BBC Radio 4: Quentin Cooper Talks to Philip Stott & Tom Crowley about CLIMATEGATE Scandal, and details of the emails revealed
Sun, 29/11/2009 - 23:39
BBC: Quentin Cooper Talks to Philip Stott & Tom Crowley about CLIMATEGATE Scandal, and details of the emails revealed
30th Nov 2009
by Steve Netwiter
On the BBC programme Material World, on Radio 4, presenter Quentin Cooper talked to Philip Stott and Tom Crowley about the details revealed in the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails.
Quentin Cooper: 
Philip Stott: 
Tom Crowley: 
This programme was broadcast on 26th Nov 2009, and is the only detailed coverage of the CLIMATEGATE scandal I can find from the BBC. I can find no other coverage on the BBC that mentions the details of the emails, or gives any coverage on the intensity of the scandal, which is setting the blogosphere alight.
There is the clear implication that the BBC coverage of this scandal is biased.
Climategate has gone "viral" on the blogosphere. Initially bloggers and scientists who have a track record of wanting to check the work of centers like the CRU, which is influential in the data, charts and writings of the IPCC climate change reports, concentrated on the revealed emails. These revealed the inner working of the CRU scientists and their interactions with other climate scientists.
Then scientists and bloggers, some with programming knowledge, started looking at the data revealed. One very revealing file was the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file. This is a 3 year diary of Ian (Harry) Harris, working at the CRU.
The difference in coverage of climategate between the free blogosphere and the corporate Main Stream Media (MSM) is stunning. The mainstream media has characterised the story as "hackers stole emails from the CRU", with the official response of the CRU quoted. The lack of coverage of the details of the revealed emails, and lack of coverage of the controversy, is glaring.
But, as this controversy has grown, it has become increasingly impossible for the MSM to ignore this subject and retain any credibility. We are supposed to have a free and open society, yet the main source of news for most people is obviously not supplying uncensored unbiased news.
What follows is a rough transcript of part of the Material World programme, which can be downloaded from here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/material/material_20091126-18...
and is introduced on this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/people/presenters/quentin-cooper/
which leads here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nyy8q
Quote:
Already dubbed 'Climategate', Quentin Cooper finds out what the real scientific impact is of computer hacking, and leaking, of over ten years-worth of climate researchers' emails at the University of East Anglia.
Transcript
Quentin (0:00):
Hello pod people of all levels down to sub-oceanic, this is a jolly and not so jolly hockey stick Material World with me Quentin Cooper and if it's not your cup of tea why don't you just delete it, actually forget I said that.
...
First, it may have been announced in the last 24 hours that both the US and China will now set defined emissions targets, but that's still not the big climate story of the week.
What's created more headlines and vastly more blog activity around the world is a series of hacked email exchanges going back a decade, centering on Prof. Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, and which appear to show evidence of data being withheld from critics, and even adjusted to better fit theories about human impact on climate.
Voiceover:
I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ie from 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Quentin:
One sentence from one 10 year old email out of thousands, but never the less, along with other extracts they've started a feeding frenzy for climate change skpetics and all those with suspicions that scientists sometimes massage their data.
Now were hoping to talk directly to Prof Jones about the leaked emails but in his absence we're joined on the line from Edinburgh by climate historian Tom Crowley, who's previously talked about the risk of over-selling climate change, and in the studio is regular contributor to our sister programme Home Planet, Philip Stott, emeritus Prof. of biogeography at the university of London School of Oriental and African Studies.
Philip Stott, before we get to the emails, what is it in the nature of the work that Phil Jones does that makes him such a significant figure for environmentalists and also for the climate change skeptics?
Philip:
Absolutely Quentin, that's the key question because what we're talking about is the construction and reconstruction of temperatures. So we've got to remember just a simple fact first of all, that the mercury in glass thermometers were only invented at the beginning of the 18th century by Fahrenheit, and we now use very sophisticated temperature measures like thermistors for example, using resistance to do it, and very very accurate.
But we need to create much longer records of that all the way back for a thousand years for example, so we have to use one of two other sources, we have to use historical records. interpreting for example things about the coming of vines to a country etc, or more importantly we have to use what we call proxy measures.
