Bishop Hill On the media
Jul 21, 2011 BBC Media Politicians The big story in the UK (or at least in Westminster) is the phone hacking scandal and new lines of inquiry are still being opened up. Today the noise on Twitter is that while he was editor of News of the World Andy Coulson paid the Conservative bigwig William Hague 200,000 a year for a weekly column. Coulson later joined the Conservative administration as Prime Minister's spokesman.
It's all slightly nebulous but it certainly doesn't feel right does it? £4000 for a (short) article is preposterous money.
So what has this got to do with our normal fare here at BH? Well, in the wake of the BBC's report on science coverage, I was struck by the revelation that the wife of the report's author makes television programmes for a living. Repeating myself, it's all slightly nebulous, but it doesn't feel right, does it?
Reader Comments (54)
..and very good television programmes, if your wikipaedia link is to be believed.
I think you’re quite wrong on this Your Grace, and take pleasure in saying how much I disagree with you, given that part of the infamous attack on you and TonyN by Professor Jones was the snide suggestion that we deniers are some kind of organised rentamob acting in unison.
Jones is a nasty piece of work. However, there is no justification here to drag his wife into it.
I'm afraid I agree with the other two comments. Although I can understand your frustration, this is not an appropriate response, and I would suggest you consider deleting this post.
Given that this collection of like minds are wielding power over 79% of the media in the UK and are more then happy to attack and smear anyone they see as a threat , I have no problem with Bishops interest in this ?
£4000 for a (short) article is preposterous money.
Yeah but it was 2003 - 2005
Sorry, agree with the others. What Steve Jones wife does is not relevant. If she was a Greenpeace activist or Oil tycoon or UEA scientist, there may be something there, but she is isn't.
Haven't seen, as far as I am aware, any of her films, but on the face it they would seem to be intellectually heavyweight and Not in any way related to the politics of climate change.
I just heard the piece on BBC's 'Today' about Steve Jones and the astonishing proposition that, in the case of the Global Warming debate - the 'science was settled' and therefore sceptical views should not be allowed airtime on the BBC. This was truly Orwellian in its menace; apparently the BBC is utterly blind to the ironies in this case, t the only two views allowed to be represented were from 'full-on' AGW activists.
Lord May sounded, as always, like a Warmist Hysteric and propagandist, while Connie St Louis clearly waffled on but effectively stated that 'I agree with him' (Lord May).
May actually said how appalling it was that every time global warming was mentioned on the BBC, either Lord Lawson or Bernie from the Global Warming Foundation would be invited on to present the sceptical case. Evidently this was NOT the case here - since any sceptical views were totally absent (censored).
Sarah Montague seemed blissfully unaware that by the very act of NOT inviting the other side of the debate to contribute, the BBC was behaving like the East German State circa 1955.
"Zer is only VON party line and ve vill not tolerate any dissent!"
How far the BBC has fallen from the days of Reith.
All smacks of "jobs for the boys".
The Russians have a saying "the fish rots from the head"....
I think Ms. Percy is definitely in play. She isn't just a film maker, she is director of an independent film production company. That means that she is definitely exposed to pressure from the biggest broadcasting organisation in the world.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and Jones were a sceptic with an oil-company-connected wife, the foot would be kicking the hell out of him.
Did Jones declare his interest?
The real sad thing is after years of poking and pushing at the BBC to get a fair hearing this document has just in one step set the debate in the BBC's eyes back to day one !
Off we go again hohum!
There is a Wiki link to Jones - it states that he is a geneticist and did a lot of work on snails, AOT. And he also hates private schools. Sounds like yer typical BBC clone. And a typical BBC action - oh, yes, let's call in one of our chums to review what we're doing.
Spot on.
The main problem we're fighting here isn't any kind of organised conspiracy - but it is certainly "media groupthink" where a class of influential people, associated with our very dominant public broadcaster, have decided that we should all fall into line with what "all right minded people think".
The fact that Steve Jones' wife is a well known maker of left-leaning political documentaries for the BBC is perfectly relevant to this.
Seems to me what we have here is - the impartial BBC trust making sure the BBC's scientific output is completely impartial by hiring an impartial media science guru to confirm that, not only is the BBC's science completely impartial - it may even be too impartial - and therefore they should consider toning all that impartiality down a bit.......
