No word on whether Supermandia will appear in costume
I was surprised to learn of this new program from the NNB scheduled for Wed 31 Oct 2012 21:00 on BBC Radio 4.
Nice touch on the gloved hand there folks. Here’s the overview from the BBC website:
Climategate was the term quickly applied in 2009 to the mysterious appearance on the internet of large numbers of emails and documents belonging to some of the world’s leading climate scientists.
This happened just a month before the Copenhagen climate change conference, which failed to meet the expectations of many for agreement on international action. The timing may not be coincidental.
For some climate change sceptics, the emails were a disturbing revelation of the real thoughts and manoeuvrings of scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Centre and their international colleagues. The scientists argue that while some of the phrasing may have been unfortunate, there is nothing in the documents to undermine the validity of mainstream climate science.
Climategate certainly inflamed the debate over climate change, in the UK, the US and elsewhere.
In 2012 the Norfolk Police announced they were abandoning their investigation into who hacked into the university’s computer and then distributed what they found.
But what have been the longer-term consequences of this incident, for public opinion, media reporting and international policy-making on climate change? Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?
Producers: Martin Rosenbaum & Catherine Donegan.
I’m told that Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) was interviewed for this. I was not, which is probably their loss since the issue started with WUWT and I have some unique insight. OTOH it is probably just as well, as I have about as much respect for the BBC as I do PBS, being cast from the same government media mold.
h/t to WUWT reader Bill Eykyn
The corpse of the consensus continues to twitch. I suspect maggots chomping on the peripheral nerves.
The ABC (Australia), BBC (UK), CBC (Canada) are all cast from the same mould of public deception for a Noble Cause. The black gloved hand could be their own at work hiding the inconvenient Truth..
It is very unwise for sceptics to talk to the BBC. Its policy re. AGW is clearly stated i.e. not to take a balanced attitude but emphasise the ;’validity’ of the warmist case. What is amazing as a taxpayer funded organisation with a mandate to provide a balanced view its stated policy has not even raised a whimper in the MSM or even parliament.
I haven’t heard the final programme, or been sent a transcript. Martin Rosenbaum, Chris Vallance and Catherine Donegan visited UEA where they interviewed myself for an hour and I believe also interviewed Andy Watson, Mike Hulme, and a representative of the Norfolk police. The previous week they travelled to Scotland to interview Andrew Montford.
I was impressed by all three who seemed to have an open mind. It will be interesting to hear the final programme.
John A & stephen richards –
surely the biggest laugh has been BBC’s appointment of two Murdoch-connected individuals to carry out their internal post-Savilegate investigations, when BBC led the ferocious attack on the Murdoch media in the phone hacking scandal. for me, the MSM is a means for keeping the fake left/right divide going. in fact, these appointments remind me of Murdoch-connected Neil wallis being brought in for damage control by UEA post Climategate. it was fun to watch the left-CAGWers try to spin Wallis’s appointment (via Outside Organisaton), given the left’s laughable meme that Murdoch is anti-CAGW!
(BBC Director-General George) Entwistle told MPs he was bringing in Dinah Rose QC – who represented News International in phone hacking cases – to look at how the BBC handles sexual harassment cases.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222203/Jimmy-Savile-sexual-abuse-scandal-NINE-BBC-employees-frame.html
Jimmy Savile and the BBC: Who’s who
Nick Pollard
Former head of Sky News Nick Pollard has been asked by the BBC to investigate why the Newsnight investigation was dropped last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20028188
tallbloke:
I’d be concerned if I were you. This is about Climate Gate and the unknown “hacker” and “…the computer equipment of Roger Tattersall were seized by the Police during this investigation…” add some misconstrued comments from yourself and don’t be surprised by the innuendo. Don’t forget, this is the BBC (the propaganda arm of the Council of Europe).
IanG
‘Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?’
That’s all you really need to know ., another hit piece claiming ‘conspricy ‘ probable with some BS throw in about tobacco too and in the end lots of nonsense about how the ‘enquires ‘ proved the science was sound , despite the fact they never looked at it. One question may be how much a ‘poor victim’ will they make out the Team to be ? Other than that the normal BBC approach of full on and unquestioning support of ‘the cause ‘ is to be expected and I would not be surprised if they try to claim the ‘hide the decline ‘ was other than it was has they done that before .
Let me see if I can help you get to the bottom of their bias.
