Click images for more details
The definitive history of Climategate.
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
The BBC is running another show about sceptics, this time featuring Lord Monckton. Tonight BBC4.
Skeptics from PTV Productions on Vimeo.
View Printer Friendly Version
I can't help thinking this will be an attempt by the BBC to portray Viscount Monckton as a pop-eyed eccentric with a coterie of unscientific and ignorant followers. Will they give any unadulterated interviews with the likes of Lindzen and Spencer? I doubt it. But perhaps Rupert Murray has some independence from the BBC hand of conformity to the consensus.
Meanwhile, hopefully not too OT; a complete (I hope) transcript of BBC Horizon: Science Under Attack is here:https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20110124_hz
So now we know, all those who deny the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming are aged, homosexual,nazi gun-nuts. How do we know ? Our unbiased national broadcaster just told us !This is getting truly ridiculous !
Out of the BBC2 channel Nurse, out of the BBC4 channel Murray. Stereotripe. Though I'm too old to learn to play golf and simultaneously fire a gun whilst riding on a Harley, I can't do American accents.
Is this going to be like a Louise Theroux "gonzo documentary", where the subjects are given just enough rope to hang themselves, helped along by suitable editing and uncomfortable silences?
Having now seen the brief video, I take back all I said above. It will be worse than I thought. Toad, PMT and Robinson are right.
"The film attempts to find out where the truth lies"
It seems the truth lies every time a CAGW proponent opens their mouth!
Meantime, whilst we in the West bicker amongst ourselves, make silly one-upmanship TV shows and pay increasingly more for our energy bills (with no end to the rises in sight), China bashes on with real solutions.
The supreme irony of course is that the thorium technology they intend to develop would keep both 'warmist' and 'deniers' happy.
If they have anything of science or nature in them I just don't bother watching BBC programs any more. I gave up on Attenborough because of this CAGW bullshit. I did watch Wonders of the Solar System but the expectation of holy writ being preached killed a lot of my enjoyment of that, and of course it did turn up. It's all very sad. The BBC should simpy be a single channel broadcasting costume dramas, but even in them the politics is detectable.
Here's a significant quote by Murray in an interview with the Economist, about a year ago :-
The film’s website provides links to campaigning organisations such as Greenpeace and the Monterey Bay Aquarium in California. “We plan to go from city to city with our campaign,” says Mr Murray. “A massive outreach was part of our intention with this film from the start.”
Clearly he doesn't see himself just as a professional film maker, he's an environmental activist - and therefore the BBC programme is a complete fraud on the viewers and licence fee payers.
Why am I unsurprised?
Foxgoose hit it. here's another quote....
"every documentary maker now wants to be the next Mr Gore.
“Eco-documentaries tell the stories of our time,” said Rupert Murray, director of “The End of the Line,” another feature-length film based on a 2004 book by Charles Clover, the environment editor of London’s Daily Telegraph. Mr Clover’s research exposes the effects of overfishing on oceans and those who depend on them for food. In a similar vein, “The Cove”, which documents the slaughter of dolphins in Japan, explores how human beings have upset the sea’s ecosystems, putting people at risk as well as marine life. “There is a general feeling that things are changing faster than they ever have, ” says Mr Murray. “Eco-documentaries are a reflection of that.”
methinks we're looking at another post normal eco-documentary
The director of Skeptics Rupert Murray also directed in 2005 what was considered by many film critics as a fraudulent piece of filming called Unknown White Male. The story of Rupert Murray's friend Doug Bruce who lived in New York.
The premise of this film was of Doug Bruce who woke up on a subway train in Coney Island in 2003, not knowing who or where he was. In the film so called medical experts diagnosed Doug Bruce has suffered from a syndrome called retrograde amnesia, a form of amnesia where the sufferer cannot recall events from before the onset of the amnesia.
Sceptical critics panned the film accusing Rupert Murray of being dishonest, the film a fake.
The Washington Post consulted Hans Markowitsch, a neural psychologist and professor at the Bielefeld University in Germany and a specialist on total retrograde amnesia. "To Markowitsch, the absence of any plausible trigger makes Bruce's story more than just suspicious. "Total retrograde amnesia doesn't happen out of nothing," he says. "I can't imagine that this story is true."