.......by only presenting one side of the argument.
"Impartiality - it's in our genes" (BBC's Helen Boaden)
I don't think that the Bishop is blaming Ms. Percy for anything. However, I think it is fair to criticize the BBC for commissioning an "independent" report on its own science coverage from Jones, someone who has all the appearance of having substantial conflicts of interests, whatever the reality and however much he might have tried (hmmm) to be objective:
Jones has presented programmes for the BBC, often been interviewed by the BBC and as a science media pundit no doubt hopes for future employment from the BBC.
The fact that his wife has made films for the BBC, and no doubt hopes to continue doing so, is no reflection on her but adds to the impression that the BBC were not at all concerned that their "independent" report should actually be independent and be seen to be independent.
Of course they had no fear that that most mainstream "journalists" would actually bring up these conflicts of interest, or even pause to examine the possibility.
I appreciate commenter's thoughts about bringing Prof Jones wife into it. Yesterday in parliament I heard an MP declare his wife's work with the PR firm advising Murdoch. It seems to me that these kinds of interest should be declared.
I have to admit that my gobsmacked state over the current attack by the BBC on anything that does not fit within the BBC's own central belief system is making it difficult for me to write or even think coherently about the implications and ramifications of the incredible and utterly Marxist view that professor Jones espouses. It is really sad that the bitterly Left-canted Jones has been empowered by the changes wrought by the great scientists of the Enlightenment and by the intellectual legacy of great English thinkers such as John Stewart Mill.
I am unsurprised that Dr Jones's life-work has been studying Drosophilla and snails. I suspect that working with humans, who may have views other than his, might be too much for the poor chap. And yes, that is nasty; I feel very bloody nasty indeed that some social and political defective who has espoused a failed political philosophy was chosen by the BBC to write anything as important as this, on the justification that he is 'a scientist'. And yes, I agree with the Bish that the life's work of a marriage partner is significant and should have been declared at the outset. particularly when the work of the marriage partner reinforces and 'sells' the Marxist view.
The BBC is owned and financed by the taxpayer; the BBC Trust should have asked the taxpayer the important questions, not hired someone 'reliable' from inside the BBC's own cosy cultural wigwam.
Why would an award winning documentary film maker and producer such as Norma Percy be at all happy with part of the scientific establishment deciding to close down debate on Climate Change by nobbling the broadcast media??????????
That goes against every thing she has done and stands for.
Surely Norma Percy should be knocking lumps out of Steve Jones for being such an ar$e.
If she hasn't then she should hand back her Grierson award for the embarrassment caused by her husband.
More to the point, we should FOI the BBC Trust for any discussions about potential conflict of interest. There's a lovely Morton's Fork.
If they discussed it, why didn't the choose someone truly independent.
If they didn't discuss it, surely they wasted "licence payers money".
It would be nice if a "proper journalist" could ask for a statement about the conflict of interest too. Considering all the mythical "oil company money" stories in the past, let's fly this particular kite on a very long line.
From a brief google I think Ms Percy has the credentials to bring something to the table:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2906627840/tt0192774
http://www.amazon.com/Watergate-box-set/dp/6304882106
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192774/fullcredits#cast
George Orwell Special Prize for Lifetime Achievement 2010:
http://theorwellprize.co.uk/winners/norma-percy/
I suggest you send her a complimentary copy of The HSI.
I'm an enormous fan of Norma Percy's work and, with respect Bish, I don't think there's any sinister connection here. Norma specialises in absolutely superb documentaries, like The Death of Yugoslavia, where she explores pivotal events in lavish detail with interviews with all the key players. Her access to high level politicians, terrorists, generals, diplomats, spooks, etc is astonishing. But she saves it for her TV programmes, not for her husband's crappy reports.
So, why is she married to this weasel Welsh?
James Delingpole
Exactly, which makes it very strange that her husband would not be aware how important documentaries are in examing arguements on very important matters either in a historical context or in the current context, and, just as importantly how documentaries can mislead, e.g. Sir Paul Nurse.
