Last week I was very concerned to see that Peter Gleick had publically claimed on Twitter he had blocked me because I had made ‘incredibly offensive’ tweets to him. I was very concerned by this public claim from such a senior scientist, as this implied that I had been abusive to him in the same manner as the vile threatening emails, one of our mutual Twitter followers Katie Hayhoe had recieved (like this)

I asked him (a lot) to substantiate this, or to correct this publically, yet he repeated it, it was only I believe with the input of Dr Tamsin Edwards, Professor Richard Betts and Katie Hayhoe that Peter relented and clarified matters.

Tamsin Edwards, Peter Gleick and I had a very frank email exhange and I found it quite enlightening to see a VERY different perspective on how to communicate climate science between a ‘relatively junior (as he made clear) UK climate scientist (Edwards) and a senior climate scientist (Gleick) in the USA.

In Tamsin’s closing email to Peter Gleick ( that I am party to) I think she inadvertantly identifies exactly the feeling of many sceptics, being dismissed as a group to be ignored.

“I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were”.

Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody! – Tamsin Edwards

I’m sure many people can only imagine Peter’s reply/thoughts to that (if any).

In the email exchange Peter recognises the extreme polarisation of the debate (especially as Tamsin points out in the USA) but seem totally unselfaware that his approach and attitude that are shown in the email exchange (and that it seems to of many senior scientists in the media) helps drive it.

Peter says he stands by everything he said and I have confirmed with Tamsin (3 times!) that she is OK  with publishing the correspondence as well. So to be fair, I do not wish to misrepresent anybody, I have included ALL the emails I was party to, so that everyone can see the exchange in full context.

In the USA it appear questions around climate science can be ’attacks’ any criticism or debate of a contentious issue, can be seen by some as ‘incredibly offensivie and those people that dare do this are to be dismissed and ignored. I do not find that healthy position for science to be in.

I was personally infuriated when my Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) made ‘anti-science flat earther denier’ remarks (and double denier) in the run up to Copenhagen. Awful political rhetoric to deny the validity of other opinions or even to prevent questions being asked at all.

And here I am 2 years later.

All Correspondence in full - Reverse order,last first (my Bold)

——————————————————————————————

From: Tamsin Edwards

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:29 PM

To: Peter H. Gleick Cc: Barry Woods

Subject: Re: Clarification

Dear Peter,

Just a quick note.

One of the most important things I have learned in my (fairly extensive) public engagement activities is not to lump people together in a homogenous group. I repeatedly defend Barry because he works hard *not* to be Anthony Watts.

I hope you’ll consider taking each person and their views on their ownmerits, or lack of, in future conversations. I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were.

Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody!

My best wishes,

Tamsin

————————————————————————-

From: Peter Gleick

Sent: 26/01/2012 18:13

To: Barry Woods;Tamsin Edwards

Barry,

Again, I am not going to spend more time on this, but I will try to be clear. My comments about your communications with me were not meant to suggest that you were either abusive or threatening to me in the nature of the kinds of emails/comments Hayhoe (or I or others in the climate community regularly receive).

You have not been so far as I know, and *I will try to make that clear in a tweet, when I get a chance*. And perhaps “incredibly annoying” or “incredibly frustrating” or “incredibly discourteous,” or “incredibly uncivil” or some other synonym would have been a better choice. Do you really want me to pick one?

I stand by my other comments in the email I sent to you, about how I personally perceived your participation in exchanges in the fall when I ran out of patience with any chance of rational discussion with WUWT, Bishop Hill, or the regular tweeters and bloggers of that group. It became clear it was an unproductive time sink with a group whose minds were closed to fact, and whose primary tool was ad hominem attack.

The systematic and coordinated and dishonest attack on me after my
negative review of LaFramboise’s book was only one example that made it
clear that rational debate was not possible and dissenting views not tolerated.

The fact that WUWT blocked me from adding comments more than a year ago to his routinely biased and often dissembling blog further convinced me that there was little interest in discussion among that group.

Perhaps you’re having more luck, or have more patience.

Peter Gleick

 ——————————————————————————————–

At 06:31 AM 1/26/2012, Barry Woods wrote:

Peter

As you requested my email address, I must apologise in the delay replying back to you. I have been in the process of moving everything from my old
(expired XP PC) to a new Win 7 PC, this did not run very smoothly.

As I and Dr Edwards have expressed, my concern (which your email to me, does not really address) was about your public tweets, that you tweeted that I had directly sent you ‘incredibly offensive’ tweets. I thought that this very public claim could be construed by all your followers, my followers or anybody that receives your public RSS feed, (including the highly influential Huffington Post where you write publically) that I had directly sent you personally threatening or abusive tweets.

All this, at a time where climate scientists, like Katie Hayhoe or journalists like Leo Hickman in the past (Guardian) have received the most vile abuse, of an incredibly offensive nature, using very threatening language, via email and other social media.
Additionally, this issue has recently received a great deal of media attention in the USA (i.e. Katie’s rejected book chapter, for a US potential US Presidential candidate) My concern was that your followers (and all mine) and the wider media, might perceive that I had directly sent you tweets of a similar personally abusive nature.

As my Twitter followers actually include Katie Hayhoe and Leo Hickman, I hope you can understand my particular concern and why I perceive this so seriously. Following your original tweet, I asked you to clarify/substantiate this public claim. As did a number of our mutual twitter followers, including Professor Richard Betts & Dr Tamsin Edwards.

It was then brought to my attention that you publically implied in a tweet to Prof R Betts that I had been less polite to you.

PeterGleick: ”and perhaps, Richard, he’s been more polite to you than to me?”

Prof Richard Betts, asked you what I had tweeted that offended you
and you tweeted that you had reviewed my tweets and found some of them
to be ‘incredibly offensive’

I again asked you to substantiate this, that all that would required is  just ONE tweet (url) to demonstrate your assertion, I also stated that I would publically apologise if you could substantiate with just ONE example. It was then brought to my attention, a tweet of yours to @Richardabetts that you had perhaps not actually re-viewed my tweets of the time when you blocked me, and your concerns were perhaps more in-keeping with those expressed in your email to Dr Edwards and myself below (however that email is not public knowledge)

PeterGleick:”@richardabetts I won’t re-read his tweets/WUWT comments on my work from last fall when I blocked him, but our exchanges were unproductive.”

This seems to to me, to run counter to your public claim of ’incredibly offensive’ tweets, where tweets were just ‘unproductive’ and refers to blog comments now, as well.

As I recall it, you blocked myself and Andrew Montford at the time of Prof Judith Curry’s blog post about your review of Donna Laframboise’s book about the IPCC. Richard Betts, Andrew and I recalled this this article, and that we had all commented in that article and recalled the twitter chats aswell. .

@aDissentient Bishop Hill: @Realclim8gate I read your exchanges with @petergleick at the time. You were not offensive. @richardabetts @flimsin @dougmcneall @nmrqip

RichardaBetts: @Realclim8gate @petergleick Don’t remember you being “incredibly offensive”, just speaking your mind. Maybe I am thick-skinned!

At that time, my only comment addressed directly to you at Climate Etc I think is totally civil.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-124399

As Andrew Montford commented in that article that you had just twittered blocked him at about time of this comment

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-124446

Peter, Is it perhaps possible that your recollections of their [that] time are unclear, and perhaps you blocked me then and others, more by ’guilt by association’ with other comments/tweets, than for anything I actually said at Climate Etc. or tweeted. There were very many critical comments of your book review at Climate Etc., by a number of scientists, Prof Curry, Prof Jones & Prof Tol and the whole article comments and your replies got very heated. As you can see, my only comment to you there was very civil, just asking a question.

As you said publically on the 23rd Jan, 2012 that you had reviewed my tweets to you, and found some to be ‘incredibly offensive’ and you publically repeated this. I remain very concerned that all the scientist and journalists that follow me might think that I had been highly personally abusive to you.

I joined twitter with the hope of having civil, informal conversation with a broad range of people, to get a way from the blogs. As you noticed, I have only a small group of followers, I like to think that I have attracted views of quality rather than quantity and enjoy a generally [good] humoured communal debate with a number of people who
have a range of views.

These followers include scientists (among many others), Dr Katie Hayhoe, Prof J Jones, Prof R Betts (Met Off, IPCC), Dr Doug McNeall (Met Off), Dr M Brandon, DR Richard Gilham (Met Off, UEA) Dr Katharine Giles.

Influential writers and highly respected journalists include: Andy Revkin (New York Times),Leo Hickman (Guardian), Mark Lynas (author, & Maldives Climate Advisor)

Thus, I am sure you can acknowledge, my personal reputation for civil polite behaviour, on twitter or anywhere else, is of great concern to me and that your public tweets I believe have put this reputation at risk, however inadvertently on your part. Although, additionally I am concerned that you seem unwilling to actually check/substantiate your comments as I requested.

Peter, as you have made it quite clear that you wish to spend no more time on this issue, but you have yet not made any public clarification/substantiation.

I intend to write a blog post where I quote your email, that I believe does demonstrate, that I have never directly sent you tweets, that might be considered ‘incredibly offensive’ in the nature of the vile abuse threatening emails that Katie Hayhoe has received.

As a gesture of goodwill, on my part, I will include of course the full content and context of these emails, for utmost transparency/clarity, as I have no absolutely no wish to misrepresent you in any way. In fact by doing this, it will bring to the attention of all my scientist followers, your criticisms, concerns and warning to scientists about me, for all scientists to see.

(I will of course, remove all personal contact information)

If I may ask you one personal favour, if you could spare just a moment of your time (only 140 chars) to publically tweet, that I had never sent you anything of personally abusive nature (i.e. swearing, abusive or threatening).

Very Best Regards

Barry Woods

PS

The only WUWT with comment of mine, that I can find from last year about you/your work, was this one, where I defended you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/another-climate-fail-new-research-casts-doubt-on-doomsday-himalayan-water-shortage-predictions/#comment-777453

because this guy had been rude about all climate scientists, picking on you especially:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/another-climate-fail-new-research-casts-doubt-on-doomsday-himalayan-water-shortage-predictions/#comment-777430

As you mentioned blog comments in your email, as I described above, in that quite heated article by Prof Judith Curry, at the actual time that you twitter blocked me, perhaps you ‘associated’ me with these scientists by mistake.

For example Prof Jonathan Jones comment (Physics, Oxford University) whilst critical, not ‘incredibly offensive’?

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-124446

Or Prof Richard Tol: who was a draft reviewer of Dona’s book (and
a IPCC lead author) who asked you to substantiate your claim of
‘lies’

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/#comment-124390

Perhaps you just confused me with someone else… that is why I asked to check and substantiate your public tweet that I was ‘incredibly offensive’. I do note that it appears to that you did not substantiate your claim of ‘lies’ when Prof Richard Tol requested you to.

as he said.

Richard Tol (speaking to Peter Gleick)

 ”Now that we are on the subject, you accuse Laframboise of telling lies. Can you quote chapter and verse?  Please note that I have a stake here. I reviewed two drafts of the book. I did not find any falsehoods (let alone lies, which imply intention). I would like to know where I went wrong in my duty asa reviewer.”

