Last week I posted about the submission that Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill and I sent to the BBC’s Review of the Impartiality and Accuracy of Science Coverage. In passing, I mentioned that initially we had written to Professor Richard Tait, Chairman of the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), who was fronting the project, but had failed to get any kind of response from him. I also said that I would post more about this later.
In fact I mentioned what happened in another post on 3rd August 2010, but as putting our submission in the public domain last week created so much interest – Harmless Sky had by far its heaviest traffic to date, although some of that was due to the Ofcom story – it seems worthwhile making the whole correspondence available now, if for no other reason than that it shows what a very strange organisation the BBC is.
This is the original letter that Andrew and I sent to Professor Tait:
Dear Professor Tait
BBC Trust Review of Accuracy and Impartiality of Science Coverage
We understand that during 2010 the BBC Trust intends to carry out a review of the Corporation’s science coverage. This is welcome and encouraging news.
We both run blogs, at Bishop Hill and Harmless Sky respectively, and we have both been extremely critical the BBC’s output relating to climate change. As I am sure you are aware, such comment often becomes the subject of mainstream media stories now, a trend that is likely to accelerate as the public’s scepticism about anthropogenic global warming grows and the media adjust its editorial policies accordingly.
We realise that pubic criticisms of the BBC’s impartiality is very harmful to the Corporation’s reputation, but experience has taught us that, where this subject is concerned at least, going through the official complaints procedures is slow, time-consuming, frustrating, and usually ineffective. The BBC has also failed to respond positively to enquiries that we have made.
It would seem reasonable to assume that the BBC Trust has instituted this review as a result of concern within the organisation as well as criticisms that have appeared in the media and elsewhere. Of the three topics specifically mentioned in the BBC Trust’s press release announcing the review – GM crops, the MMR vaccine and climate change – there can be no doubt that the latter has had by far the greatest impact on public policy and the everyday lives of BBC viewers, listeners, and website visitors. The BBC is a major opinion former in the UK.
We feel that, if the BBC Trust’s review is to be credible and lead to a genuine reappraisal of BBC editorial policy on this crucial subject, then it is essential that the voices of informed critics should be heard. Indeed it is difficult to see how even the terms of reference for the review can be established without some input from sceptical bloggers.
The unexpected and dramatic events of the last few months concerning the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the failure of the Copenhagen summit, and revelations about the conduct of the IPCC have changed attitudes in the media dramatically, and this transformation has been largely led by the blogosphere. Evidence from opinion polls shows a steady increase in scepticism among the public over the last three years which is now accelerating. This does not suggest that editors will revise their newly adopted policies of publishing sceptical material about climate change any time soon.
As the BBC’s report on impartiality in the 21st century, published in 2007, made clear, impartiality is the cornerstone of the BBC brand. Our concern is that the BBC’s reputation for impartiality should be preserved. We have substantial archives relating to the way that the BBC has reported climate change in recent years and we will be happy to assist the review process in any way that we can.
Yours sincerely
I think that most people would agree that this was constructive, moderate in tone, and fairly conciliatory considering the problems that we have both encountered when dealing with the BBC in the past.
Not having an email address for Professor Tait, I sent the letter to Bruce Vander, the secretary of the ESC with the following covering note:
Date sent: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:13:43 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
I attach a letter addressed to Professor Richard Tait and I would be most grateful if you will ensure that he receives this and confirm that you have done so.
Yours sincerely
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
Which really could not be very much clearer or more straightforward.
I expected swift confirmation that the letter had been passed to the great man and that, in due course, a more or less non-committal, but diplomatic, reply would be forthcoming. Perhaps something along the lines of, ‘Thank you for offering to make a submission to the our review. This should be sent my colleague ….. Do not hesitate to contact me again if … etc, etc’. But that’s not what happened at all.
Just an hour-and-a -quarter after I had hit send, this arrived:
Dear Mr Newbery, Mr Montford,
Thank you for your letter to the BBC Trust, the contents of which I note. [sic]
I will, of course, share you [sic] letter with Richard Tait and with Professor Steve Jones who is authoring the review, but let me take this opportunity to respond to a number of the points you raise.
