Bishop Hill Is it 'cos he's a green?
The BBC has announced a series of measures to make it more difficult to challenge green narratives on the BBC, and this is obviously going to lead to new waves of ecodrivel on the national broadcaster's output. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, the Guardian's Catherine Bennett is exuding a certain cheeriness and general satisfaction with this state of affairs.
Following successful complaints, we should soon be hearing much less – on the BBC at least – from the climate change hobbyist Lord Lawson. An edition of the Today programme that treated the former chancellor's outlandish hunches to the same sober consideration as the evidence-based conclusions of Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, of Imperial College London, has led to an apology – and a further reconsideration of editorial balance. Having assessed the Lawson v the Academic Mainstream dialogue, in which the former remarked that 2013 had been "unusually quiet" for tropical storms, the head of the BBC's Complaints Unit said: "Minority opinions and sceptical views should not be treated as if it were on an equal footing with the scientific consensus."
For the avoidance of doubt, tropical storms were indeed unusually low in 2013, so let I will just say charitably that Ms Bennett's insinuation that it was otherwise suggests she may not be the sharpest tool in the box. But she wouldn't be the first Guardian journalist to suffer from learning difficulties.
Ms Bennett is also turning her grey matter to the juicy question of who else might be excluded from the airwaves and concludes that religious people should be next.
But proponents of the slippery slope argument must be asking: where will it all end? Is irrationality itself at risk? If a man of Lord Lawson's stature can be marginalised simply for promulgating obviously fanatical rubbish supported only by anecdote and untested assertions, what could this mean for, say, religious authorities who are deferred to far more regularly than he ever was? Must they, too, be denied their traditional platform, condemning the fashionable consensus on anything from gay marriage and abortion to Sunday trading and the right to die, for no better reason than these activities contravene some personal take on holy writ?
It does seem a little unfair, for example, that while Lawson is discouraged from airing opinions that occasionally had to do with actual weather conditions, a religious campaigner such as Andrea Williams, a member of the General Synod and chief spokesperson for her own pressure group, Christian Concern, should continue to be accepted as a respectable pundit......
Such liberal spirits! Couldn't they just shortcut the process and silence everyone except the BBC and the Guardian?
Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe in action the BBC's new policy of sidelining views outwith the scientific consensus (H/T to and transcript by Alex Cull). On the World at One the other day we had a piece on fracking from David Shukman. This was moderately balanced, although not so balanced that Shukman didn't bring up the old "taps on fire" story (which might be better renamed as the "pants on fire" story - it's almost as if it's simply too good a story for the "science" corps at the BBC to let go of). Nevertheless it's interesting to see it given a completely uncritical airing by Shukman. I had thought that the BBC said that fringe views on science would be announced as such.
But perhaps there's a get-out for BBC journalists.
In the same show we had an interview with Charles Perry, a former director of BP's renewables business.
Shaun Ley: Well, Charles Perry was Director of BP Green Energy, the division of that major energy company which looked at future investment options outside of traditional oil and gas - he went on to co-found a consultancy called SecondNature. Charles Perry, what do you make of this?
Charles Perry: Yes, it's unconventional for a reason, which means it's difficult to extract. And fracking is not just about gas, it's also about oil. So as Rob says, you know, 650 metres or 800 metres - is that close enough for comfort, when Britain's aquifers provide 70% of the drinking water in the southeast? So if we were to poison our drinking water - I mean, clearly, being an island, um, we would, you know, have a huge risk on our hands.
Shaun Ley: Indeed, I mean, the use of the word "poisoned" is quite loaded - I mean, talking to David, he was saying that for example, with gas, the big concern is about methane. Methane isn't poisonous per se, but there could be a - what's regarded as a risk from - a potential risk from explosions.
Charles Perry: Well, we know from what's going on in America that I don't think "poison" is too strong a word, because in some cases you can actually light the water. Now I don't think you would want to drink water which you can actually set alight.
