
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
I’ve just listened to the entire BBC radio series “How They Made Us Doubt Everything”, which compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer.
Episodes 1-5, all I heard was details of how the tobacco industry sowed doubt about lung cancer – interesting but largely irrelevant to the climate debate.
Episode 6 starts with a few details of Ben Santer’s custody battle for his son, then segues straight into saying how his life is also tough because he is a climate scientist. The episode then dives into Myron Ebell’s battle against the Kyoto Protocol, claiming Ebell’s plan to oppose Kyoto was just like the “white coat” campaign against tobacco regulation.
It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on some of the reasons why Ben Santer has encountered a few frustrations in his career. Ben Santer became a Climategate star because of his email fantasy of perpetrating violent assault against Pat Michaels, but this is not all that Santer did. Ben Santer also seems to have spent a fair bit of time thinking up excuses to fend off requests for data referenced by his published papers, while writing angry emails to colleagues about the persecution he was enduring. “Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the US FOIA before we have completed full scientific analysis of those datasets?” (Climategate Email 1231257056.txt). Stephen McKintyre describes Santer refusing a polite request for data on the Climate Audit website.
Of course none of this was mentioned by the BBC.
Episode 7 contains a quote from science communicator Susan Hassol, who seems to think ordinary people don’t understand the word “uncertainty”.
Episode 8 talks about Jerry Taylor. Jerry used to be a climate skeptic, but changed his mind after talking to Joe Romm in the changing room after a live debate about James Hansen’s work. Jerry discussed what Joe Romm said with Pat Michaels, about Hansen producing more than one scenario, but was unsatisfied with Pat’s response; Jerry left with the impression he had been “duped” by climate skeptics.
I’m not sure why Jerry feels he was misled; according to our Willis, Hansen’s Scenario A underestimated CO2 emissions by 25%, but predicted double the observed global warming. The other Hansen scenarios were a better fit for the observed temperature trend, but drastically underestimated CO2 emissions. Hansen got it wrong.
Episode 8 also mentions the BBC advising their journalists “we do not need a denier to balance the debate“.
Episode 9 focuses on smearing Dr. Willie Soon. In my opinion the BBC attempted to make funding for Soon’s research look like Dr. Soon received a million dollar bribe from the fossil fuel industry. The part the BBC leaves out of this grossly misleading attack is the grant was paid over a period of ten years. Lord Monckton estimates Willie Soon received less than $60,000 / year after the Smithsonian took their cut – not exactly life changing money.
WUWT published Willie Soon’s excellent response to the BBC’s biased questions, which Soon received from BBC producer Phoebe Keane a few weeks ago.
Episode 10, “Leaving the Tribe”, discusses former Republican representative Bob Inglis being dumped by his district after he embraced climate alarmism, though looking at other sources it is unclear whether climate alarmism was the primary reason Inglis was dumped – Inglis did plenty of other things which likely upset his supporters.
Producer Phoebe Keane then complains in episode 10 that when Willie Soon responded to her biased questions, she also received angry emails from other people Dr. Soon copied into his response. Keane then wastes listeners time discussing her disdain for the people who wrote to her, but doesn’t actually present what Dr. Soon said in his response.
What can I say – this is not the BBC I grew up listening to and watching. In my opinion “how they made us doubt everything” is an innuendo heavy smear, rather than a genuine attempt to enlighten BBC listeners.
The BBC “How they made us doubt everything” series spent two episodes of their 10 episode series vilifying Dr. Willie Soon, then failed to present Dr. Soon’s response to their attacks.
Regardless of whether you think Dr. Soon is right or wrong, Dr. Willie Soon deserves better than this one sided gutter press assault on his reputation from the BBC. Even dictators and murderers are often given an opportunity to argue their case on the BBC. But this is a courtesy the BBC “How they made us doubt everything” series has so far failed to extend to a mild mannered law abiding climate scientist, who was unfortunate enough to be a prime target of their latest ugly smear campaign.
Update (EW): h/t Dr. Soon – Corrected the spelling of Susan Hassol’s name. Naomi Oreskes has expressed her support for the BBC series.
“How they made us doubt everything”
The beeb and Boot boy Benny Santer’s use of the word “everything” is illuminating.
In regard to scientific hypotheses we don’t actually doubt everything. Here’s some things were quite happy believing:
Newtonian mechanics
Gravity
Einstein’s relativity
Even Heisenberg’s uncertainty
Evolution by natural selection
Ice ages
Tectonic continental movement
Nuclear fission and fusion
Respiration and photosynthesis
Photoelectric absorption and emission
Etc…..
