
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ever watch the BBC produced documentary about battlefield hazards that claimed that bullets gain inertia over time because they accelerate away from guns?
That’s when the BBC went to abject shit and became retarded entertainment telebabble.
I simply cannot believe it’s the same entity that created *The Power of Nightmares*
Are you sure? Maybe they just gone one step further and got somewhat more crude.
Did they have no mentions ever about how the Dreaded Ozone Hole will devour us all?
The part which upset me most was they way the BBC admitted they received a reply from Dr. Soon, but just tossed it away without providing any details of his response. The old BBC might have been a bit biased, but they usually made at least some attempt to ask someone from the other side to present their views, especially when their program attacked a specific person.
Betz limits eliminates 1/2 the wind values because if Eunstines 1905 noble for infinate values relative to the natural winds and tides values and oil discoverd in Texas and Okclahoma.around 1919 no facts just scientist opinions and bribery of oil finaced elections of us presidents .now include nuclear hells of ways to boil water that bogus betz owes 1/2 the winds and tides values to mankind since Einestines relativity
Uh
There is no doubt the science is settled. It’s just that the methane and the microbes makes the predictable climate change more unpredictable-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/weather/topstories/first-underwater-methane-leak-discovered-near-antarctica-and-scientists-are-worried/ar-BB17728x
You aint getting out of the dooming that easy deplorables.
‘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. ‘
Well hang on: they told him in advance of the programme and invited him to respond – I know that because Watts published their letter and his response… that’s clearly an attempt to let him put his side of the argument.
And whether he took the money over ten years or in one lump, he took the money…
BBC “journalist”: “You’re an idiot, Griff, please respond”
Griff: “No, I’m not”
BBC “journalist”: “Griff was given the opportunity to respond”
Get it, Griff?
Does the Watts site (and do we commenters) ask people to respond before we call them idiots?
I think it would at least be polite.
so you don’t get it
griff, they invited Soon to respond, received his response, then b*tched about his response instead of actually publishing what he said. IMO that is not most people’s idea of giving someone a right to respond.
The BBC has abandoned journalism and descended deep into climate change activism.
The Guardian, too.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/29/climate-moonies/
The whole of the media in the West now appears to be driven by a climate agenda.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/24/cjr/
Don’t get too worried, the Climate Alarm instrument of change has given over to the Virus threat instrument of change. The Institutions national and international are finding it so much easier to convince people to be afraid of what they tell them and hence much easier to control when deploying the virus scare.
Expect Virus scares to become the new preferred tool of world control. Its initial roll out has shown it has great potential. Face masks don’t lie, look all around you! Woe betide anyone, caught carrying or supplying that illegal substance Hydroxychloroquine, without a medical prescription/authorisation….
The BBC is now just another communist mouthpiece. They learned much of their business model from Pravda. A once great company has been ruined by the left. They need to wake up. The left destroys everything it touches. Add BBC to the list.
As a former reader of Pravda I would say that their business model is quite unlike the BBC’s – they simply had an editor who was close to the President of the time, and were the official channel through which announcements were made by the Party leadership. These days the BBC is excluded from Boris’ Twitter and Facebook announcements. Moscow Times – perhaps – or even Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, the one with all the tractor statistics. I don’t think the Russians really ever mastered propaganda: they simply relied on fear, making propaganda redundant. Even the huge advertising hoardings plastered with slogans like да здравствует КПСС! (long live the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) were simply a reminder of who was in charge. As the Russian joke has it в «Правде» нет известия, в «Известиях» нет правды – there is no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestia (the Russian makes clear the play on words).
Griff-“-and invited him to respond. ” But did not use any of his excellent responses!
“-he took the money”.He was paid a salary by his employer – let’s say ,as a reasonable estimate ,Lord Monckton’s $60,000 a year over 10 years-by no means a fortune for a scientist with a degree and Phd.
Do you think this is unreasonable? Maybe as a critic of Climate Alarmism he should grovel on welfare benefit or preferably just shut up?Most of the BBC employees above their lowest grades earn as much- many more are paid fabulous pensionable salaries.And Willie Soon has more brains in his left toenail than most of their “Climate experts ” have when added together. Have you ever listened to any of his lectures?
