Bishop Hill Integrity in the internet age
Feb 4, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics Media Barry Woods has interviewed James Delingpole about his experiences with the BBC and the results are up at WUWT. James' own take on the affair is at the Spectator.
The big news from the story is the degree to which Delingpole was misled about the programme by the Horizon producer, Emma Jay. This is the extract from the letter she sent to Delingpole:
“The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions. On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves. Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.”
Note the words "most particularly the scientists". It's funny, but I don't remember any scientists coming out of the programme so much as ruffled, let alone scathed. In fact, we were presented with the rather unedifying prospect of the President of the Royal Society apparently giving the seal of approval to the practice of hiding uncertainties from policymakers, the great man standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Phil Jones and discussing the wicked sceptics.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that Emma Jay grossly misled Delingpole as to the nature of the programme.
It does occur to me though that in the internet age, this kind of thing, while remaining possible, will be hard to sustain in the long run. Anyone who is ever approached by Ms Jay can immediately put her name into Google and discover that she cannot be taken at her word. In the internet age a TV producer or journalist stands or falls on their integrity.
Emma Jay's looks to be gone, as does that of Rupert Murray, the guy who dissembled his way into Monckton's confidence. I wonder what these question marks over their trustworthiness will do for their career prospects.
Reader Comments (88)
Don't know who Emma's mum & dad were - but her rather gilded career path seems to fit the beeboid mould:-
From the Haberdasher's Aske's School old girls website .....
EMMA JAY - (left 1992)
"I graduated from St. John's College, Cambridge in Economics in 1996, had a brief career as a corporate lawyer, but am now a Producer/Director at the BBC. I make factual documentaries, most specifically in Science and History at the moment, and love my job."
....and not above frightening the children for the cause....here. ("If the polar bear's hunting ground disappears then the species faces extinction.") Of course, 'Serious Arctic', the programme shilled in this press release, was one of Ms Jay's shows, where large numbers of people fly around the world, at great CO2 expense, in order to save the planet.
I decided to complain to the BBC and The Royal Society.
The more people who write in to complain the more they should take note for the future
The BBC, in particular, has an option which allows you to request a reply.
I await their response with interest
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
Scientistfortruth
Indeed.
Equo ne credite, Teucri!
As I said right at the beginning of the thread. And as Foxgoose relates above.
Don't trust; don't talk.
Foxgoose
Haberdasher's, Oxbridge, BBC. Oh I see. One of those.
She's certainly got form.
don't concentrate on an individual....
Horizon is the BBC's flagship science program (google it, thta is what the BBC say!!).
It is the BBC that needs holding to account (not any individual who is part of the overall culture)
ScientisForTruth
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, as the citizens of Ebbsfleet said, when they heard about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4580486/Giant-horse-as-high-as-Statue-of-Liberty-to-be-souths-answer-to-Angel-of-the-North.html
Didn't all the competent journalists leave the BBC for Al Jazeera?
Thankyou have found it:-) The revised footnote 54 address is http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/nature.040309b.htm
With respect Barry, I think it's important to personalise ethical issues like this - and I'm glad that you published her email to James Dellingpole.
It's easy for individuals to hide behind "corporate culture" , but it's only a variation on the old "only obeying orders" defence. It didn't work at Nuremberg - and it shouldn't work now.
Emma Jay is a highly educated and, no doubt, highly remunerated professional who has chosen to advance her career by using deception.
She's no different, in my view, to a dodgy doorstep salesman conning money out of old folk for useless products. (sorry Dellers).
BTW Ive watched the Horizon film and ,well, you'd expect my take to be different than yours. But I'm curious about your line "the President of the Royal Society apparently giving the seal of approval to the practice of hiding uncertainties from policymakers". Is that a general swipe or are you referring to anything specific in the film? If the latter then I completely miss your point or I wasn't paying attention whilst watching the film because I don't see it. But if it's a general swipe I think you'd do well to explain it in more detail.
Salutations
Hengist
Hengist
I've got a post coming up in the morning, which may clarify for you. Comment again if you still have questions.
