The BBC’s Climate Wars receives a less than glowing review from James Delingpole in the Spectator:
A Church of England official has issued an apology to the descendants of Charles Darwin for the Church’s ‘anti-evolutionary’ fervour towards his Origin of the Species.
I wonder if in about 150 years’ time the BBC — presuming it still exists which I won’t let it do, I promise, once I’ve become your emperor — will make similar amends for having been wrong about absolutely everything from Israel, Europe, Islamism and multiculturalism to women, children, animals and, above all, global warming.
‘God, what a bunch of complete and utter ****ers we all were,’ their apology could say as it floats in shimmery holographic form over icy London streets dominated by minarets, wind turbines and huge packs of semi-domesticated polar bears. ‘We could have contributed something useful or interesting to the climate-change debate. Instead we gave you Earth: The Climate Wars (BBC 2, Sunday).
It’s worth reading the rest. Is this the worst review the programme received or are there other nominations?
And Delingpole’s qualification’s for commenting on scientific matters are?
He even decribes the programme presenter as a ‘Doctor of Geology’. Thee is no such thing.
Considering a vast bulk of knowledged contained within the various IPCC scare mongering documents are produced by people who are not specialist climate scientists, what is your point?
Mailman
“And Delingpole’s qualification’s for commenting on scientific matters are?”
Same as Gore’s?
You don’t need to be a scientist to see through the hype, misinformation and outright lies that are AGW. You just need to read carefully the evidence for and against, and it very quickly becomes apparent that – while there is still much debate about climatology, and much to be investigated – nothing is as certain as the AGW fanatics suggest.
Every sensationalist utterance from the BBC on this topic is from the same distorted mindset, but most of it is not ‘science’ at all – it’s political camapaigning to destroy capitalism, wreck our energy supply industry, and send us all back to the stone age.
The onslaught continues today with prominence given on the website to a loony idea to spend billions of our money ‘capturing’ harmless CO2 and storing it under the sea.
The BBC is reporting these items on an entirely uncritical basis.
James Delingpole might or might not be a scientist. But it doesn’t matter a fig. He understands preposterous hype when he sees it.
There are many critical reviews of the garbage prog ‘Climate Wars’. Here is one: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/09/biased-broadcasting-climate.html
I’ve found a vey interesting (apparently recent) BBC response to the ‘climate change’ debate on the Climate Audit website. They apparently churn out endless AGW propaganda on the following basis:
“BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be
calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global
warming is man-made. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, issued to all
editorial staff, state that “we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance
of views on controversial subjects” and, given the weight of scientific
opinion, the challenge for us is to strike the right balance between
mainstream science and sceptics since to give them equal weight would imply
that the argument is evenly balanced.”
So how do they measure this consensus? And since when did scientists decide which theories are valid and which are not by ‘consensus’ – are there regular polls that vote in and vote out the various theories? And who at the BBC decides which scientists to believe?
Perhaps we will soon have a BBC top ten of approved scientific theory!
On this basis, the Darwinianism that the BBC so loudly espouses (especially when vice-presidential candiates they don’t like utter the very word ‘Creationism’) would never have got off the ground. And the Royal Society scientists who argued that railway development should be halted because human being would disintegrate at speeds above 25mph would have stopped the industrial revolution.
This response from the BBC shows that they have been taken over by New Labour’s targets culture… they think they can measure and approve science because loony lefties say so.
This is what happened in Nazi Germany and it is why and how the final solution emerged. It’s sinister and it’s consipiratorial (BBC fanatics getting together in secret sessions to decide what it and what is not ‘approved’ or ‘consensus’ science) and it’s highly dangerous.
It’s time it was halted.
As it is so critical to some… er… one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Stewart
Holy heatwaves! He is not a Doctor of Geology, he is.. a Senior Lecturer instead.
This obviously undermines any credibility a subjective (if one-sided, sort of by definition) humourous critique might have on the value of this person’s programme and how it may play with a non-scientific audience.
Sod the arguments pro and con… the critic got the main protagonist’s title wrong!!!
I am a committed environmental campaigner, and subscribe to the notion of ‘Probably Man-worsened negative climate change, so it’s possibly best to find out what we can and then do what’s practical and possible to deal with the potential consequences before it’s too late.’