Exhibit 1
Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change – Members…….BBC Pension Trust……..
http://www.iigcc.org/about-us/members
Exhibit 2
Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century
http://tinyurl.com/8d9rabv
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
I maybe wrong but here are the investments made on behalf of BBC pension holders.
BBC Pension Trust – Top equity investments at 31 March 2012
Investment Holding £m
British American Tobacco 63.65
BP 55.71
Royal Dutch Shell 52.83
Imperial Tobacco 48.09
Oao Gazprom 16.77
Occidental 11.53
Hyundai Motor 9.14
Chevron Corp 8.71
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
“I’m told that Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) was interviewed for this. I was not, which is probably their loss since the issue started with WUWT and I have some unique insight. OTOH it is probably just as well, as I have about as much respect for the BBC as I do PBS, being cast from the same government media mold.”
Anthony, it’s easy to imagine what the BBC will do to Tallbloke’s words. Selective editing and cherry-picking sound bites to suit their pro-CAGW agenda will do a hatchet job on him. I’m sure the BBC editors will go out of their way to make Tallbloke look ridiculous in the public eye by twisting everything he says and leaving important bits out. So probably just as well they didn’t ask you as well. Not all publicity is good publicity.
The BBC is a news and entertainment organisation. Therefore, their view is that of the received consensus, and not that of impartial radiative/atmospheric physics.
Jimbo says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
“I maybe wrong but here are the investments made on behalf of BBC pension holders.”
Not exactly – those are the ones that still have value – so you don’t see past misadventures into carbon trading or renewables – they either have collapsed, lost their value, or the portfolio manager has exchanged them into something more stable.
pat says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“given the left’s laughable meme that Murdoch is anti-CAGW!”
After climategate the WSJ was one of the few outlets that reported. He might not be anti CAGW; but at least not as fanatically warmist as the BBC.
Stephen Rasey says:
October 28, 2012 at 10:03 am
Odds are that the report will conclude that the only wrong-doers were those who trafficed in stolen documents. Hence the gloved hand above.
Telling the story of the crimes detailed WITHIN the documents cannot be told in an hour.
Actually the programme is only 28 minutes. Basically a box-ticking exercise to say the BBC has addressed an issue in some way.
Lewandowsky’s new study has some very COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE advice:
29 Oct: The Conversation: Sunanda Creagh: Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change
People are more likely to believe that humans cause global warming if they are told that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that it does, a new study has found.
Despite overwhelming evidence showing that human activity is causing the planet to overheat, public concern is on the wane, said the study, titled The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science and published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday.
“One reason for this decline is the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by political and vested interests, which often challenge the existence of the scientific consensus. The role of perceived consensus in shaping public opinion is therefore of considerable interest,” the study’s authors said…
Lead researcher Stephan Lewandowsky from the Cognitive Science Laboratories at the University of Western Australia said the study involved two surveys…
The control group was asked about their views on the causes of climate change but the consensus group, however, was first told that 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels by humans.
People in the consensus group were much more likely to say that human activity caused climate change, even if their political views were otherwise broadly in line with free market ideologies that eschew the government regulation required to curb emissions.
“So providing the consensus information is boosting acceptance, particularly for those people who would otherwise reject the evidence based on their world view,” said Prof Lewandowsky…
The study showed it was important for scientific communicators and journalists to tell their audience that the vast majority of climate change experts believe that human activity is causing global warming.
“It is reaching even those people who would normally tune out when you tell them the evidence,” Prof Lewandowsky said, adding that journalists should not give denialists and climate change experts equal air time.
“The media is being irresponsible if they are pretending there is a scientific debate in light of this consensus.”…
http://theconversation.edu.au/scientific-consensus-shifts-public-opinion-on-climate-change-10356
@ur momisugly pat October 28, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Your posting and URL (http://theconversation.edu.au/scientific-consensus-shifts-public-opinion-on-climate-change-10356) are truly scary, especially the “credits”:
“The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics and researchers.
“We are funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Murdoch, QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, UTAS, UWS and VU.”
I have a PG degree from Melbourne. Is it worth anything any more?
IanM
I thought climate science was being conducted properly when I first heard of the emails, and I had no interest in reading them. Ironically, I was about the 4th person in the world to check out the climategate 2 drop, but having no experience with the original, I was about the 7th person to download FOIA 2.
