Monday
Aug232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Newsnight
Aug 23, 2010 Climate: HSI Climate: WG2 Media I've been invited to appear on Newsnight tonight to talk about the Pakistani floods and climate change. Should be interesting.
Update on Aug 23, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Well that was OK, I think. I'm pretty sure it was cut short - there was a delay on the line to Seattle which made things quite difficult for everyone. I did half wonder if the lack of hyperbole didn't make for very good telly, but in terms of the science I agree with commenters that the whole thing portrayed a pretty good balance.
Reader Comments (84)
Just watched this, and was fervently hoping for a bit more 'oomph', but was a little disappointed. I don't know what the brief was, but in all honesty most of the guest appearances on these, er, 'impartial' programmes by those sceptical of the whole global warming shebang tend to be somewhat low key, considering the rhetoric that there seems to be rampant amongst us all.
Personally, I think that if I was an average viewer with no axe to grind, and no interest (or knowledge) in the subject, I would come away with the distinct impression that the general view was that it's quite likely that global warming is responsible, and that humanity may well be to blame.
Sorry, Your Grace -- I've no doubt you did your best at short notice, but for me not really strong enough. Still reading your book, though...
Good result! – Just watched it.
Despite some loaded questions trying to link the tragedy to "climate change" - the biggest single thing that came over was the fact that nowhere in the piece did the BBC - for all its past advocacy of human induced catastrophic climate change - real out a Monbiot or a Ward to ram down the unsuspecting publics throats their opinion that it was all our own fault.
Quite the opposite in fact with an introductory piece about how such flooding in this region has a well documented history - I can see that causing the living rooms of the alarmists being redecorated with Cocoa!!! ;0)
So we have not seen the BBC (based on the loaded questions) take a full step back from sycophantic support AGW=Catastrophe, but we have seen a very real step forward by the BBC to put both sides forward. Fair play (if a tad overdue) to the Beeb.
Andrew - your honesty was evident - well done.
What a contrast to the shrill "the science is settled" arguments - so nicely done as well.
I'm sorry I think you let yourself and your regular readers down. You were in a position to firmly stake your claim on this important issue but you came across as another "I don't know".
Frankly I'm disappointed. As a viewer who knows might know nothing of the science and politics surrounding this subject I would continue to think that indeed there was such a thing as Man made climate change. The last question from Kirsty Wark and your answer was the final nail in the coffin.
Natsman
I understand what you mean, but with these sudden call ups one doesn't have the luxury of a full brief - you're given a short outline of the general subject matter, and then put into the studio and then have to react live to both the film reports and whatever questions are tossed out. Both Dr Asrar and the Bishop showed nerves, and that is inevitable. (Dr Asrar also suffered from the transmission delay). You can't expect the smooth practised delivery of the trained politician until one is a lot more experienced. I think the whole piece said "there is a lot of uncertainty about" and Dr Asrar admitted that 'sceintists' have taken on board the lessons of climatgate. That is a major step forward I think.
I have just watched the program and I was totally astonished. The whole tone was different to what would have been expected 12 months ago.
The introduction and the discussion was very much biassed away from "it's all due to global warming" to a much more balanced approach including references to similar events in the past and the point being made that other man made changes were very important such as deforestation.
Careful Bish - lots of coverage here in Canada avoiding linking the floods of Pakistan/China with climate change but where you are going is entirely different. That said - give 'er snoose!
The BBC wanted to provoke a bunfight between extremism and denial . They just got reason and common sense, despite recasting their hooks and tackle, and made themselves look stupid..
Massive let down. I can't believe how bad you were ( sorry).
Actually agreeing with Watts ? She went through the motions of being even handed but if you saw her whole contribution it was very much 'flooding in Pakistan due to climate change'.
And why did you agree that the earth was warming up when it isn't ? And why didn't you mention we had ice ages and tropics in the UK before man came along. Incredible.
Just watched it and thought it was surprisingly balanced for the BBC. I got the impression that you were just waiting for the warmist onslaught to start, but there seemed a consensus for a change. That guy from Seatle went on a bit though.
Hey Jonny, perhaps you will get the invite next time.
I thought it was a pretty reasonable report. It aired a number of views, highlighted the uncertainties and ended up stressing that we still need to deal with the current emergency. Sorry, but in the context of the scale of the disaster in Pakistan picking holes in the coverage, such as suggesting Ms Wark’s questioning betrayed bias, feels a little petty and paranoid to me.
Pedro, I think we were all a little surprised that the BBC would choose a lead item on Newsngiht to discuss a proposition that AGW caused the floods, when the much more important questions are were proper flood engineering schemes in place, who allowed the deforestation and were it's effects predicted, etc etc. I don't think it was the right question to debate, but given that that is the question they wanted to ask however, then the ball bowled has to be played.
But Cumbrian Lad, not once, unless I missed it, was "man made" climate change mentioned.
Climate change, yes.
That was, imho, quite deliberate, leaving the Bish waiting for the questions that never came.
Call me cynical, if you will...
In BBC and politics, the message, as understood by the public, is climate change = global warming = AGW =caused by CO2 emissions= carbon footprint.
martyn..
I'd love an invite to Newsnight to tell the biased BBC what a total shower they are but doubt if it will ever happen :)
Just disappointed that with a large audience in front of him, Mr Montford failed to grasp the chance of getting the truth out.
step by step johnny, step by step.
