From the New York Times:
“A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.””
Read the whole thing. The BBC is highlighted here I think for good reason: they are among the worst offenders. (via NewsBusters)
The Great Coldening unreported by the BBC.
anon126: Where to start?
“You never did answer about what largesse or gifts, etc.; you’ve received from parties interested in one side of the argument or the other. Are you a member of any environmental pressure group, or political party, or sponsored by big oil, or the nuclear industry, etc.? Do you have to follow BBC rules regarding global warming/climate change, or genetically modified food, nuclear energy, green taxes, or whatever topic you are holding forth as expert about at any particular time? I mean you are a public figure (regionally) so these things should be known as they may effect your biases. Should you and the BBC not embrace the new world of openness in this respect?”
No membership. No rules handed down by the BBC. You say don’t attack the messanger and yet fling out various accusations about me.
The reason I post here is just to explain how I work to licence fee payers. I don’t lord it over people, I have no interest in doing that. What would be the point? One of the frustrations of the internet is that faced with blank type people ascribe all sorts of values and often even a tone to the voice of the writer.
As someone said this is B-BBC not Biased-David Gregory if someone can’t point to any examples of bias in my work then I’m happy to discuss them.
But on global warming we’ve obviously reached an impasse for now.
@David: “But on global warming we’ve obviously reached an impasse for now.”
We certainly have if you refuse to look at peer-reviewed papers on the basis that certain academics might have an agenda.
If the shoe fits though, eh?…
David Gregory,
‘You say don’t attack the messanger and yet fling out various accusations about me.’ (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8064125644941190312/#379377).
Wrong. If I was attacking you I would have said you where only following orders, or are biased because of largesse (which you don’t mention), etc. I asked you to clarify which you have. People who are against the idea of global warming, or who you disagree with are smeared with accusations because of where they get their funding from, allegiances, or even because of their nationality. (See below, and http://cbs5.com/national/Al.Gore.global.2.287561.html; http://www.sbindymedia.org/newswire/display/3900/index.php; http://www.corporateeurope.org/longerversioncleaningtheair.html).
You are not above the fling out accusations yourself, ‘Woodentop: Ahhh, interesting bunch of authors. No agenda there then.’ http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2502803323501928984/?dt=1199745964#379297.Or) holding yourself as some kind a scientific adjudicator of others work, see, http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2502803323501928984/?dt=1199745964#379299, http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2502803323501928984/?dt=1199745964#379314). Or above using innuendo http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8064125644941190312/#379298).
I suppose it’s alright you to impugn/question but not be questioned/impugned. Perhaps we should have your rules about you being above your own tactics? If it is fair game for you to question the agenda of others than it is right that others can question yours. Not just isolated to science, calling a complete stranger a homophobe for not agreeing with you is not nice (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5203690003280206318/#378848).
What does ‘blank-type people’ mean? Anonymity. The BBC promotes interaction with their audience via the internet allows them to use false names (unless people are christened ‘Feathered Friend’, or ‘Yesmulady’, (see http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4015&edition=1&ttl=20080107193027). Unless you are saying that every user should reveal their name or that the use of a non de plume should be stopped (starting with the BBC), than I really don’t see your point. You are either old-fashioned about the use of the web and its development (which I don’t believe for a moment) or are trying to disparage me with innuendo. Seeing your record (see above and http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2502803323501928984/?dt=1199745964#378937), I know which explanation I believe. Seems a bit silly though, especially when your greatest ally on this site goes under the name ‘John Reith’. I don’t think this is his/her/their real name! So is it OK for you and your supporters to change their name but not people who don’t? Still you can use insinuation to distract from the criticism.
This has never been about global warming. As I’m sure you are aware.
As I said my problem is your use of a PhD to promote the idea of scientific expertise in areas in which you are not trained, and your lack of scientific rigor in disparaging research or views of others without giving scientific proof. Once you move on from opinion to talk about scientific method, or your adjudication of scientific method then I have a problem. You have a tendency to ‘lord it over people’, to use your phrase, for example;- See your comments about Mel Phillips. ‘As a scientist’ (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8064125644941190312/#379220). Not a TV reporter. Or ‘I have a PhD in physics. As science backgrounds go that’s pretty solid. IMHO. So for future reference, that’s DOCTOR DAVID GREGORY….I bring you the science. I know what science looks like and how to do it’, (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4092164109762621817/#377589), so no false modesty there!
Or how about ‘I think you’re slightly failing to grasp the point. Debate within Science is the norm of course. We model, experiment, publish and then others try to replicate the results and so on.’ (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4092164109762621817/#377638). We?
(http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4092164109762621817/#377656). Smearing others without proof.
Patronising (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4092164109762621817/#377659). (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4092164109762621817/#377677). ’ (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/4092164109762621817/#377695).
I fully agree with your views in not continuing this line of debate, it does seem be a little insular. Especially as you seem to ignore what the nature of this debate is about. I imagine this is intentional. I am however a little bit confused about your assertion that this is a dispute about global warming. Or that we have reached an impasse.
This debate has NEVER been about global warming. We have never debated global warming. How can we have reached an impasse on a subject we have never discussed? You don’t know my views upon the subject. I have not espoused a view either for or against the subject so please to not promote the view that this is about global warming at all.
