Have sent a follow up to my unanswered complaint about BBC Online's report of the Anderegg paper.
Hello, I sent a complaint about this article on August 9th and I have not received a reply. Paragraph 12 says that the motivations of the researchers was in part a response to 'recent scandals, such as "climategate" at the UK's University of East Anglia and the use of non-peer reviewed literature in the IPCC findings.' The press release from Stanford University does not cite these events, and I have to put it to you on that evidence alone the author of your report is speculating rather than quoting facts. But I have since been in touch with one of the authors of the scientific paper Mr Jim Prall of Toronto University * who states that Dr Anderegg contacted him in August 2009 and they began working on their paper the following month. It was not until November 2009 that the UEA emails were released . Ergo your reporter's speculations about the motivations behind this study amount to a factual error.
Needless to say, I also stand by my earlier remarks about your reporters sceptical commentary .
Or to put it more simply the BBC reporter made up the bits about motivations behind the paper, this can be proved by looking at the dates Anderegg and Prall had begun work on the paper.
So why am I so hot under the collar about this pissy little article? Well, it's about a very important scientific paper that could not be ignored, which gives empirical evidence for public understanding of climate science . The reporter is keen to present it as a 'he said she said' argument, when it is nothing of the sort. The report introduces what sceptics have to say in the third paragraph and concludes with the sceptics too. But the BBC report also suggests that the media bias is only as recent as , and limited to, the recent peccadilloes highlighted . The press release from Stanford University clearly suggests the paper is motivated by much wider and deeper frustrations.
"It is sad that we even have to do this," said the late Doctor Stephen Schneider. "[Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science."
* Correpondence available in comments at http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-climate-skeptics-swindle.html
UPDATE: Phoned BBC 15th November to chase it up, was given a reference number, was told I would get a reply in ten days.
UPDATE: Phoned BBC 6th December to chase it up, was given a reference number, was told I would get a reply in ten days.
P.S. And for those that want to see how a science article should be written, Martin Robbins of The Guardian helpfully provides a pro-forma.
Does the BBC's discordant climate output mask a conspiracy of ignorance? asks Hengist McStone.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Manufacturing Ignorance
In "Manufacturing Consent" Noam Chomsky laments that the attention span of television news reporting is so short that only conventional thoughts can be expressed. Chomsky's brand of dissent is undermined by insufficient airtime, in the parlance of TV journalism it is called 'concision'. Global warming advocates are particularly susceptible to concision because of all the uncertainties and unravelling decades of misinformation . In short the unfolding narrative goes that the scientists present a dire prediction then the skeptical mass media ask how bleak? When the scientists express uncertainty the media move on. The effect is one of uncertain scientists rather than the bleak outlook.
This trick was skilfully played when Kirsty Wark on Newsnight (23rd August 2010) asked are the floods in Pakistan due to climate change? It's not a yes or no question, that unfortunately was posed as a yes or no question. Before we look at Newsnight's effort let's consider some informed opinion , here's Dr Kevin Trenberth on the subject:
Then there's Dr James Hansen who fairly observes essentially changing the climate is like loading a dice. A more unstable climate is more likely to give us extreme weather events and hence there will be more extreme weather events. But nailing a specific extreme weather event and asking if it is down to climate change is a different ball game*, and whilst the science, and effects of climate change are so hotly disputed one has to ask what purpose does Kirsty Wark's question serve?
Imagine you are in a casino and your suspicions lead you to say out loud that the roulette wheel might be loaded . And the croupier's response is to claim that the last spin might not have been different if the wheel weren't loaded; the sensible gambler should not find such a remark comforting and conclude it was time to give up.
Perhaps, when BBC producers commissioned this particular debate, they expected all critics to give up. So here's my two cents worth.
BBC news programmes habitually present climate related matters as two sided , a duel between skeptics and everyone else. For expert opinion the BBC chose Dr. Ghassem Asrar, a man with academic credentials in climate science as long as your arm who was cited as from the World Climate Research Project but is also from NASA. a doctor with membership of five professional societies and numerous awards was not enough for the BBC so they called on Andrew Montford a chartered accountant from Kinross. An odd choice for the question at hand because Montford's credentials are that he cannot agree on what the climate has been over the last millenium. Montford largely agreed with the eminent doctor, so was he on the programme for balance or for concision?
A chilling theme of the debate was that now that climate change is upon us, mitigation is obsolete and the question becomes how to adapt.Wark suggested proacive work be done in the form of local levees. But carbon was not mentioned once. The word mitigate was used only once, by Montford, erroneously or mendaciously suggesting that local adaptive measures were mitigation.
The consensus inevitably reached was that you can't say that these particular floods in Pakistan are due to climate change. But that is due to the 'crooked croupier's proposition' given above. Never did they mention the caveat that the extreme weather events we are beginning to witness now are just the kind of thing scientists would expect in a global warming world .