Interestingly, prior to Doug Bruce claiming to suffer from amnesia one his friends sustained a head injury and suffered from amnesia for a week.
To this day Rupert Murray believes that his friend Doug Bruce did suffer from amnesia and he found it shocking that people were highly sceptical of the flim's claims.
So it would appear that Rupert Murray has a long memory and holds a huge grudge against those who express scepticism in whatever form it takes. Rupert Murray is badly tainted by his own past.
PS It is amazing how many of those like Rupert Murray who involve themselves in this debate on climate change are clearly incapable of separating actual climate science from alarmist fiction. They all come with an agenda and not an open mind.
Thank goodness the BBC didn’t need to reschedule Baking Made Easy on prime time to squeeze in a film about what some believe is the most important issue in human history. More BS on the way.
For about the last year or so I thought the BBC coverage of climate change had improved slightly. There seemed to be less overt promotion of the cause and on Breakfast Time they seemed to avoid the automatic linking of weather events with climate change and be more neutral. This was following the climategate emails.
However, in the last couple of months the BBC seem to have slipped back to their old ways, except now they seem to be linking skeptics to fringe.
Having seen the trailer I guess I will have to force myself to watch the program so I can at least be honest when I complain to the BBC. My spouse will probably have to leave the room and I'll have to ensure there are only soft cushions to hand (it is a new telly after all). It seems staggering to me that the BBC can commission an environmental activist to make a program of this type and think that it will be balanced and neutral. Turkeys and Christmas come to mind. Or bears and woods, which given the guns might be more appropriate.
Shame they couldn't have commissioned Peter Sissons to make a proper program. He could have interviewed his friend Caroline Lucas and asked her why the temperature trend was flat for the last ten years, or why she is involved in running a propaganda machine and where the funding comes from. Or he could interview Al Gore and ask Al about the temperature of the Earth's core or his investments and "carbon footprint". He could interview Pachauri and ask him questions about his extra-curricular activities (including his writing career). Or he could interview Lindzen or Spencer with Julie Slingo or the head of the Royal Society. Now that would be fun, wouldn't it?
PPS Rupert Murray now believes that his friend Bruce Murray's amnesia was a result of a "psychic trauma", not to be confused with psychological trauma.
This use of the term, psychic trauma, is associated with New Age spiritualism and the notion of rebirth.
So it would appear that Rupert Murray is a tree-hugging environmentalist.
Why is the program so vicious?
Because it has all the bitterness of a loser.
The BBC has a serious problem in commissioning a film on sceptics by this film director, because no one is going to believe it is serious documentary.
1. Rupert Murray has been accused by many film critics of producing a fake documentary. Unknown White Male.
2. As a result Rupert Murray has an issue with expressions of scepticism. He is profoundly anti-sceptic.
3. Rupert Murray is also an eco-loon who expresses belief in New Age concepts on spiritualism, environmentalism and art. He believes is such things as being born produces a psychic shock and that the only way you can overcome such trauma is to go thru the birthing process again.
People like Rupert Murray do more damage to the cause of AGW and environmentalism than any sceptic could.
The first few words said it all for me. 'I put away my environmental beliefs...'
Just a thought from a crack addicted , homosexual, gun loving, old fart who's time has passed
Nice link over at the daily mail for the true cost of CO2 reduction..http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
This looks a better alternative to the eco-doc
Even Terry Wogan is a sceptic.
Quote, "In the opinion of the director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, anchovies and sardines will soon be migrating into the North Sea, and freely caught off the coast of Scotland within a decade, such is the increasing warming of the oceans. In the opinion of a similarly distinguished scientist, an oceanographer, we’re all doomed to get the same freezing temperatures as Canada, as the Gulf Stream which warms our shores gets pushed away by the melting polar ice-cap. If I were a migrating anchovy or sardine, I wouldn’t pack my suitcase just yet. Or at least, until we get two opinions that agree on climate change."
Oh well - a few scenes into that video, and we have gun-toting Americans ...Therefore, following the stereotypes used by the Beeb, the Grauniad and the rest of the watermelons - sceptics are thickos, one hand on the bible, the other on their gun.
Left propaganda at its worst.
(Will watch this on iplayer, because 22.00 is my book-reading time ...)