It is about you.
This is a debate about your use of your self-proclaimed ‘scientist’ status and your use of your ex-scientist status to lay down the law on any topic. Ones which you have no training or experience. This is the thing I find objectionable. Basically if you find fault in the views or the research of others prove it and don’t retreat in childhood name calling. Nor casting aspersions on others agenda.The fact that you can dish out disparagement, or insults but cannot take any such questioning does not seem right. If you use such tactics then it is only to be expected that they will be used against you. And for their use against you to be accepted
I cannot help but notice that you constantly fail to refer to the actual doing of science, of results, etc. to being a scientist. Nor do you comment upon your training and research and how it effects your ‘expertise’ on topics for which you are not trained. Being a PhD in one very small topic does not give you universal understanding of the whole of science. As I said you don’t comment upon this point, a major point in my argument.
Still shift the debate onto global warming and you don’t need to justify your spurious ‘expertise’.To justify yourself.That is the point I was raising, still if you will cling to your view of yourself as a ‘scientist’, rather than a ‘reporter’, perhaps that is to be expected.
However if you really need to cling to your past life as a science student rather than your current role as a professional TV reporter than maybe you should think about your purpose in life.
At least we can agree about not continuing this particular debate.
Anon126
That is also my observation about Dr Gregory, he seems to find the smallest amount of probing and further questioning intolerable, preferring to call the situation an “impasse”, urging us to move on.
Proper scientific research involves a fair amount of frustration, blind alleys and contrary evidence, so it seems he didn’t really have the temperament for it. Nothing wrong with that. I too have cut the unbilical cord with this type of work, much preferring the challenges (and pay) of commercial environments.
Just don’t call yourself a ‘scientist’ unless you are actually spending solid lengths of time doing the research.
Woodentop & Andy:
You are both right. Peer review is the bedrock of any academic research. It is not easy, it can also be a laborious pain, but it is key. All scientific work has to be provable and repeatable.
If a piece of work is wrong say why it is wrong. Prove it scientifically.
The problem with DG is that he goes on about scientific method and his authority as a scientist but descends to the use of accusations of bias, or slurs, rather than dealing with facts.
People have their own opinions, I do. Say I believed that the sky is coloured bronze; I am free to do so. That would be my view and I would be free to tell everyone I meet this view. But if I say that as a scientist I know the sky to be bronze coloured, and that scientists who say it isn’t are wrong, and that you are wrong but as you are a non-scientist you’d just have to trust me on this point, then because I’m using science and the phrase ‘scientific method’ to give my views weight, then I would be duty bound to prove it scientifically.
The aggrandisement of oneself and ones views by using the scientist label at the same time as descending to smears is disagreeable.
Science is complicated, contradictory, and at its best, glorious. You simply cannot ignore research that does not fit with your or current theories, even if they are accepted as being true. This does not mean your theories are necessarily wrong but that they may need to adapt to take account of contradictions.
If research goes against your theory you have to show that the contradiction is due to flaws in the experiment or data, or evolve your theory. But this means you have to prove scientifically why the contradictory work wrong. It simply is not good enough to ignore data simply because it is inconvenient, or heretical.
I’ve noticed that DG deflects the issue by focusing on the side issue or a minor point and ignoring the main drift of the debate. This is a very easy way to escape dealing with the point.
I find the use of insinuation wrong. With Mel it’s just sly. I don’t know why the quotes where pulled. But I’m not a journalist. I would have thought it relatively easy for a BBC correspondent to find out. Journalists do ask questions. If he found out they were pulled because they where misused, etc., that would strengthen his case. That would be fine. Not to check and smear another person is wrong. If he knows of bias in a person’s work prove it don’t throw accusations of bias or that they are being scientific illiterate. It is a little odd that he thinks Mel should not talk about science as a journalist but in his reply to me says, ‘clearly in your eyes the only people qualified to comment on climate change are the scientists doing the research right now’ (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8064125644941190312/#379298). This could be read as saying that he had embarked upon research into climate change a while back. He has not to my knowledge done research into GW/CC not telling us what his field of study was allows him to hold forth on every scientific topic. I am sure this is pure coincidence!
The thing I find rather irritating, and I’m one of the most laid-back people you could meet (really!!) is that the assumption that DG can smear others, condoning the use of internet aliases by supporters but decry the right of others who disagree with him to use an alias, to place yourself above questions, of enquiry into your own bias, innuendo, etc. if you want to play this way you need to be able to take the same tactics as you yourself use. You cannot demand that you are a special case.
Being a scientist means doing science in my book DG has not bothered to answer the point about the doing of science but he doesn’t want to discus his own status as ‘scientist’.
GW/CC is complex… We need an honest, mature, and open debate on this issue, on the science (both for and against the theory, and how we should proceed), and the social impact of any action. The BBC should be at the fore proving this honest, impartial debate. They themselves say:-
• ‘we seek to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter and views broadcast over an appropriate time scale across all our output. We take particular care when dealing with political or industrial controversy or major matters relating to current public policy.
• we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented.
• we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply.
• we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects.’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/impariality/index.shtml).