Shaun Ley: Those are big, big operations. Do you think - are you concerned, then, that there isn't, in your judgement, a safe way of extracting this gas? Given the argument that was being advanced, that actually the gaps are quite wide in quite large parts of the area, particularly in the north of England, where the aquifer - the gap between the aquifer and the rock that the companies might want to get to, is at least 800 metres.Charles Perry: Yes, I mean, well, this is the thing about the government subsidisation for fracking all across the country, regardless of what the risks are and what the aquifer landscape looks like. So I think, you know, the government's taken some bad advice on just carte-blanche subsidising the fossil fuel industry. And - as you know Lord Browne, my old boss at BP, would say - they don't need subsidies in the fossil fuel industry, they've been subsidised for hundreds of years, and in fact the G20 is committed to abolishing fossil-fuel subsidies. And the other point is: Britain's engineering and innovation talent is highly valued but it's in short supply. So should we absorb Britain's engineering talent in trying to get our difficult oil and gas from shale, or should we be incentivising the low-carbon economy and, you know, clean energy?
Shaun Ley: Charles Perry, thank you very much.
The false to true ratio is rather amazing there wouldn't you say?
Interestingly, the fact that Perry is one of Al Gore's trained climate activists was not mentioned. Nor was the fact that his views on fracking are very far from the scientific consensus on the issue. Which is really strange because I am absolutely sure that the BBC has just issued a number of statements that suggest that this kind of thing shouldn't happen. Why, we wonder, is Mr Perry given this apparently favourable treatment?
Is it 'cos he's a green?
Bishop Hill
Over at Salon, they are salivating at the prospect of a complete black out for dissenting views on climate.
Were every network to start doing what the BBC is, their unfounded opinions would cease to be heard, Bill Nye wouldn’t have to keep debating them, and maybe, just maybe, they’d all just go away.
While we're about it, how about a one-stop shop for "sound" views on climate change?
Bishop Hill
The BBC is going in for some naked propagandising on behalf of the green movement this morning.
Reader Comments (81)
Jul 7, 2014 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall
... or Barry Marshall and Helicobacter pylori
Perhaps the BBC can simply paraphrase Gordon Gekko of Wall Street fame for a new mantra, "Green, for lack of a better word, is good. Green is right. Green works. Green clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Green, in all of its forms; green for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind.."
Noam Chomsky tells BBC village idiot Andrew Marr that stupidity is a requirement for modern journalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjYVmHbB-4
It really doesn't matter if Lawson is invited back.The GWPF just need to send a scientist to debate a scientist next time and the problem is solved. If they are discussing policy rather than science then they can still send Lawson as he is eminently qualified for that debate. There is nothing sinister afoot; the BBC are just reacting to a partly-justified complaint.
Regardless of what the BBC and the Guardian adolescents say about fracking, the government and the UK science advisor are all in favour of it - based on both the consensus AND the evidence this time. All that remains is to push ahead with reducing the red tape, bribing the local councils with jobs and a percentage of the profit and jailing any hippies that get in the way. This is an issue of national security now!
My children are in business and prefer that my weird hobby does not appear on Google searches aimed at them. My name was published here a while back if you care to look forr it. E-mail Andrew Montford and he can tell you. I don't mind my name being known, since I am retired, with no academic reputation; just not bandied about.
As for climate scepticism being a gated community, I am currently locked outside the gates by WUWT, Tallbloke and Bob Tisdale.
EM, your very strange comment re' this gated community' lays out for all to view your wilful blindness to the patently obvious. If this site was truly 'gated', none with views such as yours would ever be able to make comment here. As to the comedic content of sceptic views, it's all in your mind. I see nothing amusing in the spectacle of governments such that of the UK which is making a total ass of itself in the matter of energy policy.
I think you have misrepresented David Shukman's piece. Full disclosure: I know him, so I wanted to hear for myself. For that matter, I know Matt Ridley too.