Too subtle.....
Policy makers have 'complications' hidden from them, making the issue 'unprecedented' and 'urgent'
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/#comments
"Phil Jones: The Organisation wanted a relatively simple diagram for their particular audience. What we started off doing was the three series, with the instrumental temperatures on the end, clearly differentiated from the tree ring series. But they thought that was too complicated to explain to their audience.
So what we did was just to add them on, and bring them up to the present. And as I say, this was a World Meteorological Organisation statement. It had hardly any coverage in the media at the time, and had virtually no coverage for the next ten years, until the release of the e-mails. (transcript)"
My thoughts in the link:
The program was supposed to deal with the failure of the presentation of uncertainties regarding climate science, the criticism is that climate science has presented to politicians a narrative of ‘unprecedented’ temperature rise which ‘must be due to humans.
Yet the ‘complication’ that is not explained clearly to the public or politicians, is that temperature proxies declined when modern thermometers showed warming. Even the simplest of politicians could grasp that if the proxies decline when thermometers show warming it reduces their credibility of recording historic temperatures.
Yet somehow it is deemed to complicated, this is a prime example of scientist becoming advocates for policy and presenting the issues as certain when they are not. Remember this was the described purpose of the program.
fao Hengists - ie not so certain...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/#comments
there arose an excellent rebuttal to the programs description of ‘hide the decline’ from a respected scientist Paul Dennis who is also at the University of East Anglia
Paul Dennis said…
Before I add anything further to the debate I should say that I’m an Isotope Geochemist and Head of the Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Laboratories in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. I’ve also contributed to and published a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the general field of palaoclimate studies.
I don’t say this because I think my views should carry any more weight. They shouldn’t. But they show there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area.
What concerns me about the hide the decline debate is that the divergence between tree ring width and temperature in the latter half of the 20th century points to possibly both a strong non-linear response and threshold type behaviour.
There is nothing particularly different about conditions in the latter half of the 20th century and earlier periods. The temperatures, certainly in the 1960′s, are similar, nutrient inputs may have changed a little and water stress may have been different in some regions but not of a level that has not ben recorded in the past.
Given this and the observed divergence one can’t have any confidence that such a response has not occurred in the past and before the modern instrumental record starting in about 1880."
Paul Dennis was thought by many newspapers to be the potential ‘whistleblower’ of the climategate emails. He commented a few times at Simon Singh’s blog and his identity was confirmed at Bishop Hill
Hengist - your blog name links to this:
"Dissing the peer reviewed work of Mann et al is Montford's stock in trade so I'm curious to read why Montford's work hasn't been peer reviewed . I've recently cribbed this PDF from Sense about Science which says "Peer review is an essential dividing line for judging what is scientific and what is speculation and opinion. Most scientists make a careful distinction between their peer-reviewed findings and their more general opinions." Andrew Montford disagrees by omission ."
http://muchachoverde.blogspot.com/2011/01/thud.html
Perhaps once you've finished THSI you'll come back and comment on it with the above in mind.
Woodentop
At least he's finally opened the ruddy book and started reading it ;-)
Foxgoose
I have to agree, although it's not 'nice'. The problem with confronting an institution, and its institutional culture and bias is that it can't be done. It's a hydra.
Experience has taught me that if you want to make an effect, you focus your efforts tightly and where most visible. This sometimes means giving an individual a very hard time.
I've had a series of BBC journalists say that the idea that there is a top-down bias to the BBC is wrong. I conclude therefore that it's bottom-up and that individuals are making personal decisions to advance their own political and philosophical beliefs. Hence the focus on the individual.
BH
The journalists' position is interesting. If their personal beliefs as expressed through their work were in conflict with the views of the upper echelons they would not prosper. So, commonality of belief within the BBC is evident. Rather than a top-down imposition, there's a (ahem) consensus.
BBD
That's a possiblility, or even probable. It's also possible that the higher echelons don't actually give a stuff one way or the other. You have to remember that the BBC is a bureaucracy and actually managing things is probably not a priority. The higherups will be focused on expanding their empires.