It is simply failing to do so. This issue is one of the most important issues we face today. However, the BBC, and DG, are so biased that there is no debate, we need one for all our sakes. These pages are full of alleged bias. Some may be real, some may not. However, with this issue the inherent bias for one view of a very complex subject is doing real damage to real people. It does not matter what ones views are on this matter, you can be for or against the idea. However, it does us all a disservice not to have the mature debate. To me this is the greatest fault of the BBC.
anon126: Ok. That’s a lot to work through. Can I just start with the point about accusations of homophobia? That was a (rather angry) response from me to another poster accusing me of anti-sematism. I found that really objectionable and so brought up homophobia as a (admittedly crass) part of the response to try and drive home just how offensive that sort of name calling is. Read on and you’ll see I make it clear I don’t think that particular poster is a homophobe. It might have been a rather impassioned response, but the poster in question saw he was wrong and did apologise. Crude rhetoric, but it worked. And in my limited defense I was very angry.
Back to the science. I am indeed making judgments. But judgments based on the science. I do it when reporting climate change, the cancer risk of mobile phones, if badgers spread tb. All contentious issues.
So if all this is about me…then what use is a PhD about silicon and potassium when discussing climate change? Well one of the things I do know about is data, artifacts, fittings lines and curves and statistics. It was an important part of my PhD. Now this all started because of Dr Whitehouse’s article saying that climate change has effectively stopped.
Back of the envelope time. Just for fun, take some random data and add in the kind of upward trend in temperature climate change scientists say is real. Now pick a high point and call it 1998. Do it yourself if you have a spare half hour. You can see that it’s perfectly possible for an apparent plateau in temperatures to still form part of an upward trend. Now of course it’s also possible for such a plateau to be part of a stabilisation or indeed the start of a drop, but the important point is that that interpretation is statistically less likely.
So that’s what my PhD tells me about Dr Whitehouse’s article. But hey, do it for yourself don’t take my word for it.
As for the wider BBC, well as I’ve said before it isn’t my place to critisise colleagues, they can come here and post themselves. What I’ve tried to do is post and explain how I work and why I report what I do. I’m being as open as I can.
Science/Environment Correspondents are accused on here of not knowing enough about science or in my case knowing too much about too little. I hope you can see that in fact being a physicist (which is what I am) as well as a journalist allows me to present the best snapshot of current knowledge.
As for anonymity on here. Well I’d love it if everyone posted under their real names. Personally I think it would make things a bit more temperate (cf accusations of anti-sematism. ) Clearly people think I “lord it over people”, but while posting under my own name and in the name of my employer I think I tend to the insipid. Obviously I’ll have to tone it down even further.
With a full time job the best I can do (as I have promised to do) is read links that people raise. There isn’t enough time in the day to respond in detail to all of them. But I will say that many of the points raised are being discussed elsewhere on other blogs and a good googling will bring them to the surface. Is there any reason to repeat that debate here? Don’t host the conversation, link to it as the adage goes.
You want a mature debate? Fine. Lets concentrate on the original point, and the science as raised by Dr Whitehouse. I disagree with him for the reasons I outline. What do you say?
DG
you say
“Back of the envelope time. Just for fun, take some random data and add in the kind of upward trend in temperature climate change scientists say is real. Now pick a high point and call it 1998. Do it yourself if you have a spare half hour. You can see that it’s perfectly possible for an apparent plateau in temperatures to still form part of an upward trend”
It is also possible to plot backwards to the LIA and see the current warming trend as part of a 400-year recovery back to more “average” global temps n’est pas?
DG
“Well one of the things I do know about is data, artifacts, fittings lines and curves and statistics.”
I have written regression / curve fitting software for thermoelectric experiments. Apart from knowing about the maths behind it, this would not make me an authority on climate change issues any more than Mel is.
You can see that it’s perfectly possible for an apparent plateau in temperatures to still form part of an upward trend”
Indeed, but a 10 year plateau definitely does not form part of the rapidly accelerating temperature trend predicted by the IPCC ‘Hockey Stick’ projections as a result of the acceleration in Carbon Dioxide emissions.
I am sure that you will be aware of the Climate Science blog run by Pielke Sr, if not its worth following. Some of the inconsistencies in the observed global data become less of a surprise when you realise quite how much of the AGW ‘the science is settled’ theory, is actually based on rather questionable assumptions that appear to actually have little theoretical scientific support. Even the key parameter, the CO2 radiative forcing relationship appears to have been created out of thin air to make an early GCM fit the data.
Andy: Fair enough. But would such knowledge be enough to give you an insight into the statistical likelihood of what is going on here?
geoffrey sturdy: That’s an interesting point. But I think the starting point to take here is that Dr Whitehouse says climate change has stopped or has stalled. So this simple little plot/thought experiment is just to see if that’s more of less likely than the explanation that the upward trend is continuing. I don’t think he says climate change isn’t real or most likely to be due to CO2.
Arthur Dent: I wasn’t aware of that blog so I’ll add it to my bookmarks, many thanks. You make a very good point. But I still think statistically the last few years are a fit for global warming rather than a sudden stop or even reverse.
Dr Gregory
At least you appear to accept that the scientific debate is not over, unlike a number of your BBC cohorts, forever implying that human activity + capitalism = global warming.