Reputation is clearly very important to everyone, especially academic ones …..

———————————————————————————————

From: Peter H. Gleick

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:20 AM

To: Tamsin Edwards  Cc: barry.woods1@ntlworld.com

Subject: Re: Clarification

Tamsin,

I am not going to deal with this anymore. It has taken far too much of my constrained time and bandwidth already.

I am glad Woods’ exchanges with you seem to have been decent. We’re probably all far more polite one-on-one than in public online screamfests. I’m sorry he didn’t like my comment. But I’ve reviewed his tweets, blog posts, status, web URL, and comments and contributions in places like Bishop Hill and WUWT (where, by the way, I’ve been blocked for more than a year from posting comments, presumably because my comments are “incredibly offensive” — yet I’m regularly and personally attacked on these kinds of sites).

His adoption of the language, often coded, of the denier/skeptic/contrarian community, his amplification of memes around “climategate,” “AGwarmists,” “hide the decline,” “the hockey stick,” the straw man of “catastrophic” climate change, etc. may have changed since I blocked his Twitter feed to me last year, but I simply don’t find his input to the debate helpful or informative, and I’m certainly entitled to both my opinions and to decide what part of the climate controversy comes to me through different media.

By the way, I also block people I LIKE, when I can no longer tolerate
or filter their massive overuse of Twitter.

I do what I can to communicate rationally with open-minded participants in this debate, but the polarization makes it hard to find them. If this is something you’re committed to diving into, I wish you the best of luck. I hope you’ll continue to publish in
the scientific literature as your top priority — in the long-run, your reputation as a scientist (and your influence in the associated policy debates) will benefit from it.

Barry, if you want to pursue this further, feel free, but
honestly, you should consider cutting your tweet rate by a factor of 10
until your ratio of tweets to followers improves, you might consider
what you really believe and how you express it, and we should
probably ALL count to 10 after writing anything and before hitting
send.

(and Tamsin, your note about how Barry regrets the domain name,
but ”has kept it because it’s known” might be a warning to you,
apropos

“All Models Are Wrong…” But I’ve already made my opinion known
on that.)

Peter Gleick

Dr. Peter H. Gleick

President, Pacific Institute

——————————————————————————————

At 01:57 PM 1/24/2012, Tamsin Edwards wrote:

Yes…he says he regrets it actually, but has kept it because
it’s known.

e.g. http://twitter.com/#!/Realclim8gate/status/160701652628803584

http://twitter.com/#!/Realclim8gate/status/160763753456078849

And he changed his Twitter biog after I pointed out it was more antagonistic than his actual views.

——————————————————————————

Email: xxxxx.xxx@xxxx.xx

On 24/01/2012 21:36, Peter H. Gleick wrote:

OK, not to be pedantic, but I find his URL to be offensive…. Maybe not ”incredibly offensive” but….

Peter

————————————————————————————————

At 01:21 PM 1/24/2012, you wrote:

Thanks Peter.

I’ve never emailed him, only DMed and spoken on the
phone. I’ve asked for his email but no reply yet – think he is fixing
his skirting board.

He has a contact form on his blog:

http://www.realclimategate.org/contact

Cheers,

Tamsin

———————————————————————————————-

On 24/01/2012 17:05, Peter H. Gleick wrote:

Can you send me Barry’s email?

I will respond shortly, when I have time, and will
copy the two of you.

[Katherine, a week ago I got a long rambling phone
message from your  admirer Stan Lippmann -- not nearly as horrible
and offensive as his to you, but bad enough. He apparently took offence to one of my posts at Forbes and has no mental brakes on his mouth or fingers. My condolences...]

Peter

————————————————————————————————–

At 07:30 AM 1/24/2012, Tamsin Edwards wrote:

Dear Peter, (Katharine),

Following on from my DMs to you Peter, I’m writing because I’d like to defend Barry Woods (@realclim8gate). He has always been an absolute model of politeness and good intentions when conversing with me and  all the other climate scientists I know. He actively defends us against others’ (i.e. sceptics’) rudeness when
we post on the Bishop Hill sceptic blog, and always calls for the
debates to be civil. In fact, I would say he does accept the science
and is sceptical mostly about policy choices and the media’s
representation of our results.

So I was surprised to hear that you’d found his tweets “incredibly offensive” and would be very interested to hear what these were. It’s not clear to me (from your tweets to Barry and Richard Betts) whether you have re-read these messages recently, or
whether they were more ”unproductive” than offensive.

I have just spoken to Barry and he is genuinely upset and concerned about this. The reason I have copied Katharine into this is that she recently started following him and he is concerned she will write him off due to your description. He describes the
abuse Katharine and Kerry have received as “despicable” and worries that your comments will have branded him in the same category when he takes great pains to be polite. This is one of the reasons I have chosen to write to you. Barry is not a troll, not a mindless frothing angry commenters we so frequently see. He does get frustrated (and
verbose) but is good-humoured with it.

Fortunately for me and my colleagues, in theUK the debate is much less heated than in the US, and some of us have made great progress in holding civil and productive conversations with a range of sceptics, bringing them round to our point of view. I
want to defend Barry’s part in this: to stick up for someone I owe a
lot in developing the conversation.

You may think this issue is not worth giving a moment more of your time. And this would be your decision, of course. But I hope you can.

Best wishes,

Tamsin

(@flimsin)

 ————————————————————————————

There lies a very interesting and remarkably  frank discussion:

Peter has now tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/#!/PeterGleick/status/162619414271901696

and I thanked Peter:

https://twitter.com/#!/BarryJWoods/status/162835967818993665

but without a considerable amount of effort and Richard, Tamsin and Katies input I don’t think this would have happened.

If it is considered offensive, incredibly offensive, closed minded or even an an attack on a scientist or climate science presumably, to be asked to backup words and accusations like ‘lies’ (Donna’s IPCC book) I am afraid in my opinion that scientist fails in trying to communicate and just alienates people

Reading his comments above, it is sad to see that he presumeably must include Professor Judith Curry, Professor Richard Tol and Professor Jonathan Jones (and Professor Richard Mueller – ‘Hide the decline’ video) in those he has lot pateince with and find ‘incredibly offensive’? as they have all spoken highly critically about ‘Hide the Decline’.

Additionally, as they were FAR more critical than I was of him with respect to Donna Laframboises book. I’ve met Donna once and she is a very nice lady who deserves to be respected to have PUBLIC  accusations of ‘lies’ to be substantiated (and a belated thanks to Donna for the kids, maple leaf lollies & sweets she sent before Xmas)

“…The systematic and coordinated and dishonest attack on me after my negative review of LaFramboise’s book was only one example that made it clear that rational debate was not possible and dissenting views not tolerated…” – Peter Gleick

All Professor Tol, Curry, Jones and myself and Andrew Montford were attempting to clarify with Peter was his claim that Donnas’ book was full of ‘lies’. we were asking for pg number, reference and reasoning from him to substantiate the VERY strong public claim. As a draft reviewer of the book in question, I can imagine Richard Tol’s annoyance.

So this is where Peter has infuriated me, for someone in his position, his refusal to substantiate PUBLIC statement, when he is asked to back up his statement.. ie pg number, url, ref, and reasoning, as it seems to be a worrying attitude that appear to frequently expressed within ‘climate change science’

To be willing to substantiate something is something ANY student would expect of their teacher, or public figure, and Peter is both.

Peter Gleick is no doubt an expert scientist in his own field, but I do think he could learn from Tamsin Edwards approach in attempting to communicate to the public, not least withrespect do not dismiis people because of who the talk with (or percieved sins of association) and yes it is infuriating. This is a point that Tamsin Edwards makes in her new blog after apprently learning the hard way in public debate (bold).

Twitter and Bishop Hill have

(a) toughened me up a bit

(b) taught me to be very precise and ready to back every statement up

(c) taught me not to assume anything about people’s opinions or knowledge, though I admit I forget sometimes (c) given me many friendly allies from across the spectrum of opinions. I recommend them both as places to start.” – Tamsin Edwards

Tamsin thought it odd that Peter had forwarded to me in his email all their previous correspondence, presumably to to beclear about how he felt? I am glad that he did because it gave me a small, but important pause for thought.

As I MUST give Peter Gleick some great credit for even twittering with me and Andrew Montford in the first place.

Why do I give him this credit, because he mentions in passing that he received phone calls from the same ‘gentleman’ that had been given Katie Hayhoe a very hard (abusive time) and again refers to regular abusive emails, that no doubt other high profile climate scientists in the USA recieve (primarily from Americans?)

[Katherine, a week ago I got a long rambling phone
message from your  admirer Stan Lippmann -- not nearly as horrible and offensive as his to you, but bad enough.

The situation is no doubt due to the highly politicised polarisation of the issue in the USA, withMarc Morano’s Climate Depot, no doubt NOT helping by publishing climate scientists email addreses alongside ‘tabloid’ style headlines.

So despite my criticism, I do have to give Peter a huge amount of credit for talking to me on Twitter,  in the first place due to the very different highly politicised situation in America, that I was only vaguley aware of. Same credit is due to Katie Hayhoe for talking for someone called – @realclim8gate at all, and I would like to thank her again.

All I wanted to is to persude some in USA/UK climate science that they may be mistaken, and that the highly polarised climate in the USA/UK is preventing the normal civil but lifely debate of the issues.

The reason I choose Realclimategate is like Tamsin to be provocative, to be noticed, and at the time I choose itbecause Realclimate had really irritated me, by just deleting me out of hand in their comments.

I had suggested they just add Steve Mcintyre, Peilke and Lucia’s Blackboard (to their Other Opinion blog roll, and the reply was tha tthese people were dishonest! (Dr Eric Steig – this did not go unoticed by the people I mentioned) and ALL my further comments at Realclimate were modereated out of existance.

The irony is I had gone originally (when climategate happened) to RealClimate in total good faith, on the personal recommendation of a climate scientists  and a very good personal family friend (someone who was part Editorial Team of IPCC TAR, WG1 with a high profile UK role to this day) so I was genuinely openminded about Realclimate.

Ie I did not even know who Steve Mcintyre, Michael Mann, Anthony Watts were,  nor heard of Andrew Montford, Mark Lynas or Leo Hickman (sorry guys!) either.

In Peters and other climate scientists world view it seems to me to even mention, ‘Hide the decline’ climategate, etc is seen as very offensive and ‘attacking scientists’ or attacking science’ and to me this world view is odd.

Think of me what you will, call me a sceptic, denier, crank, flat-earther, anti-science and more names intended to portay me as someone to ignore, as bad, crazy or stupid. But if scientists like Prof R Muller, Prof J Jones, Prof J Curry and UEA Paul Dennis publically have stateded their criticisms their concerns wiht the ‘HIde the Decline’ and the scientists involved,  then I am going to damm well talk about it to, until science deals with it ‘properly’ and moves on.

As in my opinion, Peter  reaction to this (like very many others within ‘climate change’ science) shows them more to be like someone who is an advocate for ‘the cause’ and not behaving as a scientist should.