Don't worry. Our Government and its advisers have it all in hand. There is now no need to worry about getting scorched to death and roads melting.
More wasted billions. I think I'll continue to invest in cold weather gear and fill up the log store.
This morning's trailer for 'Costing the Earth' on R4 opined that last year was the warmest ever in the Arctic. Ignoring the hyperbole implied by 'ever' (~30 years!) I don't recall the temperatures or ice area being anything exceptional recently.More BBC 'science'..?
"I can't help thinking this will be an attempt by the BBC to portray Viscount Monckton as a pop-eyed eccentric with a coterie of unscientific and ignorant followers. "
That's exactly what he is (in my opinion he's half mad because of his Marxist world government comments). Are Goldman Sachs Marxists, are the carbon markets a Trotskyite conspiracy ?. As long as anyone pushes a right wing political agenda attached to AGW, they will become a laughing stock, just like Beck, Palin, tea party etc etc. That's why Exxon and Koch have funded the nuckle dragging extremist loonies of the CEI, Heritage Foundation, NCPA etc. It makes AGW scepticism look pathetic and ridiculous to normal people.
It's also why the Telegraph have pulled in Delingpole to write his comedy sketches. He is a friend of Cameron, he doesn't hate him, it's a joke. It also warns us that there are even nastier pieces of work out there than Cameron. It makes him look reasonable.
I was an anti socialist, compassionate, libertarian in my youth, by the way,. I don't really have political views any more, so there is no point in calling me names on that score.
What amazes me is that Monckton of all people should have been taken in by what is obviously an ambush.
Sorry, I've just seen 'nuckle dragging'. My spelling implant is being upgraded to include public school slang in order to understand Dellers better.
John in France
All publicity is good publicity. The higher the publicity, the higher the earnings.
Dellers take on Skeptics and Rupert Murray.
Quote, "Murray, it seems likely, had made up his mind what his angle was long, long before he inveigled his way into the sceptics’ circle and passed himself off as a decent fellow just trying to find out the truth. I’ll say one thing for him: he’s very plausible."
Why wait until some propagandist comes along asking for an interview? Why not just make your own documentaries? Put Monkton and Lindzen in front of any camera - maybe just an ipad camera-, and put it out on YouTube. There's no need for camera crews any more. The result may not be quite as polished as a professional production complete with drowning polar bears, but it'll be more truthful. And it'll get watched by people all over the world, and not just in the UK.
Bizarrely, the programme preview on the BBC website seems to have got the argument the wrong way round (my bold):-
Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don't fully understand?
Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don't fully understand?
Seems to me "they" are the IPCC, Hansen, Trenberth et al - but somehow I don't think that's what the beeb intended.
I cannot see this ending well for Monckton.
If the producers of storyville was serious about this then surely Spencer, Lindzen or even Piers Corbyn could have been better choices as there qualifications in Physics cannot be questioned. No disrespect to Monckton is meant there.
The details page at the BBC also gives me more trepidation. Why the link to a Guardian article called top 10 Deniers, I believe Peter Sissons said they used to give him the Guardian for background details on news stories. I will have to watch this - but I get a feeeling I will be sending off a complaint to the BBC afterwards.
Even better, ask Sissons to do one.
As Richard North at EuReferendum states:
"The tone and conclusion of every TV documentary is decided well in advance of its making, long before a camera team captures the first footage. No commissioning editor on this earth – and certainly not the BBC – is going to commit the £300,000 or so budget to an open-ended "journey of discovery". Before any contract is signed with the film-makers, the exact "line to take" has been spelled out and agreed. The job of the film-maker is to deliver it – no matter what it takes."
Now we know - although we have long suspected - that the BBC is unable to accept criticism of AGW and thanks to Sissons is shown for what it is, we have to go to BBC 4 for a sceptical view. This suggests that Monckton is a little too persuasive for the BBC and therefore wants to limit the audience but be able to declare that the BBC is even handed. Shades of the USSR.
They simply don't understand the sceptical position on climate change.