What is really at question is the scale, direction and CAUSE of the climate change. Catastrophic global warming has not been proven, nor the claim that is it caused by human activity.
What concerns me about all this is the Luddite approach that many environmentalists support. Electricity and other beneficial innovations such as cheap travel that have improved living standards should not be abandoned as part of a green crusade, especially one based on dodgy ‘facts’.
I oppose attempts to restrict personal freedom and the free market. This issue is a convenient excuse for left-wingers to do precisely these things. Example: monitoring personal carbon emissions has already been wheeled out as a use for ID cards.
You probably agree when I say that we should reduce our reliance on gas and oil. They are finite resources and depending on energy from the Middle East / Russia gives undue power to unstable regimes that threaten our freedom and despise our way of life.
As a physicist you would probably also agree that the most practical alternative to plug the gap would be nuclear power. Modern nuclear production is safe, raw fuel is readily available from allies like the USA/Australia, and its C02 emissions are low.
Hello David,
I’ll take it that another of the rules we should follow are even if you and another decide that an argument is over it’s OK if you change your mind. Seriously, there should be a list.
A person with a PhD in physics will know statistics as applies to physics; seems fair, you have a PhD is physics not statistics. But statistics are used for a lot more than physics: Actuarial science; Applied information economics; Biostatistics; Business; Data; Economics ;Energy statistics; Engineering; Epidemiology; Geography and Geographic Information Systems, Spatial analysis; Demography; Psychologically; Quality; Social statistics; Statistical literacy; Statistical surveys; Process analysis and chemometrics; Reliability engineering; Image processing; sports, (baseball, cricket).
This is a very complex field; in the UK, there are 87 separate statistics departments. Are you seriously saying that a four year MMath course or seven years minimum to get a PhD in statistics, is wasted?
None of these departments are departments of physics. I would suggest that this might illustrate its difference to physics. Your contention is that all the above units are useless, as you know all about statistics because of your physics PhD. This seems a little arrogant. Each of the above fields employs a different specialist terminology, different techniques, and different theoretical models. Do you understand enough about the underlying models of very different discipline in order to pass expert judgment? I feel sure that real experts in statistics may feel a little aggrieved with your views on their subject. As Geoffrey Sturdy, Andy, and Arthur Dent, above, argument regarding the data, or the statistical methods is possible. You do not have the expertise to pass scientific judgment.
This is not about global warming; it is about your approach to others. The fact remains that you did call a stranger homophobic. If I called you a [insert your own offensive insult, slur here]. You would be rightly upset. For some reason you feel that insults, or innuendo, etc., is fine, as long as no one applies such methods to you. This is illustrative your approach to people who disagree with you, or do not except your universal expertise.
You use such tactics as a way of attacking people with rather than counter their argument in a cool, rational, scientific manner. Scientific method is about facts not people.
‘I hope you can see that in fact being a physicist…as well as a journalist allows me to present the best snapshot of current knowledge.’
Why? Why does a PhD in physics make you perfect for understanding the issues regarding gene therapy, say, or open source and its role in business and science, soil erosion, cancer treatments, or many thousands of other non-physics topics. Your job is to report the work of others. You are a communicator not a scientist. You are not an expert in everything.
I’ve never seen your work so I cannot judge the quality of your reporting. However for you to define your own work as ‘the best snapshot of current knowledge.’ Seems a little immodest. No change there.
Web identity is a complex issue, one for which there is a growing academic interest. Indeed scientists agree, indeed the American Association for the Advancement of Science regards its use as key to the development of the web and a source of good (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/05/anon.idg/) are they wrong too?
You post here under your own name and employer, this is your choice, but also raises your profile as an expert on the BBC, as your self-proclaimed science expert status. If you dislike people who disagree with you remaining anonymous why not those that support you? Why do you not call for the BBC to stop anonymous comment? You are attacking those who disagree with you. A common trend with you.
This whole chat is about your use of your PhD and your appropriation of scientific method in totally unscientific ways. Your self-proclaim expertise to undermine others. And that’s it.
Once again you do not refer to importance of actually doing science, actual results and being a scientist. You are not a scientist. You where, but are now a TV reporter.
You are not an expert in all of science. No one has been since the early 13th century. You report it but you are not an expert in anything but your field (assuming you have kept yourself up-to-date since your graduation, unless you have a lot of time and access to specialist data sources and periodicals; no easy matter). You do not have the knowledge to be able to be an expert in all science. It is wrong for you to make out you are.
This debate is getting circular, you missing the point, me reiterating, and you missing the point on purpose. This debate is about you that’s all.
By the by did you every ask Mel why the comments where removed? You know like a journalist…or are you going to let your innuendo hang?
You don’t know my views of the whole GW/CC debate. Your point about GW/CC debate is fatuous. There are discussions all over the web, for, against, and all shades in between. People here are talking to you as a person. You engage them in debate of your volition. If you don’t want to discuss matters with them don’t start. Then again you move the discussion away from the focus. You. By the way, most people have full-time jobs here, if they don’t they have other calls on their time. I’m sure we all welcome your input, as we do with all the many users and viewers in this blog. All bring their unique and valuable input. So what’s your point?
