Wednesday
Sep222010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill BBC science review
Sep 22, 2010 BBC Climate: Sceptics David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at University College London, discusses the BBC's science coverage here, particularly in relation to coverage of minority views, including global warming scepticism. He also helpfully points to an opportunity for the public to make their views know to the BBC's ongoing review of scientific coverage.
Reader Comments (27)
Err...seems quite opinionated/odd:.
"Many programmes I haven’t seen, particularly on radio..." (I think not intended as a joke)
"Both quacks and climate deniers rarely have anything to say that is real science."
But, as you say - at least he provides the email for further comment to the BBC.
Okay, I'm aghast again,
From the BBC page's 'Problem areas' section... "Both quacks and climate deniers rarely have anything to say that is real science. They have different motivations. Examples are given below."
Nice way to start clarifying the picture isn't it? "Quacks and climate change DENIERS" Paint the one group that has been most united in claiming climate change has always been happening as not believing in climates change at all as little more than dangerous doctors (Voodoo scientist again?) and neo-Nazis.
Thank you BBC, you're clearly on the path to somewhere with this, aren't you? Please spare us the dispatches, t-shirts and post cards when you get there.
Well how about we just post our *specific* criticisms here then? At least they won't be moderated away - if that's okay Bish?
If I had to identify the most outrageous example of CAGW bias or cover up I've seen on the BBC site it would have to be the way they broke the story of the Himalayan glaciers not melting by 2035, as had originally been asserted by the IPCC.
If you remember, the story broke during preparations for the Copenhagen summit 7th-18th December 2009, to which the Beeb had already dedicated a whole sub-site to publish scare stories about tipping points and impending catastrophes. So where did they put this very good news story then when it appeared on 5th Dec 2009? Surely they gave it a place of prominence on the *dedicated* Copenhagen page, here??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/default.stm
We'll, I'll spare you having to guess. They outrageously decided to hide it in the "South Asia" section.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
We know that RICHARD BLACK reads this blog and certainly will be dropping in on this thread about his employer. So how about an *honest answer* to this most peculiar choice then, RICHARD?
Amazing - the "seen, particularly on radio" has been corrected now. I'd like to think my comment had something to do with it (you never know!). Here is a link from elsewhere on the web that cloned the article before the fix went in...
http://www.sciencebasednutrition.net/category/bad-journalism/
still says "Many programmes I haven’t seen, particularly on radio" blah, blah, blahhh
David Colquhoun is a great scientist - old school, but he too easily trusts other scientists (why would they exaggerate or lie about their findings?).
His views on AGW are moulded by Guardian reports, climate deniers are oil shills etc. He appears not have time to look at climate data and issues himself (though I've tried hard to tell him to).
I can find examples of quacks (alternative medicine) in what he writes, but I cant find any examples for what he calls "climate deniers". About the only other place he mentions climate is in this section:
From the tone of article I doubt he will find anything wrong in how the BBC portray climate science. In fact I'd be willing to bet that he finds that the BBC give to much time to skeptics.
The BBC "proving the science of global warming" on Newsnight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
A festival of scientific journalistic professionalism.
Thanks ZT - I totally forgot about that propaganda show. It really was shocking how low the warmists were (are) prepared to stoop to spread their gospel of doom. :o
The Professor seems to suffer from the 'If I agree with it then it's balanced' syndrome. He seems happy enough with the concept of a rapid reaction panel, as long as it's staffed by people he approves of, and seems oblivious to the fact that most (well, all really, since they're human) scientists have their views coloured by their experience and beliefs. The real point of free debate is that the real science/ideas almost always comes from 'left field', and from those who do challenge the percieved consensus.
Quack! Quack!
Sorry, it's the only comment I could think of after reading this expert's opinion piece.
I'm not sure that I care how the BBC reports science. The dear old Beeb isn't in any sense a scientific institution - it's science reporting is never likely to add value - to quote an infamous phrase.