Steve Jones has persuaded the BBC that when it comes to broadcasting Climate Change that only the consensus matters, not the scientific arguements nor the data produced by the scientific method that challenges that consensus. The BBC will now establish their own top-down editorial consensus that directly challenges their own programme makers abilities to address scientific controversies.
Surely Norma Percy, who has complained bitterly in the past of political interference in her own programme making, would be splitting blood at her own husband's behaviour. If she has not then her previous words on the importance of the independence of producers, editors and journalists are just lies.
Would you trust a politician?
Most people would answer no.
Would you trust a journalist?
Most people now would answer exactly the same.
The BBC are going down the wrong road on this. John Grierson, one of my heroes, would be disgusted.
Read Ben Goldacre ... a genuine sceptic about many things but as soon as you come to climate change, up go the shutters!
Read any of a dozen other columnists. You may agree or disagree with what they are saying but they argue a reasoned case for their stance ... until you come to climate change when they trot out all the usual stories about sea-level rises of metres (the giveaway is when they blame the Arctic sea ice!), polar bears under threat, record heatwaves ... and on and on. Normal journalistic cynicism goes out of the window for some reason.
James Delingpole at 11:00 AM on Jul 21, 2011
...
"Norma specialises in absolutely superb documentaries, like The Death of Yugoslavia, where she explores pivotal events in lavish detail with interviews with all the key players. Her access to high level politicians, terrorists, generals, diplomats, spooks, etc is astonishing."
Would Norma explore the "pivotal events in lavish detail with interviews with all the key players" in a follow up to "The Hockey Stick Illusion"; a technical advisor, who understood the science, would be a useful addition to her team. This advisor might then get even more insight: enough for another book, perhaps.
To be surprised at the outcome of this report is to misunderstand its purpose. Its conclusions were already arrived at before it departed on the journey to find them. The real value of the trip - for the BBC and its accomplices - is that it can be pointed to as a stock response to future complaints about the corporation's bias (which, no doubt, are anticipated to increase as the bias does).
In this respect, its function is identical to the independent 'reviews' quickly organised in response to Climategate.
Hague must be a failure with his paltry £4000.
'TONY BLAIR has emerged as the world’s highest-paid public speaker, earning almost £400,000 for two half-hour speeches in his latest appearance on the international lecture circuit. He received the fee during a 36-hour visit to the Philippines, where he lodged with the British ambassador. Blair’s oratory - which cost more than £6,000 a minute - included such insights as “politics really matters, but a lot of what goes on is not great” and “religion [can be] a source of inspiration, or an excuse for evil”.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6037174.ece
I gather Lord Levenson's remit has been widened to include the BBC. I didn't hear it, but understand the Prime Minister described the BBC as "left-leaning" and there appeared to be no great dissent over that description. Since the Climate Change debate is obviously a proxy for a political debate about environmentalism, and has little to do with science, the present report could well be an own goal. If, that is, the public get a chance to make submissions.
"The inquiry must balance the desire for a robustly-free press with the rights of the individual, while at the same time, ensuring the critical relationships between the press, Parliament, the government and the police are maintained," Lord Levenson said. ""The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects us all. At the heart of this inquiry therefore may be one simple question: who guards the guardians? "
In the US, one of the signs of media corruption is the revolving door between democrat party apparatchiks and big media. I can only imagine at the extra room for game playing when there is also a government funded media dominating the mix.
The relatively small US govt. controlled media, NPR, is nothing ore than a sock puppet for the democrat party.
Your Grace
I agree with those who feel that it is inappropriate to drag Ms. Percy into the discussion. If you want to speculate on the influences on Steve Jones you would do better to ask who briefed him on Climate Science and on the motivation of sceptics. I doubt he had well formed views on either subject before he started his investigations.
From the west side of the pond.
From time to time, I ask why the views of many of the commenters here are not expressed with vigor , and hopefully effect, in your government debating houses. i understand the answer to be that there are few there who share them.
The Murdoch flap has generated a lot of discussion here in the states and apparently over there as well about the very close, cuddly relationship between the press and the government. It has been suggested to be far more pernicious than what we have in the US. I don't know about this, but I am sure that our politicians are at least wary of the press.
Does the media/government coziness have a dampening effect on the discussions which should be taking place?