Mature debate? OK you are a science & environment correspondent with a muilti-billion pound news organisation with a statutory duty to educate and inform the public in an impartial manner. What are you going to do about it?
And DavidG, you said you’d have a look at a paper I mentioned, didn’t, I asked you to look again, you agreed, and when I (re-)posted the details, you said “no agenda there, then” on discovering an author you presumably disagree with.
But still no Physics PhD style, informative, and interesting reasoning as to why the BBC see fit to ignore a serious hole in the GCMs and, consequently, the AGW edifice…?
We’ll just add that one to the rest of the “Inconvenient Truths”, shall we? They appear to be coming thick and fast these days.
(PS Have a look at what’s been happening at climateaudit in recent days – it’s becoming VERY interesting!). Only if your agenda-meter allows it of course!
anon126: I think I’ve explained exactly why I used the word homophobic and in what context. It was to make a point after a stranger accused me of being anti-semitic.
You asked why my PhD might be useful to discuss this particular point raised by Dr Whitehouse. I explained. I didn’t claim to have some amazing knowledge, just that with a bit of thought I think we can see his argument is statistically flawed.
Once again a call for mature debate, yet paragraphs of text ascribing all sorts of emotions and ideas to me.
Once again, if you have a scientific problem with my analysis of the original point… well what is it?
OK David.
The accusation of homophobia is systematic of you attacking the person rather than their argument. Being accused of being anti-Semitic is horrible. The response I would have advised is to say I’m not. If I was lucky I would have online evidence that I’m not. Of course accusations of homophobia or anti-Semitism are hard to refute. That’s why I feel they are thrown round too freely. You tend to be left falling back on the cliché that some of my best friends are gay, Jewish, Muslim, whatever. The person you accused had a petty good response to your accusations. You should never have been called anti-Semitic, but you do work for an organisation which has refused to publish, and gone to court to stop freedom of information ruling to publish this report paid for using licence fee payers money. I don’t believe, cynical old me, that the BBC have gone to these lengths because it gives you as an organisation a clean bill of health in regard to bias in this respect. This fosters the view that the BBC is biased. The BBC should be totally open about it in my view. As I said, unless there was proof of anti-Semitism the accusation should not have been made. Two wrongs do not make a right. And as I said it illustrates your wider approach.
Ascribing feeling and emotions to others has a long literary tradition, probably going back to Empedocles, and he died c. 444 B.C., and his school of rhetoric. The contention that you feel that the serious and prolonged study of statistics is pointless is based upon freely professed expertise in statistics in fields you where not trained in, arguments about statistics and statistical methodology in a field outside your scientific expertise.
I did say that you seem to feel that certain actions are the way to behave. This is an assumption but the fact that you keep doing the actions I describe would seem to indicate that you feel such actions are right. People tend not to do such conscious actions without feeling or thought. You are not above ascribing bias on others which is rather worse. Without proof of bias or malice to project such bias on the internal thought process of others. Mine is rhetoric, yours is seeking to undermine a scientific argument without proof.
You don’t say that Whitehouse is wrong in your lay opinion, you profess it is so because of your status as a scientist and as you ‘I bring you the science. I know what science looks like and how to do it’
As I keep saying opinion is good, but you keep turning to your ‘scientist’ status. Once you try to use this ‘expertise’ we need to know what it is before we can judge the worth of your opinions. As I keep reiterating you are not trained in these subjects. Therefore should not be professing that you are an expert.
Once again you skip the fact that a scientist is a person who does science. This is the focus of my debate. As I keep saying David it all about you, or rather your approach to an argument and the use of your self-professed ‘expertise’ in fields you are not trained in. that’s all.
You do have a habit of trying to change the argument on to global warming. To shift the argument onto a controversial subject as a way of not dealing with my, or indeed other person’s point. Not illuminating I must say.
You do not know my views on Whitehouse, global warming, stem research, candyfloss, pop music…anything. This is purely a discussion on the nature of science. The actually doing of science, or scientific methodology, and the lording over people using non-existent expertise, keeping an open mind and not ignoring or excluding research or data because it does not ‘fit’. That is all.
Much as I love you and I do have a full, deep, debate about global warming (bearing in mind you don’t know my views on the subject or if I agree with you or not). That’s not my point. This blog is about the biases of the BBC, or the problems of the BBC. As such my argument, as I outlined in the previous note, is with the BBC’s failure to provide a platform for all views on this controversial subject to be explored impartially, and to place the argument into the wider context of the costs, financial and in lives, of either doing nothing about it, or to focusing our resources on this issue to the detriment of all else. The BBC is biased and does not deal with this topic as it believes that it is settled and stifles or ignores debate that does not fit. That is the debate I’m calling for.
OK David.
The accusation of homophobia is systematic of you attacking the person rather than their argument.
anon126 | 09.01.08 – 2:54 am
I should point out that the esteemed Dr. David Gregory has been quite restrained over the months in the face of some quite insulting comments from people here. Recently he has been hitting back a bit, unfortunately adopting a Reithian style at times.
That said, people here are understandably frustrated by the good doctor’s style of cheerfully gliding past facts and challenges like a skater on an ice rink.