The 'taps on fire' story is where someone claimed that methane had actually leaked from a fracked well into the aquifer. That is clearly mendacious.
In contrast, Shukman said that there have been no actual occurrences, but that some people were concerned that it might happen IF the shale deposit is shallow and close to the aquifer, and IF the concrete and steel barriers in the borehole were poorly installed. Surely that isn't even untrue, let alone a lie ('pants on fire')?
James G
"It really doesn't matter if Lawson is invited back.The GWPF just need to send a scientist to debate a scientist next time and the problem is solved. "
That is part of the problem. The BBC tried to find UK sceptic scientists willing to debate the science on television and found none.This is why the BBC had to resort to politicians and accountants.
You cannot maintain even a false balance in a scientific debate if one side cannot supply a scientist.
Entropic man that statement is untrue. I have told the BBC that I am willing to debate the science on both TV and radio. I received zero response from the BBC to my offer. Moreover I have previously appeared on BBC radio and television programs so it is not that I am unknown to program editors.
For the BBC to say they couldn't find sceptic scientists to debate is a lie.
Martin Hall:
Perhaps you should get some idea of the likelihoods involved - remembering that the UK regulatory regime is much tougher than that in the US, and the geology of the Marcellus shale has it close to the surface over much of its extent, unlike the Bowland shale.
Some real information
Read. the alarmist claptrap from Mr. Perry. He is a trained professional rent seeker looking for more money for his funding. It is clear evidence that the "A" in "AGW" is for "Anthropomorphic", not "Anthropogenic".
Paul Dennis
My apologies. I wonder why they did'nt take you up on it?
Richard
"Having equipment capable of receiving live broadcasts is not in itself an offence"
I stand corrected. I suspect I had been disinformed...
EM
"I wonder why they didn't take you up on it?"
Do you really not know?
James G
Not being a conspiracy theorist.......
EM at 5:10 PM: "As for climate scepticism being a gated community, I am currently locked outside the gates by WUWT, Tallbloke and Bob Tisdale."
I suppose when you visit someone's place and are rude to the host or his other guests you will tend to be asked to leave. The Bish will tolerate you - at times - because you sometimes become conciliatory, like your apology up thread to Paul Dennis. Sometimes...'though often with a hint of snide on the side, like that 'apology'. You're just not as subtle as you like to think.
Given that climate sensitivity was the hot topic for AR5, I suggested they speak to Nic Lewis. He was apparently rejected because it would be too difficult to explain his credentials.
Seriously.
Martin Hall
We agree the taps on fire story is mendacious. Why then do the BBC keep raising it? When are we going to get a story examining the mendaciousness of people who make the claim?
Bish: Re explaining credentials. I once saw a comment on a blog that posited that Steve McIntyre had nothing to say about AGW because he wasn't a 'Climate Scientist' (whatever that is). And that's the problem with the MSN. They haven't explained sufficiently to their public that much of the substance of climate projections is down to the hard work of very talented statisticians, not 'Climate Scientists'
Jul 7, 2014 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
/////////////////////////
James
I looked at this in some detail since a few years back, a friend of mine was summonsed, I drafted a few letters for him and the summons was withdrawn shortly before trial (just about a week before).
As matters stand, it is a criminal offence, so that means that the BBC has to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the TV is not simply capable of being used but has been used to watch live broadcasts.
However, if the 'offence' is downgraded and becomes a civil matter, the BBC will only have to establish on the balance of probabilities (ie., that there is say a 50.1% chance) that the TV which is fitted to receive live broadcasts has been used for such.
The change in the burden of proof could be quite material, after all who buys a TV not to watch TV broadcasts? Not many people. Why not just have a monitor if you have no intention to watch live broadcasts? Are you signed up to say netflix, since surely if you were not intending to watch live TV broadcasts, you would have source material to watch on your TV etc.
