Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
David Gregory (BBC) : If the graph is flawed, it won’t make the current state of climate science go away. Just as issues about thickening sea ice, medieval warm periods and re-ordering of America’s hottest years doesn’t bring the whole thing crashing down either
I think this pretty much summarises the problem with the AGW hypothesis – which is that it is never stated with sufficient precision for it to be falsifiable. Hence although there are undoubtedly real scientists doing real scientific stuff on climate subjects, the public, political global warming story : “humans cause CO2 build up, causes unprecedented global warming too fast for humanity / the biosphere to cope with” is non scientific. Because no evidence available now, or likely to be available within the next few decades, could falsify it. At the level of falsifiability through evidence it is not distinguishable from the competing hypothesis which is that there’s nothing to panic about.
David Gregory (BBC): “A letter in the a newspaper is a letter in a newspaper. Interesting bunch of signatories though…”
Among the signatories one can find major scientists such as Freeman Dyson, responsible for the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics and much more.
Has anyone in climate science made a comparable scientific contribution?
perhaps theBBC should ask why the US senate voted 95-0 NOT to support kyoto? TheDemoctats were not so keen then were they?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html
David Gregory
“You see the thing I’m interested in reporting is science…”
Chris is right. The BBC – quite rightly – gives plenty of time to airing the views of campaigners (as opposed to scientists) regarding the dangers of climate change. It should also report the dissenting voices, where these come from an interesting or significant source – and I would say senior IPCC representatives qualify. If some of them disagree in an open letter, I can’t see how that’s not news. I don’t much care whether it qualifies as science or not.
Among the signatories one can find major scientists such as Freeman Dyson, responsible for the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics and much more.
Also, for those of you who are gamers, the Half-Life protagonist, Gordon Freeman was named after him (Dyson).
Anonymous | 13.12.07 – 11:18 pm,
Thanks for that. I forgot a few rather important points that prove the BBC’s lack of Britishness:
The BBC employs writers who don’t know that British people are known as Britons and not Britains and employs editors who can’t pick up the mistake, exposes little children via CBBC to the concept of bin Laden as a average, normal individual with justifiable grievances against America and Israeli Jews and demeans Christianity while swooning over Islam like groupies over a pop idol.
The British Broadcasting Corporation? Give us a break, Reith and Gregory.
The BBC is a complete joke. Maggie should have got rid of it in the 80s. The whole concept of the BBC is an affront.
More impartiality from the BBC.
This week they choose to inform us that “Israeli anti-Arab racism ‘rises'” – presumably this article balances a series of articles in which the impartial BBC exposes the infinitely worse, near-genocidal racist anti-Semitism that is an integral part of most Palestinian media, Palestinian education, and Palestinian islam.
It must be there, but I can’t find it. Can someone send me the link please?
Does anyone know just how many BBC losers were sent to cover the love fest of the left in Bali? I saw some dopey BBC bird reporting from their this afternoon.
Oh and Dr David Gregory how does the BBC do Carbon offsetting then for all these flights you BBC journalists take? Please don’t tell me it’s tree planting because that’s been shown to be a total load of bollocks
Now that Gordon “MacCavity” Brown has signed the Treaty which abolishes Britain,what need have we for a British Broadcasting Corporation?
Kill two birds with one stone,recycle your television,be free and green.
David Gregory: “I think you’re slightly failing to grasp the point. Debate within Science is the norm of course.”
I think you are slightly failing to grasp the point too. If debate in science is good, then why can’t I look forward to seeing the debate on the Beeb?
“…but it won’t really influence what I report.
Because it isn’t science.”
I could counter not all the the MMGW stuff is science either, but all I am asking for is the nation’s state broadcaster is to be fair and objective and allow debate. What you have implied so far David is that you don’t want to do that.
Now all this for and against stuff of course may be political, but my problem is your organisation’s preferred politics and inflexible stance in which I have no say in. The Beeb does not pay my wages, though it does I believe pay your wage through a tax on me that I must pay to avoid a criminal record. This allows you to indulge in a sort of one-sided game.
Does this seem fair to you?
David Gregory (BBC):
JRSPIHG: You see the thing I’m interested in reporting is science. That’s it. A letter in the a newspaper is a letter in a newspaper. Interesting bunch of signatories though, interesting newspaper if we’re honest.
Again, David you haven’t adressed any of the points in the article – you’re just putting your fingers in you ears and going “La La La – Can’t hear you”.