As demonstrated by the criticism of Tamsind Edwards new blog name allmodelsarewrong.com, because his primary concern is that ‘sceptics’ might misuse it.

As I have pretty much commnted every in the last 2 years under my name (as Barry Woods) I’m going to drop @RealClim8gate, as It is has become unproductive to what I want to achieve, a civil discussion with no mention of deniers, watermelons, cranks, alarmist, or whatever label anyone denigrates the other to deny them a voice.

So, whilst I am proud/pleased what RealClimategate.org achieved (and @RealClim8gate ) times are changing, more questions are being asked, a broader audience is gradually engaging the debate and hopefully the need for provocative challenge to a ‘consensus’ will fade away.

So, I have changed my Twitter name already from @RealClim8gate to @BarryJWoods

I might just park this old blog, (don’t want to lead dead links all over the place) and I am proud of the small achievements it has contributed, and thank to those like Katie, Tamsin, etc who saw past the name.)

and of course I will need to come up with a new name for a new blog.

Any thoughts?

So hopefully, Peter will perhaps think some of his communication events effort was not so totally  ’unproductive‘ after all.

Or I might just retire from blogging (it’s been a long very frustrating 2 years)

Interesting thoughts (podcast and transcript) by journalists challenging the ‘media  consensus’ on a number of topics. These words from the BBC’s Michael Buerk (BBC R4 – The Moral Maze) apparently challenging the simplistic mainstream media ‘climate consensus’ at a new blog – The Fifth Column - with has an apparent provocative and challenging devil advocates agenda.

“What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute.”

- Michael Buerk – Agitator Fifth Column (Chair of BBC’s The Moral Maze)

I wonder what the BBC’s Environment team will (Richard Black especially) have to say about his from Michael Buerk’s podcast broadcast at the Fifth Column blog.

“…And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.

We hear a lot about how the Arctic is shrinking, but scarcely anything about how the Antarctic is spreading, and the South Pole is getting colder.

Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago. The number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, the number of cyclones and typhoons has actually fallen over the last 30 years.

And so on.” – Michael Buerk

I hope they don’t mind me reproducing a transcript of the Podcast on an article that apparently has only seen a relatively small audience so far: Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit I will include a few highlights in bold where I would considerit very interesting to all those involved in the climate change (man made catastrophic version) debate:

Transcript – The Fifth Column – Michael Buerk on the Climate Summit

The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate.

Now, I don’t know for certain that man’s activities are causing the planet to heat up. Nobody does. We simply cannot construct a theoretical model that can cope with all the variables.

For what it’s worth, I think anthropogenic warming is taking place, and, anyway, it would be a good thing to stop chucking so much bad stuff into the atmosphere.

What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute. 

You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames.

And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.

We hear a lot about how the Arctic is shrinking, but scarcely anything about how the Antarctic is spreading, and the South Pole is getting colder.

Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago. The number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, the number of cyclones and typhoons has actually fallen over the last 30 years.

And so on.

There may be answers, I think there probably are – to all these quibbles – I would like to hear them.

I don’t want the media to make up my mind up for me.

I don’t need to be told things by officialdom in all its forms, that are not true, or not the whole truth, for my own good.

I resent the implication that the exercise of my reason is “inappropriate”, an act of generational selfishness, a heresy.

I want a genuine debate about the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.

As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

That was last year.

OK – so where are they?

I would like to hear a clash of informed opinion about what would actually be better if it got warmer as well as worse.

Where do you see reported the extraordinary greening of the Sahel, and shrinking of the Sahara that’s been going on for 30 years now – the regeneration of vegetation across a huge, formerly arid swathe of dirt poor Africa. More warming means more rainfall. More CO2 means plants grow bigger, stronger, faster.

I would like a real argument over climate change policy, if only to rid myself of the nagging feeling that sometimes it’s a really good excuse for banging up taxes and public-sector job creation.

It’s not happening. It’s a secular issue but skepticism is heresy.

They talk the language of science, but it is really a post-God religion that rejects relativist materialism.

Its imperative is moral.

It looks to a society where some choices are obviously, and universally held to be, better than others.

A life where having what we want is not a right and nature puts constraints on the free play of desires.

To reinvent, in short, a life where there is good and bad, right and wrong.

As with all religions, whether the underlying narrative is true, has become beside the point.” – Transcript here

Very interesting, provocative thoughts from a senior BBC journalist at the Fifth Colum blog especially, with these very challenging words from the BBC’s Michael Buerk for the Guardian and the BBC.

“What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument” – Michael Buerk

The Fifth Column Blog is apprently only a month or 2 old, and at time of writing has only a 113 Twitter followers, it  may become very interesting: (About)

Welcome to The Fifth Column

The name implies a spirit of subversion.. .

Yes, but not in the predictable, ultimately tiresome, sense of arguing with everything and everybody.

Rather in what will be the refreshing sense of saying the un-sayable or asking the un-askable when nobody is saying it or asking it because of behind-the-scenes’ deals, old pals’ agreements, eyebrow-raising scruples, or an unwillingness to offend or to be offended.

Our business will be stories, issues, controversies in the public consciousness. Which deserve more, sometimes deeper, investigation. Truth, after all, is hard to find – it’s usually subjective, and always complex.”

From The Fifth Column Twitter Bio:

“Thought provoking podcasts on topical & controversial issues, with contributions from some of the most respected names in UK journalism as well as new talents.”  

I think, that I may just decide to follow The Fifth Column blog on Twitter (please retweet)

And the accusation is that it was a deliberate attempt to influence Durban Cop17 Climate Conference.

…. and of course this is EXACTLY what it was.

The real question should be, what is the motive..

Prof Michael Mann of course, has just repeated his usual mantra, of his thoughts of the motivations of the people behind the release:

“agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”

Michael Mann – Guardian

The accompanying note from FOIA, perhaps reveals  a different motive, one that I very much relate to:

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.” FOIA – Nov 22, 2011

The last 20 years since Rio, have seen vast amounts of money, but more importantly political capital and TIME chasing a vision of AGW derived catastrophy.  Even if the direst predictions for the future were true.  Money and time would have been better spent (imho) in developing the infrastructure in the poorest parts of the world, to deal now to the natural weather extremes that have occured since time immemorial. Because a extreme weather related death, flood, drought, hurricane, tornado, etc spread of disease, etc, is a 1st order function of being poor… 

ie Malaria is predicted to spread becase of AGW, by some, meaning more deaths in an indeterminate future… With the political capital and time (and relativelly small amounts of money) malaria could be erradicated in a few short years. And electricity to the billion and a half with out it, sanitisation, clean water, all the diseases of the poor, etc, etc could be eradicated. 

And if an AGW hurricane, or flood, or whatever does comes along in the developing world in 20,30,40 years, infrastructure, wealth will protect the populations whether it is of natural attribution, or a supposed 5% (or whatever) future AGW hurricane…

So the big question of the email leak comes down to motive..

Michael Mann appears to be trapped in his own thinking, as the ‘enemies’ he imagines are very much a USA centric construct (probably very true 15 or so years ago).

But WORLD emission have gone up 40% in the last 20 years.. and it is not because of the WEST.. China and India, and all the developing countries have clearly chosen economic growth over AGW. And thus Kyoto fails, and any sucessor, as no developing country will cut any emissions, which in reality is energy production needed for growth.

(‘developing world’ – even though China now emits more per capita than France, en par with Italy, and will very soon race ahead of the EU average and India, et al will do all they can to match this growth – and have lots of coal)

Leo Hickman of the Guardian has I think a very good initial article about Climategate 2.0, put together very quickly no doubt, and I think very balanced for the Guardian (far better than the BBC’s Richard Black initial reaction, who makes no mention of content), ie he picks out one of the key issues regading FOI, and mentions perhaps a non (‘evil’ motive) . Balanced enough to no doubt get criticism from everybody probably , so Leo is doing something right.

I would LOVE to hear George Monbiot reaction, to the new Phil Jones, FOI related email content, as he was very strong worded about Phil Jones – FOI behaviour… the latest emails really clarify this: (extracts)

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process”

“With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. “- Jones writing to UEA Information Officer

This rather worried Osborne, who was prompted to remind Jones ‘not to say deleting’ in face of FOI, that would be illegal, but housekeeping …….

Hi Phil!

re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you andcc'd to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist
for a number of months and possibly years,and could be released under FOI if a request is made for it during that time!]…

I assume that you didn’t delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your regular routine of deleting old emails.

If that is what you meant, then it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
avoid it being misunderstood.

The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI, EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions then we may need to avoid it.

I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular routine of deleting old emails! – Osborne

It’s quite funny really,  a very careful email that may be FOI’d itself reminding Phil that he meant ‘spring cleaning’ not deleteing (well that’s my perception of it). They really do not understand the spirit of this law – motive blind.

Ben Pile of Climate Resistance, takes a look at the ‘Influence Durban’ question, and makes the contrast to all the ‘frightening message and scientific ‘press releases’ (full reports to follow much  )  also no doubt designed to influence Durban.

I’m sure much more will be said….. 

The best place to watch is probably Bishop Hill, Climate Audit and Watts Up With That and quite possible Dot Earth and even the Guardian. The Telegraph take should be interesting (Gray vs Delingpole, Lean vs Booker)  and the Daily Mail as more information comes out..

But the abosulte majority of the public, politicians and even scientists will be oblivious to it, the real world has real pressing issues. Even if this event gives perversly Durban  a spike of interest, the public/politicians, etc will still have moved on..

Over at Bishop Hill  (h/t) there are lots of comments about the scientific literature, journals,media, politicians and TV of the time,frightening the public with a coming ice age, with almost identical themes (as seen in the video) that we see with man made climate change (warming this time) popular delusion

….this is now denied

my example, is the fact that it made it into popular culture and also that so many people remember, this is all ignored as well..

from the iconic 1970′s song – ‘London Calling’ – (The Clash)

CHORUS
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning and I, live by the river

I don’t remember that much of the 70′s, (born in 69) but there definitely was an apocalyptic gloom and doom, ‘end of the world’ mentality going on, nuclear destruction, an ice age was coming, (due to CO2 and other pollutants ) followed in the 80′s, by fears of nuclear war  and the take up of the catastrophic man made global warming vision.  

The  ’Meltdown’ referred to in the lyrics of ‘London Calling’ was refering to ‘Nuclear Meltdown’ - the  Three Mile Island incident and because of this (and now Japan , decades later, the Environmentalists won’t let politicians build nuclear power stations to solve the Green Energy Gap problem, in fact all nuclear power stations in Germany are to be closed.

So another generation now has the end of the world vision, now due to CAGW, when in reality it might be aGW – ie tenths C)

Certain environmental groups and politicians almost seem to relish it, a modern 21st equivalent of 17th, 18th or 19th  century end of the world cults (and a few more recent raptures). As an observer of history, the human race does seem to be endowed with the ability and even a need to scare itself beyond reason, with a whole new catastrophic idea every generation and it is always different ‘this time’ and ‘real’.

London Calling – The Clash

 full lyrics – very doom gloom, nuclear doom, ice-age, london drowning, etc….
 