Now what's important about Phil's work is that he's involved in what is called dendroclimatology, that's either wood or tree climatology, that's the reconstruction of of these long temperature curves by using tree rings, the annual tree rings, and of course what you can do is get a big series of those by finding enough tress to run them one after another and you can actually date it and get a full series, and that's the key, it provides another way of looking at the history of temperature.
Quentin (3:33):
But there are presumably thousands of scientists working on different aspects of climate all over the world, why has this one figure, and this one set of work become so essential to all this?
Philip:
Because there was a feature of the interpretation of historical climates called the medieval warm period that was seen as very important because it was seen as warmer than what we were talking about now the rise in temperatures since the 1970s or there abouts.
Now what's happened is that the use of dendrochronology has been used as part of the evidence to show that actually the warming that we've experienced in the last 30 or 40 years has actually taken us beyond that medieval warm period, thus hinting of course that there is the human influence from industrialisation and those processes.
Quentin (4:13):
And Tom Crowley, that's the same data looked at in a slightly different way by the skeptics has been used to argue weill the climate has always gone up and down and here it is, it's warmer then, colder now, as well, now you've done similar work in this area haven't you, and you've also run into some fairly trenchant critics who go to a lot of trouble to get hold of the data and and re-examine the findings.
Tom (4:32):
Well, um, it's true I've been involved with a group that has done independent analysis of data and in a different type of way that Phil Jones has been involved with and many others and that's one of the things you want to do in science is to test whether a conclusion arrived at using one methodology can stand up if you use a different methodology or maybe different data, and so that's where we fit it.
Quentin (5:01):
You say that's one of the things you want to do in science Tom, but one of the things that comes up again and again in the hacked emails is multiple mentions from Prof Jones that if he's asked to hand over his files under the freedom of information act it's better to delete the data then let it fall into what he perceives as the wrong hands, isn't that also about coming up with a different methodology to look at that data and findings?
Tom (5:24):
Well all of the data, most data are actually public domain, it's so people like Steve McIntyre who request data can go to many public domain websites where that data already exists, and all the work we are involved in for example, are all available, almost all of it, is available on public websites, we don't collect it ourselves, so it's a mute point.... he's trying to get the data but he actually has the data from other sites already.
Quentin (5:55):
It may be but never the less what seems to be suspicious, not just to the climate change skeptics but to a lot of casual readers is someone repeatedly saying, if someone asks for this data, and they might want to get it under the FOIA, lets hope they don't find out about it and if they do find out about it,...., better to delete it than let it fall into those hands.
Tom (6:15):
I actually don't think Phil would do that, I known Phil for a number of years and I think he's a very honest person and I interpret that as an expression of exasperation, you see the person who has been involved in trying to get most of this data does just not stop with one request, he, if you send him something he'll say "well what about this?, what about this? why haven't you done it this way rather than that way?", and he's almost asking questions as if I have nothing better in the world to do than sit around responding to his emails. People are busy they don't want to be completely pestered by him all the time.
Quentin (6:51):
Philip this is the tricky thing about the bigger picture here, it's easy to...you see this bunch of emails taken out of context saying if anyone asks for this data say no, deny it, destroy it, whatever, at the same time you're an academic you've got things to do, there are multiple requests coming in, you could spend the rest of your life answering those requests, so this is an attempt at a strategy even if out of context it can seem very damaging.
Philip (7:13):
Yes, but I think unfortunately we as scientists now, especially where science is leading to policy Quentin, have got to be especially careful indeed, and I'm very taken with what Prof. Judith A Curry, she's at the Georgia Institute of Technology and leading climate scientist, and I think she's absolutely right, what she said was "the need for public credibility, and transparency, has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased".
And in a very very good article by that excellent journalist Ann McElroy writing in the Evening Standard, she stressed something very important, she said "the climate change apostles must be open to challenge". Now she's somebody in the middle, she's not a scientists, she's just watching, she wants to know, but she read it very differently, she wrote something which I think is exactly what you were hinting, what an average person might think about this, "Prof Jones was not using the language of sober science, but of self congratulation of the believer, who thinks that a fast one can be pulled or a corner can be cut to prove his case".
Quentin (8:24):
Tom, is it possible that between all of these extreme positions of someone who has done nothing wrong, and somebody who deliberately tried to deceive people, what we have here is something close to what Philip is talking about, a scientist who is sometimes going beyond the science because he's passionate and also involved in an ongoing debate with people perceived as using dirty tricks and perhaps less afraid of putting his data in the most favourable light than he could have been?
