and the people in general- are total idiots but they only are putting more water on their nauseating Titanic.
The slow sinking of mainstream media and academia is among the most beautiful things that I have ever seen. I bet more and more people rely on blogs like these one not only for opinion, but for news too.
Myself I will never ever trust again mainstream media and academia for news and science. Gosh! As near as 5 years ago I read The Economist keynesians analysis as if it actually was science! As far as 3 years ago I believed that man was creating dangerous global warming! Thanks to blogs I am not anymore so naive. THANKS!
PNS (see organizers of the Lisbon Conference) styled communication and reconciliation exhibited by BBC4′s “Meet the Skeptics”?
Yes.
John
George Steiner says:
February 1, 2011 at 9:48 am
Sceptics will have to learn how to do batle. If they don’t want to it will be their funeral.
Simmer down George.
So the entire documentary is intended to marginalize Lord Monckton.
Having at last viewed it, I cannot see it as a complete smear job. I agree it was skewed, and the narrator clearly displays a (calculatedly) growing scepticism of the sceptics throughout the program. That last bit where Monckton views the report and seems ‘devastated’ by it and goes off to mope at the loch is extremely poor. He did give Monckton the chance to say his bit having seen the program and disliked it (kudos there), but obviously not enough was saved from the cutting room floor.
What I found hilarious was that it seemed that Monckton had single-handedly prevented success of Copenhagen, the US Government, and the Australian government to do ‘something’ about CO2. Go Christopher!
The only bit that got me growling was the way the ‘science’ of global warming ‘tells us’, and a bit where he says something about ‘measurements prove [AGW]’ and then goes on to show these ‘measurements’, and they are from yet another model. Can they really not understand the difference between a measurement and a model? Especially after belittling (I thought) Plimer’s simple test on the rocks with a simple acid. As he said – this is something you cannot get from models – an actual measurement!
Still, I though it was better than nothing. I think it will make people think. I wish Monckton had said (or been allowed to say?) “Don’t trust me – go and look at the evidence yourselves!” which is what he usually says.
>>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.
JJB MKI says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:15 am
Bravo!
Buddenbrook says:
February 1, 2011 at 10:26 am
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.
I assume my post was swallowed by the spam filter as I used the ‘H’ word. I hope it can be retrieved – the word was used legitimately.
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!
Later tonight on BBC5, “Breaking The Oil Habit” discusses the pressing need to reduce our use of fossil fuels… but first, Clarkson and co. pit the new Lamborghini against the Pagani Zonda in Top Gear…………..
Now that’s what I call balance.
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.
Anthony said: “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”
Anthony, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the question ‘why did Monckton say that Obama was from Kenya’ bearing in mind the number of Monckton supporters on here. I thought someone might be able to give me an answer. This is a site for skeptics right? Is it not right to also question Monckton’s claims?
Bearing in mind the number of spelling mistakes I see in the comments on this site, I also think it’s a little unfair to point this out in my particular case.
Mail address corrected.
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.
I’m intrigued by the comment of Peter Taylor (February 1, 2011 at 3:00 am). Visiting his link I find myself in disagreement on some of his positions. However, his stance that “climate change” may not be the boogey man we’re all told it is appears to be spot on. I wonder if Peter feels, as I do, that the ongoing demonization of CO2 may – in fact – be anti-environmentalist. That is, since the CAGW issue is clearly identified as a “green” issue when it is widely exposed to be a hoax may irreparably damage true environmental causes as they will be dismissed as yet more green fear mongering.
I think Peter is also correct that Lord Monckton has become (as much as it pains me to say it, since I enjoy his presentations) the Sarah Palin of the skeptical point of view. Mere mention of his name sends CAGW proponents into a frothing rage.
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?
Peter, your comments are orthogonal to my point, which is about semantics. If you are familiar with the basic meaning of statistical significance, perhaps you could assist in setting the record straight on what Jones’ comments actually refer to.
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.
When climate change scientist A scott Denning said on the BBC 4 ‘sceptics’ documentary ” Why is the planet not warming, is there some mysterious mechanism that’s getting rid of all the warming”, that statement didn’t sound very scientific.What he should have said was, ” We ought perform a heat or energy balance on earth’s atmosphere thus, ‘energy in’ minus ‘energy out’ equals ‘energy accumulation’. The accumulation in this equation equals warming if positive, cooling if negative and if zero, no temperature change.
Energy is input by radiation, conduction and convection. Radiation input can be absorbed, reflected or transmitted but only absorbed radiation will affect atmospheric temperature. Clearly the main energy output fom the atmosphere will ultimately be radiation to space.