Your letter states that: ‘It would seem reasonable to assume that the BBC Trust has instituted the review as a result of concern within the organisation as well as criticisms that have appeared in the media and elsewhere’. This is not the case, as the press release and published terms of reference make clear. This is the latest in a series of reviews that assess impartiality in specific areas of BBC output. Previous topics covered were BBC coverage of business (2007) and the devolved nations (2008).
It is a key priority for the Trust that the BBC covers potentially controversial subjects with due impartiality, as required by the Royal Charter and Agreement. The review is a ‘health check’ of current coverage, looking to identify both good and bad practice. It makes no presumption of significant failings – or, for that matter, successes – at the outset.
The published terms of reference make clear what is in the review’s scope and what is out, and the means by which Professor Jones will go about assessing the BBC’s coverage, including detailed content analysis, engagement with key stakeholders and audience research if deemed appropriate.
I hope this letter goes some way to clarifying some of the points you raise.
Yours sincerely,
Jacquie Hughes
Editorial projects [sic] Leader
I have not the slightest idea what an Editorial projects [sic] Leader at the BBC might be, and nor do I very much care. If a letter is addressed to a particular person, however exalted, I do expect to receive a reply from them, even if it only says that the matter is being delegated to someone else. That is a very basic matter of courtesy as well as being sensible public relations.
I’m not going to discuss the content of Ms Hughes’ letter, although there is at least one claim in it that may raise a few eyebrows, but let’s just focus on the careful choice of words in the second paragraph: ‘I will, of course, share you letter with Richard Tait and with Professor Steve Jones who is authoring the review’. There is a world of difference between ‘sharing’ a letter that was not addressed to you with the intended recipient and actually giving it to them, and anyway I hadn’t sent the letter to Ms Hughes but to the secretary of the committee that Professor Tait chairs, with a specific request to deliver it to him. Quite honestly, I wasn’t in the least bit interested in what the Editorial Projects Leader had to say, and in any case her letter didn’t address the main point of our letter, which was to find out whether the BBC’s review would consider a submission from a couple of bloggers who had taken a particular interest in the impartiality of their coverage of climate science. Make no mistake, we were in no doubt that, for some people at the BBC such a submission would be about as welcome as a pile of dog poo on the living room carpet, but that’s not the point. In such circumstances grown-up organisations, however large and exalted, usually go through the motions of being polite and pragmatic when dealing with critics.
I had no intention of getting involved in correspondence with a member of the BBC Trust’s staff who had apparently intercepted the letter, or had it diverted to them by the very person who had been asked to pass it to his boss. So I wrote to Bruce Vander again.
Date sent: Thu, 08 Apr 201010:14:21 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
I look forward to receiving your confirmation that Professor Tait has received the letter that I attached to an email that I sent to you yesterday.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
And again:
Date sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11 :26 :02 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
On 7th April 2010 I emailed you asking that a letter to Professor Tait, which I attached, should be forwarded to him and also for confirmation that this had been done.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
And yet again:
Date sent: Tue, 04 May 2010 08:31 :07 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
I emailed you on 7th April 2010 in your capacity as secretary to the ESC enclosing a letter addressed to Professor Tait, the chairman of the committee. You have not responded to my request for confirmation that Professor Tait has received this letter in spite of my sending you two reminders.
Unless you provide me with either the confirmation that I requested — or a reason why you have chosen not to pass the letter to Professor Tait — by the end of this week, I will seek an explanation from the BBC Trust for your failure to act appropriately. Ignoring my correspondence will not, I am afraid, make this matter go away.
Yours sincerely
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
The irony of this situation will not be lost on those who have noticed that Mr Vander is the BBC Trust’s Complaints Manager as well as secretary to the ESC.
Be that as it may, this fourth message did provoked a response, nearly a month after I had asked for confirmation that Professor Tait had received our letter.
Date sent: Tue, 4 May 2010 09:08:02 +0100
Dear Mr Newberry [sic]
I am confused by your requests that you require confirmation that Richard Tait has seen your letter of 7 April 2010. As my colleague, Jacquie Hughes, Editorial Project Manager, wrote to you on the same day (7 April) confirming that she would share your letter with both Richard Tait and Professor Steve Jones, author of the Science Review, which I believe she has done.
