Monday morning and the sun is shining outside. Time for the BBC to broadcast what struck me as a very odd item on how trust in the IPCC can be “rebuilt”. Let’s leave aside the obvious point that a significant number of people never had any trust in this body in the first instance and focus instead on how the BBC framed this debate. On the one hand we have Professor Martin Parry who sees no problems with the IPCC in the first place and on the same hand we have Professor Mick Hulme who sees the issue as being all about political will to implement the consequences of IPCC conclusions. (The validity of these must not be questioned, evidently) The BBC also choses to focus on the howling Himalyan glaciers error as IF that was the only mistake this body has ever made! What is entirely missing from this debate is the challenging voice of dispute as to the scientific credibility of the IPCC and I dare say the BBC will keep it that way.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Natsman says:

    The BBC just LURVE the IPCC, don’t they?  Just one tiny, insignificant mistake – well ANYONE could have written 2035, it was just a typo, wasn’t it?  They all scoff about the ridiculousness of it all now, don’t they?  I mean, as they said this morning EVERYONE knew that the glaciers weren’t REALLY gonna melt by 2035, didn’t they?  Ho, ho ho….

    Strange, I remember they took it pretty seriously at the time….

    What a bunch of wasters – both the IPCC and the BBC.  They have a message to disseminate, and no matter how it’s dressed up, it WILL be disseminated, so there, warts and all, but if a good part of the dross can be brushed under the carpet, all well and good.

    IPCC good, BBC good, rest of humanity, rubbish.

    Was Rogar Hopelessbin backpedalling just a tad, or was it my imagination?


  2. The Omega Man says:

    This is exactly how the BBC operates, and why it is a force for evil in the world. It frames the debate in their own terms. It shuts out different view points by mis-characterising them. It stifles debate, by never having two protagonists fairly slug it out in the battle of ideas, but always seeks to gain an unfair advantage by favouring one side over the other.
    How many times have the BBC hosted a “discussion” where the non-BBC idea been relayed by the presenter, deadpan, stripped of eloquence and cogency so that it serves less as a credible counter argument, but more a sacrificial victim bound and helpless in front of the “right-on” guest for them to dispatch effortlessly.
    The BBC are masters of theatre, and what they present as an open examination of the issues is no such thing. They give the illusion of it much the same way as a rigged fight is a true fight, or a piece of propaganda can me taken as the truth.


  3. Roland Deschain says:

    On Today this morning Roger Harrabin referred to the 2035 glacier melt claim as a glaring error.  If it was so glaring why did he never, to my recollection, comment on it at the time?  Why did nobody else in the scientific community point out this glaring error?

    It is simply not credible that no-one noticed it at the time.  The only explanation I can come up with is that, depending on their point of view, it was bad for either their bank balances or their career prospects to question global warming in any way.

    Later on Today, John Humprys stated, in his interview with Messrs Parry & Hulme, that he wasn’t a scientist so wasn’t in a position to comment on the validity of the climate science.  That must be why he had his earlier discussion with that well known scientist Mr Harrabin.


    • Cassandra King says:

      Good point about Harrabin!

      The fool claimed that the furore over the UEA/CRU climategate email scandal led some to believe that they were cooking the books but that turned out not to be the case.

      Of course Harrabin knows full well that a whitewash coverup is not a clearing of the UEA/CRU, he knows full well that the whiteash fraudsters didnt even bother to read the full emails or ask any of the people who exposed the fraud or even examine any of the UEA/CRU data and methods.
      Harrabin knows full that the whitewash basically asked the fraudsters if they were totally innocent and then fully accepted their answers.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Humphrys little disclaimer is very disingenuous.  He’s not saying that because he honestly thinks he himself is not qualified to judge (of course he has his opinoin, and is a firm Warmist), but to suggest that nobody else may question climate scientists, except actual scientists.  As the Narrative is that all scientists except for those paid by Big Oil say that Warmism is true, Humphrys is really saying that none of you are qualified to question Warmism, either.

      Harriban isn’t questioning the climate science, so he can say whatever he wants as he’s only reporting “the science”.


  4. Chuffer says:

    I thought the headline was perfect and most unWarmist; the word ‘rebuilt’ clearly suggests something that is in ruins at the moment.


  5. Clameur de Haro says:

    No mention of course of the fact that Prof Hulme comes from the same East Anglian dungheap as the Beeb’s well-loved Phil “data destroyer” Jones.

    Hulme was “honest” (or should that be “unguarded”) enough to admit (twice) that the scientific uncertainties are going to be just as prevalent in 5 years’ time as they are now: but rather than follow the obvious conclusion that in which case it perhaps isn’t a good idea to hobble recovering economies with fatuous green taxes and costlier energy generation, he seemed very much to favour a “sod the uncertainties, let’s just get on a do it” attitude.