At present accumulation is hovering around zero as earth’s temperature is stable. Without an atmosphere earth’s surface would be at an equilibrium temperature of minus 18℃. In reality, the air temperature near the ground is, however, plus 15℃, the difference of 33℃ being due to trace gases CO2 and H2O water vapour.
The air temperature will not continue to rise indefinitely with trace gas increase because CO2 molecules in particular with their absorption bands at 2.8, 4.5 and 15 microns have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the ” open radiation window” between 7 and 13 microns. This would be even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide.
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.
Don’t forget “Ride of the Valkyries”–three guesses what association that was meant to suggest.
I agree; especially in light of the Horizon program, the scoffers are positioned to demand a right of a counterpoint program.
Actually, Peter, the words ‘statistical significance’ were not carefully chosen by Jones. It was the point of the question put to him:
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.
From barry on February 2, 2011 at 5:01 am:
Really? From the BBC Q&A:
As you have indicated, it was a lack of enough data that was keeping the 1995-2009 trend from being statistically significant, which would be at 95% significance level per the esteemed Dr. Jones.
For 15 years, 1995 to 2009, the calculated rate was +0.12°C/decade. For 2002 to 2009, 8 years, it was –0.12°C/decade. Wow, that must have been some warming for those 7 years, from 1995 to 2001.
After converting the years elapsed into decades, adding up the degrees, we get:
0.12*1.5 = -0.12*0.8 + X*0.7 where X is the 1995 to 2001 rate
(trivial algebra)
X=0.39°C/decade from 1995 to 2001.
Wow, that’s impressive. Shame I missed the press release about that unprecedented rate of warming. There should have been one, since the highest rate reported in the BBC Q&A, 1975 to 1998, was a mere 0.166°C/decade, just 43% of the 1995 to 2001 rate.
From your helpful Wikipedia link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/9/e/b9e3c70729fa428ca28c19bcbf1e32a5.png
confidence = signal/noise * (sample size)^(1/2)
From 1995 to 2009, 15 years of data, the trend wasn’t statistically significant. Now with 2010 added, thus 16 years of data, according to you it is. Let’s examine the effect on the relevant multiplier in the equation, the square root of sample size:
(15)^(1/2)= 3.87 at 3 significant digits.
(16)^(1/2)=4.00
4.00/3.87=1.03
Wow, that multiplier went up just 3%, and that made all the difference.
And are you saying there really is now a statistically significant rate of warming since 1995, as your words imply?
For fun, let’s use a rate that’s at least positive for 1995-2010, 0.01°C/decade:
0.01*1.6 = -0.12*0.8 + 0.39*0.7 + Y*0.1 where Y is the 2010 “rate”
(trivial algebra)
Y = –1.6°C/decade!
Wow, that 1995 to 2001 rate was so impressive, the planet could have cooled at an unprecedented rate in 2010 and there would still be a positive rate of warming for 1995-2010. We could have started a catastrophic plunge into a global glaciation period, and still be suffering from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming!
Let’s use a more reasonably alarming rate of warming for 1995 to 2010, 0.10°C/decade. Nope, that yields Y = -0.12°C/decade for 2010, still cooling. That’s also the same rate for the preceding 8 years.
What will it take for 1995-2010 to have the same rate as 1995-2009? 2010 will need a “rate” of +0.15°C/decade. That would be quite a turnaround after an 8 year stretch at -0.12°C/decade.
Well, with that 3% increase in that multiplier, with that increase in the amount of data now making the 1995 to 2010 rate of global warming statistically significant, I guess you better go ahead and post the amount of that rate, with links please. Since it should likely be around only 2/3 to 3/4 of the rate of the historic periods of great warming given in the BBC Q&A, and less than a third of that unprecedented 1995-2001 rate, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations still steadily rising and the positive feedbacks kicking in while the tipping points are passed, it should be interesting.
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.
You or Peter could confirm the error in the quotation marks. I’m 95% confident that you won’t. 🙂
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm
…..
You can dispense with all of the cherry picking calculations.
In the real world, the steady positive radiative forcing due to GHG’s is modulated by fluctuating forces such as the solar cycle, and El Nino/La Nina. This can cause periods of cooling when the natural forces produce cooling which temporarily overwhelm the effect of elevated GHG’s, and accelerated warming when the natural forces and GHG forcing are both acting to warm the earth’s surface.
Your excitement over these fluctuations is a form of scientific masturbation. It may be exciting and pleasurable to you, but it is not really science.