Yet another reason not to pay your BBC TV license and to not pay attention to the Center for American Progress.
Readers may recall the nuclear reaction over the one time I appeared on The PBS Newshour. Seeing an alternate opinion caused Dunning -Kruger conniption fits and screams of “false balance” for daring to let a climate skeptic speak. Apparently, what I said upset the world view of too many “deep thinkers”. Like the climate action standard bearers at the Center for American Progress, Joe Romm and Daniel Weiss (more on them follows), readers might also recall how Gavin Schmidt refused to be on the same set with Dr. Roy Spencer.
Andrew Montford reports:
In his Mail on Sunday article today David Rose reveals that the BBC – at least in Scotland – has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.
Josh weighs in below as well.
A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.
More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587072/Eureka-How-magic-doughnut-fakes-sun-save-planet-But-Chinese-thanks-billions-spend-eco-power-gravy-train.html
Josh sums up what future BBC news debates might look like.
Speaking of non-debates, The folks at the Center For American Progress decided they can’t sit in the same set of chairs with a climate skeptic.
Fox Business:
‘A discussion about the science of the stuff with Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano (once tabbed by Media Matters as the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year”) and Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, who refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided us for airing his views.’
What a weasel.
I recall fondly what Weiss had to say about Climategate, he really doesn’t need to worry about Morano or any other skeptic. He’s his own worst enemy.
Gavin runs a close second in ducking weasel antics:
These antics where climate alarmists rig the news program so they don’t have to appear in a one-on-one situation where an uncomfortable question might be asked, is in my opinion, the ultimate act of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
these days i only go to the bbc to find out what i’m supposed to think.
i did see recently on the eco sites people asking others to campaign and contact the bbc to complain that ‘deniers’ were being given credibility by giving them a platform to speak.
the biased bbc site has examples of climate change bias.
“Severian says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:31 am
Hansen’s not a climate “scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.”
… And Christopher Moncton is neither a climatologist nor a scientist … so what is your point?
I could not agree more with Gavin’s stance in the Stossel interview. A short debate-format interview guided by an ideological host on an ideological channel adds up to nonsense. The climate issue is immensely complex and not suited to soundbite interaction infotainment.
The Independents reruns on Fox Business at 16:00 EDT today. From Reason.com:
Anyway, “Environmentally Challenged” starts off with a contentious interview about global warming impacts and policies with serial debater Bill Nye the Science Guy. Next comes a discussion about the science of the stuff with Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano (once tabbed by Media Matters as the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year”) and Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, who refused to debate directly with Moreno, and chided us for airing his views.
New York Times science writer and friend o’ Reason John Tierney is next with an update on his classic and controversial 1996 piece, “Recycling is garbage.” Followed by “skeptical environmentalist” and cost/benefit addict Bjorn Lomborg, who talks about comparatively inexpensive solutions to pressing environmental problems, and vice-versa. Energy economist Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute discusses fracking and future energy sources, and beloved Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey talks on one of his favorite themes: how things are actually getting better all the time.
What a great WUWT lead post. Thank you.
Here is a case study I suggest is relevant to the situation.
Case Study #1 on Intellectual Dynamics
Note: ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ could be interpreted either as an individual or groups
‘A’ says a specific horrific man caused crisis exists that threatens all life on planet Earth, do something (call it ‘X’) quickly.
‘B’ says lets discuss point-by-point in great detail, in an open and transparent way with all interested individuals, the basis of the claims and recommended action of both ‘A’ and ‘C’.
‘C’ says it does not matter what ‘A’ and ‘B’ say, mankind should just quickly do ‘X’ (or something else like it) because it is a good thing to do (the way we are living is bad).
– – – – – – – – – –
Discussion
‘A’ will not discuss anything with ‘B’, but will discuss with ‘C’.
‘A’ advocates that ‘B’ should be silenced.
Recommendation
‘B’ should persist without compromise and without fear or prejudice.
John
I have never [b]ever[/b] bought a TV license. And I never will. Why is that?
