by Bob Fernley-Jones
Regular readers of WUWT will likely recall the interview with Bob Ward of 2/Oct/2010, which resulted in strong ridicule of the ABC, that went viral on websites in Australia and around the world, such as at the UK Guardian and WUWT [1]. I raised a complaint to the ABC, including the listing of seven such websites, but it was rejected for reasons which are arguably based on strange and selective interpretations of their self-regulating Editorial Policies. (I continue with enquiries, but the wheels grind slowly). Here is ONE aspect of that rejection, where the “complaints unit” refused to admit that most listeners to the show were arguably misled. It resulted in insult and innuendo against Professor Bob Carter, whom was a guest writer at WUWT recently. Now seems a good time for a review of that one aspect. (Caution; this is in Oz English)
(1) The closing remark in the broadcast was:
Robyn Williams: “Bob Ward is policy director of the Grantham Institute of the LSE. [London School of economics] We invited Professor Carter to comment on those remarks but he declined. You can however read Ward’s critique and Professor Carter’s recent reply on our Science Show website…”
In fact, Professor Bob Carter declined an offer to a separate telephone interview, after the unheard interview of Ward. Instead, he strategically Emailed an already published reply based on previous experience with the PR-man-Ward’s assault on an oldish 2008 paper [2]. The following Email extracts refer, the first being from the producer David Fisher on 24/Sep/2010:
“…We’re broadcasting Mr Ward’s interview 2nd October. Ideally we would do a phone interview with you before end of Thursday 30th September and include this in our program of Oct 2. If you would like to respond, please call me and we’ll make an arrangement.
Here is part of Professor Carter’s reply of 26/Sep:
“…Mr Ward has a long history as a tireless public relations manager for the cause of global warming alarmism, and… …If you wish to quote me regarding Mr Ward’s views of my work, then please use the attached response to the extended essay that he published recently in the EAP Journal.
Meanwhile, on matters that are more strictly scientific [2], I remain happy to discuss issues with Robyn at any time. For instance, perhaps he might like to interview me regarding my recently published book, for which I attach a selection of review comments?” [3]
Thus, Professor Carter’s comments were supplied in writing, well before the requested cut-off date of 30/Sep. However, they were not used on the show, but were offered to the listeners on the website, which is arguably obtuse and inconvenient for most radio audiences.
(2) Now compare the experience of journalist Andrew Bolt:
Mr Bolt is also sceptical of the hypothesis of catastrophic AGW. His interview by journalist Robyn Williams followed unheard criticisms from Professor Jeff Severinghaus beforehand, wherein Bolt innocently thought it all to be nothing new, and answered to what he did know. To elaborate, here in part is what Williams wrote separately in an essay in Cosmos.
Williams: “…I duly brought back [the Jeff Severinghaus] interview to be broadcast on ABC Radio and, silly fellow that I am, thought Bolt might appreciate being given a right of reply…”
Amongst other things, it seems that Williams was deeply hurt when Bolt had the audacity to ask if Williams really thought that sea levels could rise by 100 metres this century. (which was under discussion, and the answer was yes). But sorry, I digress, and here is part of what Bolt later wrote in response to “being given a right of reply”, my underlining added:
Bolt: “This seems a bit underhand. Robyn Williams, host of the ABC’s Science Show, asked me on to answer criticisms he said Professor Jeff Severinghaus had made of my reporting of his study. That was fine. Although Williams didn’t tell me exactly what Severinghaus had said (in an interview immediately preceding mine), I got the chance to put my case – that nothing I’d written contradicted what his study of ice core samples said. So I appreciate having been given a chance to respond. But that wasn’t all Severinghaus accused me of…”
The whole article; “Answering Williams’ shameless slur” is interesting reading, including gems like Severinghaus writing to the Brisbane Sunday Mail in error, and it was this paper that failed to respond. (not Bolt’s Herald Sun in Melbourne, where it should have been addressed).