You remind me of of an aquaintance I once had who was a very agressive evangelical methodist. If you let him, he would drag you into elaborate theological arguments but, as soon as he looked like losing, he would terminate the discussion by saying “I don’t have to justify my faith to you, you haven’t met Jesus – I have”.
You refuse to debate an important letter signed by 100 serious scientists, because it “isn’t science”, but you’re happy to accept an IPCC report which isn’t real science either just a highly politicised, selective digest of science reflecting one side of the argument.
The first sentence of the IPCC’s mandate says it all :-
“The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change.”
Basically the organisation was set up to prove “Climate Change”, any other conclusion would have been like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Sorry to get a bit personal but, for a science correspndent, you seem to lack the two basic prerequisites of an enquiring mind and a dose of healthy cynicism.
George R:
I hope the BBC is aware of the increasing, official pro-European Union propaganda which will be coming the UK, and that the BBC will counteract it:
” EU Launches Propaganda Radio ”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2769
————————————-
LMAO!! In fact, the Beeb beat ’em to it years ago. It’s called “Radio 4”.
Debate is the very stuff of science, if not, Greggers would still be reporting on Phlogiston.
The scandal of the “settled science ” view is that it runs counter to scientific practice.Exactly why this conservatism has been embraced by progressives is a mystery.
Still,they will feel better when they have racked a few heretics and tried their Galileo.
blankfrank,
“Europe calling,Europe calling”
BaggieJonathon:
I agree. The pounce extended name is just plain childish.
Especially as it’s so easy for other members to post under another members name as I am doing with John Reith right now.
But you can tell it’s not him, as I began with the words “I agree.”
Sorry about the above mods, just over-reaching my point.
It just seems this Blog is lacking a proper forum which it richly deserves.
Just watched ‘The One Show’ or whatever it’s called. The BBC are continuing their onslaught on Christmas, sorry Beeboids, Winterval by attacking the humble garden robin. These symbols of English Christmases are, apparently, fiercely territorial and violent.
As the bimbette presenter said, it was probably not the sparrow that shot Cock Robin with a bow and arrow, but another robin. So not only are they happy to traduce an innocent bird by citing nursery rhyme evidence they are prepared to lie to make their point. Bastards.
Right, there’s a lot to deal with, but we’re rather drifting into what always happens when we discuss this. I’ve set out and explained how I work and now various bits of science are being flung around along with letters to newspapers and the odd insult.
(I do like the new meme though that although I do have a background in science it’s the wrong sort of background.)
I’m not sure where we can go with this except to repeat that Nature is a respect research source, Al Gore is a politician with an interesting slide show. I’m not responsible for the whole corporation I can only explain how I work. No one censors me.
I am always interested to look into any research people raise on here and indeed the re-ordering of America’s hottest years is a cracking tale that did (eventually) get covered by the BBC. (NASA don’t come out of it very well IMHO) That was a story I saw picked up quicker on here than by the Beeb and it does you credit.
I think one of the most regretable things about the political debate over global warming is that it seems to have spilled into the science with unfortunate results on both sides. I see my job as sticking to the science and reporting that. No matter if people like what I have to say or not.
Peter (UK) Tell you what, we can have companion to Godwin’s Law just for global warming… but rather than Nazis its the first person to mention Gallileo! 😉
PeterUK:
Debate is the very stuff of science, if not, Greggers would still be reporting on Phlogiston.
The scandal of the “settled science ” view is that it runs counter to scientific practice.Exactly why this conservatism has been embraced by progressives is a mystery.
Still,they will feel better when they have racked a few heretics and tried their Galileo.
PeterUK | Homepage | 14.12.07 – 7:06 pm | #
Peter
Very elegantly put.
“Settled science” is a fundamentally unscientific concept.
(sorry just catching up)
Martin: The BBC doesn’t carbon offset as a policy. It sees it as a waste of Licence Fee Payers money.
Watcher: Alright. You want your voice heard. What would you say? Let’s say it’s a radio programme (I can’t deliver Today but how about a local radio breakfast show?) Obviously it’s got to have a Midlands angle… who would you like me to put on to illustrate this “debate” ? What scientist or company would fit your requirements?
(By the way I’m currently looking into setting up a story with an engineer in the Midlands who helps people who find their nice new wind turbines are shaking their houses to bits. His first recommendation is often just to take them down!)
Anonymous | 14.12.07 – 3:14 pm |
Also, for those of you who are gamers, the Half-Life protagonist, Gordon Freeman was named after him (Dyson).