[i]I’m skint?[/i] No, I do all right, thanks very much.
[i]The BBC’s programs are crap?[/i] No. Sure, many are, but some are okay. Sherlock wasn’t bad. Either way, it’s not the reason.
[i]The BBC hates and insults AGW sceptics?[/i] It’s sickening, but no, that’s not the reason either.
The reason: I cannot bring myself to pay my government a fee in return for its permission for me to watch TV; it’s just too morally repugnant to me. It’s as simple as that.
“Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrablescientific validity’.
???????????? what demonstrablescientific validity?
part of the trick in the bbc statement is to imply only ‘non scientists’ oppose co2 warming. There are scientists who not accept that premise but they never invite them on because they buy hook line and sinker the ‘science is settled’ ‘there is consensus’ ‘95% certainty of co2 being the cause’ mantras from the co2 cult.
they do not even let their science journalists investigate although this one got through
Climategate: Operation Cabin files released by police
Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20159417
“Another document shows that the police decided not to make a media appeal for information to assist the investigation during the Copenhagen climate summit (known as COP15), because “with COP15 still underway in Copenhagen raising awareness still further may have an negative impact on the conference”.
“Some may be surprised that the police would allow these apparently political considerations to affect their conduct of an investigation.”
“The disclosures also reveal how the police worked their way through certain websites on which Climategate had been discussed, printing off and filing away, for example, a list of staff at the Taxpayers’ Alliance.”
If uk police is interested in anyone exposing the co2 narrative then….hi guys..
from other news reports the usual way the uk police undercover operators work is that it is usually the person with the most extreme views and best funded who is the spy.
John@EF says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“The climate issue is immensely complex and not suited to soundbite interaction infotainment.”
Ho humm. Earth’s not been warming for 17.5 years. The computer models all predicted warming.
The warmist scientists are now debunked; their theory falsified.
See how easy that was? They can throw up all sorts of complex protective hypotheses; we don’t have to listen; the PREDICTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. Game over.
This is what people notice. This is good. The more they run, the more they hide, the louder they rant and scream – they’re putting the spotlight on themselves – and triggering regular, ordinary people to ask even more questions. They are making this lack of debate an issue in its own right.
Oh bollocks, re-posted with corrected thingies.
I have never ever bought a TV license. And I never will. Why is that?
I’m skint? No, I do all right, thanks very much.
The BBC’s programs are crap? No. Sure, many are, but some are okay. Sherlock wasn’t bad. Either way, it’s not the reason.
The BBC hates and insults AGW sceptics? It’s sickening, but no, that’s not the reason either.
The reason: I cannot bring myself to pay my government a fee in return for its permission for me to watch TV; it’s just too morally repugnant to me. It’s as simple as that.
You can always tell a scientist is present because he can’t stop explaining the various puzzles still facing his field of inquiry. Ask him a tough question and he’ll be happy to discuss it with you forever. Give him a new perspective and he’ll be overjoyed. Set before him a new problem and he’ll be estactic. When you meet someone who refuses to answer your questions, refuses to show how he got his results, refuses to examine a new problem and insists there is only one right answer and there will always be only one right answer in his field of study you know that whatever else is involved you are not talking to a scientist, no matter what he claims or how many letters he lists after his name.
Speaking of Gavin Schmidt, he was in Vancouver for the TED conference this past week and had this to say on the local news:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZN7E3EWt7o&w=420&h=315]
(As a buns you get a great view of Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZN7E3EWt7o
Correction for The Independents: Fox Business at 16:00 PDT / 19:00 EDT today.
…meant to say “As a bonus you get a great view of Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet”. Stupid autocorrect…
Paul Westhaver says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:30 am
Check out this news Cast by Brian Lilley of Sun News Media on March 14, 2014, archived here:
He is a part of the MSM but on the reality edge of it.
It is fantastic.
http://bcove.me/g2wisg3t
*
Thank you for this, Paul. Seriously excellent viewing. It was good to see the petition signed by scientists (31,000+) get a mention. Wonderful stuff. 🙂
Hahah you must be kidding John@EF.