Tom (8:44):
Phil Jones is not some passionate person, he loves his science, but he's one of the most reasonable people you ever want to meet. And also one of the most honest people I'd ever want to meet. I trust what he does scientifically. And that's the reason I keep going back to him asking questions. So I think that you have to take that in context to, and with respect to this article by McElroy, it was an interesting piece but one thing she doesn't take into consideration is that the IPCC report is completely open for review.
Quentin (9:28):
OK, thank you Tom, we'll have to leave it there as we are rapidly running out of time, but I think we can see that this will rumble on for some considerable amount of time and there's more of it one our web pages at the end of the programme.
End of transcript
Quentin, IMO that is a wonderful interview. You are a credit to the field of science. Well done.
You've allowed your listeners to hear from BOTH sides of the current debate. IMO that is all that most people want. An honest open debate, and open honest science.
Additional information
Quentin Cooper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Cooper
Philip Stott
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/A_...
His blog on this:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/C...
About him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott
Thomas Crowley
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley
Judith A. Curry
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curr...
Anne McElvoy
The climate change apostles must be open to challenge
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23774747-the-climate-chan...
This is an extraordinarily good website on the Maunder Minimum written by a 16 year old young lady, Kristen Byrnes:
Ponder the Maunder
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/
============================
I continue to follow this story on this thread:
CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with "documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt"
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
Mon, 30/11/2009 - 02:55
#2
BBC Coverage of CLIMATEGATE as of 30th Nov 2009
A search on the BBC website for "Climatic Research Unit":
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?uri=%2F2%2Fhi%2Fscience%2Fnature%2F837028...
Quote:
Latest News* Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails Last updated: 2 days ago
Details of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8383713.stm
More news
* News - Science & Environment - UK climate unit's e-mails hacked . Last updated: 20 Nov 2009
E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm
* Hacked climate emails and FOIIn the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time. I'm just a humble scientist trying to do research."
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opens.../hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.html
* News - Norfolk - Hacker leaks scientists' e-mails . Last updated: 23 Nov 2009The leak of the information has also sparked a new row over climate change. Climate sceptics have said the e-mails show that important data behind the climate change debate has been manipulated.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8374721.stm
And more news is gives:
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?tab=ns&q=Climatic%20Research%20Unit&start...
Quote:
# UK climate unit's e-mails hackedThe e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.
20 Nov 2009 90% relevance
# Inquiry into stolen climate e-mailsDetails of a university inquiry into e-mails stolen from scientists at one of the UK's leading climate research units are likely to be made public next week.
27 Nov 2009 90% relevance
# Harrabin's Notes: E-mail impactIn his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, looks at the impact of the leaked information on climate change following an e-mail hack.
24 Nov 2009 90% relevance
# Hacker leaks scientists' e-mailsA hacker steals hundreds of e-mails with information about leading climate scientists from a computer at a university in Norwich.
23 Nov 2009 89% relevance
==================
A search on the BBC website for "climategate":
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=all&q=climategate
Quote:
* Podcasts - Material WorldBBC Podcast. Material World: Weekly science conversation, on everything from archaeology to zoology, from abacus to the antipodean rodent zyzomys, by way of meteorites. Presented by Quentin Cooper,
www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/material
* Radio 4 People - Quentin CooperLast On 26/11/2009 The scientific impact of 'Climategate'; deep Ocean survey; drilling earthquake zones.
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/people/presenters/quentin-cooper/
* Programmes - This Week - Dear This Week: your views on our showD J Fletcher, Whitehaven Cumbria After daring to mention climategate, I hope the thought police there at the Ministry of Truth are going to leave Michael's mind in tact for the next show.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8298641.stm
* Programmes - Daily Politics - Dear Daily PoliticsSome of the comments from DP viewers on our show and the world of politics.. Here is a selection of the comments from DP viewers on our show and the world of politics. DO keep yours comments brief
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8268443.stm
which has this:
Dear This Week: your views on our show
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_week/8298641.stm
Quote:
After daring to mention climategate, I hope the thought police there at the Ministry of Truth are going to leave Michael's mind in tact for the next show.
J B, Nottingham, Notts
That's it.