(3) Now to Williams’ concluding allegation; “We invited Professor Carter to comment on those remarks but he declined”:
In my Email of 14 December to the ABC “Complaints Unit” , (AKA ‘Audience and Consumer Affairs’ or A&CA), I wrote in part:
“…For instance, to take one point; it doesn’t really matter what YOUR new interpretation of professor Carter being invited onto the show means. What counts is what the LISTENER hears and comprehends. The INNUENDO to the listener was that Bob Carter was invited and declined, which is hardly fair…”
A&CA ignored that comment, and to elaborate; when I refer to “THEIR new interpretation”, if we go back to their Email of 8/November, they seemed to parallel the very point I was making about audience perception:
…I [Kirstin McLiesh, dept Head] note that Professor Carter was asked on to the show to respond to the criticisms made of his views and others by Bob Ward. Professor Carter declined, as Robyn Williams noted during the broadcast…
…In my view, the invitation made to Professor Carter to appear on the program, and the publication of his paper and response on the program website, indicate that the program was seeking to present its audience with a diversity of views on this subject…
…(notwithstanding Professor Carter declining the invitation to appear on the [2] October program)…
But then, on 13/Dec, after consideration of the Email exchange I supplied to A&CA as in (1) above, they changed tune and wrote in part, precisely what the radio listeners could not be expected to know:
We regret you have misinterpreted Robyn William’s explanation of the invitation to Professor Carter in the program. The request to him to take part in a pre-recorded interview is what was meant by “inviting” him onto the program. We feel our use of this term also may have mislead you but this is a standard way of describing a request for someone to participate in a pre-recorded show on the ABC.
[some extra padding deleted]
In the course of the interview, which also would have been pre-recorded, Robyn Williams would* have verbally put the criticisms Bob Ward made of Professor Carter to him in the form of questions or statements. This is a fairly standard journalistic practice and should not be considered a sinister or underhand approach. Furthermore, I [Claire Morgan, for McLiesh] do not believe that there is anything untoward in the manner in which the material provided by Professor Carter was handled by the Science Show team. It was posted onto the website and it was referred to on air.
*I suggest they should have said ’might’ rather than ‘would’, going by the experience of Andrew Bolt in (1) above! And, it is relevant to know that something A&CA as an “independent group” admit to is that they seek advice on complaints from the affected department, which is quite likely to include advice framed in self-interest.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] WUWT website, (Watts Up With That), was recently voted “Best Science Website” in the 2011 Bloggies Awards.
[2] See biography and impressive scientific publication record etc: Robert (Bob) M. Carter Please click the buttons at the base of the page! See transcript and audio on Bob Ward interview here Note that the introduction by Williams starts with: “Bob Ward says those who seek to reinterpret the science of climate change often have minimal publication records…” I wonder if Williams and Ward are aware that Bob Carter is an active scientist and has been an author in some 100 research papers and much more. (click those buttons on his website!). However, these scant commentators have the gall to clarion that the learned professor is incompetent!
[3] It’s a tad off topic, but it is interesting to note, re 2nd Email in (1), that Professor Carter’s proposal to discuss his acclaimed book was declined, yet recently the “Science Show” did two full 1-hour jobs on Tim Flannery’s and then Naomi Oreskes’ new books, oh, and also a nice chat with David Suzuki, all three of whom have a very different take than the professor. Of course, this a is typical attitude as seen in other mainstream media and the so-called consensus.
About Bob Fernley-Jones
I’m a retired mechanical engineer, and I guess that because in my science, any bad assumptions can get people killed, I have an abhorrence of many things that are perpetrated by academics in some areas of science. In the case of so-called climate science, the culture and bias in some media is also repugnant to me. I’m hoping that the ABC will improve its self regulating policies and culture to eliminate bias, and this website is under development towards that end. (if necessary).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dan
You wrote (March 17, 2011, 4:30pm):
Science published Mann’s (since comprehensively discredited) hockey stick, simply because it supported the premise of unusual 20th century warming caused by dangerous AGW. Science it is still publishing studies by Mann.
