Bishop Hill BBC review of science coming
Jul 19, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics The long-awaited BBC review of science coverage is going to be published tomorrow according to the Mail.
Apparently the upshot is that the BBC is going to challenge sceptics much harder, but there is no word in the article of Brian Cox's Orwellian solution - having any programme that challenges mainstream science flagged as a minority view. I wonder if this means that the BBBC has stepped back from the edge. I for one have no objections to being challenged, as this gives the audience a better opportunity to judge how sound one's arguments are.
If this is the approach that the BBC intends to take, it's going to be an interesting contrast with the ideas of Connie St Louis, who is arguing that scientific journalists should be challenging scientists much harder rather than just engaging in a lot of cutting-and-pasting. If the BBC is going to continue to accept the prognostications of mainstream scientists without question, while bashing anyone who challenges them, they are going to rather prove her point for her.
(H/T Alan Reed in Unthreaded)
Bishop Hill
I'm reminded of Jeremy Paxman's observation that the BBC had given up any semblance of neutrality on AGW. That was in 2007.
And the BBC has now decided that they need to be less friendly to sceptics!
Reader Comments (82)
Geoff,
The point of the story is that if the current vector prevails there will be no coverage at all of climate skeptics.
Then, I am confident, these same enlightened people will find other groups of people who are worthy of exclusion.
This rationalization process is compelling for those so inclined to agree with it.
And it is a pernicious failure on their part, and will not be static or benign.
Think of this meme as a cancerous meme that will destructively metastasize throughout the public square.
There is a saying that goes something like this:
"I was silent when they took away the communists. I was silent when they took away the Jews. I was silent when they took away the gays. When they came for me, no one was there to raise a voice."
Skeptics are the target for now. Who will be next?
Dr. Betts --
Thanks for the anecdote about David Shukman (10:22 am). I can't even imagine error bars on a news presentation! It's very refreshing to hear of it.
About your comment later that "the climate science community needs to make sure it is not lumped in with those who are certain of climate doom by 2030" -- I believe part of the difficulty is that there are few who overtly challenge the imminent-climate-doom theme, and there are several within the climate science community who promote said theme. Many more predict a somewhat more delayed doom, perhaps by 2100. As a result, there are many of the public who uncritically believe all climate scientists are doom-mongers. Even among the membership here.
I wish you the best in keeping AR5 "honest." Please forgive me if I do not have high hopes for the other chapters, though. And extremely low expectations for the SPM. The IPCC exhibits a high degree of auto-correlation. ;)
Perhaps in years to come, some BBC managers will be sat in front of hostile MP's, being grilled on news censorship, with live coverage on the BBC.
@hunter
Jul 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM
hunter,
I appreciate the wisdom of your comment.
The following quote has a very similar message as yours.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Picard [quoting Judge Aaron Satie] (Star Trek TNG episode 'The Drumhead')
John
ZBD, Do you have any evidence (as opposed to mere suposition) that the BBC pension is invested in the oil business. If so, list your evidence of their investments in that sector.
Lord Beaverbrook is correct to point out the apparent conflict of interest that the BBC has on impartially broadcasting news and holding political leaders and NGOs to account over claimate change policy given its pension investments.
According to the IIGCC web page, their mission statement appears to be:
"The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors.
There are currently over 70 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, representing around €6trillion.
Climate change creates financial risks for investors; however it also creates investment opportunities. It is our aim to ensure that these risks and opportunities are addressed and reflected in investment practices and decisions.
The IIGCC brings investors together to use their significant collective influence to engage in dialogues with policymakers, investors and companies to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy."
You will note from the final paragraph that the BBC is subscribing to using its collective influence (together with other members of the IIGCC) to accelerate a shift to a low carbon economy. Given that, it cannot properly hold to account politicians etc to scrutinise the trillions of pounds thatare being spent (many consider being wasted) on inefficient low carbon energy production which will lead to intermitent energy supply, fuel poverty and numerous deaths especially amongst the elderly (the UK already has about the worst old age mortality in developed Europe due to a combination of poor housing stock, low pensions and fuel poverty).
This latest announcement should be considered very worrying by anyone who believes that an integral part of democracy is holding policy makers to account.
The article says sceptics "should be given less coverage by the BBC than the climate change lobby"
This is actually infinitely more friendly coverage than scepticism gets now. The BBC admit/boast that though they have produced 10s of thousands of hours pushing the catastrophic warming fraud, they have produced zero on the other side..Less than 50% is still a long way above zero.
Since this story is a bit of pre-release spinning it may well be that the report will say they have report, if not with the legally required "due balance" at least with something rather more close to it.