Dyson? I thought he invented the Hoover … 8)
Oh Greggers,how feeble,”if it offends thine eyes” ban it.How very post-modern rewrite history if it goes against your beliefs.
I hereby nominate you for the Beeboid Prevaricator of the year.
“Martin: The BBC doesn’t carbon offset as a policy. It sees it as a waste of Licence Fee Payers money.”
On the other hand, the BBC could simply close down,reducing its carbon footprint and saving the license payer’s money.
PeterUK: I’m really curious. What is it you want me to say?
Interesting point about the pholgeston idea – The English Chemist Joseph Preistly discovered the element Oxygen , but because he was wedded to the idea that combustion gave off pholgeston he ignored oxygen’s main chemical property – oxidisaion.It was left to Lavoisier to discover this some time later.
David Gregory – if you are only interested in the science – have you visted Steve Mcintyr’es ClimateAudit blog ? can you comment on his treatment of paleoclimate reconstructions (not just Mann et al 1998-2007 but also Amman and Wahl and others)
Interestinly re your comment anout air conditionsers and tempreture staions – check out surfacestations.org
I await your comments
Dr David Gregory: Thnk you for that. So can you explain how an organisation like the BBC has the bare faced cheek to talk about climate change and the need for “us” to cut back on our Carbon emissions yet the BBC continually sends hundreds of lackies off on junkets all over the World by aeroplane?
Just how many BBC reporters went to Bali? I’ve counted at least 3 plus no doubt even more producers, cameramen etc. Sky sent 1 as far as I’m aware.
I doubt whether David Gregory would be very interested in Climateaudit or Anthony Watts work on the global temperature sensing network, or indeed on any other ‘inconvenient’ data. One of his previous posts said
If the graph is flawed, it won’t make the current state of climate science go away. Just as issues about thickening sea ice, medieval warm periods and re-ordering of America’s hottest years doesn’t bring the whole thing crashing down either
In other words don’t bother me with inconvenient facts because I already know the truth as revealed by Gavin at Realclimate and ‘I believe’ that the science is settled. Its somewhat sad that the area of Climate Science appears to be closely paralleling Lysenkoism.
Permit me to supply a link, Climate Audit
Well Greggers,you can comment on this.I realise you cannot do a programme on this,liable to get you burned at the stake,or worse have your executive washroom and parking privileges withdrawn.By give it a read.
After all, the Climate change lobby ranges from tax them all, to taxes on babies and the eradication of the human race.So before we start destroying the economy,spending billions and perhaps killing thousands of people,would it be appropriate to examine all the evidence?
Geoffrey Sturdy: I am indeed aware of both websites and the issues you raise. I take a very keen interest is sites like this, but so far (despite some very useful contributions) I wouldn’t say either have really uncovered the sort of smoking gun that would explain away or totally alter ideas about what is happening.
Martin: I believe there is an ongoing debate about this. I personally think we shouldn’t spend the licence fee on carbon offset (if a reporter choses to do that privately that’s their business, although of course that’s also licence fee money at the end of the day!)
Of course we do try and make an effort to reduce our emissions in other ways. So here in Birmingham our offices don’t have air-conditioning instead they are cooled by water from the canal at the back of the building. And every night I go round turning off computers and tv screens.
According to the Editors blog we sent three Environment Correspondents http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/12/environmental_briefing.html
That is more than Sky, but then we have more outlets to serve that Sky does.
No one censors me.
David Gregory (BBC) | 14.12.07 – 8:09 pm.
You mean you don’t have an editor? You must be higher up in the BBC hierarchy than you’ve let on. Or is it simply the case that those above you know that you’ll faithfully follow the BBC’s agenda and so they happily let you get on with it?
The distinct impression I’ve gained from following the BBC’s output closely for some years is that there is a culture of impunity, that there is little control over what is produced as long as it religiously follows the God of BBC Pee Cee.
Why do Justin Webb and Matt Frei feel unconstrained in their trashing of Americans and Christianity? Why did Barbara Plett think it would be just fine to admit to weeping over Arafat? Why did Jeremy Bowen, Hugh Sykes, Jim Muir, Nick Thorpe and the rest of the motley Middle East crew think it was OK to take the gloves off and lay into Israel during the war with Hezbollah?
Since I know you wont answer the above questions, you can regard them as rhetorical. But I’ll answer them. It’s because these people are cocooned in protected BBC employment and BBC groupthink and are guaranteed their salaries no matter how uninformed and biased the stuff they produce.
