Bishop Hill Sarah Mukherjee reveals all
An extraordinary lecture by Sarah Mukherjee, until recently a BBC environment correspondent.
Muckherjee's subject is the attitudes of senior UK politicians to the UK's suicidal Climate Change Act - she concludes that they don't actually take it seriously and that the Act's lack of any meaningful redress for its breach means that it is essentially a dead letter.
There are few climate-related videos that repay watching from beginning to end, but this is certainly worth the investment of time, and not just for Mukherjee's eccentric delivery (she comes across as a sort of a younger Ann Widdecombe).
Look out for the moment where she says she has "worked in environmentalism" for ten years. And the bit when she talks about the Climategate inquiry led by Lord Browne.
And what about the bit where she says that NGOs "paid for most of the science" of climate change? Did I hear that right?
Reader Comments (80)
"And what about the bit where she says that NGOs "paid for most of the science" of climate change? Did I hear that right?"
Yes, you did hear that right. The "scientists" behind the AGW fraud were bought and paid for.
And the bit where she says the BBC, being unbiased, has been obliged to put one scientist against one sceptic in interviews, in spite of there being 99 on the warmist side and only one "slightly dodgy" person on the sceptic side. How did she forget to mention the BBC declaration that the science was now settled so there was no need for balance any longer?
There was a bit of an air of a politburo meeting too wasn't there? You got no sense of any intellectual spark, which was a bit sad for one of our premier universities.
"the Guardian for example is read by only 300000 people and if it were a radio show it would be taken off air"
I will save that line for my next comment to George!
Without listening to the video, the summary provides enough reasons to be very depressed.
“Sarah argued that the short political cycle and the electoral process are not well suited to long-term decision making....We live in a political world where public opinion leads long-term decision making”.
[translation: we live in a democracy]
“Sarah cautioned that we should look at those Easter Island statues very carefully; that could be Big Ben”.
[translation: Mother of Parliaments = outmoded fetish object doomed to disappear]
And I’m one of those who resists calling them “eco-fascists”.
Thanks for this, This is a very good film.
She makes some points I think sceptics should credit her with - she takes her own particular lessons from them - but she has some good points, and gives some insider information about journalistic practises.
She has some interesting things to say about the identikit political parties and their symbiosis with media cutting real public opinion out of the loop.
When she said she talked to the politicians from all parties who voted for the 80% by 2050 carbon cut, she identifies exactly the problem with that bill and I agree with her it probably will be sidelined as not fit for purpose well before 2050.
I found good points about the coming energy gap, lights going out, she is right about coal being reopened because of mismanagement of future needs.
Good points about better science education.
Always good to see the old Copenhagen footage with all the rubbish that was said at the time.
She is wrong that journalistic love of neophilism made them go overboard about climategate ( they didn't ) and that was the key to swaying public opinion against CAGW.
Her last minute anecdotal claim that UK harvests have moved back two months over time because of climate change and admitting there is no documentation for this claim, makes me think she is talking crap there too.
She sounds worse in the Q&A at the end, at the beginning I wondered if she was talking to Benny Pieser in the audience when she nodded at someone and said she knew that some thought her Easter Island catastrophe introductory example was wrong, but then in the Q&A there were no hard questions, it was mostly a creepy love in, redefining what democracy means seems to get a lot of questioners excited.
And, yes, she does come across like a younger Anne Widdecombe, and yes she says the NGOs "paid for a lot of the science" :)
I listened to it...
Elitism.
There are many contradictions in what she states...
Politicians are one-dimensional. Yet those same politicians passed the Climate Change act in this country. So we meekly follow one-dimensional politicians?
Climate change is incredibly complex with long cycles. Yet we accept the NGO funded, politically backed science of the last 10-15 years? Without question?
She claims the media cannot handle this issue because the waters are unfairly muddied. Yet in the Q&A she agrees with the gentlemen leading the lecture when he states that it is very much shades of grey across the whole spectrum of debate.
The stench of elitism reeks the whole show to be honest. And she is a cog in the machine that she claims to be an outsider on. The people are stupid, and we have to push democracy to its limits to achieve what she has total faith in being the right path.
It was a very illuminating but very depressing video. She was the BBC on environment for many years.
@Leopard
Interesting claim about UK harvests having shifted in response to 'climate change' - the lady is indeed talking crap.