London calling to the faraway towns
Now war is declared – and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard,you boys and girls
London calling, now don’t look to us
Phoney Beatlemania has bitten the dust
London calling, see we ain’t got no swing
‘Cept for the ring of that truncheon thing

CHORUS
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning and I, live by the river

London calling to the imitation zone
Forget it, brother, you can go at it alone
London calling to the zombies of death
Quit holding out – and draw another breath
London calling – and I don’t wanna shout
But while we were talking I saw you *running out
London calling, see we ain’t got no high
Except for that one with the yellowy eyes

CHORUS x2
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear error, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning and I, I live by the river

Now get this
London calling, yes, I was there, too
An’ you know what they said? Well, some of it was true!
London calling at the top of the dial
And after all this, won’t you give me a smile?
London Calling

I never felt so much alive, alive, alive…

Whilst corruption in Carbon Markets, Carbon Credits, windfarms scams, Solar power fraud and many other clever money making mechanisms, is not new news.

It will be hard for governments and environmental groups to ignore this report. Not least when it spells out that many of the poor countries ‘affected by climate change’ are also amongst the most corrupt.

The Independant chose the headline: Green Schemes are ‘Wide Open to Major Corruption’

 ”Corruption is threatening global steps to combat climate change, a new report from Transparency International (TI) warned yesterday. Billions of pounds will be plundered and wasted, it says, unless stronger measures are introduced against embezzlement and misappropriation.” – Independent

The Telegraph chose the headline: Climate Change spending at risk of fraud and Corruption

Also reported today by the BBC, The Times and The Telegraph a piece of news which highlights the massive subsidies behind wind turbine electricty generation

The Telegraph: Wind farms paid £900,000 to switch off for one night

If It’s good enough for James Delingpole (three weeks  R & R) following his Press complaints result, I thought time to take a step back and relax.  Time to enjoy the Easter Holidays with my family, and despite all my least expectations spend a day enjoy watching the Royal Wedding.  It helped having a very enthusiastic 6 year old daughter asking all sorts of questions.

Plus, my wife’s business has been shut for a month for major building works, and a complete redesign and refit. Thus NO income…

Real world intervening with blogging..

I will continue but at a slower pace and less comments elsewhere.

Yet, it has been noted before that it can be difficult to get the opposing side of the debate to show up for a climate change (man made) debate. Peter Gill’s summarised his experience at Bishop Hill a couple of weeks ago, or possibly Peter is not quite famous enough as a former Chancellor

Some of you may remember Peter as the man who famously didn’t write the Institute of Physics submission to the House of Commons inquiry into Climategate. Peter wanted to tell me about a recent invitation he’d had to take part in a global warming debate at one of the bits of the University of London. After several months of to-ing and fro-ing, the who event has now been cancelled because nobody was willing stand up to represent the other side of the argument. – Bishop Hill

Anyway, I imight turn up as an eco warrior (or just a name badge) and see how it plays out. The idea of most debates of course are about winning over an audience, it would be much more interesting  if one party opposing or for the motion is open-minded enough to be persuaded by the debate, but I imagine in this case it may be unlikely.

 Spectator Debate – The global warming concern is over. Time for a return to sanity

SPEAKERS FOR THE MOTION:

Lord Nigel Lawson
Chairman, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Dr Benny Peiser
Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Graham Stringer MP
Member of House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

SPEAKERS AGAINST THE MOTION:

Professor Tim Palmer
Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, Oxford University

Simon Singh
Science Writer

Professor Sir David King
Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, and former Government Chief Scientific Adviser

The Spectator debate should be interesting, not least because it is chaired by Andrew Neill (BBC Daily Politics) because even IF the science were settled, the economic policies based on man made global warming are (or at lest should be) very open to debate.  Andrew Neil  with his experience should be well able to keep the debate on the straight and narrow and deal with any climate politic ‘spin’.

One thought is, if the scientists on the panel criticize the politicians (Lawson & Stringer) for not being scientists, the charge can equally be reversed to – what do scientists know, about politics and economic policies.

I bumped into Peter Gill at the Climate Fools day last year and again last week and he  sent me a description of his experience about organising a scientific debate. One possible explanation of his, for a reluctance to debate is very relevant.

Perhaps the other side have taken notice of the five page Futerra document providing recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group was supported by DEFRA, the Carbon Trust, DTI, the Environmental Agency, the Energy Savings Trust and the UK Climate Impacts Programme (see: Futerra – Rules of the Game).

I will just quote one paragraph:

“Forget the climate change detractors. Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change – Peter Gill

A later Futerra document I have come across –  Sell the Sizzle - The New Climate Change Message (actually not that hard to find, direct link on their website ) goes much further beyond this:

“climate action is no longer a scientist’s job; it’s now a salesman’s job” 

Climate Change Deniers
Unfortunately, these guys are back (if they
ever went away). The edge of this group are
the conspiracy theorists who are sure that
climate science is an excuse for either (a) the
environmentalists to curtail consumption or
undermine our way of life, or (b) for the developed
world to hold back the developing world.” – Futerra- Sell the Sizzle

Anyway here are Peter Gill’s thoughts about another debate, that despite initial interest never happened. (and if he send me another Word document, may the curse of WordPress be upon him – WordPress doe not like all the MS formating codes . There is another possible reason, that we discussed, that the general public are just not that interested, and only a tiny number of people (on both sides of the debate) are bothered to attend this sort of thing, yet trillions of dollars and world econimics are being shaped by the policies of AGW.

Peter Gill: CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE AT MAJOR BRITISH UNIVERSITY ABORTED

On 27th of October 2010 I was in the queue for security clearance and the issue of a pass at the House of Commons. I was on my way to the “Climate Fools Day” meeting at which I would be one of Sammy Wilson MP’s guest speakers. During the long wait I became engaged in conversion with a number of people around me. It turned out that one of them a young woman (Ms X) from a top British University, would be attending the Sammy Wilson Meeting.

A few days later Ms X telephoned me to discuss a number of climate change issues including the possibility of her University running a debate on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis with the suggestion that I could be one of speakers. In the months that have followed this became the main thread of e-mail exchanges extracts of which appear below in italics and in grey blocks. Quotes from other sources are simply in italics

At the initial stage Ms X indicated:

I am contacting Christopher Booker and Piers Corbyn to see if they would be interested in speaking at my university. On the other side of the debate I was hoping to invite the following speakers: Prof Maslin, Prof Costello, Prof Redclift. They were all involved in writing a piece in the Lancet claiming that climate change was the greatest threat to humanity. I imagine that most will refuse to speak. Are there any others that you would like to argue against?

PFG response:

Having three speakers with similar backgrounds may not be ideal. It may be worth approaching the Hadley Centre and CRU for a speaker. After all, the main anthropogenic signature is supposed to arise out of the failure of models to follow the atmospheric temperature without involving anthropogenic emissions (CO2 in particular). I have met a number of the guys there for example Adam Scaife. If you want a very lively debate you could try to involve George Monbiot of the Guardian – at least he would balance Chris Booker. Others you may consider would be Lord Oxburgh. Actually there is no shortage of names supporting the AGW hypothesis so if you want more just let me know. On the other side of the argument you could ask David Bellamy,  Peter Taylor, Lord Lawson, Dr Benny Peiser, Philip Foster, and Phil Hutchinson I could list others but in the main they reside abroad and so it would be pot luck if they were to be in the UK at the time of your proposed meeting.

Ms X early November 2010:

I have got approval from my university authorities to run this debate. I need to put together a panel. I’m going to try to get in contact with everyone that you have on this list. Who would you recommend for a chair? Looking through the BBC list is pretty depressing as I don’t seem to be able to make out anyone that is sitting on the fence or even anyone that could pretend to be impartial for an hour and a half. 

PFG:

The BBC is no longer a good source of impartiality particularly on anything to do with the Climate Change issue. Similarly there are not many politicians who are even handed on the issue except possibly Tony Benn (certainly not his son Hilary!). Perhaps you could find a well known sportsman (cricket, rugby or football captain?) who sits on the fence on climate change but could easily have the authority to Chair.   If I have any other thoughts on the Chair I shall let you know. By the way as Piers’ brother is an MP you will probably be able to make contact with Tony that way.

The main difference of opinion on climate change is to do with the importance or not of so-called anthropogenic greenhouse emissions versus other specified or unspecified climate change mechanisms. In my opinion to have a proper scientific debate various graphics need to be shown. Trying to describe the behaviour of a particular variable through time especially against one or more other variables is rather difficult just in words. Consequently you will need to allow those speaking to have access to PowerPoint or other presentation methods and appropriate projection facilities. You will also have to decide whether everyone on the panel should be allowed to make a presentation (fixed time each?) or only selected members. After the presentations the audience could be invited to question the panel (whether all presenters or supporters to presenters). I shall leave it to you to decide whether to have a vote at the end. By the way on that score I think that you will find that other universities have held debates over the past year or so and you may get some help from them. Try Googling university climate change debates and see what comes up.

I ran something similar to what you are attempting some years ago at the Institute of Physics. We got that well known “impartial” politician Malcolm Meacher to Chair the event with Dick Lindzen speaking against a significant anthropogenic effect and Alan Thorpe supporting the notion that recent climate change was largely a result of human emissions as modelled by the Hadley Centre computers (he is an ex Director of the Hadley Centre). After the two presentations Piers joined Dick and one of the Hadley Center guys joined Alan on the panel and all panel members answered questions from the audience. It was however quite clear that done properly answers to questions from the floor would have often benefited from further visuals but we had not allowed enough time for the latter.

Shortly afterwards PFG added:

I should perhaps have mentioned that the choice of date for your event is likely to be crucial. It would probably be best if you could first accommodate those who think that anthropogenic global warming is the most important current driver of climate change and then fit in those who oppose this position. I say that from experience that if one first accommodate sceptics one generally finds that the opposition tend not to be available on the date chosen.

Things went quiet for some time prompting me to write at the end of January 2011, PFG:

Something that happened recently reminded me of your intention to run a debate on climate change. I see that over three months have passed by and I am not aware of any further contact. I suspect that you may have run into difficulties in obtaining agreement from the believers in the anthropogenic hypothesis to take part or that pressure has been put on the University not to run such an event. I hope I am wrong.

I have been in e-mail contact with Roy Spencer ….(this) has resulted in a very simple and basic difference between the AGW hypothesis and the natural explanations that are favoured by others like Roy. Put simply it is the extent to which positive and negative feedbacks contribute to a sensitive or an insensitive climate. All the models have positive feedbacks built-in with (as far as I can see) very little justification. All alarmist projections rely on these positive feedbacks.

Please update me on your efforts (to arrange the debate).

It transpired that Ms X had unfortunately been unwell and handed over the organisation to a colleague, Mr Y. Through accidental corruption of Ms X’s e-mail address list and losses of e-mails through an over burdened in –box there was some loss of continuity and much of my earlier advice was obviously either lost or not transferred to Mr Y who fed back:

The university is planning a debate on climate science tentatively titled ‘Would the real global warming please stand up? A debate on the causes of climate change.’