BH
Of course. Which they will do through expediency - which is what we are probably witnessing now.
Ms jay's email includes "Much as most scientists would like their papers to be published unedited in the mainstream media that obviously does not work. "
Is there any scientist that would want his/her paper published in the mainstream media?
Maybe she means something by "paper" that I don't understand. If she intends "scientific paper" by this, then I would have assumed that she lacked the basic understanding of the issues to do the things she said she intended to do in the rest of her email. She sounds a ninny to me.
Or have I misunderstood a common figure of speech which is applicable under these circumstances?
I know hindsight is great, but would it not have been satisfying if Delingpole had answered Nurse’s question on cancer specialists thus:
Sir Paul, as a cancer specialist yourself, you will be aware of the many wonderful achievements in your branch of medicine over the past 50 years or so. Just what is it that you believe Climate Science has achieved that entitles their views to the same deference or respect we would accord, for instance, your views on the development of a carcinoma? What predictions have they made, what insights have they revealed, what discoveries have they made?
Of course, had Dellers been so quick witted (as he probably was during the rest of the interview), it probably would have ended up on the cuttingroom floor like the rest of the 3 hour interview
Foxgoose
re "...graduated from St. John's College, Cambridge in Economics in 1996, had a brief career as a corporate lawyer..."
How does one go from economics to corporate law?
I've had a series of BBC journalists say that the idea that there is a top-down bias to the BBC is wrong. I conclude therefore that it's bottom-up and that individuals are making personal decisions to advance their own political and philosophical beliefs. Hence the focus on the individual.
With respect, Bishop, it seems possible to me that the minions of the BBC feel as if they have a free hand - because the bosses chose them because they are already ideologically in line, and the bosses are masters of appearing to interfere minimally. What would Martin Durkin say? Or David Bellamy? or Peter Sissons?
I'd like the head of BBC to go. Their current attitude is particularly relevant to the following story, where BBC are not dependent on advertising revenue and could therefore, if they chose, concentrate on integrity.
I've found a story of outrageous media corruption in Paul Nurse's own discipline that exactly parallels our own woes, that Nurse should be aware of and doing something about. I'd be glad to hear readers' opinions on this - because although Climate Science is the most obviously corrupted discipline in current Science, I'm finding more and more areas of science where it smells equally foul.
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186
Daddy?
Foxgoose
How does one go from corporate law to the BBC? Mummy?
It sure would be interesting to read any pre production emails between Emma Jay and Nurse. ...Oh dear! The cynic coming out in me again!
Lucy, I've been following the Wakefield/MMR story for years now, and it is a very disturbing example of the total corruption of science by political and corporate interests. And I would say that the mainstream media are even more guilty of niavity/complicity than they are with regard to the AGW scam. As I noted on Climate-skeptic 2 years ago:
... Wakefield's original paper only called for more research into possible links between MMR and autism. For daring to question the medical and pharmaceutical industry (which has probably more than any other corrupted peer review science (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/dec/07/health.businessofresearch) Wakefield has been subjected to an appalling political witchhunt (see http://www.cryshame.co.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=94). The current attacks on Wakefield are led by freelance journalist Brian Deer, who has no medical or scientific training or qualifications. I don't want to go into more detail here but there are two sides to this story, and anyone interested should read http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3346281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.thtml and http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/sunday-times-made-up-wakefield-mmr-data-fixing-allegation/ for a more balanced picture. Even if Wakefield's hypothesis does prove false, it is only one of many which links childhood vaccines with the exponential rise in autism since the 1990s (see http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/EXPERT%20PAPER%20-%20Thimerosal%20VSD%20study001%20-%20Internet%20File.pdf for a summary of the CDC's secret Simpsonwood conference on thiomerisol (ethylmercury) in childhood vaccines, and http://www.jdeclanflynn.com/uploads/autismweb/index.html for a summary of a recent conference in Florida). Needless to say there are strong parallels with climate change in the way the mainstream media have bought the official line from the corporate-funded scientists, who only conduct easily manipulated paper-based or epidemiological studies (akin to models) rather than actually investigate the damaged children (akin to real world data). It is over 20 years since the onset of the autism epidemic, and yet they have still to commission a study into vaccinated verses unvaccinated children. Do they have something to hide? ...