Other “peer reviewed” scientific journals also overwhelmingly publish reports favorable to the IPCC view, while refusing to publish any, which are critical.
So regarding these journals one could say that “it quickly became known they would publish just about anything as long as it was
skepticalsupportive of AGW”.This is a form of political censorship applied to climate science.
So if E&E is now giving dAGW skeptics a chance to publish their papers as well, more power to them. Another voice was obviously needed to counterbalance the one-sided approach of the “peer reviewed scientific press”.
Max
Dan @ur momisugly March 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm , you wrote in part:
[1] I use my website for the purpose of drafting stuff so that it is in a suitable html format for transcribing onto other popular sites, and into the actual body of Emails to politicians etc. The original linking here to my site was accidental, and you may notice that that linking has now been removed. (at my request).
[2] Most scientists, especially the non-academic coalface types, given adequate training and experience in one field are capable of cross disciplinary study by virtue of applying scientific principles. In fact most “climate scientists” do not have degrees whatever in “climate science”.
A good and topical example of this was Alfred Wegener, died 1930, whom was primarily an astronomer with an interest in meteorology, that proposed the elements of plate tectonics/ continental drift. However this was not accepted mainstream until the 1960’s. Of course, they certainly know about plate tectonics in Japan right now.
Oh, and if you think that AGW caused that earthquake, is it OK that it is very cold in Japan. (and “no summer” here etc).
“Keith says:
March 17, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Stable measured atmospheric opacity to longwave radiation, versus a demonstration of heating a 100% CO2-containing sealed bottle. Surely you can grasp why a few stubbornly independent minds may not yet have accepted every tenet of AGW hook, line and sinker?“
Presumbably because these independent minds are not particularly inquisitive, haven’t read the published literature detailing the changes in outgoing longwave radiation, nor that detailing the changes in atmospheric radiative trapping and actually believe that we have stable measured atmospheric opacity.
“David A. Evans. says:
March 17, 2011 at 1:35 pm
All I have ever seen is the assertion that causes unknown start the warming, then CO2 takes over. Why can’t the causes unknown be the cause of further warming?
DaveE.“
A bit of a straw man David, I’m not saying that the initial cause can’t continue to cause warming after once CO² has been released into the atmosphere, it can, but CO² will contribute to any further warming. We know this because we know the physical properties of CO², we know the absorbtion and emission spectra of it and we can measure the effect in the atmosphere (see my links in the post above).
Smokey says:
March 17, 2011 at 5:24 pm
“The position that is skeptical of the AGW hypothesis is the null hypothesis, against which the alternative AGW hypothesis must be tested. That is the scientific method in action. Observations and experiments always trump pal reviewed papers and computer models.
There is ample empirical evidence for natural climate variability, but there is no empirical evidence for AGW“
Natural variability has already been falsified. We know that the warming we are seeing is more pronounced at night which rules out solar energy or changes in albedo as the driver, we know that the oceans are warming which rules internal variability such as PDO. Only the greenhouse gas effect can explain the pattern of warming and isotopic analysis tells us that the changes we see in greehous gas concentrations are anthropogenic in source.
Kevin MacDonald says:
“Natural variability has already been falsified.”
In your dreams, maybe. Using your argumentum ad ignorantium, you conclude that the natural changes observed must be un-natural, and since under those constraints you can’t think of any other cause, then human emissions must be the cause. Wrong.
Dr Roy Spencer, who has undoubtedly forgotten more than you will ever learn about the climate [and who doesn’t argue via cut ‘n’ paste] puts it this way:
No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
You claim in your argumentum ad ignorantium that the natural cycles we observe are falsified, while Dr Spencer states that natural variability has never been falsified. As a reasonable person, I’ll take the statement of a true climatologist over your CAGW dreams.