We’re hoping to get some discussion of the causes of climate change, how accurate models of climate science are, and how appropriate the response to climate change has been, between the main consensus group of climate scientists and those who don’t think contemporary climate models tell the whole story. Would you be willing to take part?

It’s short notice, but we were hoping to have the debate at the end of this month (February 2011). If you’re interested, and there are any dates that would suit you for a debate in central London, do let me know.

PFG:

I would be happy to take part in a debate such as you have suggested. However as it is a very important subject it needs to be organised well. My standpoint is one of a sceptic to the popular hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I think that you will find no problem in attracting people like me to contribute. However for a fruitful meeting it is essential to have an equal number of those who support the AGW hypothesis prepared to contribute to the debate and to accept that there could be a vote at the end.

My experience having tried to run such a debate myself when Chair of the Institute of Physics Energy Group suggests that (a) it is difficult to tie down supporters of AGW to dates and times (b) it is difficult to gain agreement to an actual debate rather than the simple presentation of position papers. I hope you have more luck.

The issues that need to be ventilated may involve reference to climate models but are more fundamental -  Are recent average atmospheric and ocean temperature changes largely natural in origin or largely anthropogenic and if the latter do they pose any serious threat to mankind?

As this is a scientific topic those conducting the debate will need to be able to show graphs and data and so facilities for say PowerPoint need to be available.

At the moment there is nothing in my diary at the end of February or beginning of March that cannot be moved or someone else substituted to act for me but it would help considerably if 28th February, 4th March and 10th March could be avoided.

In terms of preparation for the event it would be essential to confirm or otherwise the final wording of the subject of the debate and the names of the key contributors and the side for which they have chosen to speak.

Although I cannot speak for other possible contributors I have to say that any comments I make are my own and do not necessarily reflect any of the bodies (eg IOP, EI etc) in which I am involved.

Finally as I know a number of people will be interested in your approach I have included some of them by BCC.

Through the blind copy route I know that a number of people offered their views and contributions not least Lord Monckton.

10^th March Mr Y:

Initially, we had planned to postpone the debate to late March as room bookings were proving difficult and we’d had a relative dearth of responses. Ultimately, we’ve not seen much enthusiasm from the ‘consensus’ side so it looks as though the debate will have to be shelved, sad as that is.

I am sorry for keeping you in limbo—Ms X and I have only just reached this decision after chasing people up and not getting very far.

Thanks for being such a good sport. We’ll have the debate if we ever manage to get your adversaries together in a room!

So here we are over four months down the line with no debate on the science of climate change despite research that shows the university involved is one of the 20 most highly regarded universities in the world.

Some people have asked me why “the other side” are not prepared to debate the science. Well unfortunately this would call for speculation on my part and in any event it is for the other side to say. I do know from personal experience that when asked the responses tend to stretch credibility- “things like my dairy is full” and “I have another meeting on that day” even when the day has not been specified or is to the choice of the other side. Nevertheless it is difficult to resist a little speculation. Perhaps the other side have taken notice of the five page Futerra document providing recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group was supported by DEFRA, the Carbon Trust, DTI, the Environmental Agency, the Energy Savings Trust and the UK Climate Impacts Programme (see: http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf). I will just quote one paragraph: “Forget the climate change detractors. Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.”

Final thought in Thursday March 10 London edition of Metro page 29 “More people believe in climate change than global warming – even though it is the same thing, a new study suggests.” Does this indicate more or less need for a debate on climate science I wonder?

Peter F Gill 12^th March 2011

It includes a little reminder to perhaps reflect the new thoughts on ‘climate disruption’ vs global warming (man made).

Even under global warming, periods of extreme cold are still possible for the UK (54)

I thought this was quite funny, the hourly rate of snowfall was considered rare, Rare since records began (6 years!)

The rate of snow that fell at Heathrow was rare
52 The most significant feature of the snow event of 18 December at Heathrow may have been the rate at which snow fell, with nearly 7cm falling within the hour prior to midday. This is rare at Heathrow. A snowfall rate of 7cm in one hour has not been observed at Heathrow since hourly records began in 2005. Daily snowfall increments of 7cm or more have occurred only six times since 1970. Rates of snowfall at Gatwick and Stansted for this event did not exceed 5cm in one hour and 3cm in one hour respectively.

Perverse Weather Events – or just weather?

The Chief scientists for the Department of Transport:

“There is a general trend for the mean atmospheric temperature across the planet to increase. But whilst that is happening local conditions may well produce perverse weather events.” – Professor Brian Collins

From the Executive Summary an overview of what occured at Heathrow and a summary of the cold weather event. The executive summary puts the disruption into context, and on the whole it appears to be a very comprehensive and clear report with good advice and sensible recommendations

1 The unusual weather conditions experienced in Heathrow in December caused disruption on a number of fronts. Passengers were unable to travel at an important time of the year; over 4,000 flights were cancelled, causing significant impact to airline schedules globally; and Heathrow Airport‟s reputation was damaged.

It is just the weather and global warming comments that stand out, based on the best advice received by the panel from the usual experts:

The panel has sought expert scientific advice from the Met Office and the DfT on the implications of global warming on the future likelihood of and scale of snow events at Heathrow.

The weather during the month of December was unusual. It was the coldest December for 100 years. There were two extended snowfalls during the month, the first early in December, with Gatwick and Stansted experiencing significant snowfalls, but with less snow at Heathrow. All three airports were affected by the second snowfall. The actual snowfall at Heathrow (over the crisis period) occurred on the morning of Saturday the 18th – which resulted in a maximum snow depth of 9cm.

55 The panel heard from Professor Brian Collins, DfT‟s Chief Scientific Advisor, that: “There is a general trend for the mean atmospheric temperature across the planet to increase. But whilst that is happening local conditions may well produce perverse weather events.”

56 This trend was also reported in David Quarmby‟s Winter resilience report: “The starting point is the slow but steady rise in average global temperatures. The consensus on the UK is that on average summers will become warmer, and winters will become warmer and wetter, though the next 10–15 years may be dominated by natural variability. Whensevere weather events happen they may be more extreme in terms of heat and rainfall. Although the probability of severely cold winters in the UK is gradually declining, there is
currently no evidence to suggest similar changes in episodes of extremes of snow, winds and storms in the UK”3.
57 The Chief Scientific Advisor of the Met Office supported the above views. The panel noted that further, more focused, research will commence in this area, led by the Met Office, and urges BAA to understand the implications of any subsequent findings from this research.

The report states that the cold weather was predicted a few days out by the Met Office and Heathrows weather service. Thus Heathrows Airports failings should be considered due to not responding to ‘weather’ (not climate) short term predictions, this should have given Heathrow time to prepare. It is only where the ‘global warming’ and ‘climate science’ creeps in to the report that perhaps some assumptions and comments seem odd.  This is in no noubt, no fault of the panel as they of course sought the appropriate expert advice

The Guardian has an article about it here:

Guardian: Airports will spend £50m to avoid repeat of Heathrow snow chaos

“BAA to invest in snow-clearing machines and more staff – with the aim that bad weather will never again close Heathrow”

A simple rhetorical question for Mr Huhne, because in the Guardian/Observer it was reported that Greenpeace will be keeping an eye on things:

“Chris Huhne, the energy and climate secretary, said recently that “green” organisations such as Greenpeace would be asked to play a formal monitoring role to check that government was meeting its commitments.” – Observer, March 13 2011

Could I have a formal monitoring role please as well, could the readership of Bishop Hill?

All the Green’s seem a bit confused by the technicalities of an Energy Policy, they call for millions of electric cars? Where is all that EXTRA electricity to power them going to come from, windmills?

Greenpeace has strongly criticised a new government plan to cut carbon emissions, arguing that it neglects the field of green transport.

In a first intervention, Greenpeace says the new plan contains no mention of the target recommended by the government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, for electric vehicles. The committee wanted a framework that would see 60% of vehicles powered by electricity by 2030 – about 11 million electric cars and 1.5 million vans.” – Observer, March 13 2011

Only the French with ~75% of electricity generated by nuclear will be able to say they have green electric cars. In the UK, power is predominantly provided by coal and gas, with some nuclear and ironically the French interconnector to the UK contributes more than all the UK’s wind turbines, especially on a windless day. 

Todays national electricity contribution by wind is shown below…. (BMReports)

Yet in a sign that Mr Huhne seems to have no grasp of reality in the technological demands of electricity generation, he is lobbying EU member states to incresse the EU’s emmission targets to 30% from 20%.

Chris Huhne has won the support of six other European governments to push for a toughening of the EU’s climate targets, to be discussed in Brussels on Monday . The energy and climate secretary is spearheading a growing movement in favour of a target of 30% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, instead of the current 20%.

He will join his counterparts from Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Greece to argue for the higher target at a four-hour meeting of all 27 member states.

In a letter to the Guardian, Huhne and his fellow ministers say: “At a time when the price of oil is soaring, putting in place an ambitious p lan for Europe’s low-carbon future has wider benefits than tackling climate change. It will increase the continent’s resilience against oil price spikes and reduce its dependence on imported energy. And it will help Europe compete with emerging economies in the fast-growing markets for green goods and services.” – Observer, March 13 2011

Richard Tol has put the extra costs together for a 30% target..

“What Europe must not do is continue to barrel down a path that makes no economic sense. Yet it seems committed to its reckless course. The European Commission wants to toughen the carbon-reduction target to 30 per cent below 1990 levels – which Tol calculates would cost roughly £370 billion a year, twice as much as the existing plans. The effect, over the next 90 years, would be to reduce temperatures by an additional one-hundredth of a degree.” – Telegraph, July 02 2010

On a windless day, when the UK starts to have rolling blackouts in a few years, maybe the public will enquire why do we have lots of stationary wind turbines and only 19 nuclear reactors vs the French 59 nuclear reactors. Or is it not about emissions for some, but green politics.

Judith Curry has tackled the ‘Hide the Decline’ issue at her blog Climate Etc.  The issue is that data was hidden from policymakers  (and the public) so as to present a ‘simpler’ message… and other data spliced in to perhaps give a very different message?

Remember it is all about the idea of ‘unprecedented’ global warming because the politicians, media and public were warned by graphs like this….

Tree ring data – Thermometers spliced in – tree ring data truncated

Tree Ring Data alone – with deleted data reinstated

In the video link (30 mins in ) in Judith Curry’s article the second graph is how ‘all scientists at Berkeley’ would present the data.  The whole video is well worth watching.

The fact that the proxies temperature decline when the thermometer readings are going up, would indicate that they are NOT a good proxy for past temperature.  As temp reconstructions proxies (tree rings) were used to explain or ‘sell’ the idea that modern temperatures were ‘unprecedented’ so global warming ‘must’ be down to humans and that policy makers should something now.