Q. Does the climate change?
Q. Has the world warmed?
Q. Has humanity affected the climate?
A. Yes, the evidence is in - humanity has affected climate on a local and regional basis. The physical lab-based experiments point to CO2 warming the planet on a global scale, but the evidence of a clear AGW signal has proved to be elusive. The global warming that has been experienced over the last 150 years, all 0.7C of it, is well within the known boundaries of natural climate variation. Further, all the empirical evidence points to low climate sensitivity. Climate models are not evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
Q. Will climate change lead to planetary catastrophe?
A. Yes, a return to the Ice Age will devastate humanity. However the projected warming based on a low climate sensitivity will not. Climate models are not evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
The reality is that Rupert Murray has a agenda - to discredit sceptics. It really doesn't matter who is targetted the result will be the same - an attack on the credibility of the person being interviewed.
This inside look at an eco-organization seems to have comedic possibilities - I wonder if the BBC would be interested in a sit-com on these lines.
If you're reading this thread outside of the UK, and are not familiar with the BBC's TV channels, let me explain that the program under discussion here is going out on BBC4 tonight.
BBC4 is very much a minority channel, with tiny audiences. The latest audience measurement figures for the week ending the 23rd of January show that apart from 2 programs about a much-loved comedienne which got 1.21 and 2 million viewers respectively, all their other programs got below 600,000 viewers.
The BBC has also said that programs about climate change are the kiss of death when it comes to viewing figures. I suspect the only people who will be watching this program then, are likely to be the contributors to this thread.
Unfortunately, I won't be one of them. I did my duty last week, and sat dutifully through the whole of the BBC's deplorable "Science under Attack".
Personally, I'm indifferent to what the BBC has got to say about climate change - they lost any credibility in this area long ago. And there's a lot more interesting stuff on the telly box tonight - Horizon's "The Secret World of Pain" on BBC2 looks promising.
Perhaps it'll help to explain why, when it comes to programs about climate change, the BBC persists in pinning, in effect, a large sign on it's nether regions which says: "Please Kick The Sh*t Out Of Me".
But go easy on 'em tomorrow morning, OK? Remember the splendour of "Downton Abbey". Hang on though - that was on ITV ...
For audience figures see here:http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyTopProgrammesOverview?_s=3
@mac et al. I think you have a good point here. When it comes to interviewing Monckton, I hope he does the disarming thing af admitting to the interviewer that, yes, he does believe in 'climate change'; the world may indeed be warming; and that he does believe in GHGs.
That should start a few gulps going in the interviewer especially when CM then goes on to tell the interviewer that everything he's telling him can be found and verified in published papers.
As I've said many times before, the believers really need to tell us what they think the climate ideally ought to be; what the concentration of CO2 ought to be; and how they intend to keep it that way.
I truly believe, that even if the climate was to achieve a sense of balance that the believers could agree on, they would still bang on about CAGW so that they can continue raping our wallets.
Monckton fails to get injunction on programme.
Right of reply denied.
Just as I thought.
I guess this was coming after Climategate. Revenge via the media - whitewash the inquiries, report as if there is nothing to see hear - let the waters settle and then start using the power of MSM to mis-represent the easiest targets within the sceptic community. Monckton should have seen this coming.
Paul Boyce600,000 viewers may not sound much to you, but His Grace would be glad to have them. Like the “only” 7% of young people who believe that climate change is the biggest problem facing mankind, this translates into a huge number of highly motivated future missionaries for a cause which has failed to become a mass movement, but has captured the entire political and media establishment. The difference between them and us is that all of them are driven by a mission to save the planet. A very small proportion of sceptics do as we do and become obsessive bloggers, anxious to convert others. Most people like to think of themselves as Healthy Sceptics. We’re Unhealthy Sceptics, which is probably why we’re losing the argument.I’m afraid you may have misread the title of the Horizon programme tonight. It’s probably “The Secret World of Palin”.
Recent events have shown exactly how far the BBC is prepared to stoop to protect its pension fund.However to suggest that, at no point, should either Monckton or Delingpole have talked to our National Broadcaster is a trifle unfair.Should James have said 'Oh no it's the new President of the Royal Society at the door' and slammed it in his face.?Should they have refused to co-operate with the camera crew who followed them from conference to conference ?To-day we would have said yes, but did ANY of realise how nasty things were going to get ?
Toad: “Did ANY of us realise how nasty things were going to get ?”