Not sure if all the links above are still working. Here's a longer interview with Dr Mercola: http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Healthcare/silence_dr_andrew_wakefield_1004100838.html
The witch hunt against Dr Lisa Blakemore:
http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-professional-assassination-of-autism-expert-lisa-blakemore-brown/
The cabal behind the Wakefield witch hunt - http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/whats-behind-ben-goldacre-.html
Elsevier's supression of a peer-reviewed paper which showed neurological damage in primates from one birth dose of a mercury containing vaccine:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/joan-cranmers-fateful-decisions-and-the-suppression-of-autism-science.html
more about the recent primate paper: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/blockbuster-primate-study-shows-significant-harm-from-one-birth-dose-of-a-mercurycontaining-vaccine.html
Chaps
MMR is off topic on this thread. Thanks.
"Wakefield's original paper only called for more research into possible links between MMR and autism"
If that was the case why did Wakefield find it necessary or indeed appropriate to host a major press conference to announce his very preliminary findings to the world?
Arthur Dent
I'm with you on this entirely, but the Bish has spoken: it's OT. Best not push our luck here.
Apologies if someone has already pointed this out, but a careful reading of Emma Jay's letter should have rung warning bells.
She refers to CAGW skeptics as "science skeptics", and she refers to the corrupt and obscurantist pseudoscientists as "the scientists." She's so deeply immersed in this delusional dichotomy (science versus skepticism) that she can't even affect the lexicon of a rational, non-capnophobic person.
Hi, I am still looking forward to clarification of "the rather unedifying prospect of the President of the Royal Society apparently giving the seal of approval to the practice of hiding uncertainties from policymakers". Followed Bishop Hill yesterday for an update / clarification but seem to have missed it. Best regards Hengist
The BBC has clearly misjudged this argument but theres just as strong a case that says "don't listen to online/newspaper journalists". Certainly if you want to hear a truthful unbiased story.
Delingpole is clearly not blameless. Although he might like to feel like a victim. He himself clearly published information which later turned out to be untrue.
Furthermore it does seem rather unfair, and a bit of a childish witch-hunt, that he puts the blame for these mistakes squarely on the shoulders of Mrs Jay. She is after all probably just one of many people within the BBC who made this programme and ultimately decided how it should be.
Bishop Hill and the other bloggers on this site should grow up and be more mindful of this.
jcry - it appears that you habe not read the email that Emma Jay sent to Dellingpole - here's the key text so you don't have to revert to the 1st page:
“The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions. On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves. Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film. They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.”
The programme left Phil Jones completely unscathed - and his failings (inability to store data, so his science could not be reproduced, obstruction of FOI requests, requests to other team members to delete emails, Doug Keenan's allegations of fraud over the Chinese UHI paper) were not mentioned, let alone dealt with in detail.
Ms Jay misled Dellingpole as to the purpose of the programme, and should apologise. The programme was also factually incorrect and misleading over the ratio of anthropogenic CO2 emissions compared with natural, and a correction is in order.
I am not sure what your reasons are for defending Ms Jay, but coming here and insinuating that we are all behaving like children, when all we are doing is making point that the BBC as our national broadcaster (and Horizon as its flagship science programme) should be acting with honesty and impartiality, accuracy, doesn't do you or Emma Jay any favours. To be blunt it just makes you look stupid.
I look forward to the day when the BBC regains some editorial independence, and produces a good hour long programme which allows scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Carter et al to put the case for the slight warming of the late 20th century to have been the result of natural factors, rather than the still unproven anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis, as is perpetuated by the IPCC alarmists and their groupthinking followers.
Time for old school Googlebombing. Allah Mars bar!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Emma%20Jay%20BBC%20Professional%20Misconduct
At least one scietist came across as a crank, but it can hardly be his fault, as he is married to a first rate lobbyist and used to edit a journal for a major Korean theologian