Smokey says:
March 18, 2011 at 9:44 am
“In your dreams, maybe. Using your argumentum ad ignorantium, you conclude that the natural changes observed must be un-natural, and since under those constraints you can’t think of any other cause, then human emissions must be the cause. Wrong.
Dr Roy Spencer, who has undoubtedly forgotten more than you will ever learn about the climate [and who doesn’t argue via cut ‘n’ paste] puts it this way:
No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.
You claim in your argumentum ad ignorantium that the natural cycles we observe are falsified, while Dr Spencer states that natural variability has never been falsified. As a reasonable person, I’ll take the statement of a true climatologist over your CAGW dreams.“
As I have provided proofs, it can’t be described as an argument from ignorance, a phrase that better suits your own point of view:
Argument from ignorance; Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.
You’ve then backed this with a second fallacy, argument from authority; I don’t suppose you or Dr Spencer have actually come up with a natural driver that fits the observed warming pattern?
Kevin MacDonald,
“As I have provided proofs, it can’t be described as an argument from ignorance, a phrase that better suits your own point of view:”
Your ‘warm nights’ paper, could just as validly be a ‘proof’ of more cloud cover, no?
Kevin MacDonald,
The climate null hypothesis does not require a causal explanation. It would be nice to understand all the causes of natural variability, but no one has nearly all the explanations [they haven’t found the Higgs boson either, leaving gravity without an observed mechanism. But even without a verified explanation, gravity exists].
What has been debunked is CO2 as a major driver of climate change. It is not. If the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 were as strong as claimed by the UN/IPCC, then global temperatures would closely track rises in CO2. They do not.
In fact, CO2 rises follow rises in temperature. CO2 is a function of temperature, not a significant cause. More CO2 may cause a minuscule rise in temperature. But at this point it is all conjecture and computer model output. There is no empirical evidence showing a quantitative rise in temperature per rise in unit CO2. Most importantly, there is no evidence of any global harm due to the rise in CO2. None. CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.
Finally, you have provided no “proofs”, you have provided an opinion. And the climate alarmists’ argumentum ad ignorantium goes like this: “Since I can think of no other explanation for why the planet has been warming over the past century and a half, then it must be due to CO2.” That is a classic example of the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy.
The main reason for the warming, of course, is the planet’s emergence from the LIA. But following Michael Mann’s lead, the alarmist crowd refuses to admit there is such a thing as climate change [the long flat handle of Mann’s debunked hockey stick, with neither a LIA nor a MWP].
The planet is currently near the middle of its average temperature during the Holocene. If it exceeds those temperature extremes, the null hypothesis will be falsified. But so far, it is only the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis that has been falsified.
KenB @ur momisugly March 17, 2011 at 2:48 am , you wrote in part:
“…The look on his [Tony Jones; host of Q&A] face when he succeeded was so smug, that he had been able to get at least a partial acceptance from a scientist who had made no such claims during any other media interviews,…
Yes, his body language is quite interesting. As I mentioned above to Treeman, he is apparently very selective in what questions he fields on Question & Answer. Occasionally, a pre-selected questioner (called by name and passed the mic boom), expands on what was originally accepted, judging by his declining facial expression. His popular fix is then: I’ll take that as a comment rather than a question, and he moves on to the next question. Some panellists whom have a lowered respect for Jones, have even used the same expression against him recently.
Yet, ABC policy clearly states that its journalists etc must be impartial
manacker says: “…ABC and BBC may just be a bit slower in catching on, but they will eventually change, as well (possibly with a change of some key personnel who “failed to get the word”)….”
Unfortunately, BBC’s retirement fund has been heavily invested in Green issues that are dependent upon continuing the AGW myth. They must ride this out to the bitter end or take a mammoth portfolio loss. Don’t expect unbiased climate coverage from the BBC soon, if ever.