You may also remember that she clarified that the review was the latest in a series of reviews that asses impartiality and is a ‘health check’ of current coverage which makes no presumption of significant failings and will identify good and bad practice. The review is not as you suggested “as a result of concern within the organisation”.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC
Up to this point, I had clung on to the hope that the BBC weren’t playing silly word games by referring to the letter being shared. After all, even critics of the BBC would expect our national broadcaster to behave in a grown-up way over such a trivial matter of office procedure. The first paragraph of Mr Vander’s letter dispelled this hope when instead of answering my question he echoed the term ‘share’. And why? Oh why? would Mr Vander say that he believes that the letter has been shared with Professor Tait? Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to say that the letter has been passed to the person it was addressed to if that was the case.
By now Mr Vander was not only wasting his employer’s time, but mine too, so I was fairly blunt when I replied.
Date sent: Thu, 06 May 201010:17:17 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
Thank you for your email and I regret that you find my request confusing.
I would be grateful if you would now answer the question which I asked: have you given the letter to Professor Tait, and if not why not? Your email does not answer this question, although it implies that you have not done so.
Passing the letter to another BBC Trust employee who proposes to ‘share’ the letter with the intended recipient is not an adequate response, and nor is saying that you ‘believe’ that this has been done.
I wish to know whether Professor Tait has received the letter, which was addressed to him.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
Unfortunately Mr Vander had still not got the message that I really did want a sensible answer, or perhaps I just wasn’t tugging my forelock humbly enough. After another ten days has slipped by, I had another try.
Date sent: Mon, 17 May 2010 08:58:59 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
I look forward to receiving a reply to my email of 6th May which I have copied below for your convenience.
Your sincerely
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
Which triggered this auto-reply:
Date sent: Mon, 17 May 2010 08:59:57 +0100
Out of Office AutoReply: Re BBC Review of Science Reporting
Thank you for your email. I am out of the office until 1 June, if your matter requires urgent attention please email XXXXXXX XXXXX at: xxxxxx.xxxxx@bbc.co.uk or XXXX XXXXXXX at xxxx.xxxxxx@bbc.co.uk
As it was now the holiday season, and I was going to be away myself, there was no choice but to be patient. Eventually this turned up in my inbox:
Date sent: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 13:46:48 +0100
Dear Mr Newbery
Thank you for your email dated 17 May.
Please accept my apologies for the delay to my reply but I have been away from the office on leave and only returned this week.
I am writing to confirm that your letter has been shared with Richard Tait.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC
By this time I was about ready to start screaming.
Up until this point I had refrained from blogging about this, although the BBC Trust’s obtuseness – or worse – had made it very tempting. As I’ve said before on this blog, I don’t particularly enjoy Auntie bashing; all I want is a BBC that one can rely on to behave correctly, and be proud of as one of the great British institutions. However this episode had now become so bizarre that there was good reason to make it public, so I wrote what I think was a fairly restrained post about it and, observing the usual courtesy of offering the right of reply to someone who is being criticised, let Mr Vander know that I had done so.
Date sent: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:45:14 +0100
Dear Mr Vander
I have now posted a copy of the joint letter sent by Andrew Montford and myself to Professor Tait on 7th April at my blog, together with some comments on the problems we have had obtaining confirmation that this has been delivered to him:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blogl?p=319#more-319
It seems only fair to let you know about this, and I will of course be willing to post any response that the BBC Trust may choose to make.
Yours sincerely
Tony Newbery
http://www.harmlesssky.org
The reply was:
Date sent: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 17:08:37 +0100
Dear Mr Newbery
Thank you for email dated 3 August 2010.
Yours sincerely,
Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC
And at that stage I decided that it really wasn’t worth spending any more time trying to find out whether Professor Tait had seen our letter: or whether it had been diverted to Ms Hughes so that he would not have to reply to it: and if so why? Or whether Professor Tait had in fact seen the letter and connived at the prevarication that followed. Or why any of this should happen when a courteous acknowledgement and emollient invitation to make a submission to the review would have been the sensible response. Such behaviour breeds mistrust.