When these sleazy hacks say “everything” what they mean is the minuscule subset of “scientific” hypotheses that are loaded with political motivation and interest. Such as CAGW, transgenic crops are evil, nuclear is evil, cows are evil etc..
The only “science” that registers the slightest brain activity response in these people is politicised dystopian pseudoscience that has a left wing ulterior motive. By contrast scientific topics listed above would elicit no reaction or interest whatsoever.
All that is made abundantly clear in the phrase “they made us doubt everything”. It means “we’re curious about nothing”.
Yeah, but what about the Sturdlefish???
What about the Babelfish?
One of those in yer ear makes you hear the converse of everything they propagandise.
Don’t use two Babelfishes – you’ll end up just as mad as they are.
I am happy to go along with all on your list except Heisenberg’s uncertainty, I am not sure about that….
Incidentally, I wonder who the “us” is, in the program title? If it was referring to the BBC then we as realists would have achieved a result. Sadly as the BBC refuses to even allow an alternative climate change view to the one they own and cherish, I guess the “us” did not include the BBC itself did it?
The long march through the controlling institutions, identified as necessary by Gramsci to enable societal change, is happening on the grandest of scales. The project advanced by the Frankfurt School was always going to be a multi generational endeavour, and so it has been.
Just three generation on and the ministry of truth is out there, let no one challenge its rights because it is always right, the BBC has spoken.
Us deplorables
Fortunately only about 20 people will have heard this.
The series was selected for prominent trailering
Twitter shows that many Radio4 shows often have a very low audience now
What I would like to see is a BBC series on the “inside baseball” of the BBC.
You transparency and all that.
Andrew
climate science by character assassination
” Hansen got it wrong”. Ha ha ha.
The now expunged from the internet theory of oceans boiling from CO2 back-radiation is probably the most wrong calculation in the history of science. Even cosmology isn’t big enough to come up with a more wrong calculation.
The BBC is now
The Propaganda Bureau
More like the adjustment bureau
P@edophile Propaganda Communists is the term I usually use.
It’s suitably offensive. Only just…
Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, liberal ideology, diversity dogma, political congruence, social justice, social exemption, and conflation of logical domains.
Ben Santer is also the guy who corrupted the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report to say there was a “discernible human influence on global climate.” It was a knowing lie.
There was no discernible influence then; there is no discernible influence now.
From the article: “Jerry left with the impression he had been “duped” by climate skeptics.”
Is that possible?
The comparison of Skeptics/Climate Realists with the tobacco industry is an old, pathetic, hackneyed attempt to smear. It is laughable that they still do this, but I guess they really don’t have much else. Their attack on Soon is, of course outrageous, and based on Lies. But this is what they do. Same old, same old.
The comparison with the tobacco industry is intentional because of the tobacco industry settlement. Governments are eager to tax energy use as a vice. Necessities are taxed at 5-10% of retail prices whereas vices are taxed at 4-5 times that rate. Why else would governments be so enamored with pot legalization? They expect to get a quarter to a third of the revenue from retail sales.
You could definitely mount the argument climate true believers are closer to Pravda or McCarthyism, it’s all smear and innuendo.
Return fire?
How many watermelons are shills for Monsanto, Big Pharma, etc? Even some of the dissenting Greens are (Patrick Moore was shilling for Monsanto). Mainstream ones, probably slightly less than completely — they are in goosestep with the General Line of Party, just specialize in one paragraph thereof.
How they made us doubt everything
The sting in the tail is it’s ‘progressives’ and their allies: environmental activists who make us doubt everything by telling us it’s all toxic. For the modern progressive, literally everything is toxic: the air, plant food (CO2), society, the family, interpersonal relations, white people, black people who disagree with them, …
BBC have become Neo-Marxism Broadcasting Services?
A disgraceful but hardly new example of the cancel culture. It is why public regard for the media has sunk below that for used auto salesman.
“Dr. Willie Soon deserves better than this one sided gutter press assault on his reputation”
Unfortunately, excluding rebuttal (and, hence, discussion) has become par for the course – in major part because public officials have stood by in silence or, in the case of Boris, in tacit approval.
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
There’s no reason to expect things to change so long as public money continues to flow to one side.
I wonder if it could be that putting the two viewpoints together causes doubt in alarmism?
Even after decades of controlling the message?
“The BBC “How they made us doubt everything” series spent two episodes of their 10 episode series vilifying Dr. Willie Soon, then failed to present Dr. Soon’s response to their attacks.”
Exactly as I predicted on WUWT July 13.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/13/bbc-asks-dr-willie-soon-to-respond-to-climate-conspiracy-claims/
“It won’t change one thing about this broadcast.