I think even the most unscientifically trained politician, person in the media and member of the public can now see the problem with proxies, especially if you look at the 2 graphs above..    The screen captures are from the video Judith Curry links to (part I):

No point talking here about it here, go to where the debate is.    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/23/hiding-the-decline-part-ii/

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/24/hiding-the-decline-part-iii/

At the Bishop Hill blog, at least one scientist has chimed in to support Professor Judith Curry

Professor Jonathon Jones (Physics – Oxford University)

People have asked why mainstream scientists are keeping silent on these issues. As a scientist who has largely kept silent, at least in public, I have more sympathy for silence than most people here. It’s not for the obvious reason, that speaking out leads to immediate attacks, not just from Gavin and friends, but also from some of the more excitable commentators here.

Far more importantly most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so, and are also well aware that most scientific questions are considerably more complex than outsiders think, and that it is entirely possible that we have missed some subtle but critical point.

However, “hide the decline” is an entirely different matter. This is not a complicated technical matter on which reasonable people can disagree: it is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science. The significance of the divergence problem is immediately obvious, and seeking to hide it is quite simply wrong. The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science, declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down. I don’t know who they think they are speaking for, but they certainly aren’t speaking for me.

I have watched Judy Curry with considerable interest since she first went public on her doubts about some aspects of climate science, an area where she is far more qualified than I am to have an opinion. Her latest post has clearly kicked up a remarkable furore, but she was right to make it.

The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science. If the rot is not stopped then the credibility of the whole of science will eventually come into question.

Judy’s decision to try to call a halt to this mess before it’s too late is brave and good. So please cut her some slack; she has more than enough problems to deal with at the moment.

If you’re wondering who I am, then you can find me at the Physics Department at Oxford University. Feb 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Jonathan Jones

The Carbon Brief is a new website  designed to provide a rapid response to any climate chaage related stories in the media.

It is also appears to be intended as a resource for articles and it claims to be an independent mediator between journalists and climate scientists.   

The Carbon Brief’s twitter followers seem to have different expectations.

Andrew SimmsNef Bio: 10:10 Campaign Board Member, New Economic Foundation (NEF), Greenpeace UK board member, co-author of The Green Deal Report, founder of the 100 Month initiative, Trustee of TERI Europe(alongside Rajendra Pachauri, Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell)

The Carbon Brief seems particularly concerned about how sceptical stories in UK media and blogs are being received by people in India and China and reported in non-EU countries media and blogs. (my bold). 

“The media has a huge impact on the way that the climate debate has taken shape in the UK, as it has in the US, Australia and around the world. Comment articles in newspapers and blogs here are often copied and published thousands of times around the globe. The arguments fomented in the pages of The Guardian or the Daily Telegraph can have a significant impact on how climate change is reported in India and China.” – The Carbon Brief 

On further investigation, the website demonstrates that they appear to be nothing but advocates of consensus climate change policy.  A look at their further resources  page gives the first two links as the Climate Science Rapid Response Team and RealClimate and it also include Climate Progress. There are no sceptical or even lukewarm website or blog links of any kind. 

“Our team of researchers will provide a rapid response service for climate science stories. We go straight to peer-reviewed science and the relevant scientists to get their opinions” – The Carbon Brief 

The Carbon Brief appears to have been set up for the specific purpose of countering sceptical stories relating to ‘climate change’ by going to AGW consensus  scientific sources for an instant rebuttal.  It is a project of the Energy and Strategy Centre, funded and supported by the European Climate Foundation (ECF)

ECF describes itself as “the largest philanthropic organisation in Europe focused on influencing government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. -The Carbon Brief  

“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.”  – About Us –  ECF 

On the The Carbon Brief website they say they are just getting started.

I am concerned about this new apparent big Green EU AGW PR and media machine swamping any sceptical voices with instant rebuttals and twitter mobs. They would appear to have very experience PR, Media and Communications professionals at work now, with all the tools of modern media management, all the funding they need and briefed to follow the European Climate Foundations’ agenda.  

If you take a look for example at the Carbon Brief’s Twitter profile, followers already include The Guardian’s environment team and editors, The Times’ science editor, Greenpeace, the Green Party, 10:10, 350, Transitions Towns, left leaning think tanks like the NEF and IPPR.  Basically the whole ‘consensus’ media, NGO, politicians and lobby groups seem to know about it.   

And they will twitter and retweet the Carbon Brief’s tweets and links propagating the ‘message’ to their thousands of twitter followers (remember key media people) and the ‘climate change’ activists will no doubt descend on the sceptical blogs and comments section to ‘troll’ the articles.

In the future will every sceptical article have an instant twitter response, links and a full PR professional paid  media crafted response. I have seen tweets for Watts Up, Bishop Hill, Bjorn Lomborg, Jo Nova, Christopher Booker, GWPF and others already.  How can independent unpaid, unfunded bloggers possibly fend off professional PR of this nature from an organisation with multi-million Euro funded backers with the agenda described above.  

Nobody seems to have  told the Telegraph, James Delingpole (I asked), Christopher Booker  about the Carbon Brief, all those journalists organisations and lobby groups.  I wonder why?  

James Delingpole (Telegraph) had a nasty twitter mob experience himself, just recently, courtesy of an abusive tweet by Ben Goldacre (Bad Science  – Ben is the second follower of the Carbon Brief, in the graphic above, he has 85,000 followers alone) 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073468/if-ben-goldacre-thinks-im-a-what-does-that-make-him/ 

I expect James will get some more soon, as they twitter about every story he writes that they take exception to. 

Who is running the Carbon Brief  

From the website, the key team members are: Carbon Brief’s Director, Tom Brookes, is director of the Energy Strategy Centre (ESC) the communications unit funded by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Editor Christian Hunt has worked as a researcher and web editor for Greenpeace and the Public Interest Research Centre.  

We believe accuracy should be the key value in discussing climate change, and we aim to act as an independent mediator between the media and scientists.  

Our aim is to increase social and political understanding of the risks of climate change so that we can make more informed decisions as a society. – The Carbon Brief  

Tom Brookes is a very senior experienced communications professional, drafted in to counter sceptics?  

Tom Brookes, Director, ESC - bio ECF

Tom is the head of Energy Strategy Center (ESC), the communications unit of the European Climate Foundation. He has held senior corporate and consultancy posts in government relations and communications.  

Christian Hunt is still on the Board of Trustees of the Public Interest Research Centre which describes it’s work below:  

Our work examines the connections between climate, energy and economics.  

Our team is accomplished at presenting science to non-scientists, including policy makers. With the knowledge and experience to interpret cutting-edge research, and the skills to build it into effective communications tools, we provide a bridge between those at the forefront of climate science research and wider audiences.  

I might ask how independent of thought on the Climate Change issue are they really, given the people, organisation and funding partners involved?  

Profiles of Commentators  

The Carbon Brief separates profiles into those who are commentators and scientists, these profiles appear to be designed as a resource to be used by any media organisation, journalist or blogger as an instant profile on that person, or of an event, or about an organisation.  Compare the profiles of Rajendra Pachauri, George Monbiot and Phil Jones, with those of James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, Christopher Moncton, Benny Peiser and Bjorn Lomborg, to witness a mastercraft  example of PR and Media management at work, to promote an European Union AGW consensus media brief.  

The intent appears to be that any media looking at a sceptical climate change story, ( Chinese and Indian particularly? ) will use The Carbon Brief as a resource, without actually seriously getting into the detail of any of the issues or ask any further questions.  

An extract from The Carbon Brief’s - ‘Climategate’ profile    

The message was interpreted by sceptics as suggesting scientists wanted to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. This interpretation was offered despite the email being sent in 1999, when temperatures had been rising for some decades.  

The process referred to by the word “trick” was characterized by the Russell Report as a legitimate and peer reviewed method of dealing with the fact that a set of proxy temperature data from tree rings had diverged from temperature measurements – the proxy temperatures had declined while real temperatures continued to increase. This problem had been widely discussed in the scientific literature, prior to the UEA email hack.  

Personally, I think that proxies for historic temperatures that don’t actually follow thermometers are a little unreliable and not to much faith should be be given to them. Particularly when they have been used to reconstruct a historic temperature record, which has been used  inform us that temperatures are now unprecedented, proof of AGW and that we must do something now!  

An extract from The Carbon Brief’s - ‘Hockey Stick’ Profile  

“…Mann published a list of  rebuttals to myths around the hockey stick graph on the Realclimate.org website in 2004.  

Sceptic commentator Andrew Montford published the book The Hockey Stick Illusion in 2010. The central claim of The Hockey Stick Illusion is that the iconic graphic has survived only because a conspiracy amongst scientists sought to undermine the peer review process and bully journals into suppressing dissenting views.   

Richard Joyner, emeritus professor of physical chemistry at Nottingham Trent University reviewed the book in Prospect magazine, suggesting that “Montford’s book is not an honest contribution” because he “consistently and without evidence…queries the actions and motives of those with whom he disagrees.”  

Now I  wonder why The Carbon Brief choose that particular review, was it really being independent and balanced, as Matt Ridley (author The Rational Optimist) gave a VERY positive review, which was ALSO in the Prospect Magazine!  I wonder what Steve Mcintyre and Andrew Montford will make of those two profiles above (please read in full). Andrew Montford has lots of very positive reviews of his book, some other reviews here.  

Andrew Montford had a response to - ‘without evidence’  

“This is most peculiar. I mean, there are 270 references in the book. That’s really quite a lot of evidence. And Prof Joyner may have heard of the Climategate emails, heavily sourced in Chapter 17. What are these if not evidence?  

What else is there? Well, he says I should have referred to Steve M’s failure to publish his tree ring research. In a book in which one of the themes is the difficulty sceptics have in getting published, this seems a rather bizarre position for Prof Joyner to take.” – Bishop Hill  

Well funded with political influence  

The Carbon Brief is a backed by the European Climate Foundation and it appears to me to be a PR  machine designed to squash counter any scepticism and it has the funding, resources, political backing and contacts to do just that.   

“European Climate Foundation aims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change.” -  

“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.”  – About Us –  ECF  

However, the activities of the Carbon Brief seems to me to be at odds with the other stated commitement of the European Climate Founsdation, which made me laugh in disbelief at their apparent ‘doublethink’.  

“We seek to maintain a reputation for objective, high-quality work that is neither ideological nor politically biased.” – About Us ECF  

The European Climate Foundation (ECF) is well funded by its partners and even more importantly is very well connected politically in Europe for the clear aim of 80-95 % reduction in CHG’s by 2050. The Energy Strategy Centre is the European Climate Centre’s communications and media arm, which would indicate that The Carbon Brief  far from being non-ideological and not politically biased, has as it’s sole purpose the promotion of the ECF’s agenda, which is to lobby hard for European Union climate and economic policy change.  

“The majority of the European Climate Foundation’s fund is re-granted to NGOs engaged in trying to bring about meaningful policy change. When we see an unfulfilled need we also engage in direct initiatives, such as commission papers, convene meetings or launch a new organisation. We seek no public attention for our efforts and instead prefer to highlight the success of those who are actually doing the work.    

We have identified four major areas for immediate intervention within Europe:  

• Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry   

• Low-Carbon Power Generation  

• Transportation  

• EU Climate Policies and Diplomacy   

The  European Climate Foundation describes the members of the Advisory Board

This international body consists of distinguished professionals who draw on their individual and collective experiences in politics, business, academia and civil society. Members of the Advisory Council actively engage in advancing ECF’s mission both by providing strategic advice and through advocacy.