Eventually, in September, Andrew Montford discovered that the public – but evidently not critical bloggers who might be alarmingly well informed about the issues – had been invited to make representations to the BBC Trust’s review. He wrote to Professor Steve Jones to ask if he would accept a submission from us. The correspondence was brief, but courteous, businesslike, and prompt. Professor Jones gave no indication that he had heard anything of our letter to Professor Tait, although he was not specifically asked about this.
This story has a moral. Last week we went public with our submission to the review, and it immediately began to cause embarrassment to the BBC. If I am interpreting whispers reaching me now correctly, that may be just the start.
Had we received an appropriate response to our original approach to the BBC Trust we might have been content to wait until their review was published before saying anything.
Took a take on them.
I’ll concede that phrase is a bit pants.
AndyB
Point well taken on the Army – the civilian “owners” of this organization should definitely keep out of the day-to-day management (“how to fight the wars”). However, the policy decisions (“which wars to fight”) should not be made by the Army, but but their bosses (the civilian government), who should listen closely to their bosses (the voting public). Is the Vietnam war an example here?
The 80% figure on climate scientists supporting the IPCC “mainstream” (and lavishly “taxpayer funded”) view may well be correct, and would not be surprising (people, including climatologists, do not usually bite the hand that feeds them). I have just never seen any serious scientific study supporting this specific figure, as it appears is the same for you (the Oreskes study, a few years back, has been thoroughly debunked by at least two follow-up studies).
Of course, this figure provides no evidence, one way or the other, that this 80% is likely to be more correct than the other 20%, who does not support the IPCC “mainstream” view.
There are many examples where a scientific paradigm vigorously supported by essentially all of the “mainstream” scientists turned out to be dead wrong (the resistance to Alfred Wegener and his plate tectonics hypothesis is one good fairly recent example).
For this reason, BBC should be impartial and objective enough to show all views on climate change, which are scientifically based, including those of the purported 20% minority, without “taking sides” as to which “view” is correct.
And I believe that this is the very point Andrew and Tony are trying to get across to the BBC Trust bureaucrats, who appear (so far) to be stonewalling and evading the issue.
And finally to your point of how large corporations react to critique from the outside: I’d agree that the BBC Trust managers’ response is probably typical for large bureaucratic corporate organizations, but this does not excuse it, particularly since BBC is a publicly held organization and nor a private one. Corporate managements (public or private) that ignore their shareholders too long eventually get canned.
Max
AndyB isn’t quite so on his own as Max accuses him of being.
Actually, Andy’s figure of 80% is something of an understatement. According to Doran (2009) the percentage of climate scientists supporting the consensus is ~95%.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Anderegg puts the figure even higher at 97-98%
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
The chart in Doran’s paper shows that the those who are closest to climate science have the highest support for the consensus whereas those who understand the least have the lowest, with the general public, in the US, being split at somewhere around 50-50 on the issue.
TonyN does, correctly, make the point that “the BBC is a major opinion former in the UK”. We do have to ask the question: are TonyN and Andrew Montford motivated by a genuine desire that the BBC should report the state of scientific opinion as accurately as possible, or are they more interested in using the BBC as a tool to mould public opinion?
AndyB
Back to the postulated 80/20 split on “mainstream” versus “skeptical” scientists (50).
Let me start of by reiterating that 80% of the scientists can be just as wrong as 20%, so the ratio really provides no evidence regarding which view is more likely to be correct.
US Senator Inhofe once put together a list of 400 “scientists”, who were skeptical, not necessarily of the AGW hypothesis per se or that humans emit CO2, but of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been a primary cause of our planet’s 20th century warming, and that it represents a serious potential threat (i.e. the “dangerous AGW” premise of IPCC).
Supporters of the “mainstream” view including pro-“dangerous AGW” blogger, Eli Rabett, objected to several names on this list as being “unqualified”.
The list has since gotten pared down to individuals “qualified” to have an opinion on some aspect of the “climate science” supporting the “mainstream” premise. There are now 220 “scientists” and 60 “meteorologists” on the list, for a total of 280 “qualified” individuals. [I can post this list, if you are interested, but it has been posted previously on the “New Statesman” thread here.]