    CdeH missed the first broadcast by Old Robber Harridan this morning, but it’s on the agenda for this evening………….          


    • prpw says:

      Harrabin and his fvckwit colleagues at the BBC talking about climate science and expecting to be taken seriously is like trying to forecast the stock market in 200 years’ time off the last 2 ticks of the most recent day’s trading… good luck with that 


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Same crap on the World Service just now.  According to this segment, it is happening exclusively because of that one error.  The IPCC has not been damaged, says the advocate from the EU.  Only one or two mistakes ever made, apparently.  She said so twice. 
    Lustig does ask – for once – about the fact that they used material which did not come from peer-reviewed sources (he didn’t say Greenpeace outright, but it’s a start).  Of course that’s not really the case, says the advocate from the EU, while saying out of the other side of her mouth that the IPCC did collect data from “a wide variety of sources”.  But then comes – surprise! – the same disclaimer John Humphrys used:  I’m not a climate scientist, so I must rely on what climate scientists say is so. 
    Debate successfully stifled once again.


  7. Cassandra King says:

    How to frame the debate BBC style, devise straw men and misrepresent their enemies.
    Nobody is qualified to judge the ‘science’ or should that be some groups fraudulant interpretation of it?
    Only a certain group are allowed to hand down the declarations from on high to the lower orders who are not allowed to contradict or question the scripture as handed down, the high priests are beyond criticisism.
    If this sounds like a dark ages religion or a modern day cult to you then its probably because thats exactly what AGW alarmism has become.
    Never ever trust any group that will not allow its inner workings to be examined of criticised or opened up for debate, any group that places ideologicval purity over free debate, any group that insists on top down obedience should be smashed to pieces and then outlawed.


  8. George R says:

    “How the BBC pretended to be balanced on ‘climate change’. And, failed, obviously. ”     (James Delingpole.)


    • Guest Who says:

      I think this quoted link from a poster is worth pulling out:

      Yes, a level of journalistic challenge to hyperbole that is to be commended.

      But… a tad rare, Aunty. And a smidge tucked away by the Climate Colonels (Black, Shuckman, Harrabin..) in the endless pronouncements from their watertight oversight junta of probity.


      • Guest Who says:

        Might be just me, but I sense some are distancing (or trying to) themselves from others, with less mention of their uncritical support and/or promotion of them and their views. Still, ‘American exVP threatens and intimidates BBC journalist for… asking questions‘ is one headline I’d like to see, assuming the claim to be true.

        There’s also the issue of opinion over fact. Just in the first few minutes, I have to wonder why,  if Sir Crispin and Sir Nigel are making two such different claims, can this not be better verified by the BBC? As with other claims made and left ignored or at best hanging. 97% of scientists agree… vs. ‘nutcases’????? And getting Lord help us Prescott in as a green saviour is an ongoing nonsense still being propagated.

        Also not too sure, given Aunty’s unofficial mission statement of ‘narrative enhancement’ by way of substituting reporting for agenda shaping, Mr. Harrabin’s happy acceptance of his role in this ‘narrative’ seems.. blissful.

        As always, atop what is said, and by whom, there is also what is not included, and from whom. Plus all that can be inspired in the edit suite.

        One can only hope that people like Bob Watson might be less readily quoted without question by people like Mr. Harrabin, when they talk in ‘shorthand’… make that not being accurate, as such.

        And yet still we seem in some silly Angel Pin Dancing debate on whether the climate is changing or not.

        Nothing much, yet, on the vast commitment of funds to… er… ‘solving’ ‘it’. Frankly, if as billed, I think mitigation is the best hope. Yet even today I read Bjorn Lomborg’s evolutionary views i this regard being viewed in some quarters as endorsing an AGW-committed rush to some very dubious investments.

        I want the might of my national broadcaster and its resources directed at what is being proposed, and whether it will work in terms we are told it needs to.

        So far, the facts and engineering and ROIs seem amazingly vague in this regard. A wind farm that ‘could’ supply is not much use vs. one that supplies a lot less once a few contextual questions get answered.

        And no, Mr. Nameless even more senior BBC Editor, the audience does NOT need a single number. You seem to. What this audience member needs is the truth, well told. I  can handle it.


        Actually, from Al Gore to Tny Blair/Gordon Brown, we now have a senior member of the cheerleading squad a tad guilty and ‘fessing up to extraordinary ongoing pressure by senior pols based on little more than ad-hom led prejudices that make Tone and Gordo and Ed (and, I am sure, Dave, Chris, etc) on par with Ms. Abbess.

        I look forward to this being highlighted. As roles get, ahem,  re-evaluated.