So what I am saying is that there may well be an inference merely from the fact that you own a TV capable of receiving live broadcasts, that you use the TV for that purpose. Such an inference is not strong enough to discharge the criminal standard of the burden of proof (ie., beyond all reasonable doubt) but may well appeal to magistrates when they have to decide whether there is just a 50.1% probability that the TV has been used for such purpose.
Obviously, I do not know how things will turn out. May be I am being cynical, but I suspect that the change will suit the BBC since although it will no longer be a criminal offence with the stigma that that brings, the chances of a successful action are likely to be far higher.
I am presently residing abroad so I do not get to watch the BBC so much, but I really do dislike it and what it has become.
A long long time ago, I use to hang out quite a bit at the BBC since one of my sister's boyfriends was a designer there. When he first got a job (on temporary basis) he did the design on a gardening show and put his name on the credits. That was against policy (tempory staff were not allowed credits). They paid him double or tripple his salary to remove his name from the credits. How mad is that? I met a number of directors and designers who had not made a programme in about 6 years because they had fallen out with the producers/production team. They couldn't be sacked since they were permanet staff. They came into work a few times a week, spent all their time in the bar and occassionally chatting on set, and got paid their full salaries. Again madness. They have no control over the spending and wasting of large sums of public money.
Entropic man (Jul 7, 2014 at 5:50 PM) asked Paul Dennis "I wonder why they did'nt take you up on it?"
If you're genuinely interested and not just being sarcastic, why don't you write to the BBC and ask them yourself?
Andrew Lilico has a take on Lawson and the BBC:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100027585/lord-lawson-the-climate-and-the-bbc-whos-the-real-expert/
Dave Salt
Not sarcastic, just curious. A palaeoclimatologist such as Mr Dennis should be just the sort of climate scientist the BBC would welcome as a sceptical counterbalance.
Entropic man (Jul 7, 2014 at 11:45 PM) said "Not sarcastic, just curious"
Yes, we're all curious as to why the BBC appear to ignore those 'experts' who disagree with the CAGW meme, hence my suggestion that you ask them directly.
Richard
I take your point about the burden of proof, but it is getting easier to watch TV off-air, not least because of the Beeb’s own heavy promotion of iPlayer. They, of course, are now angling to have this included in the licence criteria, but I’m not sure they can have it both ways.
Incidentally, my own TV is effectively just a monitor, as it only contains an analogue tuner!
Don’t mention the (lack of) Warm!
Nigel did, and he didn’t get away with it!
Also banned by the BBC:
1. Nigel goes to Hollywood:
Relax, don’t do it
If you want to maths-check it,
Relax, don’t do it
If you want to sum.
2. Johnny Lawson and the Sex Pistols
God save Prince Charles
His eco-fascist snarls
They made you a moron
Econom... ic-bomb
No licence! No licence!
No licence, for me!
Yep, the surrealism and farce of Fawlty is about right for this. Punk's not such a strong point in my personal history but you sound on the right track!
A phrase I came across recently . "There is nothing too foolish which the clever cannot entertain".
Gated community? Hell no! It's a fantastic swimming pool, in which no one pees in the water, and there's plenty of lounge chairs, a complimentary swim up bar, free towel service, and all the men are buff, and all women are beautiful and wear tiny bikinis. C'mon in, Entropic man, the water's great.
BBC4 repeated the Global Weirding episode of Horizon last night. One of the scientists clearly said the the nearly a degree in the last century of warming was causing 'extreme oscillations' of weather
ISTR IPCC AR5 broke the link between weather events and climate change even though the spm put it back in. I feel a complaint brewing if someone can find the part of AR5 that I can use to show they are promulgating a non-IPCC consensus view.
But proponents of the slippery slope argument must be asking: where will it all end? Is irrationality itself at risk?"
I'm sure irrationality will remain well protected during Catherine Bennett's tenure at the guardian.