Bryan: I appreciate that though I’m sorry you feel I’ve begun to stoop to the levels of Reith 😉
(But c’mon,I was called antisemitic! I mean, that’s just, well I do think it’s pretty rude.)
As for this “gliding past facts”… well it can be tough to stay across the debate when the threads are so long, and I’m having to deal with points from several posters at the same time with obviously a limited time to do so. All I can say is I do try to read all the links posted but I simply can’t reply to all of the points raised. And as I’ve said before many of the points are discussed in depth elsewhere on the web.
At the top of this thread, this point was made:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/8064125644941190312/?a=45864#378890
South Africa’s winter just past was extremely severe. Many people died.
Now I have heard the good doctor scoff at the idea that these observations are evidence that global warming is stalled. But I have not heard him explain why this is the case.
As someone with neither the ability nor the time to plough through reams of scientific matter on the subject, I would like an idiot-proof explanation.
And if we continue to freeze our collective arse off in coming decades, will this be evidence of the dying throes of a fast-frying planet? And if so, why?
Bryan: It’s the different between weather and climate. You just can’t say one event (be it flooding, a severe winter, a very hot summer) is caused by/proof of climate change. We have to look at more long term trends.
It’s the different between weather and climate
Spot on, which is why I get irritated by the BBC (and others) constantly reporting weather events as evidence of AGW – Hurricaine Katrina anyone.
It is very difficult, if not impossible to make accurate predictions of long term trends from short term observations. There are no completely trustworthy ‘long’ term datasets relating to climate, which is why the AGW theory remains at present just that, an unproven hypothesis.
Arthur Dent: In the end I can only explain what I report. If other reporters are making that sort of link point out the problem to them. They may even come on here to defend it!
There has been some sloppy reporting in the linking of events to global warming where they seem to be due to incompetence, as with Katrina, or failing to mention that predictions of an increase in 07 of serious adverse weather were wrong, or whatever. However unless DG has linked such events, or been sloppy, he cannot be made to justify the work of others. That is unless he is here as the spokesman for BBC reporting, or wants to.
AD is right with problems of accurate long term data, and the problem of using predictive models. That is the problem with taking any complex theoretical model unquestionably.
Bryan is right about inconvenient data being ignored by the media and some scientists. As I keep saying anomalies need to be studied to either refine current models and theories or to develop more accurate ones. This could be due to such data going against the truth as perceived by these people, or a sad reduction in interest and coverage of African affairs that are not related to civil stifle
anon126: To be honest I find it hard to disagree with any of that. And as I’ve said before other BBC staff can come and post here themselves, I can’t speak for everyone.
At least DG appears to still have an open mind about climate change, it’s the assumption by some of his BBC colleagues that ‘the debate is over’ that I find most irritating. No it bl***y well isnt!
As for the plateauing, though, David I’m not sure I completely agree with your conclusions. To draw a personal analogy, I was told 3-4 years that my kidney function was declining at a rate which made a transplant within 8-10 years inevitable. For the last 2 years the decline has plateaued and I’m now being told that my kidneys might yet outlast me (I’m in my 40s).
So a small change to the statistical graph has meant a complete redrawing of that graph (to my benefit, hopefully!). We can extrapolate from this that reaching a plateau isn’t necessarily just a pause in an inevitable progression but can in fact mean a new graph is required.
Anonymous: Well I wish you all the best for the future.
thank god for people like clarkson, the hampster and that nice gay fella, without them driving the artic circle, we’d all think it was one huge lake thanks to Al Beebs science “experts”
Anonymous: I’m sure we all do. My father was told that his kidneys were shot, and that his heart was screwed and that treatment was being withdrawn. Which they did. This was not a fun time.
Within 2 days his kidneys were working and his heart was back to normal. He’s now back in his own home. And has been for over three years with no real problems and enjoying his life to the full.
The doctors freely admit they have no idea why he recovered. So my advice, for what it’s worth, is to never give up as we don’t know everything. Plateaus can just be plateaus.
DG, I’m glad we can agree on something! The fact I’ve been in shcok since we did agree is not important.
so much in shock I’ve lost the abity to spell
see
anon126: Shcok indeed. 😉 That was a bit heated but I do think you make very fair points, after all “who is this person who I’m paying who is pointificating to me about climate change?”
The other thing I just wanted to say was, yes being open minded is vital and we are looking at very complex models here and large difficult data sets with all sorts of corrections and filters. But at the moment, even accounting for all the very interesting points raised, the scientists are saying this is real and we are causing it. I wouldn’t choose to use terms like “the debate is over” but then I would also never ask a scientist a question like “is MMR 100% safe?” These are broadbrush approaches to science, but unfortunately tv is a broadbrush medium.
That’s its great strength and its great weakness.
Anyway, honest truth? Climate Change is the SECOND most contentious scientific issue I have to report on. Badgers and TB that’s a really tricky one. Much easier to put a figure on the death toll and cost of it too. Might finally become big news in 2008, we’ll see.
David,
‘the scientists are saying this is real’ that should say ‘most’ scientists are saying it is real not all. There is also some variation in opinion of the believers why it is real, man-made, natural, etc.
Scientists, like any other group of people are not some homogenous group. There is marked variation in thinking on any idea.
