Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Newsnight reactions | Main | Enjoying Wiki »
Monday
Aug232010

Newsnight

I've been invited to appear on Newsnight tonight to talk about the Pakistani floods and climate change. Should be interesting.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    BBC iPlayer - Newsnight: 23/08/2010 Bishop Hill was invited to appear on Newsnight to talk about the Pakistani floods and climate change....

Reader Comments (84)

As a cynic I would be tempted to refuse on the grounds that since there is no connection between global warming and the floods in Pakistan any such discussion is totally pointless.
However I am fully confident that you will manage to give an excellent account of yourself and I look forward to a report since here in deepest France we are not privileged (if that is the word I am looking for) to get BBC television.

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

Be wary. The push to discredit HSI and your good self is intensifying. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will try and stitch you up.

Given that you a neither a climatologist nor a meteorologist, why are you being put in the hot seat about possible solar-arctic effects, Rossby waves, the jet stream and blocking highs?

And where does it say in HSI that showing MBH 98, 99 etc to be ill-founded disproves AGW?

Just thoughts.

Good luck if you elect to go for it.

Dominic

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Looking forward to hearing of your experience. Good luck.

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Schneider

I share BBD's concerns.

Just remember - these guys are in the entertainment business. They're not particularly interested in the science, nor the facts. They want a good story - they want interesting tv. If you can come up with a good sound-bite they'll love it! But watch out for the "but surely" question, where they'll try to get you to agree that there's some doubt about the (lack of) evidence.

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottie

Oh boy, result!

Until recently the BBC would never have had a climate sceptic on to discuss anything... not even being a sceptic.

I’ve also detected a new note in the coverage on the causes of the Russian fires and Pakistan floods. They were a lot quicker to admit the natural forces at work, that made it happen. Perhaps they’re beginning to see that endless weather spin is just as off putting as political spin.

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Hi Andrew

Accuracy and Facts actual evidence, keep reminding them................

from biased bbc:

"Don't faint, but the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit has actually upheld a complaint against Roger Harrabin. Here it is: "

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/08/hell-freezesover.html#comments

Complaint

In a report on calls for Dr Rajendra Pachauri to resign as Head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the BBC's Environment Correspondent referred to him as "the UN's top climate scientist". A viewer complained that this was inaccurate and misleading, as Dr Pachauri's scientific qualifications and credentials were in a field unrelated to climate science.

Outcome

Although the phrase was intended as journalistic shorthand for the occupant of the most prominent international post connected with climate science, the implication that he was himself a climate scientist was materially misleading in the context of this report. Upheld

Further action

The Editor of BBC News at 10 is reiterating to his team the importance of accuracy in the introduction of our contributors.
-----------------------------

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

You really should have given this one a miss. The likely hood of this being set up...is on a par with the answer to the question is the BBC biased .....Ask yourself......who else did the BBC ask and why did they decline??

Aug 23, 2010 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Perhaps Josh's series of cartoons of the alternative climate reality would have Paxo coyly produciing a copy of THSI and asking for an autograph.

Do you know what other guests will be on? I can't think of anyone daft enough to go on and claim that CC caused the floods, or the russian heatwave.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Nice one!

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris S

Congratulations Andrew. Your excellent book is really opening doors! I'm sure the beeb will try to stitch you up though as you have no green credentials. Key point for Pakistan tragedy is that population has grown by 140 million since 1950 (more than a factor of 4), so if course an "unprecedented" number of people are affected. Before 1947 Pakistan as such didn't even exist.

@ Sam in France : ukvpn account for a fiver a month gets you BBC iplayer as you come in from a uk ip address.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

if they link events, ie pakistan - russia...
remind them of russia 'blocking' happened before happen again..

FROM NOAA

NOAA on the Russian heat wave: blocking high, not global warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/noaa-on-the-russian-heat-wave-blocking-high/

NOAA:
Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing FAILS to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

The Bishop doesn't have to be an expert on the science to be credible. He need merely point out all the ways that alarmist climate science fails to conform to basic scientific standards.

The only proper answer to most climate trend questions is "I don't know. Because no one knows." The thermometers are not sited in accordance with basic scientific standards, they are never calibrated and never even checked. Studies are never replicated. Data and code are hidden. Models fail basic principles of forecasting. Database software is a mess. Quality control is non-existent. And stats experts say that the statistical methods employed by climate scientists are routinely butchered in a majority of studies.