Any observable shifts have been brought about entirely by technological changes. UK harvests have been brought forward to some extent over the last several decades by widespread adoption of autumn-sown ('winter') varieties of wheat and barley - these typically mature about 3 weeks before spring-sown varieties. Massive efforts have also been put into breeding varieties which make optimal use of UK conditions - late maturation can increase risks of inclement weather and therefore reduced crop quality, but early maturation reduces the amount of photosynthetically active radiation that can be captured by the crop thereby reducing yields
Also increasing mechanisation has allowed the harvest process itself to be shortened - big combines can clear fields in hours that smaller machines might take several days over - this has a proportionately bigger impact in rainy harvest periods which could in the past have dragged on from August into late September.
In short, if you haven't got the first clue about what you're talking about, then shut up...
What an excellent talk! Even though some of what she said is questionable, she is certainly someone with whom you could have a rational debate. Her point about harvest’s end coming earlier in the year somewhat escaped me for if it is indeed happening, it’s hard to imagine how that is something to be concerned about. Regarding education, and the composition of the parliamentary front benches of the major UK political parties, she hit the nail on the head.
Her claim about NGOs and Blair is interesting.
Beforehand it was pork scratchings and beer in the pub for a meeting.
After Blair it was budgets and recognition.
Doesn't it occur to the lady that perhaps he who pays the piper calls the tune?
And any organisation going from pub to stardom knows how to play the game?
In her world, their are no vested interests, no people seeing an opportunity for advancement.
NGOs are paragons of virtue with only the saving the planet as their cause. Yet they are part of the same system that she shows contempt for in her comments on journalists and politicians.
Imagine if we did not have democracy? The ability to get rid of people every few years? We are of course just changing like for like, but at least it means that people have to understand power is granted and is not a right.
Our Easter Island Moment
Once again Jared Diamonds Easter Island myth is accepted as truth.
http://sacredsites.com/americas/chile/easter_island.html
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/easter/
I tried to watch this, but my screen started to mist up with excessive condescension.
It's the same old elitist-style morally righteous complaint -- that anyone who disagrees with the Alarmist narrative is either plain stupid or acting through moral turpitude, and all that is required is to create a better message for the masses.
And trying to paint the BBC as biased towards the skeptic side of the argument, really .......
NGO's paying for much of the research? Yes that's right - Maurice Strong set those organisations up decades ago to channel funds through them to implement his agenda that is being played as the Climate Change catastrophe.
There could well be another book on Maurice Strong's machiavellian activities all these decades for the cause.
She will get get away with it so long as it is an AGW friendly audience for even back at the BBC she never encountered real sceptics with hard evidence to the contrary.
The well made point regarding harvest timings in one of the posts above is a simple and well put together rebuttle which would knock her right off her f....ing perch,
No offence intended but that is the best I can put it.
referring to my previous post, my slant here http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/ngos-funding-climate-science/
She seemed very disheartened by it all but, even though she had the answer all along, still failed to see the problem. There was a lot of talk about all the behind the scenes work of NGO's and the political/MSM bubble yet no recognition on her part that creating policy within this tiny vacuum could be the reason for failure. Is it really a surprise to anybody that policy made behind the scenes by NGO's and nodding dogs turns out to be unrealistic and ultimately doomed?
There was talk of the failure of democracy. Perhaps the failure in democracy is that Friends of the Earth (for example) are having far too much input for the tiny fraction of the population they actually represent. Toward the end there was some guy up at the back talking about Friends of the Earth "winning" the Climate Change Act having "won public opinion" rather than winning over fickle "elites". Again, they just can't see out of the bubble. Indeed, in his case, can't even recognise that they are in the bubble.
Had to laugh at the "growing season" and being unable to find the supporting data. No recognition that the reason for the difficulty might be that it's another NGO talking point that "everyone knows to be true".
And out of interest, just how exactly does one "bring in" the green economy?
Interesting to get a different viewpoint but too long at the BBC methinks.
Imagine the amount of self-control she must have evinced while working for the BBC.
The problem is - there is no honesty. If you feel so strongly about something, why don't you join politics or activist organization and be open about it, instead of infiltrating a media organization like the BBC. Many of her observations are correct but what is the use? The conclusions are all wrong and crooked.
She was plainly, a bit of a kook, lost in her own little climate cuckooland. I wonder how many such innocent brains were completely scrambled by the run up to 'Copenhagen'.
Why do these people let themselves go like this? All the 'world's leaders' get together in a single place, and a single day in Copenhagen and tada, their wishes come true - how more utterly deluded can one get! (merely for argument's sake, I am not being cynical here, but shouldn't it be clear that these policy battles are long won even before the first blow is struck, let alone anything meaningful emerge wholly on the basis of the day's negotiations).