These individuals have all gone on record that they do not support some aspect of the “dangerous AGW” premise.
I have not seen a list of four times that many “qualified” individuals (1,120), who have specifically stated that they do support the “dangerous AGW” premise.
Have you?
The much-touted “2,500 scientists behind IPCC” is more a bit of bluster by IPCC chairman, Pachauri, because nowhere have I seen this list spelled out with names, along with a confirmation that all of these individuals support the “dangerous AGW” premise of IPCC.
So maybe we should not talk too much about an 80/20 split until it can truly be confirmed.
Max
PeterM
Your #53 crossed with my #54.
The general papers by Doran and Anderegg are nice, but unfortunately do not mean much, since they are not specific.
You have seen the list to which I drew Andy’s attention (280 qualified individuals, who have gone on record as not supporting the “dangerous AGW” premise of IPCC).
I have yet to see your specific list of 1,120 “qualified” individuals, who have stated that they support the “dangerous AGW” premise of IPCC.
Once you have brought this list, we can discuss the 80/20 split more specifically.
Max
PeterM
A sideline to your #53.
A co-author of the Anderegg paper was (the late) Stephen Schneider, who advised scientists to choose between honesty and being effective, in order to get a message across that change was needed. Was he simple “being effective” here, rather than “being honest”?
Who knows?
But you need to show that you can supply a specific list as pointed out in #54, before your statement has any credibility. It’s just that simple, Peter.
Max
Max,
Yes it is possible for 1 person to be correct whereas 4 people, or even 20 people in the case of AICC, who think the opposite are all incorrect. But is it likely? If you were on that well known quiz show, where you didn’t know the answer to a question, you had a chance of asking the audience’s opinion and the split was 20:1 in favour of one particular answer, which one would you choose?
I’d say that the chance of the one person being right in these circumstances was very much less than 1 in 20.
No-one is saying that the one person doesn’t have the right to their opinion but on the other hand they shouldn’t expect responsible organisations like the BBC to give them an equal platform.
They get that, and better, in the right wing press, the Mail, Express, WSJ, Spectator, etc and TV channels like Fox who are happy to convey the disinformation that scientists are evenly split on the AGW issue.
I guess you lot want the BBC to broadcast disinformation too.
PeterM
Your hypothetical question:
is, unfortunately, loaded.
I provided you a list of 280 qualified individuals, who have gone on record that they do not support the “dangerous AGW” premise of IPCC.
You are unable to provide me with a list of 4×280 = 1,120 qualified individuals, who have gone on record that they DO support this premise (let alone a list of 20×280 = 5,600).
Until you do, Peter, your question is a bit hypothetical.
Then there is the Alfred Wegener experience to consider, where the entire scientific community was dead wrong in supporting a paradigm that was later shown to be false.
So I’d say it is a toss-up. Either view is just as likely to be correct.
That’s the way it is, Peter, as unpleasant as that might seem for you.
So BBC should objectively and impartially broadcast BOTH sides of the story without taking sides one way or the other, as I pointed out to AndyB.
Quite simple, actually.
Max
Max,
I think you might remember I posted an even longer list of scientists who disputed Darwinian Evolution.
So on the basis of your argument in #58 you are also proposing that the BBC should give them equal treatment too? You know “both sides of the story etc etc etc”.
Or is it different for AGW?
But, that aside, you should know that science doesn’t work on the basis of “my list is longer than yours”.
AndyB I’m sure you have heard this before but here goes. Science is about scepticism, not consensus. This point has been argued to death on the New Statesman thread if you wish to get everyone’s views. The scientific world is littered with the establishment being wrong and one or two being right as Max pointed out. Another is the story of the two Australian Doctors who were correct about stomach ulcers being caused by a bacterium and not by stress and poor diet. It’s a cracking story and you should research it if you don’t already know it.