@Robert Christopher. You're dead right. Climategate and its aftermath would make the most BRILLIANT Norma Percy documentary. See if you can guess why it would never in a million years get made.
£4k's not too extreme for a column.
OK, it's bloody good, but it's not way out for a name. A Mail column is £1,700, comment piece in Times £600 or so. Tabs, higher circs, higher pay again.
I'm just a little Ausie guy, but may I suggest that all you British citizens who are apalled should write to your MP's and seperately to the PM, demanding that the BBC be at last brought into line, adhere to its charter and act impartially on this important topic.
As someone else wrote, the BBC may have shot itself in its (left leaning) foot.
Time to act!
This has now gone far too far.
Perhaps even time for a root and branch overhaul of the whole BBC structure.
Dreadnought - when I looked at his biography at UCL, it does mention that he is looking at snails and how their genes may have changed over the last 50 years in Europe and the effects of climate change, it does rather make you think that he has already been briefed on climate change, if only to ensure he obtains funding for his research, by the "right" people. I'm sure there must be a manual somewhere, possibly an IPCC manual, where you can cut and paste the requisite climate change paragraphs which will ensure your grant application is awarded. I wonder how much success he is having with snails, their genes and European climate change? Probably long, slow work requiring open ended funding hunting down packs of snails. Sorry, shouldn't be snarky, I'm sure it is hugely important work - perhaps he should concentrate on it a bit more rather than working for the BBC on something he is not qualified to talk about.
Not for the first time on here, I'm bemused.
I can't see where the Bish was in any sense "dragging" Ms. Percy into anything. No doubt she is the greatest documentary maker since Humphrey Jennings. She may be even more fragrant than Baroness Archer.
With respect, that isn't the point.
If Jones had been some hapless District Councillor and the debate had turned to the BBC, he would have had to have declared an interest and left the Council Chamber. Either on his own account or on account of his wife's activities and dealings. Let alone on account of both.
Period.
If he had failed to do so, the Council Chief Executive (as Monitoring Officer) would quite correctly have to carry out an investigation under Section 59 of the Local Government Act 2000 and publish the result.
At the very least "Councillor" Jones would have to make an abject apology and agree to some "training".
Under Clause 18 of the The Rt. Hon eric Pickles' Localism Bill 2011, "Councillor" Jones could be given a hefty fine and barred from office.
So, let's start again, in what way was Steve Jones (now wearing his "über scientist" hat) supposed to be "independent"?
Given the scientific consensus that Jones describes (at length) - does this mean that further climate research is officially unnecessary as far as the BBC is concerned?
what TV will look like if Al Gore ruled the media - this is from his Current TV and is being reported on what Americans would call a Liberal website. Olbermann:
20 July: VIDEO: Raw Story: Eric W. Dolan: (Keith) Olbermann: News Corp. could be behind ‘Climate Gate’ hacking
On Countdown Wednesday night, Keith Olbermann discussed with Joe Romm, editor of ClimateProgress.org, the possibility that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation was behind the “Climate Gate” hacking…
“Climate change scientists and outside experts agree that, with Neil Wallis at the helm, the Climatic Research Unit couldn’t have done a worse job defending itself,” Olbermann noted on his blog. “The myth that its emails ‘disprove’ Global Warming persists today.”
Watch video, courtesy of Current TV.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/olbermann-news-corp-could-be-behind-climate-gate-hacking/
Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann
the MSM, across the world, is in a deplorable state and has been for a long time. Prof Jones' report can't make BBC any worse than it already is, only less accountable to the public. no doubt Australia's tax-payer-funded ABC and SBS will now feel justified in their own refusal to allow for sceptical voices on CAGW. are we back in the Dark Ages?
Biddyb
It seems that snails are not very good at recording climate change. In 2009 Jonathon Silvertown of the OU asked the public to collect banded snails so that he could investigate whether their shell markings were changing.