Do you know of any non ideological host and a non ideological channel?
You do not understand that journalism exists only for political proposes?
Useful Idiot says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Speaking of Gavin Schmidt, he was in Vancouver for the TED conference this past week and had this to say on the local news:
=====
Nice clip. Echos my point, above, re: his reasoning for not appearing with Spencer. The subject requires significant understanding, not guided soundbite spin. This aside from lending any inkling of cred’ to Spencer’s impactful editor-resigning research.
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/should-scientists-debate-creationists-140105.htm
The BBC are Past Masters at giving disinformation, and then covering up for their dissemination of misinformation.
I made a complaint recently about their blaming the Philippine typhoon on Climate Change. This was their reply:
British Broadcasting Corporation
Editorial Complaints Unit
Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ
Tel: 020 8743 8000
Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Ref: CT/1400057
5 March 2014
Dear Mr …..
Re: Today, Radio 4, 13 November 2013
I am writing as promised to let you know the provisional findings of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into the concerns you have raised about the interview on Today with the President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim. I have understood you to say that the interview about Typhoon Haiyan gave the inaccurate and misleading impression that the number of tropical cyclones is increasing because of climate change. I have also understood you to say that this was in breach of the BBC’s commitment to due impartiality.
I have listened to the interview a number of times and I do not believe there are grounds to uphold your complaint. However, I hope I can explain the reasons why I have reached this decision.
You have said that a specific link was made between climate change and increased cyclone activity but I am afraid that was not the impression I took from the interview. I think it was clear that both the presenter, Evan Davis, and Mr Kim acknowledged at the start of the relevant part of the interview that climate scientists generally agree that it is not possible to attribute a single storm or extreme weather event to any change in the global climate:
Evan Davis: I know you’ve suggested that it is time to stop arguing about climate change. I wonder whether you weren’t in danger of creating another argument about climate change by even mentioning it here. Because, of course, scientists do say you can’t attribute any one storm to changes in the long term climate.
Jim Yong Kim: There’s no question that it is not possible to relate Typhoon Haiyan or any other specific event to climate change as a whole. This is not possible. And in all the interviews I have done I have always started with that idea.
I think this would have prevented audiences being given the impression that either Mr Kim or Mr Davis were suggesting the specific typhoon which hit the Philippines was the result of climate change.
In the subsequent discussion, Mr Kim certainly said that the number of extreme weather events appeared to be increasing; he referred to a recent increase in typhoons in the South Pacific1 and more severe droughts in parts of Africa. However, my research appears to indicate that most reputable and eminent organisations working in this area believe there is evidence that a) the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is increasing and b) man-made climate change is having an effect on the number of severe weather events.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a paper called “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation”2 which considered the frequency of extreme weather events. The study acknowledged that any conclusions depended on “the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studies analyzing these data” but said there was evidence to support the view that there had been an increase in some extreme weather events, such as heat waves, heavy rainfall and drought. For example, it said:
It is very likely that there has been… an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data.
There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions…
It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes.
There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts…
I appreciate that the IPCC says “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities”. However, I don’t think that means the interview was likely to prove materially inaccurate or misleading. I say this because both Mr Davis and Mr Kim said at the beginning that it was not possible to link Typhoon Haiyan or any other specific event to climate change as a whole and in their subsequent discussion both men only spoke about the possible effects of climate change on areas like the Philippines, not the specific effects of storms.
You may recall that Evan Davis asked what might happen “…if a low lying area [like the Philippines] becomes uninhabitable or becomes so subject to severe storms like this that populations just can’t rebuild or get on with their lives…” I don’t think it is reasonable to infer from this that he was saying there will be a greater number of cyclones; he was clearly exploring one possible scenario and leaving open the option that areas could become uninhabitable because of other extreme weather events (such as flooding, heavy rainfall etc). In the same way, Mr Kim responded by talking of the threat that flooding might pose to archipelagos such as the Philippines and major cities such as Bangkok; he did not say this would be caused by a greater number of cyclones. He said “there are places which will certainly be underwater in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years” but, as before, I don’t think it is reasonable to infer that he was claiming this would be the direct result of an increase in the frequency of cyclones rather than other causes.