Newton talked about standing on the shoulders of giants. A really nice way of saying that his work is based upon that of his predecessors. That is just as true today. We take for granted the work of others • we do not reinvent the wheel every day. That’s fine. But what happens when one of the accepted ‘truths’ is wrong? Take Trofim Lysenko, Stalin’s genetics expert. He pushed ideas that where wrong and helped cause the deaths of millions with his ideas, which made famine so much worse. His work was accepted by a quarter of the world. It was also garbage. Acceptance does not make it true.
The problem is that this debate is political as much as scientific. Both with scientists gaining prestige and power, and with politicians and pop stars climbing on the bandwagon. Both are becoming vested interests in accepting facts. Both are only human, well scientists are. It’s nice to be seen as a heroic fighter for the world. It also pays well. This is not conducive to rational debate on the merits of any argument. I was talking to an environmental scientist in a leading university who was worried about the shift in funding to a very narrow remit • that of manmade global warming – to the detriment of all else. I should make clear that she is a very strong believer in manmade global warming. Research follows funding. This power by vested interests means that any research that does not follow the orthodoxy is not funded. A very powerful tool to control any debate. If you cannot get funding for sconce no other voices are heard.
The politics and vesting of interests also gives rise to the term Global-Warming denier. A term with obvious links to Holocaust-denier. Personally, I find it unbelievably offensive to link an argument about scientific theory to genocide. This is not illustrative of an open and mature debate. There seems to be an attempt to stifle any debate in the same way that cries of racism have been misused by some to stop any debate in another contentious matter. Unless it is racist abuse/attack, it is used to stop debate; not very enlightening.
The political nature of the global warming debate is true, I mean the IPPR have said
‘So in a report on global warming titled Warm Words: How Are We Telling the Climate Story and Can We Tell it Better?, the British think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research argued that ‘the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument but in effect to develop and nurture a new “common sense”…. [We] need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement…. The “facts” need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.’ The IPPR proposes treating us not as free-thinking citizens who should be engaged, but as consumers who should be sold these ‘unspoken facts’: ‘Ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming…. It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour changes.’
(See http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/, it is quoting from the IPPR Report ‘Warm Worlds’ published 2006.). If you haven’t read the report you should it is a hoot. I freely admit I love meta-language debates which may colour my views here. A copy can be read here http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf.
I agree that to ask a scientist if any vaccine is 100% safe would be pointless as no vaccine, no drug, or even food stuff is 100% safe for everyone. The same is true for any theoretical model, global warming included. But it is been treated as if it where 100% true. That there is no doubts or chance that it is flawed, wrong even. The fact that is taken as ‘gospel’ is not science. It is politics (small and capital p).
Science should be open to debate, evolve to take account of new or contradictory evidence, and all that. But with this debate an elite (pop stars, politicians, scientists who are gaining fame and power on the back of their assessment of the debate, even some of the media (shocking I know) have taken ownership of it. They control the agenda, can make everyone else fell guilty, can set the rules (which tend not to apply to them for some reason (pop stars preaching the green message when they use private jets), or gain greater control of the lives of others. Power is fun, intoxicating. And very hard to give up or to admit you were wrong. Not scientific method just human nature I’m afraid.
I don’t think this is healthy.
By the way I totally agree with the uproar if badger culling happens. I don’t envy you that.
“The “facts” need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.’ The IPPR proposes treating us not as free-thinking citizens who should be engaged, but as consumers who should be sold these ‘unspoken facts’”
This is not new,simply an extension of the old Marxist doctrine of inevitability.In fact AGW has probably provided a home for the old washed up Marxists – a new means of social control.
‘Peter:
This is not new,simply an extension of the old Marxist doctrine of inevitability.In fact AGW has probably provided a home for the old washed up Marxists – a new means of social control.’
Not new, but effective. If you treat any argument as settled it means that those who interact with you automatically surrender their position. It also places those who don’t, or question parts of your argument beyond the pale. This gives you, the believer, and incredible power. This is not just about global warming, politics, religion; anything can use the same process. Say you say that you say that everyone knows that there is a huge diamond heading to earth and will kill everyone on it unless we spend 95% of GDP protecting ourselves against it and killing every tenth person to appease the god’s. Most people would argue that 95% of GDP would be a little high and that maybe killing one in thirty would be enough. People would focus on the minor details rather than the big picture. Is there a diamond coming, what is the science behind the model, etc.
People do like the power over others though. Just look around you to see the world today, and our collective world history. And global warming does seem to provide a home to some people, maybe a minority, albeit a vocal one, who in other times would have found a home in politics of the far left persuasion. It’s fun to feel important enough to boss people about, to pry, and control. I mean if you can do that it must mean that you are better than the vast herd. That you are the elite. It is very seductive. This is politics and psychology latching onto a scientific debate.
Anon126,
The left have been very successful using the moral argument,”Schools ‘n Hospitals”,racism,endless emotional blackmail.You think the EU is a bad idea,”millions of jobs will be lost”.
Dear departed Princess Tony,the Peoples Prime Minister was good at this,now getting a million a year at JP Morgan.
It is just one endless “Children’s Crusade” for these people,when it ends in tears,they are gone,counting their money.