==========================
Comparing the above with what Google returns:
Google climategate returns: "Results 1 - 10 of about 13,600,000"
Google news climategate returns: "Results 1 – 10 of about 772"
Google Climatic Research Unit returns: "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,860,000"
Google news Climatic Research Unit returns: "Results 1 – 10 of about 3,292"
I'm pleased to announce that Google autocomplete now offers "climategate".
Mon, 30/11/2009 - 03:06
#3
The BBC Complaints Procedure
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/contact/complaint
BBC Director General Mark Thompson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thompson
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi
I will post this in full. I'm sure the BBC wants me to publicise their "balanced approach".
Again, if copyright is an issue, just contact me, and I'll remove this. I just ask that YOU cover this issue.
A balanced approach to climate change
Alistair Burnett | 17:20 UK time, Thursday, 12 November 2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/a_balanced_approach_to_cli...
Quote:
Will the Copenhagen climate conference next month get a global deal on measures to control the rise in global temperatures?That was one of the questions discussed this week when The World Tonight, co-hosted a conference at Chatham House with the journal International Affairs and the Royal Society looking at the challenges governments all over the world face with climate change and the potential scarcity of natural resources.
We also discussed how measures to deal with climate change could make food, energy and water shortages worse. You can listen to the programme we did from the conference here.
Most of the people at the conference were climate experts, technology specialists, politicians, lobbyists and activists, but there were also journalists ie us.
At one point, the discussion turned to concerns that many climate scientists have that public scepticism about climate change may be growing just as the models these scientists use to project the rise in global temperatures and the impact that will have on ice melt in places like the Himalayas, are suggesting a worse scenario in the next few decades.
They expressed surprise that this should be so.
One explanation offered was that the counter-message from climate change sceptics and lobby groups, especially in the US, that climate change is part of a natural cycle and nothing to worry about is a much simpler message to convey than the arguments for taking action which are based on a precautionary principle and complex climate modelling.
Others asked if the problem was a decline in public trust in scientists generally, because they are often asked to make projections which may not be subsequently borne out by experience.
Still others asked whether the media was responsible for the apparent rise in scepticism, arguing that the media in the interests of balance give airtime too much prominence to climate change sceptics, given the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree climate change is happening and it is man-made and measures need to be taken to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
From the BBC's perspective, the answer to this question is that our journalistic role is not to campaign for anything. Impartiality means not taking sides in a debate, while accurately representing the balance of argument.
So, in the case of climate change we need proportionately to reflect the sceptical view but also, for example, reflect the debate among climate scientists about the most effective way of dealing with global warming.
On our programme, for instance, one of our panellists argued an all-encompassing global conference like Copenhagen is not the way to make progress as it is trying to deal with too many issues at once.
Another of the panellists argued that capping emissions and developing a market to trade in carbon is too slow and uncertain a way of dealing with the problem and we should invest in technical solutions to reducing the amount of CO2.
On the wider issue of reporting risk which is often what reporting what scientists are saying involves, the BBC has specific guidelines which you may be interested in reading.
Anyway, take a listen to the programme and let us know what you think.
Alistair Burnett is the editor of The World Tonight.
Please check the replies.
It seems others have noticed something wrong with the BBC.
Mon, 30/11/2009 - 19:11
#4
A big thanks to Bishop Hill blog
A big thanks to Bishop Hill blog for linking here 
Tom Crowley on BBC
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/30/tom-crowley-on-bbc.html
Thanks guys.
Keep up the pressure.
Mon, 30/11/2009 - 22:52
#5
How this is reported on the David Icke forum
Please note, I am not a BBC employee, and apart from listening to Material Worlds etc when I get time, I have no connection with the BBC.
This thread links to my article:
Quote:
Lying BBC shill quentin cooper interviews climate alarmist shill fraudster thomas crowley.They discuss mitigating the devastating revelation that the CRU UEA fabricated their data & climate models, whilst destroying information requested under freedom of information requests.
They also compound their lies by claiming that ALL the data has been available for years! One of the leaked emails implicitly states they would Destroy data before the CRU UEA were made to release it to other Scientists, as they were terrified their fraud would become immediately apparent.The baa baa see government propaganda department are complicit in the corruption of the scientific process through politicising of climate alarmism & fiduciary finageling by private & public organisations.
bbc lies & corruption exposed here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nyy8q
quentin (shill) cooper
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92061&page=90
I do not agree with that portrayal at all.