Julia Hartley-Brewer needs to interview Phoebe Keane
Eric- how did you hear all ten episodes?I thought they were to be broadcast weekly but with two episodes this week? And- do you consider Willie to have been libelled\slandered by the BBC? (Any legal eagles out there?)
Just wondering about a crowdfunding effort to help Wille sue the ratbags.
All available on the website, or it was when I tried it – https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q0
I don’t know whether what they did was actionable, but IMO it was pretty ugly.
Thanks you Eric.
The BBC was once a great program maker and broadcaster and the nation was proud of the Corporation.
Today, it has legions of bureaucratic management, it is left wing from top to bottom and its audience is fast disappearing. It is obsessed with everything woke, spends millions on ethnic diversity, hates Boris, hates Trump, hates Brexit and makes no attempt to hide these prejudices even though its broadcast charter requires impartiality. It is 100% biased on climate change and will publish anything fed to it by its alarmist friends. Scientists who question global warming are not welcome. Greta and ER are given a platform.
The compulsory licence fee and criminal record for those who are caught not paying it are unsustainable. A different funding scheme will soon be needed. Complacent BBC management thinks that the BBC is loved and respected by all. It is ironic that this was once true but they, themselves, have unwittingly, systematically destroyed every decent aspect of the Corporation leaving not just disappointed viewers but angry ones who want to see the whole thing torn down.
It’s the same deal with Aunty in Oz and that old furphy about the millions/billions in subsidies that fossil fuels get-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/matt-canavan-says-there-s-no-government-subsidisation-of-australia-s-fossil-fuel-industries-is-he-correct/ar-BB17iwA3
According to lefty pea brains any normal biz deductions from gross revenue is a subsidy where fossil fuels are concerned but note the bit at the top as Aunty gives you the RMIT ABC FACT CHECK with something they don’t want to hear.
Now RMIT is an Institute of Technology set up in 1887 with the goal of furthering the Industrial Revolution but it wouldn’t be too hard to find the correct flavour of fact checker within it nowadays although there’s a quick segue with the usual international suspects to give the puff piece gravitas with name dropping and appeal to authority-
https://www.rmit.eu/content/rmit-ui/en
When do you ever see Aunty ‘fact checking’ their lefty pals and taxeaters like that nowadays? Fact check or query a climate changer? In taxpayer dreams.
Like.roundup ads bury purpose to get compensation and betz limits phyics law eliminating 1/2 the winds value un hun sure help oil and nuclear interests sheep to slaughter, to protect portfolios now thorium reactors instead of clean ups of ongoing triple meltdowns and chernoble ignoring Einstines infinate relativity of winds and tides values because bad for stock markets hell with planet .
The BBC compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer.
this is not bad actually. the statistical link is very weak and Lord Fisher never believed we have evidence to conclude tobacco causes cancer. this is a biased recount:
https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics-didnt-believe/
that war was fought and won in the political arena, same like the climate war. Again, there was a big prize, shake down the tobacco companies and it was fought by litigation and propaganda. The target now is the fuel companies money, but the weapons are the same.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. The BBC doubts everything, but yet somehow is still 100% certain.
Hmmm, I’m now not sure they are in command of the English language.
BBC has a porn acronym that is more fitting
Hadn’t looked into this until this late evening, 7/29. Episode 6 is titled “Reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact’” and refers to the supposedly leaked strategy memo which is also supposedly attributed to the “Information Council on the Environment” (ICE), all of which is spoken about starting at the 10 minute part of the broadcast. The narrator says at the 12:57 point that this document is the one of the most revealing things he’s seen while making the series. There’s a monster problem with that which he is unaware of: that “reposition global warming” strategy memo and the targeting memo concerning “older, less-educated men” and “young, low-income women” were all part of a rejected proposal to the ICE campaign and were NEVER implemented by the officials of that public relations campaign and were never even seen by the top official overseeing it. At My GelbspanFiles blog, I detailed all the fatal problems of using those worthless documents to indict skeptic climate scientists of colluding with corporate people – see: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=7477
The Jerry Taylor conversion was a fake:
https://www.masterresource.org/taylor-jerry/jerry-taylor-climate-fakery/
https://www.masterresource.org/taylor-jerry/left-climate-darling-taylor/