Having stated the above there is another part of the story that makes a mockery of the consensus talk. 99.9% of all the scientists that express an opinion about dangerous AGW are studying the effects and not the cause. If we really want to get down to who in the world have spent their life studying atmospheric physics and all the interrelated relationships between the different gases, and how they relate to the sun, cosmic rays, the magnetic field, planetary orbits etc. then the field becomes much smaller. And truth be known they all have a slightly more sceptical view to those who measure temperatures, produce graphs and tell the world Armageddon is upon us. And they all have differing views, but they don’t stand up and criticise one and other, they know its work in progress. We simply don’t have enough empirical data.
We all know that the Oceans influence our daily climate, the planetary orbits influence long term climate, the magnetic fields provoke changes all of which we don’t fully understand. And we are certainly are nowhere near understanding the atmospheres sensitivity to changes in the concentration of CO2. If we could keep the discussion to this point, then a great deal more understanding may ensue, but then of course the public would just switch off such a boring subject, so we talk about Polar Bears, sea level rise, hurricanes, scientific consensus and much more.
And of course the classic of all classic arguments put forward by the AGW proponents is about who is qualified and who has been “peer reviewed”. I fail this test, but if I was to put forward the rubbish I see as being “peer reviewed” then I would get the sack. So perhaps I and the thousands of other bloggers and commenters are in fact qualified.
If the BBC is recognised for what it is, its function becomes clear – as do the times when it abandons that function and moves itself into a more dangerous territory. If the BBC is nothing more than a messenger service – collecting and reporting news of political, scientific and cultural events back the people who fund it – then as an organisation it should be like good typography in a book… invisible in the carrying out of its function.
Of course, today’s BBC might not like the fact that it is simply a lowly messenger service and it may have grown to believe itself to be far too powerful and influential in the lives of the British people to stay surrendered within the boundaries set for it by its charter. The fact of the corporation’s unique funding mechanism may encourage it to believe itself to be largely exempt from requirements and responsibilities that would see other messenger services suffer by moving away from their core function.
When the BBC begins censoring, manipulating and placing its own value judgements on the messages it delivers back to the British people, it makes itself an obstacle to its own function. When the BBC refuses – point blank – to give straight answers the British people’s concerns over, and objections to, its growing waywardness, we can know that the BBC has made itself an obstacle to the British people themselves.
We have today a far broader means of collecting our messages than we once did. And it is clear to anyone who takes an interest in AGW messages that the story is far greater and far more involved than the BBC is letting on. For me, the corporation’s silence constitutes a lie to the British people.
PeterM
Don’t recall your “even longer list of scientists who disputed Darwinian Evolution”.
Can you post it again?
Max
PeterM
If your “list” of “scientists” rejecting Darwinism is the one cited by Wiki (from the Discovery Institute of Seattle, WA), you should read:
So much for the rather irrelevant “my list is bigger than your list” argument (which AndyB started as evidence of the scientific validity of the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis).
But the second, more pertinent, argument relates to the validation of the hypothesis following the scientific method.
Darwin’s theory has been validated by actual empirical data; it has withstood scientific attempts at falsification. Following the scientific method, it has moved from being an “uncorroborated hypothesis” to a “corroborated hypothesis” to becoming “reliable scientific information”.
The “dangerous AGW” hypothesis has not yet moved out of the “uncorroborated hypothesis” stage, as it has not yet been validated by actual empirical data and has not successfully withstood scientific falsification attempts.
My many request to you to provide such empirical data have fallen on deaf ears. My search for literature, which demonstrates such empirical data, have all been unsuccessful, as well. So I must conclude that they do not exist.
I then see the observed fact that both the atmosphere and upper ocean have cooled over the past several years, despite record increase in atmospheric CO2, and I find it hard to reconcile this empirical data with the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis.
I read in IPCC AR4 that the model-based impact of clouds is to increase 2xCO2 temperature by 1.3C and, in the same report that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.
And then come scientific studies clearing up some of this “uncertainty” by providing empirical data based on actual physical observations from satellites, which show me that feedbacks from clouds are likely to be strongly negative, instead, and I am again forced to conclude that the empirical scientific data do not support the hypothesis of a “sensitive” climate and the related “dangerous AGW” premise.