For balance one should note that Quentin brought up the subject of Climategate, and Philip Stott got plenty of air time, is a "skeptic", and mentioned a lot of very valid points about this scandal.
As I said above, I see great bias in the way the BBC is reporting this, and this ONE piece of content from the BBC, is the ONLY good coverage I can find.
If you are going to expose bias and fraud, IMO you need to be very careful to view things objectively, otherwise you will be accused of blinkered biased thinking, and you will do nothing but bad to the cause of fighting for what is right.
Tue, 01/12/2009 - 00:12
#6
The BBC is UNDER PRESSURE to cover CLIMATEGATE
The BBC is UNDER PRESSURE to cover CLIMATEGATE properly.
Criticism of the BBC coverage of Climategate is growing.
How long can they withstand this onslaught of public opinion?
If this continues they will lose all credibility.
Questions have been raised. Is this BBC bias caused by government pressure on the BBC?
Whatever the cause, I think we must focus our attention on the BBC, one focus, one demand. Cover Climategate properly.
Under Pressure
Tue, 01/12/2009 - 00:36
#7
New climategate scandal hotline
If you have something good about Climategate which I have not already posted, please email it to me:
climategate.scandal at gmail.com
I take privacy very seriously.
Tue, 01/12/2009 - 19:06
#8
A Main Stream Media (MSM) Review
This is a very good post from Methinkshe on the GEI forum:
I think this is very pertinent to this topic.
Quote:
I agree with you re the BBC. I posted as much when this story first came to my my attention which was on Mon 23rd via this site even though the story first broke on Friday 20th (at least, I think that's correct). The point is, I'm not one who exactly shuns MSM news. I always read a daily newspaper (Telegraph) watch one or other channel TV news at some point during the day, sleep with Radio 5 on (bad habit!) and always listen to early morning news either on R5 or R4. So I'm nearly always bang up to date with breaking news - at least, I thought I was. The fact that I remained totally ignorant of this story until discovering it here on the Monday has nothing to do with my not tuning in to MSM and everything to do with deliberate suppression of the story.Tbh, I haven't been particularly impressed with the Telegraph's coverage, either. It's a far, far bigger story than the MP expenses scandal yet it has had, by comparison, negligible coverage either in their News pages, or Feature pages (just one lukewarm/ambiguous article) and especially not in the letters pages. And considering the excellent work James Dellingpole is doing in his Telegraph blog, and the patient exposure of the AGW scam that Christopher Booker has done over many years in his column in the Sunday Telegraph, one would have thought that they'd make a much bigger thing of it. What's scaring them off, I wonder? Are they concerned that their readership has largely been converted to the AGW camp and that if they run with Climategate they'll lose readers, or does it reflect an editorial position or even an owner position (Barclay Brothers - I wonder what their stance is on AGW?) or are they being silenced from some other direction. I've never before seen such a huge story so completely suppressed - it's more than worrying, it's downright scary.
NB. Channel 4 News did a long piece on Climate Change last night as a run-up to Copenhagen, yet not a single mention of Climategate. Unbelievable! It's as though it never happened.
Also, I bought Ian Plimer's book when it was first published earlier this year - I bought several, actually, and gave them to my kids, but they were expensive (hardback; perhaps they are now available in paperback.) It's a must read - especially for kids who are in college/uni where AGW is taught as incontovertible fact and anyone who dares question the received wisdom can be quite cruelly treated - mocked as a flat-earther type of thing. Sceptical views are not even up for discussion. It provided a couple of my kids with some very good armament against such blatant brainwashing attempts even though they were told Prof Plimer is not an expert in the field and thus should not be listened to - he's only a geologist!
There's an awful lot of "unlearning" that has to be done amongst our school and college kids - they've more or less grown up with AGW as certainty. Their books and reference notes are full of AGW as fact. My greatest concern is that the ratchet effect will ensure that there is no turning back, no means of re-educating with the truth.
http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=8276&view=findpo...
Tue, 01/12/2009 - 21:18
#9
BBC: 'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means
BBC: 'Show Your Working': What 'ClimateGate' means
Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz
Page last updated at 14:56 GMT, Tuesday, 1 December 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm
Quote:
It is possible that some areas of climate science have become sclerotic, that its scientific practices have become too partisan, that its funding - whether from private or public sectors - has compromised scientists.The tribalism that some of the e-mails reveal suggests a form of social organisation that is now all too familiar in some sections of business and government.