Isn`t just fantastic that BBC commits to Orewellian principles so clearly!
The BBC is refuting the basic principles of democracy and for science as well. The hole beauty and spirit with democracy and science as well is that its NEVER any consensus about almost anything. What we are observing is the fear of the MSM and international political establishment. They had the power to order and construct this artificial koncencus. The worldleaders has sat thier reputatuion relevans and trust in this "all on read" bet. FNs and the UNs reputation and legitimity has become dependant on the bet.
Beware that koncensus is the same as dictatorship. Because if its allowed to be regarded as something impaortant and desireble then the snowball effect is given. Why shold BBC or any other MSM reprot or konfront majority parties views with the minorities ? If the recent majoritys opinion is the koncensus why or where shall we get our democratic right to hear different analyses and conclusions and be able to change that majority based on oppositional views.
So now we have werey clear evidence that the BBC and public service has become the enemies of the democratic ide and rules. Its you and I that have to make up our minds who we think is the most trustworthy part on an subject. Its no task allowed for the BBC to even consider to make on behalf of us.
We have a very clear new enemy of democracy presenting it self. And when the ideological corruption and the gliding position has gone this far when they legitimize censuship and bias its really time to act as citizens and kick them out of any influence or power over maby the most inportant tool for democracy and that is the power of stearing public opinion that the BBC holds. How can anyone trust BBC after this blatant obvious acceptance of Orwellian principles. The inernet is the voters only reliable source to different non manipulated or censured different opinions. I think more and more has come to the understanding that MSM and Public service is the servant of the establishment and not for its voters and can therefore not be trusted at all.
I am begining to suspect that ZDB works for the Beeb!
“I am beginning to suspect that ZDB works for the Beeb!”
I’m not sure he works at all, although his latest sphere of expertise seems to be financial advice, as he belittles those “people who don't understand the first thing about pension investment”.
Oh, to be omniscient.
Replying to Richard on the "diligence" of Shukman.
Please see this post for some examples of Shukman's diligent reporting on climate change:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-shukman-on-weather-and-climate.html
Chilli
Well I can only speak from personal experience.
Slabadang
Those squiggly lines that appear under words on here are the spellchecker at work. It doesn't pick up 'hole' instead of 'whole', but it's better than nothing...
Jul 19, 2011 at 2:22 PM | richard verney
BBC pension fund at 31 March 2011.
Investments in millions of pounds:
BP ....................... 44.58
Atlas Copco ............. 36.34
Petrobras ................ 28.37
Rolls Royce ............ 28.01
Sandvik ...............25.68
Royal Dutch Shell .... 22.33
Oao Gazprom .......... 21.36
Chevron Corp .......... 20.40
BAE Systems .......... 17.49
ABB Ltd ................. 15.74
Petrofac ................. 15.00
Exxon Mobil ............ 14.08
Scottish&Southern .. 13.15
Aveva Group ............ 12.92
Occidental ............... 11.46
Statoil .................... 11.24
IBM ......................... 10.77
Cisco Systems ........ 9.93
TOTAL ....................358.85
So, either in oil or in firms who make a living out of making useful products for the oil business.
The pension fund is a distraction that that diverts attention away from the main problem i.e. their bias in reporting climate.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win" -- Ghandi
Sounds like we are entering phase 3.
Peter Sissons quote
'My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda.
The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.
The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.
But the Trust continued its pretence that climate change dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’
In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
Was listening to the radio as I came home this afternoon - R4 Our Planet, and next week they are discussing climate change with Mike Hulme and asking people to send in their questions. given that I caught the tail end of some ghastly play about people achieving zero carbon, It doesn't feel to me that the BBC is unbiased, but, heh, I never seem to manage to hear entire programmed so I might be missing something. Try sending in a few questions and let's see whether they use any.
BBD,
Pure slip of the finger, I asure you. ZBD must have really hit the button this time, comments removed and none further. I never judge mine host but it was fun in dull moments.
Still my point on the Beeb, there are certain institutions that should be leading the way for society to follow as example.
Politicians, police, those who defend the realm, public authorities that we are compelled to provide funds for, as they are the backbone of society.It is said that when Rome fell it was lead from the top.
My sole ambition is to provide a better life for my dependants than I have, thats not an indictment of my parents, it's a natural progression for a better society, progress. Eventually we have to get off this planet and provide living conditions for mankind on different worlds to ensure the future of man. This will not be achieved with wind power or any restriction to technilogical progression.
That conclaves of mankind are in abject poverty at the moment can be viewed as restrictive or essential for innovation. There will always be differentials in status and standards throughout mankind it is endemic but the more you hold back the forefront the longer you keep the lowly in suffering.