Jones' response to Hughes says it all. It will end up being the epitaph for alarmist science. Precisely because it represents the complete rejection of the scientific method. "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

The bishop doesn't have to be a scientist to explain how unscientific Jones is. In fact, no explanation is needed at all. Anyone with a high school education understands that hiding one's work from review by others is the anti-thesis of science.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan

Chaps

I had an email from a friend who was asked first but was unavailable. He suggested me as an alternative.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:20 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Are you quite certain they haven't quietly lined up moonbat in opposition?

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterNatsman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8900000/newsid_8909900/8909983.stm

The Beeb knows that it was the jet stream position at fault. I'm sure there was an adult version of this bit of video from CBBC.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

I'll be watching from your Dublin Diocese.

Bring your Crozier, so like St Patrick, you can banish the snakes.

Best wishes.

Peter Walsh

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

Really DO hope this is the BBC's new realistic approach to climate rather than the advocacy that has been as blatant as it has been stomach churning.

I feel you have to go for it.

It could show that the BBC is mindful of the reality post Climategate or it could be a set up "turkey shoot".

I shall watch it with interest - I have no experience in such matters but a general "watch your arse" would seem wise.

But overall I am delighted that the BBC is providing you, and by default all us true sceptics of AGW=Catastrophe, with the exposure their biased spin has previously denied.

Time will soon tell if the BBC is up to their old tricks and they genuinely want to ask the question "Is this a normal, abeit tragic event, or are we wicked westoners on a guilt trip really to blame".

It will be very interesting.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug

I suggest beforehand watching Piers Corbyn talking about the Russian heatwave and Pakistani floods at http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-08-22/corbyn-heatwave-russia-weather.html

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Useful stuff from Tom Nelson's site on Pakistan floods

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/08/you-know-what-allegedly-proves-that-co2.html?showComment=1281740071752#c7039399043799357223

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Just wondering ....perhaps some very kind person will post a clip of the Newsnight interview on YouTube for those of us unable to get British TV.

Aug 23, 2010 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlleagra

@FarleyR There are a few reasons why this might not be good idea but many thanks for the tip.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

It would be interesting to know how much Pakistan has spent on flood prediction, warning & control measures since 1947.

And on what Planning controls there are in place to prevent "development" in flood plains.

But it isn't fair to judge a third world (if Nuclear) country by first world standards. And, of course, as ever the people who get the dirty end of the stick and have their lives destroyed aren't the ruling elite.

But it might br worth pointing out that "Climate Change" is the least likely suspect (in a long list). After all, if the IPCC's predictions on Himalayan Glaciers had been right, the Indus might have dried up by now.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

Best of luck, Bishop!

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

No, no, don't go there.
They are going to smear you with guilt by association.
Tell them you have a migraine or something.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

Bish

“I had an email from a friend who was asked first but was unavailable. He suggested me as an alternative.”

How can you be so cruel as to dispel all the conspiracy theories just as they were getting up a head of steam? Personally, I really hope nobody sees this as anything other than the human tragedy it is.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPedro

Bishop: I have some experience of being interviewed by the Beeb and I assure you that, when it comes to stitching up an interviewee, they are the masters. So be careful. Here’s something that may help: in 1887, nearly one million people died in flooding in China – long before the industrial West was emitting significant GHGs. Would so many have died, had modern technologies (communications, transportation, medicine, etc. – all products of the industrial West) been available then? Or had the aid now being sent to Pakistan (largely from the industrial West) been sent then? Good luck.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier

The topic summary for tonights program is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

if they can build nukes they should be able to build dikes as well.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:45 PM | Unregistered Commenterphinniethewoo

Hope to be able to watch your intervention, Your Grace.
I am about to embark (as an advisor) on a UN multi-agency mission to Pakistan to help prepare reconstruction and economic recovery programs for the flooded areas, something much more down-to-earth (or should I say, er, down-to-water) than meditations on the alleged implication of climate change in this disaster. I have already heard some talk of the floods being both a portent and a consequence of global warming, but official efforts aim at the disaster itself. I hope that not much (nothing, actually) of the funds eventually made available to Pakistan's recovery by official donors and international financial institutions will be allocated to reduction of CO2 emissions worldwide, but indeed directed towards the flood victims, their housing and their livelihoods, and to enhance preparedness for other floods in the future.

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterHector M.

Bishop

I'd skim thru this if you have 5 mins. Good background

http://precis.metoffice.com/Useful_Links/Publications/Sajjad.pdf

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

I shall watch with interest as Newsnight is one of the few programs I watch here in deepest France via satellite.