"Prof Silvertown said there is also a geographical pattern in the colour of shells that may have changed in response to the warming of the climate over the last 30 years." - 30th March 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5075608/Snail-hunt-will-reveal-secrets-of-evolution-and-climate-change.html
"...there was no general increase in the frequency of yellow shells. This may have been because snails adapted to a warming climate through behavioural thermoregulation. By contrast, we detected an unexpected decrease in the frequency of Unbanded shells and an increase in the Mid-banded morph. Neither of these evolutionary changes appears to be a direct response to climate change..." - 27th April 2011
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018927
AusieDan, we Australians are the last people who should try to advise the Brits what ought to be done about the BBC. Our own ABC is every bit as colonised by the extreme Left and as unbalanced as the BBC, and we have no more chance of changing that situation short of a revolution than the Brits have of getting their monster back in the box.
From the Guardian - CIF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/17/norma-percy-praise
Now that open approach by Norma Percy's does not sit well her husband Steve Jones' comments on how the BBC should address the debate on Climate Change.
I would argue that Norma Percy would not be able to make a fair and frank documentary on ClimateGate because it would put her in direct conflict with her husband views on the subject.
About twenty years ago my wife and I sampled the ABC during a holiday on Norfolk Island, which is/was administered by Australia. Loved Norfolk Island, hated the ABC. To put it simply, the content was Aus-centric and jingoistic to the point of being painful to Kiwi ears, even though we have many Australian relatiives and friends; I never relished the thought of being exposed to the ABC again, but a little later we were offered a weekend in Melbourne. We loved Melbourne, still utterly disliked what we saw of the ABC. Our Australian contacts there didn't seem too impressed with the ABC either.
Now, after almost a decade in the UK, we find the BBC's leftward bias so pronounced and irritating that we watch very little of it. Like most Kiwis, inside us lurks unreconstructed 'bushies' and we have enjoyed many parts of programmes about the British countryside, but have almost given up watching those too as we have been so annoyed by the mania for various 'personalities' inserting totally ridiculous 'evil mankind is killing the planet with CO2' homilies. 'Countrywatch', particularly, began for us as a 'must watch'.but thanks to John Craven's shallow and embarrassing 'investigations' into topics such as alternative energy sources and his almost continual nods to CAGW, we no longer bother to watch this programme. As we are both taxpayers here and are forced to pay the TV licence fee, we are looking forward to our return home to NZ and NO compulsory broadcasting fees. And if we do complain about anything to the NZBC, we expect to be treated as adults at least.
Dreadnought - good lord, are we, the taxpayer, having to fork out twice for research into snails and climate change. Surely, this is something the French should be paying for? Or perhaps, given the future agricultural crisis that is looming due to climate change and given that we are going to experience warmer, wetter winters (apart from the odd bit of snow due to extra moisture in the atmosphere), snails will thrive in our mild and damp conditions. We can either eat them ourselves or we can help our balance of payments by exporting them. Hats off to Prof. Jones for bring us out of the recession - a complete volte face from me! He's marvellous.
@ Dreadnought, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM :
Thanks for the links to the snail studies!
Even the question relating changes in snail populations (this is about Cepea nemoralis, which Jones did work on, and did some good population genetic studies in the early 1980s) to Climate change shows that they have not the faintest idea about ecology.
Many studies before AGW have shown repeatedly that bandedness and/or colour provide an advantage in regard to predation, especially by birds such as blackbirds and thrushes. If, as snail, you live in grassland, then not being banded but being yellow means the birds can't see you as well as those with bands. If you live in shrub land, bands provide an advantage because of the shadows given by the bushes. Being unbanded yellow makes you stand out there, so you get eaten.
Being pink may scare some birds off ...
Not only do many-banded, therefore mostly dark brown snails not 'get hot' when the temperatures rise, they have a very nifty adaptation (other snails have that, too) which is called 'estivation'. This means they cling to a suitable substratum and withdraw into their shells while forming a thin membrane across the mouth of the shell. That reduces evaporation.
Snails like these have survived for millions of years - a 0.7 C rise in a century isn't worrying them, nor will it lead to their changing bandedness.
Sorry to have been so long-winded - it just so happens that this subject was of great interest to me, a few decades ago ...
Good Lord, the irony!
JD,
The point is not about whose motives are pure and whose aren't. Steve Jones, is himself extremely poorly informed about the climate debate, and no more - that is how I would put down the explanation for his bizarre document to the BBC. The occasion for the review perhaps was his first introduction to the 'climate wars' - and who would you think he would have turned to but his trusted sources - Nature, the Lancet, Science magazine and the BBC - all excellent bastions of traditional science content and wisdom and at once, strongholds of the most virulent pro-anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy.
