BBC on Climategate program now available

^^ Just realised that pastebin might mess up the formatting. Let me know here if you want a clean copy and how I’d send it.

For those who could not access the broadcast – you missed nothing. It was bland and conservative. If anything the bias in favour of AGW was still there. BBC have learnt nothing. It put `scientists` against` skeptics` – are the latter not scientists? A classic example of a slow withdrawal from their previous all-knowing AGW position. But they `protested` too much. Nobody should praise this broadcast. Given recent discoveries and re-evaluation of data it was pathetic. BBC continues to declne in impartiality and authority – who is really `at the controls`?

1 November 2012 Last updated at 10:47 (GMT)
BBC News – Climategate: Operation Cabin files released by police
http://bbc.in/X315ar

From the gratefully received transcript. A couple of issues:
“Mike Hulme: If we look at the three years leading up to Climategate, and we look at all the papers that were published in the scientific literature about climate change, and then we look at all the papers published in the three years after Climategate – and then we say, “What proportion of those papers about climate change also in their abstract used the phrase ‘uncertainty’?” There’s a 50% increase. And I would suggest that that is a direct consequence of the sort of readjustment in practice that occurred after the controversies around Climategate. The climate scientists were much more careful not to over-claim.
Chris Vallance: Okay, Professor Hulme, but could that be a small increase from a low base?
Mike Hulme: Well, okay so, the figures are roughly around about from 6% of all papers to 9%. Whether that’s low or high depends on how you interpret the data.”
From 6% to 9% = I am not a mathematician but, that looks like a 3% increase to me 🙂
and:
“Steven McIntyre: I wasn’t interviewed by any of them. Any inquiry that is seriously trying to resolve a situation has to involve all the concerned communities and interests. So it’s a pretty unimpressive performance.
Michael Mann: The very individuals who were claiming that these leaked emails indicated impropriety, misconduct and such; they were allowed to make input into the inquiry process. The critics would like you to believe that their voices weren’t heard but it simply isn’t true and so in their mind the fact that their charges are found to be without merit simply must indicate that the entire system is corrupt. I mean it’s the sort of conspiracy theory spiral that undermines the possibility of talking about anything factual.
Andrew Montford: I think there’s absolutely no doubt that there was no conspiracy. All the inquiries were deficient for their own reasons. So if I was running the country there would be a public inquiry into Climategate because the people who have been tasked with investigating it have failed to do so.”
Mann’s narcissism shining through in a ” conspiracy theory spiral”, exaggerated falsehoods type of … thing.
This could have been better but, it was better than nothing, which is the weak sauce we have been served up by the establishment since the dam broke.

Thanks FergalR. Your efforts are much appreciated. Transcripts are hard work.

David Ross; I used to transcribe for a living a long time ago so It’s no big deal. It would have taken me half the time if I’d had an mp3 instead of that awful BBC player that kept skipping. I can see a couple of typos and a pretty glaring mistake so I must be pretty rusty – I somehow managed to type and proofread “In November 2009 this building because the hub for a global cyber-crime inquiry.” :/

From the the transcript: Paul Dennis: “The key problem is that it’s often presented as a majority of scientists and then the minority are whackos or deniers or something else. They’re not. They’re intelligent people who are coming to a different conclusion from the same sets of data. I’ve seen horrific language on both sides of the debate. It’s not very pleasant if it’s directed against you as somebody who’s active in climate science. It’s not very nice if it’s directed against you as somebody who is on the sceptic side of the debate as well.”
Remember this man is a scientist within University of East Anglia! From his site:
Research Interests
Stable Isotope Geochemistry; in-situ cosmogenic isotope chemistry; noble gas chemistry; terrestrial and marine palaeoclimate analysis, Landscape evolution; hydrology and hydrogeology; isotopic oceanography; atmospheric chemistry; stable isotope instrumentation and techniques” …….NO WONDER he’s been “accused” of being the “the inside man/mole”
Thank you very much Paul Dennis!!
Biography
My research interests lie in the application of natural stable isotope chemistry to environmental and palaeoclimate studies. I am also very active in instrument design, developing new, high sensitivity isotope ratio mass spectrometers (IRMS)in order to analyse small samples with a high degree of precision, measure ‘isotopic clusters’, noble gas isotope ratios and the natural variation of oxygen in the atmosphere.
In my laboratory we use stable isotope geochemistry to help us understand aspects of past and present climate and environment change. The isotopic composition of fossil rainwater trapped in stalactites and stalagmites collected from caves helps us to unravel details of the climate in western Europe over the past 11,000 years. An analysis of magnetic dust and the isotopic composition of tiny marine creatures known as foraminifera in deep sea marine cores gives us clues to the processes that occur at the end of an ice age 130 thousand years ago when the climate changed rapidly from a cold glacial to a warm interglacial world. Even further back in geological time, some 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period. There is speculation as to the cause of the extinction: meteorite impact or volcanic activity with the huge eruption of the Deccan Traps in India. An analysis of dinosaur egg shells, collected from sediments that intermingle with the Deccan Trap volcanic lavas has helped us to understand the climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time the dinosaurs became extinct.
Currently I am working on new isotope techniques for measuring palaeotemperatures using isotopic clusters or isotopologues and developing a high sensitivity noble gas mass spectrometer for in-situ cosmogenic isotope studies (tritium and neon)as a dating tool for groundwaters and landscape evolution studies.

Thanks for the recording. It was a lot more like the BBC one used to admire, although always with a tinge of scepticism.
And it was nice to hear the voices of the protagonists – it makes them more real, somehow. Mann still came across as a creep; whereas McIntyre and Lawson seemed straightforward, somehow.

Re the BBC Climategate Revisited.
Surely a subtle BBC Warmist bias was created….
I notice that the dark side are called scientists and the enlightened are called sceptics

Communist spy Guy Burgess was recruited by the Russians while at university and his first job was not in intelligence – it was with the BBC. Now I wonder why the KGB was so keen he should work there?