Could have been better but could also have been a lot worse, IMO. And the studio setup was awkward; even at the best of times, I think it's not easy to come across well on a video link, as opposed to sitting opposite people in the same studio.
One thing to remember perhaps, is that 2 or 3 years ago, there wouldn't have been an invite.In that regard, the climate is certainly changing, and for the better.
I didn't catch it.. still waiting for it to appear on iPlayer. And waiting.. and waiting..
That went well. very surprised to see the cagw mouthpiece being near-silent in the face of catastrophe. As has been said Andrew came across as sincere and calm. Bit of a missed opportunity for a nice quotable soundbite though - such as "the science isn't settled afterall then". I know how nervous I get when presenting to 50 people, so adressing the nation so calmly was an achievement.
Bishop, you came over objective and honest.
Can't ask for anything more.
You are believably genuine. Saddened about WikkiGandanda, thought, once, that these guys were apolitical.
Silly Me!
You did well Bish. You came over a bit nervous but honest. It's all experience and good practice. Every interview should get easier than the previous one and you will be more relaxed for the interviews to follow after your GWPF report is issued. It will no doubt be extensively covered by the BBC.
Heh, your Bishopness, you're going up in the world! Last night, "Newsnight" - tomorrow "The X Factor"! (doesn't matter if you can't sing - they can always "autotune" you).
Like several commenters above I was surprised by the tone of the BBC piece. My first reaction was "Blow me" (or words to that effect) "the BBC is STILL not banging on about Climate Change, is it?"
But in answer to the question: "Could Climate Change be behind the Pakistan floods", we had Susan Watts answering "No". She interviewed numerous experts, who also replied "No". One pointed out that serious flooding in the area occurs periodically, every couple of decades, and had done so for donkeys years.
We then had the live link to the gentleman in Seattle, who I also think replied "No". And then there was you (to quote Kylie Monogue), who also replied "No". So a clean sweep, then.
It wasn't so long ago we regularly had "special reports" about global warming on the BBC's "10 o'clock News" - perhaps once every week or so. These days, though, absolutely nothing.
Perhaps the BBC has realised that if you feel obliged to "take up a position" publicly (as "Newsnight" has done on AGW) on what is predominantly a scientific question, you would be wise not to back the losing horse.
That's it. Metaphors mixed. Back to work.
Andrew,
I enjoy reading your site and I must admit I was expecting a bit more from you on Newsnight last night (which I only just stumbled upon while flicking channels). You seemed really rather tame - basically agreeing with everything when more muscle could have been imposed. The chappy (whose name I forget) started off something like -" The floods are most definitely "probably" caused by CC"! How can they be "definitely" and "probably" as well??? We're off to a flying start of pure nonsense on which i think you could have pounced! Kirsty Wark of course was really trying her damnedest to vere everything towards Global Warming but why for example was there no mention fo the extraordinary cold snap in the southern hemisphere to put the cat amongst the pidgeons? As far as I know there's been no mention about that on Newsnight unless i've missed it but then it doesn't exactly fit their preferred description of "Warming" does it...?
It’s interesting how we all see/hear things differently.
yaosxx: Not sure I understand the significance of a cold winter in the Southern Hemisphere in the context of flooding in Pakistan – can you clarify?
A discussion format in the studio would perhaps have given the Bishop a chance to say what he wanted more forcefully , but the way things were presented, with him on a screen somewhere else, meant he had to wait to say something until he was asked a question. If he then didn't answer what was asked he would sound just like a politician, not the reasonable and fair-minded commentator that he is... Don't let's look unexpected gift-horses in the mouth -it was an amazing change in approach by the BBC, IMO.
Pedro - I would have thought that was obvious - there is a constant attempt to connect the dots of every disaster to "warmimg" and here we have a clear case of unusual "cooling" that goes unreported in most of the media because it doesn't fit their premise.
Messemger - Maybe - but if one is a sceptic one should always treat any interview with the bbc as an invitation into the crocodiles den... there are no two ways about it!
messenger - In the end by clever manipulated questioning from Wark - the bbc managed to get the answers THEY wanted!
I think you did well. You came over quite McIntyre-like, saying we just don't know, which is absolutely the correct answer. As you say, it wasn't a riveting debate.
You could do some work on the ums and errs (practise playing just a minute!) but in this regard you were no worse than the other guy. It's quite likely that you will be asked on this or another programme in the future.
Yaoxx: Thanks for your clarification - I must just be slow on the uptake. Like a number of posters here I thought the BBC had done rather well in questioning the connection between extreme weather events and global climate change. It seems churlish to complain that they didn’t highlight a non-existent link to weather in the other hemisphere.
Regarding Ms Wark's "clever manipulated questioning", as I said before, we all see & hear things differently.
Pedro - Yes indeed we all see and hear things differently though some of us are more likely to get the point then others...
The bbc are very good at paving their way with good intention - you'll find that what seems like a good and well meaning discussion of a subject will actually manage to end in a way that brings us back to square one and in no way rocks the prevailing boat.
Ah yaosxx, if only I had your penetrating insight!
Pedro - Keep trying!
"not easy to come across well on a video link"
I'm sure it isn't. The lighting is always awful, for a start, and must make it feel like an interrogation - I'd be tempted to wear reflective sunglasses, just to make the point!