This is by the same producer Phoebe Keane on The Why Factor? Why is climate change so politicised?
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/why-is-climate-change-so-politicised/id561904920?i=1000436061869 made in 2020.
Keane’s new BFF is none other than Naomi Oreskes aided by a stream of political and psychological BS from Daniel Sarewitz and Sander van der Linden. Democrats came out as heroes and Republicans came out as ditherers on climate change.
This podcast was totally one sided and that’s what will happen to the Willie Soon podcast.”
When will people learn that the BBC is not their friend and never will be?
Taylor was never a sceptic. He just believed there was plenty of time. Nothing he has done seems to suggest that this guy can’t actually be a real sceptic rather than a cynic.
I’m sure a few people in the Biased Corpse can see it is now in a vicious cycle of self-destruction that will inevitably lead to its demise, but I’m sure most of them are completely deluded and I don’t give a damn what happens to them.
I was going to ask, Who is “us”?
Then I was going to comment that the BBC is just Fake News 24/7.
Then I remembered a pretty good quote that we can apply to the BBC:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
The BBC is opening its mouth daily and removing all doubt that everything they say is a lie or, to be generous, misleading.
Rep Bob Inglis was dumped by his district in his primary election in favor of Trey Gowdy. Those who know how Rep Gowdy rose to fame afterward for his prosecutor-style questioning in U.S. House hearings readily see why Rep Inglis was dumped. Contrast that with how Rep Inglis, in his last House hearing, attempted to illustrate what was happening in the world’s oceans by dropping an egg into a jar of vinegar.
I sent the BBC another formal complaint about ‘Phoebe’s scurrilous, insulting, ignorant, biased ad hominem series of questions to ‘Willie’ Soon. (her rather rude and ignorant quote marks). No reply yet. Soon’s response is irrefutable and masterly. But I don’t suppose self-important, ignorant ‘Phoebe’ ever read it nor got up the references. Shoddy.
unless you follow through it means nothing
See my post up the thread.
Always tick the box asking for a reply and you will get one in the end. It will be word processor boilerplate saying scientific consensus da da da. Then complain about that too.
“compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer”
The appeal to tobacco is standard procedure.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/23/exxon-knew/
The BBC is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the British ruling elite. It has been so since its creation and i don’t believe any person with an ounce of critical thinking ability would ever believe a single word they say.
Luckily they become more and more irrelevant as time goes on, as their viewing figures illustrate. I expectitis time for the powers that be to pull the plug on this expensive shambles and invest more in social media propaganda outlets.
This is the tweet from the shows producer
#1 See who she thanks
#2 See the tweets traffic in a country of 66 million people
25 likes and zero replies
https://www.twitter.com/Phoebe_Keane/status/1288090124522328064
Climate change is just one aspect of the BBC’s embrace of all things lefty. They have also gone all pro-activist on the BLM/Antifa riots (“peaceful demonstrations disrupted by violence from the far-right”), also anti-Brexit and pro- gender identity politics.
We are now seeing “defund the BBC” calls from people who don’t pay much attention to climate change. The “defund” idea being that the Beeb should pay its own way like the private-sector broadcasters do, by advertising, or by making the annual fee voluntary.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/defundthebbc
Commercial-free radio and TV were great for a while but by going full-on activist on multiple fronts, they are managing to antagonise larger and larger segments of the population.
If we could rid the world of the BBC and the Guardian, it would be a step in the right direction.
I think the smoking/cancer issue had two parts. One was cancer. The other was whether cigarettes were addictive.
The problem with both is that not everyone that smoked got cancer, nor became addicted.
Family members chided Mother by accusing her of quitting smoking 7 times. She did get and die of lung cancer. Might have been smoke, or x-rays. Father announced in his early 40s that he was quitting. And so he did. He died at age 86 of unrelated issues.
The leaders of the cigarette industry were hard nosed about these things – perhaps a sense of fiduciary duty? Don’t know. Mystery to me.
The relationship of CO2 and a warming atmosphere is of a totally different sort. Producer Phoebe Keane, and friends, are AGW religious zealots. Their morals are corrupted.
IIRC, smoking did increase the risk factor for lung cancer, yet there is >50% chance you will get it.
Living beside a trunk road did the same, as did driving a Diesel truck for a living.
Of course, if you smoked, lived by an A-road and drove a wagon, you’d be loading your risk factors considerably.
I understand that applied to many respiratory problems, not just lung cancer.
Hence the recent pressure for ‘clean Diseasels’.
So in the Tobacco industry’s defence, they did have a fiduciary duty to kick back.
What seems odd is where is the fiduciary duty with other industries and AGW..?