So, until “dangerous AGW” can be validated by empirical scientific data (as Darwinism has been), BBC would do well to report both sides of the “dangerous AGW” story objectively and impartially.
Seems quite logical to me, Peter.
Max
.
PeterS
Your description (61) of BBC as a “publicly funded messenger service” is spot on.
Too bad that some BBC executives or policy-setters seem to have lost sight of this role.
Let’s see if Andrew and Tony can get these misguided individuals back on the right track.
I believe that their attempt could well be the beginning of stronger popular efforts to reign in BBC and focus it again on its “job description” as an impartial “publicly funded messenger service”.
Max
Max,
I’m sure your list of AGW scientific dissenters is just as full of unqualified scientists as this list of Scientific Dissenters from Darwinism, which I’ll just link to again as you’ve requested.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
The list does look quite impressive and there are many scientists who do look to be very well qualified in the biological sciences.
I’m they would have no problem taking to to task on your claim that Darwinian Evolution has been scientifically validated. This classical definition also requires experiments to be repeatable. To do that would need a primordial soup on a planet the size of Earth which could then be observed for a few billion years!
The Creationists’ case, or Intelligent designers as they may prefer to be known, is at least as strong as yours. Maybe stronger if the length of their list is anything to go by. They don’t get ‘both sides of the story’ told on the BBC ‘objectively and impartially’. So, why should you?
Max and PeterS,
You may think the BBC should be a “publicly funded messenger service”
However, what it is according to its own charter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.txt
goes quite a way beyond that. Particularly, the BBC should also offer
“such services as means of disseminating information, education and entertainment”
Judging by various comments on AGW on this blog it looks like the BBC have their work cut out on the educational aspect of their broadcasting.
Max @54:
Pachauri’s “2,500” comes from the IPCC’s own PR – and has been shot down by no less a luminary than Mike Hulme. For details, pls.see:
Honey, I shrunk the consensus
PeterM
You are flogging a dead horse (65).
The difference between the scientific validity of “Darwinism” and the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is clear, as I have outlined.
One (“Darwinism”) is supported by empirical scientific evidence following the scientific method while the other (“dangerous AGW”) is not. Really quite elementary, Peter – and since you have been unable to show such empirical evidence to support “dangerous AGW”, I must assume that it does not exist. Period.
But back to the (rather silly) “my list is better than your list” argument (which AndyB initiated with his 80/20 claim), the Inhofe list of more than 400 was pared down (with some later additions) to a list of 280 scientists and meteorologists, who are qualified to have an opinion on some aspect of AGW and who have specifically rejected some aspect of the “dangerous AGW” premise.
You have seen the list, as I have posted it to you earlier on the NS thread here. I will be very glad to re-post it, if you are unable to track it down.
How many would you remove from this list as “not qualified” (list each name separately and state why you feel this individual is “not qualified”)? Please try to be specific, Peter, and don’t simply fall back to unfounded BS generalizations.
To the “Darwinism” skeptics list you cite, Wiki has stated:
I cannot vouch for the validity of the “critics” cited by Wiki, but will assume they are correct.
So, unless you can come with some facts, you must admit that your claim is incorrect, namely:
and I’d suggest you back down from such unfounded statements, because they really only make you look silly.
Max
hro001
Thanks for link regarding the “2,500 scientists” claim by IPCC Chairman, Pachauri
Mike Hulme’s statement:
or, as separately quoted
Either way, this seems pretty clear to me.
Bye-bye “2,500 scientists”!
Bye-bye “consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate”!
Bye-bye “dangerous AGW” postulation!
Bye-bye Pachauri!
Bye-bye IPCC?
Max
PeterM
Indeed!
As Andrew Montford and TonyN are trying to get the BBC Trust to realize.
Max
Max,
Its not true to suggest that the only evidence for AGW is from a computer models. There is a also a lrage body of empirical evidence. I won’t go through it here but its detailed well in this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
However you like to play a variety or games to reject all this. The same can be done for the empirical evidence for Creationism. This what they say:
“There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps because of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.”