They represent the elite of European business people, NGO’s, politicians and lobbyists. Including, a Co-editor of the IPCC, Chair of WWF, Chair of Globe EU, VP Club of Rome, fomer MEP’s, Tony Blairs former Chief of Staff, CEO’s,  Directors and Senior partners of corporations and consultancies, including BP and Unilever. Truly the European elite.

I have had a brief look at some of their funding grants (see here), these include, Club of Rome, Greenpeace, WWF,  Globe International, Centre for European Policy, in fact over 500 grants in less than 4 years. One organisation called Sandbag, which lobbies for improved emissions trading in the European Union, struck a chord with me. Sandbag have received funding and written significant reports in the area of lobbying for Carbon Emission policy in Europe, backed by the European Climate Foundation.  

The founder of Sandbag is Bryony Worthington, she is now Baroness Worthington as she was made a life peer in the House of Lords last year by the Labour party leader Ed Milliband, as she was ‘instrumental in the writing’ of the UK Climate Change Act.  Unlike Viscount Christopher Monckton she now a full voting member of the House of Lords for the rest of her life and will no doubt continue her climate change work there (she studied English by the way).   

Bryony Worthington is also a board member of the 10:10 Campaign, who were behind the ‘No Pressure’ video nasty.  Fellow 10:10 board members are the environmental campaigner Andrew Simms and Tony Juniper. Other Sandbag board member colleagues include Ed Gillespie founder of Futerra and Mike Mason the founder of Climate Care which will sell you carbon offsets (I have one!, but I’ll write another time about that) which is now owned by JP Morgan Chase . When Mike Mason from Climate Care debated Christopher Monckton at the Oxford Union last year he was listed as part of the JMorgan Climate Care organisation (he seems to have since left)

This one organisation alone provides ample evidence to me that there are significant interests and representation by media, politicians, banking and consensus AGW lobby groups at the heart of the EU policy formation.  

What next for sceptical websites?  

If I get the time, I will follow this post up with an article about the Green Social Network, and how perhaps to engage with it.  

It is still very, very early days for The  Carbon Brief, it has only just got started. They say they are independent and claim climate science is distorted by vested interests.  

“Carbon Brief fact-checks stories about climate science online and in the press. We provide briefings on the people and organisations talking about climate change, and we produce background materials on science issues and news stories.  

Distortions of climate science occur regularly, partly because climate science is a complex area, and partly because various interests, motivated by finance or ideology, have sought to confuse the issue.  

We are a service for journalists and the online climate community. Our team of researchers will provide a rapid response service for climate science stories. We go straight to peer-reviewed science and the relevant scientists to get their opinions.  

Right now we are in the early stages of developing the site.” - About Us – The Carbon Brief  

What to expect from for The Carbon Brief because expectations seem to be very high?

Andrew Simms Bio: 10:10 Campaign Board Member, New Economic Foundation (NEF), Greenpeace UK board member, co-author of The Green Deal Report, founder of the 100 Month initiative, Trustee of TERI Europe(alongside Rajendra Pachauri, Sir John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell)

What next indeed?

I am both angered and saddened.

It was no doubt just a throwaway comment, with little thought behind it.

When Michael Buerk the presenter of the BBC radio program the ‘Moral Maze’ said in his intro to a debate about Multiculturalism in the UK: BBC iPlayer link (20 seconds in)

“not long ago to question multiculturalism…. 

….risked being branded racists and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers“

am I being too sensitive?

I presume that they mean ‘man made climate change deniers’, as I know of no-one that denies natural climate change, yet the words are used interchangeably.

To many people this would be a ‘climate change denier’ blog, what ever that may mean, should I be concerned for my personal safety?

I’m just sceptical of the catastrophic, End of the World’ cult like, gloom and doom version of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. (10:10, Greenpeace, Gore, WWF, Transition Towns, etc)

In fact I might be considered part of the IPCC AGW consensus.  Although, someone that thinks the lower or lowest end of the IPCC projections for temperatures are the most likely in the next 100 years based on observable evidence. But of the opinion that natural climate variability may swamp any AGW signal in the earth’s climate.

I don’t think I am being too sensitive…

…this casual use of a phrase, in the context of a manstream program, associating ideas with paedophiles, is guaranteed to make people think at least twice about being called a ‘climate change deniar’.

The fact that it is in a program not about climate change just makes it worse, it was just a comment in the introduction of a program about another taboo subject in the UK, criticising multiculturalism. 

The irony is apparently lost on the presenter of the MORAL MAZE, when in the very next 30 seconds, Michael Buerke goes on to say when describing David Camerons criticism of government handling of multiculturism.

“his was not an argument against the basic idea of tolerance towards thus amongst us with different cultures, IDEAS and lifestyles.”

Why single out people that have the idea that ‘climate science’ is uncertain and politicised. Recently many scientists have said that over hyping of doom and gloom and unrealistic scenarios by lobby groups has not helped.  

People can believe in any religion they like in this country, with some very strange ideas (in my mind) yet they are respected.  Even a creationist (of the Earth was created 6,000 years ago kind) whilst many might think them ‘anti-science’, would never be associated or labbeled as in the same loathesome corner as paedophiles, and racists.

Not even Gordon Brown’s ‘flat earther’ ‘anti-science’ description of the denial of climate sceptics, or Ed Milliband’s ‘climate sabatouers’ went as far as putting people into the same category as paedophiles and racists.

Even IF anyone could find a TRUE climate Change deniar, – ie ‘the climate does not change for any reason it is static’, would they be that loathsome?

What is a ‘climate change deniar’ anyway?

1. Someone who denys that the planet has a climate that changes in the Earth’s history?
2. Someone that denies that the world has wammed since the last ice age.
3. Someone that denies that the world has warmed since the end of the little ice age.
4. Someone that denies that in the last 2 hundred years that there has been a rising trend in temperature, with 20-30 year periods of high rates of warming and cooling.
5. Someone that questions that the late 20th century warming is definetly due to humans producing CO2. (the IPCC only say likely due)
6. Someone that questions catstrophic predictions of 2o foot sea level rises, tipping points, global climate disruption, etc,etc

Or is it just a phrase, that can be used to mean what ever the person saying it chooses it to mean, to shut down any debate at any particular moment in time?

I am very upset by this but there is absolutely nothing that I can do about it. The BBC has one huge galloping cultural blindspot and would not even comprehend my sadness.

The fact that it was just a casual throwaway comment, just a few seconds worth, just makes it worse. No one in the program seemed to notice this and they were talking about tolerance.

At what point will someone point me out to my children as a ‘climate change denier’.

Should I fear that label?

(Spotted in the comments at Bishop Hill h/t Copner)

Update:

Apparently may people think that Michael Buerk was being ironic, and in the nature of the program that is possible, yet it is far too ambiguous. As they do not touch on the matter again, it is not commented on and just accepted?

Yet, even if intended as irony, it may be lost on many people that would be nodding along in agreement. Thus, this is a dangerous word game for the BBC to be playing.

I would like to know exactly what was intended by the BBC in this introduction.

What might be more enlightening of the BBC culture, is to ask the BBC, what is the definition of a ‘climate change deniar’.

I have questioned the use of wind farms as a big problem for this country, that may result in an energy gap in the future, fuel poverty and potentially blackouts.  And, have publically been called a climate deniar, by activists in my town for just questioning energy policy/solutions, let alone AGW theory.. 

This statement, only a few seconds, even IF ironic, does not exactly help, as many will just accept it and the casual use of the phrase become common parlance.

There is some debate here about exactly what was meant, please could someone ask Michael Buerk?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/12/a-pivotal-moment-for-the-bbc.html

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/12/cranmer-on-buerk.html

………in  blog articles titled Steig’s Trick and  Coffin, meet nail.

All about the Steig, Mann et al paper that generated a Nature front page and world wide alarmism that the Antarctic was suffering man made global warming.

Some sceptical people thought that they had got their maths wrong and decided to publish paper to show how the statitistics should be done, thus improving the science.

There then follows a long tail.

Where it is at:

A short (compared to elsewhere) layman’s summary below, borrowed and tweaked a bit from the comments at Bishop Hill:

Comment at BH: “Eric Steig et al produced a paper in 2009 which got front page on Nature and widespread media coverage, which argued that virtually the whole of Antarctica (and not just the peninsula) had and was warming.

(the fact that Antarctica is just as freezing as it was 30 years ago was always a problem for the Team, a bit like the MWP which they did their best to erase from the record).

The apparent warming of the frozen continent was achieved by use of poor and at best dubious statistical methods, which were quickly pointed out by Jeff Id and others at WUWT etc. Basically as just about all the weather stations are located on the peninsula and coasts, they had to extrapolate and interpolate this data, into the interior.

But the resolution of their statistical interpolations was poor and there are still questions about the quality of the data they had from at least some of the coastal bases – i.e. errors were very likely to have been compounded.

IIRC, Steig suggested to Ryan and Jeff that rather than argue it out on the blogs, they should publish a paper, under peer review.

This is where it starts to get murky.

Steig should not have been asked to be a reviewer, as he had an obvious conflict of interest.

In most if not all scientific disciplines the lead author of the defending paper would not have been asked, (and definitely would have declined if he had been asked), but then be given the first right of reply following publication.

But instead, he became Reviewer A, who tried all he could to thwart the paper’s progression to publication. (88 pages of comments and obfuscation, 10 times longer thgan the actual paper).

Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured.

At one point in the review process, Steig (still anonymously)suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did.

But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity.

And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. And called out Eric Steig’s apparent duplicity as the anonymous Reviewer A.

Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating (deleting) any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this.

Basically this the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

A number of commenters have said that the implications are as big as climategate. ie Direct evidence of the broken peer review process and the ‘gaming’ of the system going on.

Hopefully this will give impetus to future inquiries into the behavior of the team on both sides of the Atlantic.

Lastly, with the stushie resulting from all this, it should not be forgotten that Steig’s original paper was fundamentally flawed, and should be retracted by Nature.

Hopefully that’s a fair summary, if not no problem is others want to make corrections or add details.” End

Following these comments, I gave James Delingpole a call this morning (as I bet many others did, following peer review , Professor Nurse and that Horizon program) his take is below (and a nice Josh Cartoon) and I really like the name of the article (ref for RealClimate really – very serendipitous)

Delingpole: RealClimategate hits the final nail into the coffin of peer review

Dot Earth (New York Times: Revkin) has an update to an earlier article and is looking into it and I expect his next article will be very interesting.

It is my opinion that the BBC in broadcasting BBC 2 Horizon program ‘Science Under Attack’ did not treat the general public in the UK and at least one of the interviewees in the ’good faith’ that they should be able to expect from the BBC. After the program aired, I contacted James Delingpole, who was one of the sceptics portrayed in the program and he told me how he was approached to participate by the BBC.

“I am making a film for BBC’s Horizon on public trust in science and I was hoping you may be able to help.”  – BBC Producer

However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.