Public trust in science, which was damaged in the BSE scandal 13 years ago, risks being affected by this latest episode.
and
Quote:
A Citizen's Panel on Climate Change (CPCC)?It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the IPCC has now largely run its course.
Perhaps, through its structural tendency to politicise climate change science, it has helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalising and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
and
Quote:
"Show your working" is the imperative given to scientists when preparing for publication to peers.There, it refers to techniques.
Now, with the public as partner in the creation and implementation of scientific knowledge in the policy domain, the injunction has a new and enhanced meaning.
The authors of the article:
Quote:
Mike Hulme is professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and author of Why We Disagree About Climate ChangeDr Jerome Ravetz is an independent scholar affiliated to the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
==================
That is a very long article. I suspect only those very interested in the detail would read it all, as I have.
It is NOT coverage of Climategate, and what the emails/data have revealed.
I generally agree with it. The basic point of the article is a good one.
But this is still not coverage of the Climategate Scandal.
In fact, the article cites a BBC article from Friday 20th Nov 2009 !!!!
Hackers target leading climate research unit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
Compare and contrast with the news I have posted here:
CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with "documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt"
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
Come on BBC, this simply isn't good enough.
Tue, 01/12/2009 - 22:08
#10
BBC shuns David Bellamy
Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
October 22, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/a...
Quote:
Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.
Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.
I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests. But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming. Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models.
Name-calling may be acceptable in politics but it should have no place in science; indeed, what is happening smacks of McCarthyism, witch-hunts and all. Scientific understanding, however, is advanced by robust, reasoned argument based on well-researched data. So I turn to simple sets of data that are already in the public domain.
The last peak global temperatures were in 1998 and 1934 and the troughs of low temperature were around 1910 and 1970. The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age. Our end was nigh!
Then, when temperatures took an upward swing in the 1980s, the scaremongers changed their tune. Global warming was the new imminent catastrophe.
and
BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE
Wednesday November 5,2008
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
Quote:
FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.
A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.
Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.
His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.
Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.
More evidence of bias from the BBC.
Wed, 02/12/2009 - 00:30
#11
David Bellamy Videos
I have posted a number of videos featuring David Bellamy here:
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=9#comment-2354
Some are very recent, and talking about Climategate.
They add evidence that the BBC is biased.
One concludes "and since David Bellamy went public on his views of Global Warming he has been banned by the BBC and other media outlets"
Wed, 02/12/2009 - 00:36
#12
The BBC Position Becomes Impossible
Climategate scandal spreads to the Elite Media
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-11-30-240481.112112_Clim...
Quote:
December 01, 2009
The scandal over "Climategate" is expanding. This time it is outside the "scientific community" and into the Elite Media.The UK Mail is reporting (note that the U. S. Elite media is not doing so) that emails casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University were sent to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) over a month before they were hacked and released shortly before Thanksgiving.
The BBC sat on the story.
The Daily Mail story:
BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails
28th November 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-l...
Quote:
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.
The credibility of the BBC as a trusted unbiased source of news is now approaching zero.
From the first article, this reply:
Quote:
BBC and climate change
December 01, 2009 | 06:09 AMAn insight into the BBC's deliberately biased reporting on climate change may be found in the June 2007 BBC Trust (sic) document: 'FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century'.
On page 40 is the following passage about the reporting of climate change: "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."
I have submitted an FOI request to find out who 'the best scientific experts' were and what advice they gave. The report is at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/im...
Mike Post
Sat, 05/12/2009 - 03:53
#13
More shameful BBC reporting
Shame on the BBC and shame on John Humphrys.
Shame on Roger Harrabin.
Shame on Richard Black.
Listen here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394669.stm
This was highlighted by James Delingpole on the Telegraph:
Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel
Last updated: December 4th, 2009
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018847/climategate-...