How many readers pay attention to these divisions?
Many reputable individuals - and I know lots of them - hold completely orthodox opinions on climate science, simply because the issue is too messy and the flaws too well hidden. Who has the time to be trundling through the blogs for years (yes, that's what it would take) and examining contentious pieces of science and claimsmaking, for themselves firsthand? If your basic nature is somewhat nosy and skeptical, you have a bit a headstart, but the advantages end there.
biddyb
INRA, the french agricultural research institution have an experimental snail farm in the Charente-Maritime. Current projects include feeding them on an organic diet (heaven help us!)
Viv Evans
Thanks. Most informative.
There are some excellent commentary pieces on Autonomous Mind right now setting forth all the current politico-media tactical skirmishing, providing a libertarian's opinion on the overall strategic context. They are all highly thought-provoking but ominous.
Doug Keenan demonstrated quite painlessly that the current climate alarm-ism is bogus. His WSJ article is accessible to everyone: journalists, scientists, politicians, even climatologists.
However, it seems that reporting in the UK media is more concerned with activism (e.g. the BBC), plagiarism (Hari), and corruption (operation Motorman).
Intrigued, I had an attack of Mashey-ism (hopefully it is not genetic)....and.....
Found, for example, in a 2010 Steve Jones article, this lilting phrase 'Judaism is inherited down the female line – as are mitochondria.' and thought I'd check where else that might have appeared:
Interestingly, this sentence: 'They used the complete sequence of DNA to trace their ancestry down the female line and found 40% of present-day Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women'. Was written by J Friedman, published in 2009, in 'Tay-Sachs Desease'. Just a little commonality as far as google is concerned. Common words, strongly related subject, no big deal.
But then Jones goes on to say 'Around half descend from just four women...' A nice match for the 'descended from just four women' written by Friedman. So it would appear to me to be a significant coincidence, or evidence that Jones has used Friedman (unattributed) as the source of some of the text in his popular genetics article.
see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7346496/View-from-the-Lab-Who-is-a-Jew-DNA-can-hold-the-key.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=iSYEEHOHXYkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false
Copying text from one place to another for profit is clearly not a practice limited to climatology. I wonder if Steve Jones does this much? I wonder if Steve Jones would care to comment?
@pat Jul 21, 2011 at 2:59 PM
[re Romm's NOTW "slant" and Olbermann's uptake:]
Apart from the fact that I'm not aware of any informed and widely-quoted skeptic who has ever made such a tenuous correlation between the emails and the hypothesis of "Global Warming", it seems to me that we are beginning to see the birth of a new alarmist meme in the making, that could perhaps replace "big oil" as the bogeyman behind the inconvenient questions the CO2 alarmists don't want to answer!
Had Romm (or Olbermann) done even the slightest bit of research before he went off on this particular half-cocked crusade, he would have found (for example):
Source: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Rupert_Murdoch_Changes_Mind_On_Global_Warming_999.html
Talk about tin-foil hats, eh?!
I'm sure that Jones and his snail studies is just as qualified as Suzuki and his fruitfly studies to pontificate on anything and everything pertaining to "global warming". /sarc
Any chance you licence-paying folks on that side of the pond can demand that the BBC Trust (who bought into this load of bollocks) and who are supposed to be acting on your behalf can be tossed out and replaced?!
It's worth noting that the high quality documentaries produced by the wife of Prof Jones actually make the situation worse. "Play nice, or your wife's company is out of the BBC film business pronto" is a fairly compelling argument.
The issue is that the BBC Trust has charged a man with a business interest highly vulnerable to change of editorial policy, to review its editorial policy. The fault appears to be that the BBC Trust commissioned THIS man, who is probably the single academic in the UK with the largest possible conflict of interest vis a vis the BBC.
This conflict of interest is entirely independent of the political views, personal ethics involved, or a priori knowledge of climate science.
Here is an exchange with the BBC 'Trust Science' auto reply responder: http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/2011/07/steve-jones-and-bbc-auto-reply-lie.html. (Possibly useful material for an interlude on an ITV sit-com about life at the BBC).