So in conclusion, I cannot agree that the interview was misleading in the way you suggest and so I think it follows that there was no breach of the BBC’s guidelines on due impartiality. However, I do think it would have been better if it had been made clearer that scientists believe the link between extreme weather events and climate change is stronger in relation to temperatures, heavy precipitation and drought rather than tropical cyclones.
This is a provisional finding and so I would be happy to consider any comments you may have. I would be grateful if you could send any such comments within ten working days of the date of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Colin Tregear
Complaints Director
The believers and University researchers write papers to apply for GRANT AIDS, if the paper seeks the AGW holy grail then it is accepted funded and then sent out other GRANT researchers for peer review [as they call it even non related folks do peer review on subject they are not trained in] They have gone so far as to violate the Scientific method which if used the original paper would have been rejected for application and never even advance to a theory of hypothesis.
They refuse to release base data and data set math calcs. Without these the paper can not even be reviewed for accuracy as there is nothing to allow a test or even attempt to duplicate the conclusion.
The answer becomes simple take away the Grant money – the EPA and NOAA, NASA and the IRS.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html
Has anyone else noticed the other great lie of the BBC??
Take a look at their daytime programming, and tell me if any of this output bears any relationship to modern Britain. It is all picture-postcard scenes of 1950s English people: moving house; at the auctions; on the farm; touring Britain; on a train; cooking something; looking at antiques; looking at museums; sailing around the coast… etc: etc: etc:
And in not one of these programs will there be a – errrr – a recent addition to these lands. Not one. Who are the BBC trying to kid eh? That nothing has changed….
R
“Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:”
so anyone including other scientists who challenges the co2 assertion is a ‘creationist? its just another name call to create a curfew on the truth.by people who cannot read charts and have designed experiments that can never fail.
John@EF says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm
I could not agree more with Gavin’s stance in the Stossel interview. A short debate-format interview guided by an ideological host on an ideological channel adds up to nonsense. The climate issue is immensely complex and not suited to soundbite interaction infotainment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then why did good ‘ole Gavin bother showing up for the interview? Noblesse oblige?
I’m really tired of self-selected idiots who arrogantly consider themselves above the obligations of faithfully using the scientific method and accurately explaining their results. Of course, this failure to use actual data to validate his theory probably has nothing to do with his inability to communicate or debate.
I know he considers himself to be a member of a group that’s deserving of my intellectual deference and tax dollars as well as being purer of motive than anything I could ever aspire to, but if you’re going to blatantly pull something out of your patootie, you better be prepared to get called on it.
Bottom line: his philosophical preachings simply aren’t intellectually honest or supported by the scientific method; if it’s not good enough for Einstein or Feynman, it’s not good enough for me.
Here we have the “honour” to have J.P. Van Ypersele, Vice-President of the IPCC (and wouldbe President) in our country. After loosing a debate for the UCL (Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium – French part) with Istvan Marko, head of the chemistry department, he now refuses any direct debate. Last time there was one for the French/Belgian TV, where he did give an interview before the real debate started. But in the background he acts to forbid any open debate at universities where skeptics are present. Last year that was for a debate with Fred Singer and Klaas Johnson. Last month for the presentation of the renewed book of Istvan Marko about “Dix Vérités qui Dérangent” (“Ten Truths which Disturb”) which shows where the CAGW people are wrong… It seems to be a worldwide experience: climate “scientists” avoiding any direct confrontation with skeptics…
The BBC got a lot of complaints when Lord Lawson trounced a warmist (forget who it was) in a debate on Radio 4 a few weeks ago. I think the warmists are now running scared and want to deny the opportunity for dissent, but there is a distinct shortage of scientists willing to act as sceptics in public in the UK. The House of Commons had to get Lindzen to fly over to give evidence to them.
C’mon UK scientists, anyone up for it?