Peter | 10.01.08 – 5:53 pm |
This is not new,simply an extension of the old Marxist doctrine of inevitability.In fact AGW has probably provided a home for the old washed up Marxists – a new means of social control.
Exactly right. That’s a more succinct, less sarcastic version of my response to David Gregory’s query as to whether anyone here cared about other biased junk science allowed to go mainstream.
Come to think of it, lots of things seem “inevitable” these days, no?
Lots of people got ideologically unemployed after 1989 trying to build socialism. There was a reassembly and in mid 90’s we had Global Warming…that was started by Big Media the Nec Plus Ultra of Lobbying and political build up…
Anyway 70% of Earth surface is Oceans, a couple % more are deserts there are not much weather stations there… to know.
It is enough some clouds to temps drop 5 or more degrees and this guys/gals are talking about 0.1Cº… The answer is: NO ONE HAVE CLUE.
David Preiser,
The old Marxists had an orgasm at the vistas opened up by AGW,vast state projects,rules and regulations,laws,powers,compulsion.I see in California the possibility of monitoring everyones thermostat is being discussed – for the general good of course.
AGW has all the hallmarks,fear,inevitability,heresy,ostracism,recantation.People are getting fined for using the wrong recycling bag on the wrong day.”Its good to have the old times back comrade”
Peter,
I hear you.
There are separate arguments here. The first is about the science. Is it correct, does the theory fit the facts, are the assumptions correct. This is the basic scientific argument. We’ll leave aside the truth and falseness of this point.
The problem begins when it moves from being about the actual science and facts. The appropriation of this debate so it becomes a cause that is the problem. A lot of people owe their living to this cause. I’m not talking about the truth of the argument just the jobs. People will not readily admit that their job is useless even if it is. Empire building instincts come to the fore. More power = more influence = more money.
Some scientists have become stars on the back of this. This give them influence way beyond science. This is attractive to some people.
Politicians of all ranks love to a crusade. And it does not get better than saving the world. So much grander than the boring local issues, moving people out of poverty, proper health care; you know the boring basics. It is much better to make their mark on the world stage.
Pop stars and actors fall for this far too easily. I happen to like music, but cannot see the correlation between being good musician and having your views on anything, the environment, poverty, etc., carry any more weight than anyone else’s. I find it really irritating that multi-millionaires can tell us that we should sacrifice and scrimp where they can pollute and consume with every greater abandon.
I am struck by the way the argument on curbs on the travel falls into the whole restriction on the movements of the ‘lower classes’. Not the people who make the decisions but only those who ‘lower the tone’. The fact that they can try to price the poorer person out of travel means that they can enjoy their holidays in peace. It will also reduce the accommodation costs for those who can afford to travel. The same people who call for the pricing rises. No need to feel guilty as it is all about saving the planet.
It is the use of taxes to curb and alter behaviour I find distasteful. If a product is wrong, or polluting, or whatever, ban it don’t tax. If recycling is a good thing, which I feel it is, encourage it by providing efficient and integrated recycling services, but don’t charge extra or punish the user. If you believe that recycling, or whatever is for the good of the planet don’t use it to raise taxes. As soon as you do this it raises the suspicion that it is used as a revenue raising exercise and not for the good of the planet. To me it seems that this is the way to promote your cause rather than raise doubts. The trouble is that they don’t care as the people who call for it control our influence the system
Global warming is a complex scientific debate which other groups have latched onto to give their lives meaning and to give themselves power. The media, and the BBC, has been key to this with bias and simplistic assumptions. They used to say that the danger with people losing their belief in god/s is that they’ll believe anything. This argument seems to fit into this argument with people not believing in a god/s, or a political system that works turning this debate into their key belief. As these believers tend to be the vocal groups that either work in government (national or local), or have the skills, funds, and contacts to change things in ways they want. Issues that may concern the working class, or the retired, etc., are downgraded or ignored as they do not have the clout of the believers, or have a cause that makes the political leaders, and stars look good internationally. Do you think that Bono would campaign for better council/public housing for working people? You do see him enhancing his reputation by talking about the environment, global poverty (at the same time as arranging his affairs so he pay little or no tax in Ireland to support Ireland’s poor, and its international aid programmes).
The trouble is that things are going to get shriller and more intrusive. This is not about science any more.
Skiing in scotland.Best snow since 2001.
it was the same last year. i think i see a pattern
“A spokesman at the Nevis Range claimed that they have had the best April snowfall since 2001, while at the Glencoe Ski Centre there was said to be over two feet of snow on the upper slopes, the manager went on to say: “I believe we are having one of the best seasons for spring snow for at least 10 years if not 50. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/09042006news.shtml
this caused by dangerous human induced climate change.. we ‘re all doomed. Start knitting whooly socks !!
and the previous year, 2005, while the england was hit with 1m snow drifts,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4296531.stm
and the Alps had there worst snow storms for 15 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4203191.stm
crickey, dozen of polar bears in europe now, and although its getting colder, im quite sure Al Beeb’s propaganda can convince the masses thats this all down to them driving a 1.2L corsa
http://www.fishupdate.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/6564/Ice_packs_(and_polar_bears)_thwart_Iceland_fishing.html
How ridiculous,
there can`t possibly be any polar bears ,they must all have died from heat exhaustion during the medieval warm period.