OK, it’s not as snappy as ‘Global warming’ but seems to me a bit more accurate scientifically and may even serve to act as a better basis for helping the vast majority of the public to understand the issues, make their own minds up and, if so motivated, DO what they can to help self, others and future.
So I also passionately believe in the power of persuasion as a tool, through education, fact, logic, debate, sharing, understanding and empathy.
I DO NOT see any merit to the cause of encouraging environmentally positive behaviours though the mindset of ‘I’m/we’re right. If you disagree you’re wrong. And it’s our ball, pitch and everything in it, so nar-nee-na-na until we bludgeon you into seeing things our… ‘correct’ way’.
And this is typified by any, and I mean any eyebrow crank on dogma, and/or its various publicists’ methods, getting slapped back with totally facile counter-argument. Pretty much top of this list – which never works and simply serves to undermine credibility still further – is to play the person rather than the ball in an irrelevant manner.
Dr. Stewart – scientist, and climate change programme maker: qualified, eligible and well capable of dishing out and taking science-related bouquets and brickbats
Mr. Delingpole – humourist writer and commentator on TV and how it relates to the public: eligible and well capable of dishing out and taking media writing-related bouquets and brickbats
Such as Roger Harrabin, the face of climate change to 60M UK citizens via our objective national news reporting broadcast medium – arts graduate yet (I may have his title a bit wrong, so sue me) environment analyst: questionably qualified, not really eligible and well capable of dishing out if not taking science-related bouquets and brickbats.
At least he is now joined by Dr. Stewart, but some might argue this hardly adds to the heft of the BBC’s output on this critical issue, nor indeed the level of balance.
In their little airmiles-cranking bubble (‘But… I flew to the Artic to do this piece to camera to raise awareness’!) it might all seem tickedy boo, but whatever a late-night BBC2 or Guardian piece might do for the already converted (though the level of slap being laid on in these major-lite media almost makes even me want to buy a Humvee) hardly serves when hung out to dry in media that do reach a slightly broader audience.
I know that the green-elite (‘you don’t get backstage at the concert like we do’) ‘Coven of Climate Concern’ wishes the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun/Clarkson or Ch4 ‘Axis of Denial’ did not exist, but they do. Live with it.
Then work around that fact… and their much bigger, more influential (I know they are deemed unworthy of votes in some quarters by never coming up with the ‘right’ result, but it’s still a democracy… just) audiences.
People join you if they like the invitation; not if you threaten them if they don’t.
Me, I’m now off to do my thing, make a few more fun things, and share what I’m up to to try make a bit of dough, feed the family and with luck make the future for them a bit better by being a good provider, slightly less selfish world citizen (I hope) and example (I need the audience ratings).
THE BBC’S CLIMATE BIASES — AGAIN
An email from David Tyler [D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk]:
I am planning to put in a complaint about the standard of Iain Stewart’s coverage of the Climate Sceptic issue (BBC 2: The Climate Wars). He had plenty of clips showing them in denial, but very little allowing them to say why they take a dissenting position. He presented the Hockey Stick graph in a positive light, giving viewers very little appreciation of the scientific controversies that it has generated. For example, material the BBC itself has reported was omitted completely.
The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary got a mention, and the evidence for climate being driven by the sun was conceded to be relevant before the last few decades, but Stewart suggested that the temperature plots providing the demonstration for this finished prematurely. He provided an updating, which he said demonstrated the sceptics were wrong – but the global temperature data he presented showed an exponential increase – the reality is that the graph has plateaued since 2000. He provided no opportunity for a sceptic to comment on the point he was making and presented his own view as definitive. He did not work through the implications for the Hockey Stick graph if climate was driven by solar energy prior to 1960. He showed some clips of Christopher Monckton talking about his dissenting views, but this did not explore the science.
The body language of Stewart suggested that he was not interested in exploring the reasons for dissent. This programme is declared to be a feature by the BBC, but it shows a highly polarised perspective: science vs politically-inspired dissent. Viewers would come away with the view that climate sceptics are funded by organisations with vested interests, and that their dissent cannot be described as science. This message is a complete distortion of the situation, and consequently is not in the public interest.
from
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Most journalists and film makers have no scientific or engineering qualifications.