For no good reason at the end of the debate Wark asked after climategate are scientists becoming more cautious in pronouncing on what could be aspects of global warming? Montford was asked "do you accept climate change is a grave risk facing us all," to which he blustered "errm from my perspective I think the answer is I don't know. I think mankind is affecting the climate but whether it's a little or a lot , I think , in reality we really just don't know"
'We really just don't know' is the so called informed opinion they would like to leave you with on climate change. You've got to hand it to those folks at the BBC - they are skilled propagandists. Wark deserves particular opprobrium for fronting this angle, which seems trivial with two million homeless and thousands dead . Of course it's anything but trivial , such is the twisted nature of the media's reporting of our changing climate.
* A sensible discussion of the question is offered by Michael Tobis in 'When it Rains it Pours'
This trick was skilfully played when Kirsty Wark on Newsnight (23rd August 2010) asked are the floods in Pakistan due to climate change? It's not a yes or no question, that unfortunately was posed as a yes or no question. Before we look at Newsnight's effort let's consider some informed opinion , here's Dr Kevin Trenberth on the subject:
“I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.”
Then there's Dr James Hansen who fairly observes essentially changing the climate is like loading a dice. A more unstable climate is more likely to give us extreme weather events and hence there will be more extreme weather events. But nailing a specific extreme weather event and asking if it is down to climate change is a different ball game*, and whilst the science, and effects of climate change are so hotly disputed one has to ask what purpose does Kirsty Wark's question serve?
Imagine you are in a casino and your suspicions lead you to say out loud that the roulette wheel might be loaded . And the croupier's response is to claim that the last spin might not have been different if the wheel weren't loaded; the sensible gambler should not find such a remark comforting and conclude it was time to give up.
Perhaps, when BBC producers commissioned this particular debate, they expected all critics to give up. So here's my two cents worth.
BBC news programmes habitually present climate related matters as two sided , a duel between skeptics and everyone else. For expert opinion the BBC chose Dr. Ghassem Asrar, a man with academic credentials in climate science as long as your arm who was cited as from the World Climate Research Project but is also from NASA. a doctor with membership of five professional societies and numerous awards was not enough for the BBC so they called on Andrew Montford a chartered accountant from Kinross. An odd choice for the question at hand because Montford's credentials are that he cannot agree on what the climate has been over the last millenium. Montford largely agreed with the eminent doctor, so was he on the programme for balance or for concision?
A chilling theme of the debate was that now that climate change is upon us, mitigation is obsolete and the question becomes how to adapt.Wark suggested proacive work be done in the form of local levees. But carbon was not mentioned once. The word mitigate was used only once, by Montford, erroneously or mendaciously suggesting that local adaptive measures were mitigation.
The consensus inevitably reached was that you can't say that these particular floods in Pakistan are due to climate change. But that is due to the 'crooked croupier's proposition' given above. Never did they mention the caveat that the extreme weather events we are beginning to witness now are just the kind of thing scientists would expect in a global warming world .
For no good reason at the end of the debate Wark asked after climategate are scientists becoming more cautious in pronouncing on what could be aspects of global warming? Montford was asked "do you accept climate change is a grave risk facing us all," to which he blustered "errm from my perspective I think the answer is I don't know. I think mankind is affecting the climate but whether it's a little or a lot , I think , in reality we really just don't know"
'We really just don't know' is the so called informed opinion they would like to leave you with on climate change. You've got to hand it to those folks at the BBC - they are skilled propagandists. Wark deserves particular opprobrium for fronting this angle, which seems trivial with two million homeless and thousands dead . Of course it's anything but trivial , such is the twisted nature of the media's reporting of our changing climate.
* A sensible discussion of the question is offered by Michael Tobis in 'When it Rains it Pours'
Monday, 9 August 2010
Falsehoods and bias in BBC Science report
On 24th June BBC online published "Study examines scientists 'climate credibility'" , in response to a carefully thought out empirical paper on scientific expertise in climate science. It was an important paper as the press release from Stanford University shows. Read the press release then read the BBC's article and see if you think the BBC's article is fair. Here is my complaint, sent August 9th 2010:
I have compared the Stanford Press Release to your article and have to say that the claim you make in paragraph 12 is false if it is based on that press release.
Please could you cite your source for the claim that the Anderegg study was a response to the specific recent scandals you refer to.
This article breaks the story of one of the most important scientific papers published recently for public understanding of Climate Change. You say “Sceptical groups, however, argued that publication in scientific journals was not a fair test of expertise.” That is not a view being honestly held or coherently expressed because no alternative measure is offered.
Your suggestion that Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is an impartial observer is false. She is a founder of a pressure group called the “Scientific Alliance” which recieves funds from the mining industry, Whilst Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is from the University of Hull, she is an Emeritus Reader in geography, therefore retired. Her criticisms of Anderegg et al would have to apply to herself if you were being even handed.