Yet, in discussion with a NASA scientist, the presenter Professor Paul Nurse apparently makes a gross factual error informing the viewer that annual man-made CO2 emissions are;

seven times

that of the total natural annual emissions. This raised a number of eyebrows and is now subject to some discussion amongst the blogs, including at Bishop Hill.

That such an apparent major error was presented to the public as fact, in the BBC’s flagship science program, should I think raise questions with respect to the handling of all the issues within the program.

Paul Nurse: The scientific consensus is, of course, that the changes we are seeing are caused by emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. But given the complexity of the climate system, how can we be sure that humans are to blame for this?

Bob Bindschadler[NASA]: We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground. We know how much we sell. We know how much we burn. And that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It’s about seven gigatons per year right now.

Paul Nurse: And is that enough to explain…?

Bob Bindschadler: Natural causes only can produce – yes, there are volcanoes popping off and things like that, and coming out of the ocean, only about one gigaton per year. So there’s just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.

Paul Nurse: So seven times more.

Bob Bindschadler: That’s right.

Paul Nurse: I mean, why do some people say that isn’t the case?

(from a transcript of BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack)

Following the program I contacted James Delingpole and he agreed to a telephone interview about the program. We had a few telephone conversations about the program  and he sent me a copy of the email from a BBC producer at the  BBC inviting James to participate in the program. (my bold)

“The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions.  On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves.   Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film.  They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.”

 -  BBC Producer to James Delingpole

The contents of that invitation put the presentation of his interview in the program into a different context. In my opinion it demonstrates bad faith on the part of the BBC in failing to present to the public the details of the sceptical argument about climategate and ‘climate science’ yet allowing those involved to present their defence without serious challenge.

The premise will be  ‘This is a  turbulent time for science.  After the debacles of Climate-gate, GM products and MMR, I want to explore why science isn’t trusted and whether we as scientists are largely to blame’. By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.

- BBC Producer to James Delingpole

The BBC is the UK’s national public service broadcaster (funded by a per household TV Licence) and by its Charter it has a duty to its audience to be fair and balanced.

The Horizon program is the BBC’s flagship science program , so when it uses the weight of the BBC’s authority alongside, Sir Professor Paul Nurse, a Nobel Laureate and the new President of the Royal Society it has a clear responsibilty to the public to fairly present the detail of the sceptical views  climate science and the issues around the climategate emails. 

My interview with James Delingpole

James actually received a lot of criticism from sceptics for somehow ‘failing’ to get across the sceptical arguments in this program. When I spoke to him his frustration was obvious as he said he had spent three hours talking to Professor Paul Nurse about the detail of the climategate emails, the failings of the inquiries and the many and varied sceptical arguments with respect to man-made climate change.

James said he had explained in detail why sceptics describe the inquiries as whitewashes, this included the vested interest of the participants, the fact that no one actually asked Jones about whether he had deleted emails, the failure of scientists to provide data to critics and journals (as scientific process would expect) the importance of hiding the decline in proxies, the fact that scientist had become advocates for policy. 

Yet in the programme all that comes across is a fade to voice over where Professor Paul Nurse states that James believes the enquiries were whitewashes. Why not allow the public to consider some of these reason from James Delingpole

Why did Professor Phil Jones say to delete emails?  Why did he ask colleagues to delete emails relating to the IPCC reports. And most importantly of all. Why did Phil Jones feel the need to ask colleagues to delete these emails?

Those question surely support James Delingpole’s view that the peer-review process and the IPCC processes had been corrupted.

Another question that has been often asked was, why did James trust the BBC?

To put the interview into context the BBC had received a number of complaints regarding both the BBC’s coverage of Copenhagen and the coverage of the climategate emails. The BBC had seemed genuinely surprised by this response from the public and had even launched a review of how science in the media handled subjects like climate science, vaccines and GM.

The invitation that James received from the BBC to be involved in this programme appeared to be very much in this context. 

“As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I’d really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views – how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.”

- BBC Producer to James Delingpole

James said that he had looked forward to this opportunity to discuss and present sceptical issues in the apparent spirit of the invitation.

The ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’

The BBC described the ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ as at the crux of the climategate email scandal. Why would they not at least allow a sceptic to voice to the public the  sceptical viewpoint on this issue.

 Paul Nurse (voice over): Tree rings have been shown to be a good way of measuring ancient temperatures, and they’ve mostly matched instrumental measurements since the advent of thermometers.

However, after about 1960, some tree ring data stopped fitting real temperatures so well. The cause of this isn’t known. When Dr Jones was asked by the World Meteorological Organisation to prepare a graph of how temperatures had changed over the last 1000 years, he had to decide how to deal with this divergence between the datasets.

He decided to use the direct measurements of temperature change from thermometers and instruments rather than indirect data from the tree rings, to cover the period from 1960. It was this data splicing, and his e-mail referring to it as a “trick” that formed the crux of Climategate.

Phil Jones: The Organisation wanted a relatively simple diagram for their particular audience. What we started off doing was the three series, with the instrumental temperatures on the end, clearly differentiated from the tree ring series. But they thought that was too complicated to explain to their audience.

So what we did was just to add them on, and bring them up to the present. And as I say, this was a World Meteorological Organisation statement. It had hardly any coverage in the media at the time, and had virtually no coverage for the next ten years, until the release of the e-mails. (transcript)

The program was supposed to deal with the failure of the presentation uncertainties regarding climate science, the criticism is that climate science has presented to politicians a narrative of ‘unprecedented’ temperature rise which ‘must be due to humans. 

Yet the ‘complication’ that is not explained clearly to the public or politicians, is that temperature proxies declined when modern thermometers showed warming.  Even the simplest of politicians could grasp that if the proxies decline when thermometers show warming it reduces their credibility of recording historic temperatures.

Yet somehow it is deemed to complicated, this is a prime example of scientist becoming advocates for policy and presnting the issues as certain.  Remember this was the described purpose of the program.

An interesting response to ‘hide the decline’

James Delingpole wrote in his blog about how the mathematician Simon Singh, the best selling author of ’Fermat’s Last Theorum’ had tweeted:

Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate

Simon Singh wrote a rebuttal in his own blog, yet in the comments it gave rise to an excellent rebuttal to the programs description of ‘hide the decline’ from a respected scientist Paul Dennis who is also at the University of East Anglia

Paul Dennis said…
Before I add anything further to the debate I should say that I’m an Isotope Geochemist and Head of the Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Laboratories in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. I’ve also contributed to and published a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the general field of palaoclimate studies.

I don’t say this because I think my views should carry any more weight. They shouldn’t. But they show there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area.

What concerns me about the hide the decline debate is that the divergence between tree ring width and temperature in the latter half of the 20th century points to possibly both a strong non-linear response and threshold type behaviour.

There is nothing particularly different about conditions in the latter half of the 20th century and earlier periods. The temperatures, certainly in the 1960′s, are similar, nutrient inputs may have changed a little and water stress may have been different in some regions but not of a level that has not ben recorded in the past.

Given this and the observed divergence one can’t have any confidence that such a response has not occurred in the past and before the modern instrumental record starting in about 1880.

Paul Dennis was thought by many newspapers to be the potential ‘whistleblower’ of the climategate emails. He commented a few times at Simon Singh’s blog and his identity was confirmed at Bishop Hill

Thus it could be said that on this particular issue at least and that the ‘science is not settled’ even at UEA!

The Conduct of the BBC

I last spoke to James Delingpole after the BBC4 program Meet The Sceptics had been aired that focussed on Christopher Monckton.  James had also been involved in the making of this program and had got to know the makers well and trusted them.

“The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.

“Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”

Over the next few months I came to like and trust Murray. He was there filming Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, Lord Leach and me when we debated at the Oxford Union. And he was there to capture our joy and surprise when we won – and to hang out drinking with us, afterwards, like he was our mate.

By this stage, we’d all come to accept that Murray was genuinely interested in presenting our case sympathetically. In fact, I must admit, I was really looking forward to seeing the finished product. “God this is going to be fantastic!” I thought. “At long bloody last, the BBC is going to do the right thing – and at feature length too.”  – from James Delingpole’s blog

When I last spoke to him, James was genuinely angry and felt badly let down by the BBC. He had taken part in the making of both programmes in good faith, yet the BBC had basically said to the world in his view, that climate sceptics are deniers and an organised group of these deniers are responsible for stalling political action to ‘save the planet. It appears to me that this was the program makers intention all along.

I asked James if he felt concerned for his safety now, and he said absolutely that was a concern, following how sceptics were depicted in these programmes.

Prior to this program being aired apparently both the BBC and Paul Nurse spoke to the Guardian with comments that gives every reason for me to think the program was intended all along to present sceptics in a bad light.

I believe that in this type of BBC science program the public has an expectation that the BBC would present fairly both pro and sceptical arguments on the issues in enough detail to allow the public to take own view. If a respected main stream journalist can be treated like this by the BBC, what hope and expectations of being treated fairly should a member of the public or a blogger (like me – RealClimategate) have of the BBC?

The issue I have with this program and the BBC is not who is right or wrong in climate science, but the failure of the BBC to fairly present in the program the sceptical arguments in detail (which it must be fully aware of) with respect to climate science, the climategate emails and the inquiries to the general public.

I would like to leave the final words to James Delingpole that he said to me (and one that he left in the comments at Bishop Hill) about why he participated in BBC Horizon  – Science Under Attack program  and trusted the producers of the  BBC 4 program, Storyville – Meet the Sceptics.

Why shouldn’t one have faith in one’s national broadcaster to tell the other side of the story? – James Delingpole

Links/sources: 

BBC Horizon -Science Under Attack – transcript

BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack – video (youtube)

The BBC Invitation to James Delingpole (my bold)

From: “Emma” [email address removed by author]

Date: 3 August 2010 19:25:08 GMT+01:00

To:  James [email address removed by author]

Subject: BBC Horizon

Dear James

I hope you don’t mind me contacting you on this email address but I was given it by Louise Gray at the Telegraph.

I am making a film for BBC’s Horizon on public trust in science and I was hoping you may be able to help.

The film will explore our current relationship with science, whether we as a society do and should trust it.  It is being presented by the nominated President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse.  If he is voted in later this summer he will be taking over the at RS at the end of the year at around the same time the film will be transmitted so it would very much launch his presidency.  The premise will be  ‘This is a  turbulent time for science.  After the debacles of Climate-gate, GM products and MMR, I want to explore why science isn’t trusted and whether we as scientists are largely to blame’. By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.

The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions.  On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves.   Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film.  They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.

Now obviously one of the other great areas of contention is when science meets the media.  Much as most scientists would like their papers to be published unedited in the mainstream media that obviously does not work. We will be visiting the newsroom of a national newspaper (most likely the Times although we have also been talking to the Telegraph) to explore the realities of where science fits in the news agenda, but I also want to explore the equally important role of the online world.

As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I’d really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views – how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.

Filming would be on the afternoon of 18 August ideally.

If you are interested please drop me a line or give me a call.

Kind regards

Emma [removed by author]

Producer/Director
BBC Vision Productions