Good question. No. I’ve often done a Cassandra here arguing against those who say: “It’s over. We’ve won the argument”. But this (judging by the trailer) and the Nurse programme are worse than my worst fears. Of course Delingpole and Mockton shouldn’t avoid being interviewed. After the accusations of hiding the decline/data/code, it’s just what they want.
What makes you think the BBC4 program tonight is going to get anything like 600,000 viewers? And even if it did, I don't understand why you think this would matter.
Do you seriously think the BBC can reverse the decline in the public's interest - no matter what it does? Especially with a program on BBC4, the least watched of all its TV channels. It wasn't able to do so with it's "Climate Wars" programs a couple of years ago, which went out at peak viewing time on BBC1 as I remember. It hasn't been able to achieve it with the countless News at 10 "special reports". Newsnight's "Ethical Man" is no more. We've got their statement (which unfortunately I didn't keep the link to) that Climate Change is the "kiss of death" to viewing figures.
I was surprised that you think we sceptics are losing the argument. I don't see any evidence for this at all. On the contrary, interest amongst the public in Climate Change is heading relentlessly downwards, seemingly. And anyway, once again, I'm not sure that it matters if we're "winning" or "losing": what is significant is that the CAGW-ers are most definitely losing, with or without our help, for a variety of reasons. There's enough evidence to support this on all sides - surely you don't dispute that?
You've pointed out before that none of this is having an effect on the UK's main political parties, which is self-evidently true. But I would suggest that it's only a matter a time before our leaders are forced to confront the decline in interest in Climate Change, whether they want to, or not.
It's all very well for Ben Pile over at Climate Resistance to explain how environmentalism has been used to fill the vacuum at the heart of the political parties, but what happens when us plebs lose interest in climate change, and fear of it no longer motivates us? What good is it going to do the politicos then, when it can't be used either to motivate, or to justify their actions?
They'd better watch out then, the politicos, when that day arrives. Good luck explaining to the populace then, that the sacrifices they've been called on to make was for naught - for something in which nobody believes any longer.
Paul BoyceI don’t think “we’re losing the argument”. I just don’t think winning the argument will change things. Certainly, the public is losing interest, but not because of a rational assessment of the quality of the science. The public image of the climate wars is of two bunches of tossers arguing about something they’re not interested in. You ask: “what happens when us plebs lose interest in climate change?” What happened when we lost interest in nuclear deterrence or the Iraq war? Nothing. they just kept rolling along, at massive cost. Same with the windmills, the carbon scams and the de-industrialisation of Britain.I don’t see how we can “win” without changes so radical in the British establishment that they just won’t be allowed to happen. None of the current party leaders could survive a U-turn. The two centre left newspapers and probably the BBC would have to go, as well as our membership of the EU. No bad thing, many would say, but can you imagine the establishment letting it happen?
Just watched it.
Best description I can come up with is blatant "Ad hominem" attack. If you can't deal with the arguments, go for the man.
BBC, another triumph, refunded License fee by return of post if you please!
Just watched it. If this was intended to show the sceptical position in a bad light then it failed. Own goal is what I would say. Even the bits where he is condescending to Monckton don't really work. Love the bits about suspending democracy. Roll it on and show more of this. Good one BBC
Just finished watching and it's clear that this was primarily about Monckton, though he was obviously being portrayed as the archetypal sceptic. Although it did make a much better effort at understanding the science than last week's Horizon, there was little light shed on the reasons why AGW should be believed beyond the fact that "scientists say it's so and Monckton isn't a scientist".
The sensitivity argument was raised as they key issue very early on (nice to see this) but the main thrust of the narrative seemed to be based upon Trenberth's argument that we change the null hypothesis to put the onus of proof on the deniers... very subtle and something that enables the producers to skip any discussion of why AGW theory has failed to make any unambiguous predictions that can be verified/falsified by real-world observations. There was also a distinct lack of any discussion of the consequences of dramatic de-carbonisation and the "unintended consequences" we've already seen from things like bio-ethanol.
I note that one of the final statements was that "Queensland has just suffered the worst floods in its entire history". Is this really true: wasn't 1974 much worse and weren't the records set in the 1800's far more extreme?
In summary, I'd say it did a good job of showing how polarised and extreme the arguments have become from both sides of the "debate". However, I'm not sure that was the producer’s real intent.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.