What else would you expect from a BBC that relies on the Graundian to help it expend large chunks of its recruitment budget?
"Minority views should be heard of course, but they should not be given equal prominence to views that are held by the vast majority of informed people."
So in the 'Flat Earthers' v Galileo debate the BBC wouldn't have given any time to Galileo. It's the old 'if you don't understand history you are destined to repeat it' problem. But even worse, the BBC shouldn't be partisan at all. It should simply report facts, from both sides, equally. If the vast majority have the best argument it will shine through.
The BBC's business is reporting not advocacy. It's for us to decide the relative merits of the arguments especially when we pay for the BBC and the consequences of their reporting affect decisions that then involve huge amounts of our tax.
The only climate deniers I am aware of are those true believers who deny there are any significant questions about if CO2 is causing a global climate disruption.
As many others above, I immediately fixed on the climate change deniers, or should that be climate disruption deniers; the BBC are already behind the times. It clearly would be a waste of time and effort to comment and attempt to educate such a partisan organisation.
I have great respect for Steve Jones and have bought two of his books. I can only assume that he, as with so many clever scientists who believe the AGW hypothesis, has not really examined the empirical evidence and just takes the climate 'scientists' at face value.
The CO2 experiment on BBC 2 enraged me enough to complain with predictable results!
I watch and enjoy many of the maths and physics histories / programmes as well as the natural history, but the complete failure of the BBC to provide a balanced view of AGW aka ACC, ACD, makes me doubt slightly anything I watch, even the impressive Brian Cox. C'mon Bri tell us what you really think.
I've watched and admired David Attenborough since 1962 when he took over from Armand and Michaela Denis but ,sadly he needs to read a bit more widely. No excuse for Ian Stewart a geologist with no sense of Earth history. I miss David Bellamy.
I'm sure the BBC reads this excellent blog, but I'm afraid it's a bit like praying - no one is listening.
The BBC, Steve Jones, and integrity....I sent a message to "trust.science@bbc.co.uk" at about 3:30am UK time (don't ask). What should I receive back, 12 minutes later...an auto-responder message with the subject line "Trust Science (Auto Reply Message)"
However, the body of the message was quite personal - apparently it was from Steve Jones himself(!), thanking me for my contribution which "I've read with interest"(!!). The cordial message closed with a few vague threats, e.g. "This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated." & "Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately." (not sure what I should immediately notify them about - but it was nicely generally threatening - I was suitably impressed).
So - I think that we can safely conclude that:
1) The BBC 'trust science' activity seems to have little idea about honesty - they broadcast their contempt to every person who sends them a message!
2) The BBC is absolutely insincere about gathering information from people "I've read with interest" at ~3:30am & and replied by auto-responder to let you know how grateful I am about receiving your fascinating perspective
3) The BBC has way too many lawyers for its own good - even its daft auto-responder messages have legalese garbage glued to them
So, I sent them another message telling them this was a bit of a fail - let's see what they say...
Perhaps Steve Jones will send me another impressive missive with the subject line 'Auto Reply Message' or perhaps this is one of those computer science experiments designed to see how much they can annoy the viewing public with a computer script. Steve Jones better be careful lest his reputation be sunk in this exercise.
Interesting that he equates alternative medicines with climate change denial but can't cite a single instance of a climate change denial programme, or interview.
What comes across to me very clearly is that DC doesn't want science discussed on the BBC. As it happens I hold the same views as he does on alternative medicines, but don't want its supporters muzzled. To me he comes across as wanting only the programmes that support his world view to be aired. He doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between science programmes and science reporting. Let's take for example the recent report from the BBC that a glacier at 26000 ft altitude is receding because of global warming (climate change/climate disruption, you can always tell the weakness of an argument by the way it shifts its ground). Clearly at 26000 the temperature is never above 0C, so the news item is wrong, but it appears that DC doesn't believe that climate deniers can challenge the news report because he doesn't believe they are scientifically correct. They could put a science programme on about climate change and hand over 99% of it to the activists who make up the climate science community and 1% to Richard Lindzen, seems enough time for him to dismantle their "science" to me.