Nice work if you can get it.
“I wouldn’t say either have really uncovered the sort of smoking gun that would explain away or totally alter ideas about what is happening.”
So anything which contradicts the BBC othodoxy is not worthy of airing.If you took your head out of your sub-atomic particles,you might recognise that is not science.
“But it does move”.
David Gregory: I am sure you would recognise that, given the Beeb’s intransigence and high-handedness on so many valid issues raised here (often by TV tax payers) you – who at least has the decency to engage with people openly – tends to get it in the neck. I do not doubt your sincerity and I must emphasise I do not want to attack you personally. There are many people at the Beeb who could and should make a contribution here but find it easier to take the money and run for cover. Some of the points raised here by others do warrant a proper (and respectful) reply. In this you seem to be unique, which has set you up badly. Your colleagues should be ashamed.
Anyway, you wrote: “Watcher: Alright. You want your voice heard. What would you say?” But David, it isn’t up to me to come up with a script or an angle or find people. That is something people experienced in broadcasting can do so much better. But my request would be, wherever this was shown or heard, there would be a reasoned debate with a balanced view. I have heard news reports on the Beeb where some reference (however off-topic) to global warming was tacked on at the end, almost as if to satisfy a check list.
This constant repeating of what I consider to be a mantra of doubtful veracity erodes my confidence in the state broadcaster – and I am not even entering into the argument whether we even need a state broadcaster in the first place.
What do I want? An open and fair treatment of the climate change issues, as a kind of ongoing debate as science evaluates and re-assesses and discovers new information. What I don’t want is a recycled rehash of Gore’s flights of fancy.
BTW Sounds an interesting story about the wind turbine issue, so good for you. One question on this though you might either be able to include, or clarify for me, is how long would it take to run one wind turbine to make enough energy to create another wind turbine? A month? A year? Ten years? And yes, wind speeds are variable… that I understand. But I would like to see someone being open and clear about the facts, brought down to a manageable level rather than projections of jigawatts and computer models of which I have no idea what the starting point is or was.
Dr DAVID GREGORY: I understand that David, but THREE correspondents? Do all reports need to be live? Can’t one correspondent report from Bali and others simply report from the UK?
It’s not just the reporters either Daivd, it’s the hangers on, the producers and the rest.
I noticed Sky were using a broadband connection to report back to the UK so presumably that helped keep the number of staff needed down.
I just object to an organisation that is clearly wasteful in this area lecturing ME about how we need to cut our Carbon emissions. Just how is the BBC going to do its part?
There was an Australian obstetrician on the World Service a few days ago who’d come up with the brilliant idea of saving the warming planet by taxing parents 5000 dollars if they have a third child and the same for every child thereafter. Makes one wonder how this guy could possibly bring babies into the world with these insane contradictory ideas running around in his head. But the BBC took him seriously enough to give him a considerable amount of air time. In fairness, they did bring someone else in (eventually) to oppose his arguments but did he really warrant a hearing in the first place?
If I come up with a proposal to restrict BBC bias in the long term by limiting the number of children its staff can have without being fined will they give me a respectful hearing on the radio?
Didn’t think so.
In regards to climate change why is it that we almost never hear from the sainted scientists, but instead it’s either politicians or the veggie nazi’s like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth?
The Earth doesn’t have friends,it cares not what the carbon infestation is,be it a single cell organism, a diplodocus or a three toed sloth.It is simply going to keep orbiting its star long after an life form inhabits it.Eventually the earth will be consumed by the expansion of the sun.
“Wot,the sun that ‘as nuffink to do with global warming?”
One of the more tiresome features of the AGW “debate” is that those in favour of the IPCC POV, like David G and the Beeb, seem to believe the (essentially political) proposition that “the science is settled” and that no further debate is necessary.
Hence the condescending comments from David above about setting up an FAQ. The reason the same questions keep being asked is because satisfactory answers are not forthcoming.
Climate Audit at least makes a stab at finding out what the actual status of climate science is. I would have thought that a news organisation would love a source like that, since it uncovers the press release hype and gets to the nub of the issues. There ARE problems with the IPCC “consensus”, but these are not reported by the BBC.
The Christy paper I linked to earlier (do a search on “woodentop”) is a perfect example of Beeb silence, on what is otherwise an interesting piece of research which casts some doubt on the AGW hypothesis.
But not being part of the narrative, it’s ignored.