I think you are underestimating the strength of support which Creationism hold in the general population. In the US support for creationism is about the same as opposition to the scientific position on AGW (40-50%). Its probably smaller in the UK but maybe not as small as we might suppose. The Creationists pay taxes just the same as you guys. Shouldn’t the BBC represent their views too instead of spending their money promoting Richard Dawkins?
PeterM
You wrote (71):
As “empirical evidence” supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis you cite a blurb from the “Skeptical Science” blog which states:
Let’s go through that statement:
– Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Yes. Atmospheric CO2 is rising (at a CAGR of 0.4% per year – is this “sharply”?). Human activity is emitting CO2. Yes. Are the two connected? Most likely.
– Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. “Less” that what? Satellite measurements have shown that the overall energy (LW + SW) “escaping into space” has actually increased as surface temperatures have gradually increased, so this stement is misleading. Obviously, it is the total energy that counts, not just the energy in the “CO2 absorption wavelengths”. And since a good portion of the “CO2 wavelengths” overlap with the “water vapor wavelengths” even this portion of the total energy cannot be definitively tied to increased atmospheric CO2.
– Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. Decidedly false (unless this was written in 2000 or earlier). Since 2001 the atmosphere has been cooling at both the surface and the troposphere. Since ARGO measurements were installed in 2003, the upper ocean has also been cooling. So it is clear that the “planet” is NOT “accumulating heat”. Kevin Trenberth has even referred to this “lack of warming” (i.e. “cooling”) as a “travesty” and has suggested that the “missing heat” is being relected into “space” with “clouds” acting as a “natural thermostat”.
– This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Purely conjectural (even if the earlier statements were true). “Correlation” does not provide empirical evidence for “causation” (as any scientist knows).
Sorry, Peter.
You’ve got to do better than that.
Come with a real example of empirical evidence to support your “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, as I have been asking you to do for several months now.
Max
PeterM
I am not going to fall for your irrelevant side-track on Creationism versus Darwinism (71).
We have already discussed (on the NS thread) “Darwinism” (or the theory of evolution) and how this scientific theory itself is inherently different from the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, in that the former has been validated by empirical data and all attempts to falsify it have been scientifically refuted, whereas this is not the case for the latter.
“Creationism”, on the other hand, is in the same scientific category as the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis. It has not been validated by empirical scientific data.
So it’s back to the missing “empirical data” in support of your “dangerous GW” premise, Peter – bring it, if you can.
Max
Max,
I’m just asking a simple question. Support for creationism in the UK has been put as high as 31%
see: http://libcom.org/blog/my-legend-avatar-boris-uk-creationism-18022009-0
I’d be surprised if it was that high, but let’s say it’s about 20%
Should they expect the same treatment you are demanding for AGW dissent? Should the the BBC, and State schools too, report or teach “both sides of the story …objectively and impartially.”
Yes/No?
PeterM
You ask me:
My answer: NO.
I have outlined the reasons already, but will quickly repeat them:
“Creationism” (like the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis) has not been substantiated by empirical scientific data as has “Darwinism”.
To summarize (to make it easier for you to grasp the basic differences here:
“Creationism” – not supported by empirical scientific data, while it’s opposite
“Darwinism” – has been supported by empirical scientific data and has successfully refuted attempts at falsification
As a result, “Darwinism” should be presented as “reliable scientific information” by BBC, while “Creationism” should not.
By comparison:
“Dangerous AGW” (i.e. the premise that AGW has been the principal cause of 20th century warming and frepresents a serious potential threat)- not supported by empirical scientific data, i.e. it is still an “uncorroborated hypothesis”
“Dangerous AGW skepticism” – supported by empirical data from recent observations, which have not yet been refuted (as pointed out previously), but is also still an “uncorroborated hypothesis”
As a result, BBC should report impartially on the “dangerous AGW” premise, pointing out that this hypothesis is backed by model simulations backed by theoretical deliberations including the greenhouse theory, but has not yet been validated by empirical scientific data, and emphasizing that a strong minority of scientists may agree on AGW and the GH theory, but are skeptical of the “dangerous AGW” based on empirical data derived from recent physical observations.
That would be my idea of objective and impartial reporting by BBC on the two totally separate topics of “Creationism” and “Dangerous AGW”.
Do you agree?
Max