All that being a-twitter and agog about Milliband.... even if all of reality were to transmutate and actually fold over into Milliband's 'low-carbon' vision, one ought to simply wait it over for things to lapse back, merely because one ought to *know* that this Milliband person is unimportant, - in the long run. Milliband, Obama, Brown, .... you can pack this stuff a mile high,...it would make not one whit of a difference to the history of human beings,...you should *know* that. Otherwise, what kind of a journalist are you?
(In other words, - a non-cynical, non-realist journalist Ugh!)
i'm not watching u know wat. (and wont be going down the pub until they take the silly bunting down)
According to Wikipedia "She was educated at Loughton County High School in Essex, before attending St Hilda's College, Oxford, where she read Law. ". Are there any real scientists amongst the BBC correspondents? Alas they seem to be just mediocre social scientists who have absolutely no understanding of science. It would explain to some degree the BBC's very biased position on AGW.
I wonder why she left the Beeb, by all accounts they seem to pay very well.
"the Guardian for example is read by only 300000 people and if it were a radio show it would be taken off air"
The Guardian, of course, receives a steady income from BBC job adverts - something that Lord Patten ought to take a look at.
I didn't watch the video - my broadband is too slow today.
However what enquiry was led by Lord Browne ?
All I am aware of is Lord Oxburgh's whitewash and the massively conflicted Muir Russell effort, and various things in the US.
I thought Lord Browne was busy figuring university fees.
"UK harvests having shifted [two months] in response to climate change"
There was an interesting comment on Springwatch last week, regarding Gilbert White's Natural History of Selbourne, in which he reported the first flowering of Celandines on February 28th, two and a half centuries ago. This year, in the same area, they came out on the 26th...
OT, but WRT the wedding, I hope the Met Office will be fielding a few difficult questions. Until yesterday, rain was forecast for today, but I notice that today it has been moved back until Sunday night. Not very good, is it?
Wells, its been war here....But the whirl is changing...
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
Early retirement (tax payer funded) and a speaking career, good to see that the UK has its priorities sorted out. Has the ability to vote being removed entirely from the UK?
NGOs "paid for most of the science" of climate change?...
I hope somebody verifies if this is true or not.
England is the mother of parliaments, not that gasworks on the bank of the Thames.
So far as I am concerned, having watched only the first quarter hour of this, this is yet more proof (not that it is needed) of the ultra greenie bubble that the BBC, the Political elite and Academia live in.
What a load of absolutely tendentious nonsense.
This is one Augean Stable that desperately needs shovelling out.
Yet another 'environment correspondent' who’s more than willing to relay the CAGW message but seems unwilling to investigate the science behind it.
She has a degree from Oxford University yet seems to believe that correlation equals causation and shows no hint of concern about attribution because, as everybody knows, "the science is settled"… and she’s worried about the quality of education that ordinary people like you and I get?
Apart from direct spending by NGOs on climate research they have to be held responsible for the extra governmental spending which wouldn't have happened without their hectoring of politicians, both directly and indirectly through their manipulation of the media.
Ultimately this is unquantifiable and the picture is muddied by the hellish cycle of governments generously financing NGOs who then spend much of their time berating those same governments for not spending enough on the climate!
Well, she's as ungrateful as a teenager who's just been given an expensive treat.
We're pouring Billions (literally) into a bunch of nonsensical and ineffectual 'solutions' to a non problem, people are impoverished and loose their jobs as a direct result, we have the most lunatic legislation in the world on the statute books, every political party except UKIP and the BNP are 100% true believers, they have every Professional and Scientific Society in their grasp, Big Business, the Media, the Charities, Prince Chuckles, the whole thing.
Not good enough.
Must try harder.
Well, she's as ungrateful as a teenager who's just been given an expensive treat.
We're pouring Billions (literally) into a bunch of nonsensical and ineffectual 'solutions' to a non problem, people are impoverished and loose their jobs as a direct result, we have the most lunatic legislation in the world on the statute books, every political party except UKIP and the BNP are 100% true believers, they have every Professional and Scientific Society in their grasp, Big Business, the Media, the Charities, Prince Chuckles, the whole thing.
Not good enough.
Must try harder.
Note that students of St Hilda's were known as Hildabeasts in my day.
PS Can someone answer my question above about Lord Browne ?