2 news stories on the front page of the Al Beeb news page trashing British troops.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7144437.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7144490.stm
Who comissioned the last report and why?
The future for many at the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7144467.stm
Let’s hope and pray.
“Ed Mitchell, 54, once enjoyed the trappings of a high-flying media career, but spiralling debts, bankruptcy and divorce caused him to hit rock bottom.”
So if some bufoon is earning £100,000 p.a., and doesn’t put any of it away, we’re supposed to believe that this is the tip of an proto-marxist-“I tolda so” iceberg?
I call it “thinning the herd”.
“Opinion Research Business (ORB), interviewed a random sample of 922 adults across the southern city of Basra between 3 and 8 December.”
But who actually conducted the poll on the ground?
Peter UK / Bryan: If a scientist at Birmingham University had a paper that challenged the way we think climate change works I’d be delighted to cover it. If someone came along with pictures of UK temperature stations in the Midlands next to heat sources, or deconstructed the data to reorder the hottest years I’d certainly do that. My Editor would love it, I’m sure it would lead the show. It would be a great story. I’ll redouble my efforts but so far it’s just not there.
Watcher: Fair enough. (And thanks for your kind comments) I’ll try and find something. You don’t live in the patch do you I could have you on!
Martin: Sky are certainly a lean operation and I’d Midlands Today and local radio are similarly lacking in fat. I’m sure people thought long and hard about how many people to send. If I did do a series about how to reduce your carbon footprint on Midlands Today wouldn’t I be accused of promoting a certain agenda? But as I said we do do lots of things (like any large company) if nothing else because it also saves us money as well. Carbon offset is not policy at the moment though.
Sky of course is “carbon neutral”
Woodentop: I’ll go read the paper then.
Reg: Aww, c’mon I’m sure you don’t really mean that. Think of my family!
So Greggers,you only do global warming affecting the Birmingham area?
David Gregory:
“Aww, c’mon I’m sure you don’t really mean that. Think of my family!”
I’m just thinking of my own David. I don’t want my child growing up in an Islamic state, nor do I want her to live in the “multi-cultural” hell and terrorist breeding ground the BBC are doing their best to cultivate.
Until then, I will fight to my last breath to see the end of the BBC.
DR DAVID GREGORY: If reducing your Carbon footprint meant saving my “tele tax” money I’m all in favour.
I’m sure the BBC lot flew out to Bali in Business class?
You still haven’t said though what measures the BBC has in place ot reduce the amount of flying that staff do or the travel around the Country by car etc?
This is the whole problem with so called Climate change. The wet liberals don’t want to be the ones to lead by example. We still have the Communists in Nu Labour driving around in their armour plated Zils whilst telling someone on a small salary that THEY have to pay more for their petrol to save the planet. BOLLOCKS.
Until the fat garbage at Westminster start using public transport (for example Diane Abbot goes everywhere by taxi – why can’t she use the tube or the bus?)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=37349&in_page_id=34
Then again liberals have always been cowards. They talk a lot about defending peoples rights, but none of them ever shed blood to do it.
Same with climate change. It’s the ordinary person that’s going ot shed the blood whilst the liberals in the media and politics will carry on as before claiming that they have to be able to do their job. Well bollocks to that as well.
Why did they all need to meet in Bali? What was wrong with the UN in New york? Why couldn’t they have video conferenced? As usual it’s the fat politicians and their lacky liberal mates who are freeloading off the tax payer.
I also find it quite amusing that the EU are trying to set emissions targets. Does anyone really think the French or the Germans will stick to these limits? Just like their failed economic policies they will simply change the way the figures are calculated to make it all fit. Only the stupids (the BBC, The Guardian and the Independent brigade) will really fall for this crap.
The EU hasn’t managed to cut Carbon emissions so far (unlike the USA which HAS)
Diane Abbot is just an evil, white hating racist cow, voted into position purely on the colour of her skin.
Be grateful she travels everywhere by taxi. I wouldn’t want that toxic bitch sitting anywhere near me on a tube train or bus.
Let’s face it…Swampy digs a tunnel or some unwashed types climb a tree or picket Heathrow and al-Beeb will be there to see it and report it.
But if 100 prominent scientists (some experts in their climate-related fields) write a letter casting doubts on MMGW then for the Beeboids it’s “move along please, nothing to see here!”
Peter UK: Oh no. The whole West Midlands! Oswestry down to Gloucester. Buton across to the Welsh boarders.
But yep I’m just a regional corr. And geography is a tyranical master.