Manacker @ur momisugly March 17, 2011 at 5:48 pm , you wrote in part:
Max, I guess you still live in Switzerland, and it was interesting to have your views on CNN, BBC, & ABC. How are things in the media in your region? I used to listen to German radio (DW) quite a bit but not for a good while.
Kevin MacDonald,
You seem to have lost track of the real issue on this thread, concerning misrepresentation of climate science, and exaggeration of potential AGW effects reported in the media.
In the case of ice-core proxies, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) have claimed on-air on the ABC, that over past hundreds of thousands of years that CO2 goes up and down in unison with the regional temperature, and that therefore, global average T’s are driven by the CO2.
Yet, even if they were in unison, it cannot be assumed that CO2 is the driver, because there is arguably an equal possibility that it could be the other way around. However, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a big lag in response of CO2 behind T change, and that therefore, CO2 cannot be the driver, even if it may have an amplification effect. (spread over ~800 years!)
Ok, that’s the science, but the nasty side of the issue is that Robyn Williams, the host on the so-called “Science Show” was provenly aware of the lag as long ago as 2008. However, despite that it was a pre-recorded show, with plenty of time to make the edits as required by the ABC code requiring impartiality, he did not do so. Very naughty!
A similar situation exists in the Al Gore Oscar winning documentary movie, (and Nobel prize), where he makes the same misrepresentation. Although he is no scientist, it has been said that James Hansen was his scientific adviser, and for that proclaimed scientist it seems most unlikely that he too was unaware of the lag
BTW, OT: Your credibility suffers when you make assertions that are clearly unfounded. For instance your: “…Natural variability has already been falsified…”
Hint: For example; study the Enso oscillation and what happened towards the end of 2010
Bob_FJ
AGW has taken a secondary spotlight right now here in Switzerland with everyone talking about Japan’s nuclear problem (strangely the thousands of deaths from the earthquake and tsunami are almost less important). The German anti-nukes were demonstrating on the streets the day after the earthquake and tsunami, and the government there greed to shut down the two oldest nuclear plants.
In Switzerland the Socialist Party called for an immediate shutdown of the older Swiss plants, but I do not believe that this is going to happen.
France is ready and willing to enter long-term supply agreements with both the Germans (and the Swiss if necessary).
Switzerland has essentially no fossil-fuel based electrical power (it’s all either nuclear or hydroelectric with a tiny smidgen of other “renewables”), so stopping the “coal death trains” hasn’t gotten much traction here.
Three years ago, the Swiss tourist industry was fretting about the lack of winter snow for the ski resorts as a result of global warming, but there has been plenty of snow the past three winters and that talk has all died down (it appears that global warming is only of interest to the Swiss when it affects our pocketbooks).
The average Swiss is not very concerned about AGW and the state-run media are not trying to brainwash or frighten the public either, as appears to be the case both in your country and the UK. The “green party” is trying to keep the interest alive, but without much success. It’s basically a “non-issue” here, except for a few isolated circles.
Max
Kevin MacDonald
“Natural variability has already been falsified.”
Huh?
– Medieval Warm Period
– Little Ice Age
– Dalton and Maunder Minima
– Early 20th century warming period
– Most recent “lack of warming” since beginning of 2001
Ouch!
Max
Vince Causey says:
March 18, 2011 at 2:08 pm
“Your ‘warm nights’ paper, could just as validly be a ‘proof’ of more cloud cover, no?“
Changes in cloud cover patterns is a feedback, it can only happen if the climate is already changing, so you still need a driver.
Bob_FJ says:
March 18, 2011 at 6:03 pm
“Kevin MacDonald,
You seem to have lost track of the real issue on this thread, concerning misrepresentation of climate science, and exaggeration of potential AGW effects reported in the media.“
Not at all Bob, my initial point was that there are misrepresentations in the conrarian camp, Bolt’s false dilemma stating the CO² must be either a result or cause of warming for example, and you failure to engage with these too implies that it is not bad assumptions you dislike, but assumptions assumptions you dislike for ideological reasons.