The last hundred years should be a tribute to how technology has improved the standard of living throughout the world and not how we are now looking to find new ways of making money by inventing more and more fiat bubles to invest in.
BiddyB
Did you hear that play? I was laughing so much I almost had to pull over to let it finish.
Typical BBC interpretation of family life in the UK., oh how mistaken could they be.
Loved the inference that the kids were leading the way to a perfect future. Propoganda at its best total reversal from what the Beeb used to represent, the hard working father, the mother that was the mainstay of the family, not having to work, the kids that only spoke when spoken to.
I would love to see a Little Britain spoof of that it would go viral!
I did notice the BBC announcement that there was to be a review. I also noticed after that a sudden jump in the amount of science coverage: professors all over the place. While the increase was welcome, its raison d'etre was and is suspect. Will there be a decrease of professors after the report? Time will tell.
Lord B - I'm afraid I suffered a complete sense of humour failure listening to that play for the short time that I was listening in between leaving the council office (I'm a councillor) and arriving at Tesco in my gas guzzling car that I can't afford to change. it irritates me so much that this is probably something our wretched climate change officers will be recommending to schools despite my warnings to the Leader and the Cabinet (of the council) that we are on the downward path to rule by climate diktat. they think I'm some sort of nut job to be patted gently on the head in the hope that I'll go away without causing too much embarrassment. Amusing that you should say the kids in the play took the lead; my two just-adult children are the worst offenders when it comes to zero carbon targets, closely followed by my husband!
BiddyB
Take heart that we are all looking at the same intrusions in our lifestyles. I drive a 4*4 even though it costs me double the normal road tax. The reason Ineed it is because the majority of my customers are rural and I need to support them 12 months of the year to ensure their business continues rain, sun or snow.
The time is fast approaching that some of the country will grind to a halt because of 'climate change'. Those of us that are prepared will just carry on while the country goes through 'extreme unprecedented events' and wails and moans that their 'electric bikes' can't get them to work.
In reality the play would of ended with the mother, having the environmental scientist turn up on their doorstep, taking her fury out on the hero in the front garden to the chants of ' Oh wer'e going to Alicante' from the rest of the family.
You have to realise that it was pure fantasy nobody can achieve zero carbon emissions whilst still using electricity. Anybody in the modern world will always have a freezer. Just look at the changes in Japan now with Just In Time theory after the earthquake has devastated industry.
What would happen in this country if we only had two days supply of food at home and the electric grid shut down for a week. How would we pay for food in the shops? Everything is electrical now, if you want to withdraw money or pay for goods you need electricity. Realisation is eventually coming to the population, yes its good to save energy, but energy is essential for modern society. We cannot rely on accessing energy when it's available, it has to be there ready to use.
Hilariously, ZDB is absolutely correct according to the figures graciously supplied by Lord Beaverbrook.
Respect.
Though as Lord B points out it's their position on Climate Change that matters.
Obviously, we should wait for the report to be published.
On the Mail article though;
A large number of unattributed "corporation sources", a ready made quote factory, this is just poor journalism.
Some of the quotes are just ridiculous.
I was unaware that the Teletubbies (or others with similar childlike naivety) would be given an early viewing of the report.
Steve Jones suggestion to "appoint a senior science editor to provide expertise across channels", I find worrying. It suggests to me that in any remotely controversial arena, seeking advice from this individual will result in a single "BBC approved" point of view. The BBC are NOT there to decide things for us.
I think the BBC Trust report could have spent a little time asking the public what it actually wanted from the BBC. A grown approach to factual reporting? or just a re hash of IPCC/Greenpeace "concensus" dogma.
My impression, and I could be wrong, is that far form challenging the man-made global warming sceptics more forcefully the BBC is simply going to pay even less attention to their views than it does at present.
Even if you accept the "concensus" view it would be totally illogical to try and muzzle the sceptics if the measures proposed to counter the problem of climate change seemed likely to cause greater problems than the change in climate would.
Who would take much notice of a doctor whose proposed "cure" was worse than the disease? The BBC should realise that even small uncertainties about the science should receive publicity if the implications of accepting the concensus view have enormous implications for our society.
Roy
For what it's worth, I'd to point out that it was the BBC who first highlighted the disastrous nature of our "Barbecue Summer" forecast, which (as you all well know) has impacted public perception of climate projections. They'd have known this would happen - they knew we use the same model for both. So no failure to challenge the science there, quite the opposite in fact!
I can still see Shukman standing on that beach in the p***ing rain, clutching a soggy bit of Met Office branded paper with our briefing headlined "Odds on for a barbecue summer" and asking "where did it all go wrong?" Aaaargh!
