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.
From barry on February 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm:
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:
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:
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?
Barry,
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
A: Yes…
He agrees that there’s been no statistically-significant warming
A: (cont)…but only just.
And it’s there that his statement becomes nonsense. It’s either statistically significant, or it’s not. Saying it’s ‘almost’ so is like saying that someone’s ‘almost’ pregnant.
If it’s not statistically significant then it means, in this context, that it can’t be reliably extracted from the noise, ie we can’t say for sure whether or not the trend exists.
And yes, I did see the omitted ‘statistically’ you were referring to, but, in the light of the above, does that really make a difference?
Why are you defending him so much?
No, it’s not the same. See the above link in my previous post.
The 95% (or 5%) confidence level is often conventionally described as being an absolute cut-off, but statistically it simply describes the likelihood of a result being different from zero. Other conventions apply a 90% confidence level for the null hypothesis to be rejected, in which case the HadCRU data would have been statistically significant, and others apply 99%, in which case HadCRU data would not become statistically significant for quite some time to come.
I’m not defending Jones. I pointed out an error. Two actually, one of which you’ve finally verified (thank you for that). Perhaps you feel I’m defending him because you are out to get him?
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? 😉
From eadler on February 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm:
That’s it? A deceptive shift from the CO2 that Jones et al rail against, to greenhouse gases in general of which water vapor alone swamps out and overrides any CO2 signal?
Ummm, yeah, right. Look, I understand you’re unlikely to get another stimulating spanking over at Willis’ article. But there’s nothing “mutual” going on here, so stop asking me for another.
Barry,
As far as I’m concerned, a 95% confidence level is barely acceptable in any branch of science, let alone 90%