Most scientists and engineers are incapable of expressing themselves in a way that non scientists/engineers can understand or let alone enjoy.
Let’s stop trying to reinvent the wheel. The problem is the BBC (not alone) has taken sides where it should be neutral and sceptical.
Apologies for quoting from Wikipedia, but I couldn’t find a more concise summary:
“Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the Observer-expectancy effect, and cognitive bias). Some characteristics of pathological science are:
The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
There are claims of great accuracy.
Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.”
I adore the phrasing of that last point. We’ve been here before: N-Rays, polywater, and now AGW.
Good stuff, henryflower. See also:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html
Jas – brilliant link, thank you. We should be making sure things such as this are widely read.
Gentlmen please, get with the times, its now called dangerous climate change and/or catasphoric climate change
The IPCC meets next in 2009, so we’ve got a few months of relative peace before Al Beeb goes all enviro-orgasmic about the above load of bollox
Mr LouKnee, apologies for my lax terminology: though in my defence, if they keep changing the goalposts and the titles (unfalsifiability, anyone?) how can we be expected to keep up.
On which subject, how long before the BBC begin quietly calling it “Catastrophic Conservative Global Warming”? They seem to enjoy levering that word into any negative phenomena they cover – conservative radical islamists being the funniest attempt so far.
will the speccy apologise profusely if we’re all standing on a tropical rock at the top of snowden in 150 years surrounded by tidal waves?
cockney: it wouldn’t take that long. Those who follow scientific methodology would abandon a hypothesis that is contradicted by facts. Simple as that. The wording of your question has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with taking a political stance.
Contrary to claims of a majority view on MMGW, I found a link. (not bookmarked, I’m afraid) to a believers site in which a scientist (?) complained that, at a climate conference in Oslo, during August, two thirds of the attendees were skeptics.
So, there is hope yet!
I do a lot of ‘research’ and have done so for some years, and its clear that the scientific ‘skeptics’ are becoming a majority.
The problem is, will the press report it?
We can of course forget about the BBBC.
The BBC adopts the usual green position towards climate change – someone will have to make sacrifices but it sure won’t be them. Like Al Gore with his gigantic domestic energy bills the BBC opens more and more stations, sends more and more people all over the world for the most pointless reasons and encourages people to ‘go digital’ for TV and radio when this technology uses more energy than the one it replaces.
Let’s see some real eco-action from the BBC – how about shutting all those DAB radio stations nobody listens to or shutting down BBC1 and 2 during the day and night like they used to do, so saving all the energy needed to manufacture, transmit and receive this rubbish? And what about adopting normal staffing levels for the broadcasting industry, especially for events abroad?
None of this will happen. Like nearly all greens the BBC are hypocrites who like telling everyone else how to behave.
Is a geologist qualified to comment on the veracity of climate models? Atmospheric physics? Statistical analysis of paleoclimate reconstructions?
I think not.
Anon at the top of the thread: You wrote two sentences and managed to make both of them logical fallacies! (1. Argument from false authority and 2. trivial objections)
You are a winner!
Bishop Hill:
“Anon at the top of the thread: You wrote two sentences and managed to make both of them logical fallacies! (1. Argument from false authority and 2. trivial objections)”
1. Where is the false authority element? It is a fact that Delingpole has no scientific training whatsoever and shows no evidence of having studied the subject. Al Gore has no scientific training but he has studied Global Warming because he has a strong commercial interest. He is certainly biased but is vastly more knowledgeable on the subject than is Delingpole.
2. Yes it is a trivial objection. It was simply an example of the fact that Delingpole has no understanding of the scientific community.
His opinions on the scientific aspects of the Climate Change debate are worthless. They carry no more weight than those of my cleaner or someone I might be chatting to at the bus stop.
Incidentally, I am not a fan of Al Gore. I agree, more or less, with Peter at 10.54 a.m. I think that man-made Global Warming is a reality, that we do not yet understand the various mechanisms, that it is unlikely that the present CO2 trading policies will do much to control Global Warming and that we should concentrate on taking steps to alleviate the consequences. Fortunately, in the UK we are well placed to live with Global Warming.