None of the respondents were able to adequately address this point and it was they that took it off topic.
manacker says:
March 19, 2011 at 1:28 am
“Kevin MacDonald
“Natural variability has already been falsified.”
Huh?
– Medieval Warm Period
– Little Ice Age
– Dalton and Maunder Minima
– Early 20th century warming period
– Most recent “lack of warming” since beginning of 2001
Ouch!
Max“
Straw man, I was talking about the current period, which includes the warming since 2001.
If Kevin MacDonald actually believes that “natural variability has been falsified,” he truly doesn’t know what he is talking about. That statement isn’t just wrong, it’s senseless.
Natural variability is ongoing; the planet didn’t suddenly switch from natural variability to being controlled by a benign minor trace gas. Natural variabilty is the null hypothesis, which has never been falsified, while the alternative CO2=CAGW
hypothesisconjecture has been repeatedly falsified, not least by the planet itself.The planet is still emerging from the LIA coincidentally with the rise in harmless CO2. The current insignificant warming has happened much faster, and to an enormously greater extent throughout the Holocene. The current warming is almost entirely natural, and it is indistinguishable from past warming cycles. The UN/IPCC’s preposterous guesstimates of CO2 persistence is one of the legs supporting the IPCC’s wild-eyed scare tactics. But most peer reviewed papers contradict the IPCC’s climate alarmist propaganda.
One more time: the rise in CO2 is coincidental with the warming from the LIA. It is a coincidence. There is a closer relationship between postal rates and temperature than between CO2 and temperature.
CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. More is better at current and projected concentrations. Most of the [insignificant] warming from CO2 has already occurred. And of course, the endless pseudo-science predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe have never happened – so now the goal posts have been moved to “climate change” by people who were completely wrong, but can’t bring themselves to admit it. So they mendaciously re-define “runaway global warming” to “climate change,” a truly meaningless term that covers anything and everything. George Orwell would understand.
Despite all the red faced, spittle-flecked arm waving over catastrophic AGW, it turns out that it was all a scientifically baseless trumped up mirage. At this point, only the credulous true believer sect still believes that CO2 will cause runaway global warming.
Kevin MacDonald
For the HadCRUT record showing 2001-2010 slight cooling check:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
Max
PS Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones preferred to call it an “unexplained lack of warming” rather than a very slight cooling. Call it what you will, but don’t fall into the trap of calling it a “warming”.
Kevin MacDonald
Back to your original premise:
Sure, it “can” be both. But the long-term record shows that temperature changed first, followed by CO2.
There are even several periods during which CO2 was at a higher than normal level and temperature began to fall and others during which CO2 was at a lower than normal level and temperature began to rise.
The long-term CO2/temperature correlation does not display a robust statistical signature of CO2 causation of warming, as should be the case if this had been the primary mechanism.
So Bolt’s failure to include this possible but rather unlikely interpretation of the record is excusable and not (as you put it) “a misrepresentation of the science”.
The “science” just doesn’t validate the “hypothesis”, that’s all. (This does not mean that it invalidates it, either.)
Max
Kevin MacDonald @ur momisugly March 19, 2011 at 10:26 am , you wrote in part:
It seems that you are referring to one of ten points that Bolt has critiqued in Al Gore’s movie, and in full, I quote it here, but rather than highlighting the last sentence in bold as you did, without saying so, ( @ur momisugly March 17, 2011 at 4:11 am ), I‘ve done it to the preceding key point:
3: Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air.
In fact, as the University of California’s Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_bulled_by_a_gore/
Bolt did NOT declare a dilemma stating the CO² must be either a result or cause of warming and you are playing with semantics.
Finally, please look-up: ‘Rhetorical Question’ in a good dictionary.
Oh, but just to help you out, here are the opening lines from Wikipedia:
“A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply.[1] Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (often obvious) answer to the question must be…”
The ABC and the BBC should have been shut down years and a number of presenters should be sacked