BBC Climate Documentary: “How they Made Us Doubt Everything”

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 28, 2020 11:30 am

“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”.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Phil Salmon
July 28, 2020 9:13 pm

Yeah, but what about the Sturdlefish???

Nick Graves
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 29, 2020 3:06 am

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.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Phil Salmon
July 29, 2020 1:13 am

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.

Reply to  Rod Evans
July 29, 2020 10:48 am

Us deplorables

David Guy-Johnson
July 28, 2020 11:32 am

Fortunately only about 20 people will have heard this.

Stew Green
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
July 28, 2020 4:10 pm

The series was selected for prominent trailering

Twitter shows that many Radio4 shows often have a very low audience now

July 28, 2020 11:42 am

What I would like to see is a BBC series on the “inside baseball” of the BBC.

You transparency and all that.

Andrew

James Sawhill
July 28, 2020 11:43 am

climate science by character assassination

July 28, 2020 12:00 pm

” 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.

fretslider
July 28, 2020 12:05 pm

The BBC is now

The Propaganda Bureau

Reply to  fretslider
July 28, 2020 8:11 pm

More like the adjustment bureau

Nick Graves
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
July 29, 2020 3:01 am

P@edophile Propaganda Communists is the term I usually use.

It’s suitably offensive. Only just…

n.n
July 28, 2020 12:13 pm

Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, liberal ideology, diversity dogma, political congruence, social justice, social exemption, and conflation of logical domains.

July 28, 2020 12:19 pm

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.

Tom Abbott
July 28, 2020 12:28 pm

From the article: “Jerry left with the impression he had been “duped” by climate skeptics.”

Is that possible?

Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2020 12:29 pm

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.

Sean
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2020 2:34 pm

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.

LdB
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2020 11:25 pm

You could definitely mount the argument climate true believers are closer to Pravda or McCarthyism, it’s all smear and innuendo.

TBeholder
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2020 2:08 am

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.

Mark Pawelek
July 28, 2020 12:32 pm

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, …

Jon-Anders Grannes
July 28, 2020 1:20 pm

BBC have become Neo-Marxism Broadcasting Services?

Ian
July 28, 2020 1:28 pm

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.

Joel Snider
July 28, 2020 1:45 pm

I wonder if it could be that putting the two viewpoints together causes doubt in alarmism?

Even after decades of controlling the message?

leitmotif
July 28, 2020 1:45 pm

“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?

Robert B
July 28, 2020 1:49 pm

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.

Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
July 28, 2020 2:22 pm

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.

BlueCat57
July 28, 2020 2:34 pm

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.

Russell Cook
July 28, 2020 2:41 pm

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.

Coeur de Lion
July 28, 2020 2:43 pm

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.

Stew Green
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 28, 2020 4:13 pm

unless you follow through it means nothing
See my post up the thread.

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  Stew Green
July 28, 2020 11:07 pm

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.

July 28, 2020 3:09 pm

“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/

Tenuc
July 28, 2020 3:43 pm

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.

Stew Green
July 28, 2020 4:23 pm

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

July 28, 2020 4:53 pm

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.

John F. Hultquist
July 28, 2020 5:34 pm

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.

Nick Graves
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
July 29, 2020 1:00 am

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..?