@ Sam the Skeptic - You can get the FTA BBC programs with a 80 cm dish - at least I and several others in my village do here near the Spanish border

Aug 23, 2010 at 8:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterivan

Be very careful. It's so easy when so many people have been killed etc, to be portrayed as heartless just because you are trying to be factual about what killed them, rather than simply emoting about how terrible it all is.

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

Roger Pielke Jr. has a post that may prove useful: (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/disaster-losses-and-climate-change.html)

Pielke quotes from a research study in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, "The analysis of twenty-two disaster loss studies shows that economic losses from various weather related natural hazards, such as storms, tropical cyclones, floods, and small-scale weather events such as wildfires and hailstorms, have increased around the globe. The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters."

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterTimberati

I've just noticed comment 24 on the BBC blog???!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/08/monday_23_august_2010.html#commentsanchor

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

It seems Bob Ward has just made an appearance as a commenter on the BBC Newsnight blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/08/monday_23_august_2010.html#comments

He sounds a little... sore. I wonder why.

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

Pharos, you (just) beat me to it!

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

Further to my post above - if its not too late - this may be useful:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/flooding/tenworst.shtml

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier

At least we know Bob Ward is checking out the decent sites on the web about 'climate change'...
Doesn't seem to understand what he sees there but it's a start i suppose!

''I see that Andrew Montford is bragging on his Bishop Hill blog that he is an interviewee on this evening’s programme about the link between the floods in Pakistan''

Didn't realise pointing out you're going to be on a News programme was bragging.
Hope the programme goes well the BBC behave themselves.

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Lisle

Well, my word, upon my soul, Mr Ward does sound as though he lost a pound and found a sixpence!

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Bob Ward sounds more and more desperate with every passing day. All these alarmists continue to run with the propaganda that if you are a warmist, you are a scientist, but if you are sceptical, then you are not a scientist. My evidence is that there are far more true scientists on the sceptical side. Those on the alarmist side are cargo cult scientists, of whom Bob ward is an arch exponent.

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Alex
The honours are yours, posting on both.

Aug 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

“Bob Ward has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry” is wiki’s verdict on this PR man.

“Since palaeopiezometry doesn't even merit an entry in Wiki, could it be that Bob Ward is the only failed palaeopiezometrist in the world?”

Bishop Hill ‘s blog hosted this comment in June this year. No doubt it accounts for Bob Ward’s waspish hostility to him! If one had the slightest confidence that Ward could understand Andrew Montford’s exquisite portrayal of the McIntyre deconstruction of the iconic `”hockeystick” one would still take his peevish bad loser comments with an enormous pinch of salt. I look forward to seeing the Bish bring his analytical ability to assessing the role, if any, of CO2 in the recent spate of extreme climate events - including the record freeze in the southern hemisphere that may just as easily be our fate as a warming world.

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarchesarosa

It would appear that somebody has had his nose pushed out.

“commitment of ‘Newsnight’ to impartiality rather than accuracy?”

How do you ascertain accuracy without taking an impartial view of issues?

Break a leg sir!

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Read Ward's contribution.
My first reaction was "aaah, diddums".
My second reaction was much the same.

(Thanks to all you guys helping me out on the TV front. I'll buy you a pint some time!)

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterSam the Skeptic

Sam the Skeptic - for £100 you can get a freesat box in the UK and with a standard SKY satellite dish you can be watching the BBC and lots more for free from your home in rural France. It's what I do. In fact I have a recordable freesat box so I watch newsnight in the morning.

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

Just saw you on NN. Well played!

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

I got the impression Kirsty Wark cut it short when neither you nor the other guy would blame AGW for the flooding.

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJockdownsouth

Just seen it. The whole programme was balanced and sensible - not least your bit, Bish. Nicely done. Hmm - the BBC really does seem to be changing its tune. Encouraging. It's a pity "global warming" still equals "man-made global warming" ... but maybe we shouldn't expect too much.

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier

Well Done Bishop! Especially well batted on that last corker on 'do you believe in CC or not'.

I thought the whole piece was pretty well balanced. Although Kirsty tried hard, none of the scientists rose to the bait of claiming AGW caused the floods. Even Sir John Hunt was fairly 'lukewarm' on the matter. It was the best coverage of a climate topic I've seen in a while. Well done for picking out the comment on deforestation (I assume you'd not seen the included reports beforehand, and were reacting on the fly).

Go Bish!

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Well done Bish.

KW appeared to deliberately use the term Climate Change, which I think many of us acknowledge to be inherent in our planet, and avoided any mention of mann made climate change.....

Why do you think that was?

Aug 23, 2010 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterDennis

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>