If there were a "consensus" I would think it quite proper to give the large majority of coverage to it.
However the BBC know perfectly well that the claim is false. On one occasion, in response to a criticism I made of the "Scotland's Changing Climate" they said there was a "consensus". I asked them to name anybody not paid by government who was part of this "consensus". They gave some names of people "outside the frame of government" all opf whom were directly paid by government. I asked for them to name some people outside the frame of governement who were outside the frame being paid by government.
I was surprised when Richard Black said Beebouids are required to answer queries since I am still awaiting the BBC answering. However until they produce the name of 1 independent member of the "scientific consensus" (app 60% of scinetists being outside the frame of government payment) we must assume they know the consensus calim ios a total lie.
The BBC Trust Impartiality in Science report is available here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/science_impartiality.shtml
Steve Jones:
"Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent, view of research."
Fair enough - a kind of genuine peer review - no need to talk to GWPF or Greenpeace or WWF, try Spenser or Christy or Plimer or Curry or one of many more real climate scientists who might give an alternate interpretation.
I guess the requirement for a BBC science editor of to have someone who knows who the real alternative scientists are - Black and Harrabin are not qualified to determine this.
The BBC welcomes Prof. Jones’ report, but, to its credit, reins back from some of his criticisms of on “over-rigid application of the Editorial
Guidelines on impartiality”, pointing out the importance of taking into account the social and political context.
This is about as far as the BBC can decently go in disagreeing with Prof. Jones, and at first glance, there is much to disagree with.
The section on climate change (p66 “Man-made global warming: a microcosm of “false balance”?”) is one of the nastiest bits of anti-sceptic filth I’ve seen.
Jones speaks of “...an organised response by determined climate-change deniers” and “...a drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage of the topic in some newspapers, much of it arising from a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.
Other extracts:
“Before discussing the subject in detail it may be worth putting the mind-set, and the
tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into
context. They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate ...The tale is told of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and of dissent quashed by secret forces. People with strong opinions should be given equal weight with experts. Any evidence that contradicts their ideas must be publicised and the rest ignored, while any statement of doubt about conventional wisdom is trumpeted from the rooftops. Standards of proof should be set so high as to be impossible to attain. Personal attacks (Hitler was against smoking) are acceptable and absolutism is useful (one ninety year old smoker proves that tobacco is harmless)”.
“In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change (although that attracted rather little attention). Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise. At present, the pessimists are in the ascendant and today’s increase in floods and snow (as predicted for a warmer atmosphere which can take up more water) is on their side”.
What did he think he was doing, bringing Hitler and smoking into the discussion? Is he quite mad? He thanks a long list of people consulted in Appendix 3, including Sir Paul Nurse, James Randerson, Fiona Fox, and Geoffrey Boulton. Is that an excuse?
The key statements are between p.66 & p.77.
However, a few clear examples that the review has not understood the issue can be found on p.71:
"Bjorn Lomborg, previously a major sceptic" is demonstrably wrong, as Lomborg has always said he believes in CAGW but that his issue is with putting too much emphasis on mitigation while ignoring the benefits adaptation.
"The real discussion has moved on to what should be done to mitigate climate change" is another clear indication that there review is either unaware or unwilling to discuss 'adaptation' options.
"The major point was the acceptance of scientific accuracy" seems at odds with the report from the UK Sci Tech Committee, who conceded that the Muir Russell Report did not adequately test the science.
However, I'll refrain from commenting on the statement on p.69 concerning "a simplification of an image for the cover of a report means that climatologists are doctoring a graph to hide global cooling" as I'm sure the good Bishop is will no doubt have something to say about it.
@Brownedoff,
Thanks for the contribution.
I must say that so much has been made on this board of BBC's alleged investments in renewables industry as a possible motivation for the broadcaster's bias that I came to believe, until now, that it might all be true.
If the figures you provide are correct (no reference has been given), then the claims that the BBC bias can be attributed to the pension fund's investment priorities ought to be condemned once and for all as a silly conspiracy theory.
Long live skepticism!
Well, the proof of the pudding will be the BBC's content, both on the airwaves and the web.
I see no evidence whatsoever that the sorry procession of self evidently daft and toxic AGW claims is going to slow or cease. They have too much invested in it, CO2 induced AGW is now a keystone of their corporate world view as well as a prescribed house religion and many mantras are chanted to drown out the reality of the mysterious world out there that is regularly inconveniently interfering with their chakras and anti industrialisation POV.
Really
quiteextremely disappointed at the BBC's pension fund makeup, I'd hoped that it was all in subsidy farmers and windmill makers. But then again - if they fouled up - they'd just crank up telly tax to cover the shortfall eh?