"I've been working in environmentalism for a while"
Mmmm, she was an environment reporter at the BBC for the last 10 years, supposedly just casting her forensic, unbiased eye, over the environmentalist world and telling us what went on.
I don't often hear war correspondents say they have been "working in war for a while" in the same way.
Maybe we should look out for John Simpson or Jeremy Bowen doing a similar thing and taking early retirement and joining Blackwater or Al Quaeda? ;)
at what minute does she refer to Lord Browne?
There is a strong BP connection to Muir Russell. David Eyton of BP was on the panel, David Walker, retired from BP, was brought in to salvage the report in April when the Muir Russell panel was foundering, BP's Tony Hayward funded the University of Edinburgh (Boulton and others) and recently got an honorary doctorate. Browne proteges no doubt, but not Browne himself.
At about 03:52:
"And I'll suggest that the Climate Change Act is already half dead in the water. In fact, I'm willing to take bets with anybody in this audience as to when it's going to be finally put to a very early grave by a future administration. So, all fun, then!"
Yes, that is indeed a happy thought!
11:55
"an independent report led I believe by Lord Browne said that there had been no wrong doing"
Frankly I think she was just projecting her stupidity too far then. She must have expected an enobled person *like* Lord Browne would have done the whitewash, but got the details muddled ;)
"It is quite a thing to realise we are slaves"
Apologies to Rutger Hauer
I'm about halfway through the video. She's saying (as far as I can make out) that the politicians and media people are out of touch with the rest of us (fair enough) but that this is the reason why they are failing to tackle climate change? Que?
All very interesting. But above all, the bit about the Climate Change Act being all-but defunct.
Now that is good news.
Once the CCA is gone, the insane energy policy (ie renewables expansion) it commits the UK to can be reversed.
Sod the royal wedding - this is worth getting the bunting out for.
What a silly, shallow woman.
She obviously hasn't got a scientific or journalistic bone in her body.
She sounds like a million other dim, amateur activists - parroting the given line.
With the £3Bn odd the BBC extort from us - how on earth do they end up with such talentless people.
Depressing
To take up a cushy quango job as "Director of Environment" at "Water UK".
http://www.water.org.uk/home/about/water-uk-team
i.e. paid for out of your extortionate water bills - to spin for the suppliers.
Not bad for a failed lawyer turned PR hack:-
Sarah Mukherjee (born 1967, London) is a former BBC Environment Correspondent. She was educated at Loughton County High School in Essex, before attending St Hilda's College, Oxford, where she read Law. After working at the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in PR and consultancy, Mukherjee completed her diploma in Journalism at the Polytechnic of Central London.
Foxgoose:
It's a small world. Sarah Mukherjee's new boss at Water UK is Pamela Taylor, who was the BBC’s Director of Corporate Affairs world-wide and a member of its main board.
Water UK's report "Meeting Future Challenges" states:
Another gem, at about 60:45
"I mustn't completely diss the Climate Change Act, because it was a phenomenal piece of legislation and it was astonishing how it got passed. I don't diss the Act itself, just am not convinced that politicians in the future are going to stick by it. But the way it was done was by Friends of the Earth and lots of other NGOs setting up town hall meetings up and down the country, where they forced various candidates to go, and made them sit down and talk about climate change. And one by one, every single one of them signed up to agree to pass the climate change legislation. So that did - that was a phenomenally successful campaign."
I'm not sure whether to be dismayed at this blatant perversion of democracy or (given Ms Mukherjee's generally somewhat imprecise grasp of the facts) to just take all of that with a pinch of salt.
Alex Cull
I'll take it with a pinch of strychnine.
This sort of sickening "revolving door", gravy-train quangocracy always makes me strangely wistful about Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution - when the Red Guards drove the bureaucrats out of their offices and into the paddy fields with whips and cudgels.
Ah well - we can dream.
Alex Cull at 9.49pm
You’re right about the blatant perversion of democracy.
Friends of the Earth’s site is temporarily down, but details are normally available here
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/email_mp_index.html
I remember a number of Green websites boasting how their policy of invading MPs’ surgeries with Climate Change propaganda received official backing from the European Environment Commissioner’s office.
Geoff, I found versions of the FoE page from previous years, on the Wayback Machine site: huge link, so I've run this one through tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/6dyo8rr
It's interesting that FoE framed it as a popular movement ("over 200,000 of you have been in contact with your MP") but Sarah Mukherjee is describing it as more of a sort of hustle on a grand scale - "town hall" meetings with activist groups applying high-pressure sales tactics to MPs.