Quote:
Meanwhile in the libtard-controlled MSM (apparently this is also dating ad code for “Men who have sex with Men” – sorry about that), the BBC is slowly, grudgingly acknowledging that Climategate might be more than just a little local difficulty at some obscure redbrick university department.On this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme, it gave it a full 12 minutes. Needless to say, it stacked the odds heavily against the one man – climatologist Professor Philip Stott – brave enough to stick up for scientific integrity and rationalism and against Climate Change Hysteria. Not only was the debate sandwiched between reports by two of the BBC’s in-house greens Roger Harrabin and Richard Black trying to play the story down (the Climategate emails offer not a smoking gun but a “confused and half-baked picture” claimed Black), but we then had to put up with presenter John Humphrys ganging up with badger-bottomed climate-fear-promoter the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt against Stott.
“Bit of a coincidence having these glaciers melting when there’s all this extra CO2 in the air,” interrupted Humphrys sarkily, while Stott was trying to make an intelligent point about the AGW industry being an ‘inverted pyramid’ with an awful lot of policy being based on the claims of a very tiny number of scientists.
Yes, Humphrys. Coincidence. NOT CAUSATION.
The BBC is Biased.
Heads should role.
Just checkout the results.
They don't believe you BBC. They know you are lying.
Well done Philip Stott. The only voice of sense and reason I've heard on the BBC.
Tue, 08/12/2009 - 04:57
#14
Email to BBC, and the BBC reply
This is the email sent to the BBC from Ross Dickson:
Quote:
Why is there so little coverage of the climategate topic on TV or radio news programmes. This is worldwide and extremely important to the general public, Whom, in the Uk, pay for this very same service of non bias news reporting.
This is the most talked (blobbed) about subject on the internet at the moment, which goes to show how important it is to the general public. Is the lack of air time on the BBC proof of political bias?
This is exactly what you would expect as a reply:
Quote:
Dear Mr DicksonThanks for your e-mail regarding BBC News.
I understand you’re unhappy that we haven’t featured coverage of the Climate change issues that have been discussed recently and I note you feel this subject should be newsworthy.
Whilst I can appreciate your concerns the choice of news stories on our programmes is frequently very difficult since editorial staff always have more reports than can be fitted into the time available.
Their choice has to be selective and no matter how carefully such decisions are made, they are always aware that some people may disagree with them.
The order of our news stories is based on what is deemed to be in the greatest public interest on that date however, this does not mean we consider any event more or less important.
I’m sorry to read you’ve been disappointed on this occasion.
Of course you may still be unhappy with our news coverage so I’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers including our news team. It ensures that your complaints about news choices are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Michelle Wiggins
BBC Complaints
from: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
If one of the biggest stories to appear on the blogosphere, with massive public interest, and one of the biggest scientific scandals in history, which is of major importance to everyone, is not worthy of coverage on the BBC, one must conclude one of two things:
1. The employees of the BBC responsible for this are stupid.
2. The employees of the BBC responsible for this are conspirators in this fraud, and as such, should face the same legal retribution.
This is clear media bias, and fraud. Lord Monckton claims this is a crime against humanity. I agree with him.
The employees of the BBC responsible had better watch out.
You could be facing very long jail terms.
I hope you do. You deserve it.
Fri, 25/12/2009 - 12:06
#15
BBC Resorts to Fake "Science" and Pure Propaganda
Full story here:
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=22#comment-2855
So rather than moving towards an unbiased news reporting stance, this programme shows that the BBC has actually moved in the opposite direction.
They are now resorting to fake science to convince the public.
And they now include people like Professor Sir David King to misrepresent the situation, with his completely new and never before heard claim that mobile phone conversations were monitored.
He has basically lied to try and persuade people that this was a sophisticated hacking, whereas it is far more likely that is was a done by a whistleblower.
I am now absolutely disgusted by the BBC. Shame on you. Shame on you.
I will NEVER trust you ever again.
I hope people go to jail for this.
Sat, 09/01/2010 - 21:28
#16
A few BBC related items
A few BBC related items posted on the main Climategate thread:
Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on 'climate change'?
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=24#comment-2998
Richard Black of the BBC - Black's Whitewash
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=24#comment-2999
Climategate BBC - **FUNNY**
http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=25#comment-3002
As a non touch typist I spent quite a while writing the transcript because I think this is an important subject.
If the BBC has any issue re copyright please contact me and I will remove it.
I simply ask in return that YOU cover this story properly.
Keep up the pressure:
This thread is now the #1 article putting pressure on the BBC to report in an unbiased uncensored way.
Your friendly host. Got Climategate news? Email climategate.scandal at gmail.com