What BBC seems to fail to grasp is, how would emails compromise political action unless there was something in the emails exposing badly done science. If the science was being done properly, the email release would have bolstered so called action on climate change.
Quite right, though I doubt I could be as reasonable under the same circumstances. Hearing BBC presenters on the radio, I sometimes get the impression that they are genuinely trying harder to be sensible about the matter, but simply have little clue about who/where to get-the-other-side of a “science-story.”
Actually employing more people (some?) with Science Ph.D. s to talk or write about science doesn’t seem to have gained much currency yet at the BBC. They ought to be offering TallBloke a job.
The last thing the Beebs should be doing is putting up pictures of gloved hands surfing the internet. Google “Jimmy Savile”.
“Jimbo says:
October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
BBC Pension Trust – Top equity investments at 31 March 2012
Occidental 11.53”
I knew of “Big Oil and “Big Tobacco” were some of the BBC’s investments but Occidental? Isn’t that Al Gore’s oil and coal business which contributed to the major chunk of his wealth?
“OTOH it is probably just as well, as I have about as much respect for the BBC as I do PBS, being cast from the same government media mold.”
[+emphasis]
I don’t know if it was intended or not but that’s a nice double entendre.
Here’s the counter to that argument from consensus: I speculate that the majority of the alarmed “climate scientists” in those 97% surveys are not specialists in the CAUSES of climate change (attribution), but in the impacts of and remedies for such change. Their opinion that the cause of global warming is CO2 carries no more weight than that of any other non-climate scientist. It a was slick equivocation, highly successful until now, for the pollsters to use “climate scientist” in two senses to impute expertise in climate-change causation to a group of “climate scientists” that lack it. It was unethical to have kept this sample-bias in the background or under the rug. The “consensus” might be mostly an artefact, the product of CON-CENSUSes.
The surveys showing a high consensus on an anthropogenic cause of global warming restricted their sample to scientists with the highest number of publication on the topic (one survey set the bar at 20 articles with the word “climate” in each). Who won’t usually fit this profile? Scientists who study the causes of global warming, primarily chemists, physicists, and atmospheric specialists. (Modelers are a borderline case.) Their findings and cogitations are based on hard (difficult) science, which ought to reduce their publication rate to far below that of biologists and environmentalists who write about possible impacts or remedies.
This is powerful ammo. Its force, if true, is amplified by the fact that the truth has been twisted and concealed for so long by so many warmists. And by the way no critical thinking was applied to the claim by journalists–or by the supposed champions of critical thinking, the capital-S “Skeptics” of the CSICOP sect.
I urge high-profile climate contrarians (hopefully R.G. Brown) “carry the ball” further if they think I might be right; and, if I am, to make an enormous stink about it. (I’m going to repost this on Tips and Notes. Anyone may copy and post it elsewhere.)
judging on how they handled the Savile affair, i think you’re better off ‘out’ of this little escapade Anthony.
The BBC Pension Trust should put its money where its big mouth is. Talk green but invest in red. This is why we call them hypocritical watermelons. Heck, even Al Gore’s investment outfit is moving away from ‘green’ investments. It was all about the money. Follow the money folks >>>>>
BBC’s capitalistic investments in Big Oil and tobacco and very little green
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml
Al Gore suddenly shy of green
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11727215/1/al-gore-walks-away-from-green-energy.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN#
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1375534/000117266112000799/generation2q12.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/opinion/brooks-a-sad-green-story.html?_r=0
No one contacted me about being questioned by Norfolk Police just because I made an FOI request, though the BBC had featured me on a previous news item
Jimbo:
The links you provide in your at October 29, 2012 at 1:04 am are pertinent and informative. Thankyou.
As you say concerning the now existing BBC Pension Fund investments
This shows a rapid retreat from ‘green’ investments by the BBC Pension Fund. Only three years ago that Pension Fund was heavily involved in ‘green’ investments (as anybody can check with a web search).
Hence, reasons for the BBC’s official policy of bias on AGW have reduced.
It will be interesting to hear the upcoming program on Radio4. Either it will
(a) continue the BBC’s bias (so show no signs of movement from the BBC’s official policy of bias on AGW)
Or
(b) provide a reduced degree of BBC bias (so show signs of movement from the BBC’s official policy of bias on AGW).
I hope – but doubt – the program will be a seminal moment.
Richard