Breathtakingly arrogant man who wants to stifle discussion on topics he's already made up his mind on.
He also failed to note that none of the BBC journalists are actually scientists themselves, to me, not important in that there are two different skills involved, but important to the extent that they will take out the sensational bits and report them without the uncertainties, just like the IPCC.
Additionally David Bellamy made superb scientific programmes, no one can deny that, but he appears to have been fired because he doesn't believe in CAGW, will he be looking into this injustice during his review of science on the BBC. I doubt it.
On the BBC yesterday they had a report on the Artic land rush by Russia, Canada, Norway and the US to claim the vast oil and gas resources found there last year. It was hysterical they tied themselves up in knots being pro oil development and por AGW, they showed the nuclear reactor ship to power and heat the oil extraction efforts to get oil using "shipping routes unavailible until now due to global warming".
I wonder if it's on iPlayer if so go and have a look.
"Minority views should be heard of course, but they should not be given equal prominence to views that are held by the vast majority of informed people."
I wonder how the good professor would have reacted when the two (Australian?) researchers presented their findings on the causes of stomach ulcers? Would he have gone along with the consensus or been rather more open to their well constructed and ultimately successful arguments?
Quote, David Colquhoun, "It is not uncommon to read that science needs better PR. That is precisely what is not needed. PR exists to put only one side of the story. That makes it an essentially dishonest occupation. Its aims are the very opposite of those of science. The public aren’t stupid: often they recognise when they are getting half the story."
David Colquhoun is correct the public aren't stupid, they recognise that using terms like 'climate deniers' is simply a crude attempt to quash dissenting views and debate on controversial aspects of AGW.
All David Colquhoun has done is hoist himself on his own PR petard by using eco-propaganda verbage.
Anyone who can write "I’m an avid listener to Today, the best news programme on radio John Humphrys has no greater fan than I. For politics it is superb." has no business opining on anything or rather, the opinion of anyone writing this is not worth the effort of reading it. The man might be a distinguished scientist. Unfortunately he's also just another useful idiot.
Well - and just for the record - the strange creeping fixing of DCs comments continues. The version on this link has now been fixed:
http://www.sciencebasednutrition.net/category/bad-journalism/
This time I took a screen shot of it, in its pre-fixed state. I am not sure who has a nastier case of the Small Mind Hobgoblins - me - or the fixers.
What a pompous ass. What makes a pharmacologist someone who can throw around the phrase "climate change denier"? What a gullible fool. Oh yes. "David Attenborough is worth the licence fee alone! And I don't what it lowered!" appears to be the whole purpose of this diatribe.
I wonder what his "honorarium" was for penning this load of codswallop?
Well - on Steve Jones - and the BBC auto-responder - I've now had a response from the man himself so - I can vouch for the fact that he does read things sent to their email address (at least in my case).
David Colquhoun had some interesting (and strong) views on Climategate in an earlier post in February.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2764
Scroll down to the headings
- So what about climate change? (1)
- Total openness is the only cure (2)
- Public relations is not the cure (3)
Cherry picked quotes:
All very sensible, I would like to know why he has had a change of heart.
@harold - thanks - that earlier DC article is pretty good. Indeed, he seems to have had a change of heart. Perhaps the 'RealClimate' experience reinforced the faith in his case.
Good heavens, why on earth should anyone think that I'd changed my mind after my 'earlier article'?
In fact most of the raw data are available now, If you don't believe the interpretation of the data that is advocated by the vast majority of scientists then take the data, analyse it yourself and publish a paper. Please don't just shout (a vain request inthe climate area it seems)
I also wonder why all people here who are abusing me, don't have the courage ot use their real names.
The BBC report which I was publicising deals with the whole of science. Climate is a small section of that, albeit important,