Concluding your article with her quote “that the authors belong to an IPCC supporting group that must count as believers and belong to the beneficiaries of the man-made warming scare” is biased . Such a statement deserves to be investigated if true. It can be investigated as I demonstrate in the above paragraph , and I have found that this article is manufacturing a controversy to suit industry and special interest groups.
I have compared the Stanford Press Release to your article and have to say that the claim you make in paragraph 12 is false if it is based on that press release.
Please could you cite your source for the claim that the Anderegg study was a response to the specific recent scandals you refer to.
This article breaks the story of one of the most important scientific papers published recently for public understanding of Climate Change. You say “Sceptical groups, however, argued that publication in scientific journals was not a fair test of expertise.” That is not a view being honestly held or coherently expressed because no alternative measure is offered.
Your suggestion that Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is an impartial observer is false. She is a founder of a pressure group called the “Scientific Alliance” which recieves funds from the mining industry, Whilst Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is from the University of Hull, she is an Emeritus Reader in geography, therefore retired. Her criticisms of Anderegg et al would have to apply to herself if you were being even handed.
Concluding your article with her quote “that the authors belong to an IPCC supporting group that must count as believers and belong to the beneficiaries of the man-made warming scare” is biased . Such a statement deserves to be investigated if true. It can be investigated as I demonstrate in the above paragraph , and I have found that this article is manufacturing a controversy to suit industry and special interest groups.
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Stage 2 of the BBC complaints process
Here is the response to Stefan Curran, sent 9th August 2010
Dear Stefan,
Thank you very much indeed for your undated letter.
In addition to my letter (of February 5th ) I sent the BBC a number of emails through the internet complaints portal. However I 'phoned the complaints department the day I received your letter and they confirmed that your letter is also a response to all of those emails. You have not addressed the points I made in my emails sent on or around 15th February about editorial guidelines on impartiality and personal view.
I also emailed on 21st February an assertion that sections 7.9 and 7.13 of the Broadcasting Code had been breached. I even received a response from Alec Mackenzie on the 28th February promising a substantive reply. I have to take your letter as an indication that the BBC complaints department is now backtracking on that position. And I must express shock that the BBC ignores accusations of stepping outside OFCOM's rules. On June 8th I emailed to point out that Ms Townsend was unwilling to substantiate or clarify her claim about the “200 environmentalists”. I have repeatedly asked for identification of the 200 environmentalists (most recently on 8th June by email) and the BBC's response has been highly unstatisfactory. Ms Townsend's assertion about the motivations of such individuals has not been scrutinized by the programme makers and does not stand up to scrutiny after the event.
I put it to you again that OFCOM section 7.9 demands that the BBC be able to determine whom Ms. Townsend was referring to, and also demands that an offer to contribute to such persons or organization was made. And that in the absence of that, sections 7.9 and 7.13 have been breached.
I have to suggest that your assertion that the title of the programme was posing a question rather than asserting a point of view is dishonest. As a linguistic construction it was a question, but not one that the programme made any attempt to answer. The title of a documentary is clearly an indicator of a point of view.
Thank you for disclosing the original intention of the programme. I take that as an indication that the bias displayed by Mr Rowlatt was inherited when the documentary was conceptualized, which he has chosen to amplify rather than moderate.
I have to say that I find point (i) very disturbing. An evaluation of what is really justified requires full understanding of the magnitude of the problem, we simply don't have that. By suggesting that some proposals can be dismissed as not really justified, the programme downplays the problem.
I should point out that all informed commentators know that there is a wide gulf between climate science and the public's view of climate change. The climate change problem is a hotly contested issue which many people deny altogether, there is a considerable degree of public confusion and unscientific skepticism about this issue which, I might add, the BBC has played a part in disseminating. This documentary proceeded as if that context did not exist, that the threat of anthropogenic climate change had somehow instilled a shared set of values upon which environmentalists infringe. In essence this documentary has turned reason on it's head.
Turning to point (ii) this documentary produced an argument to that effect without producing any evidence . There was no examination whatsoever of the profile or rationale or numbers of people who were taking climate change less seriously than they might.
We have a vague reference at the end when Mr Rowlatt refers to “many people” but he simply ploughs on to his conclusion that solutions being proposed will serve to confirm scepticism. Whilst there may be some truth in that, he offers no caveat that such an approach is irrational, unscientific,illogical and biased. The listener is left with a false impression that such thinking is reasonable. I put it to you that this is not impartial and is indeed identified in the BBC Trust's guidance on this, which sees causation and solution as separate debates . I am sure we would both agree there is great wisdom in the BBC Trust's approach, which states that it “is not the job of the BBC to close down [the causation] debate”. Likewise it is not the job of the BBC to enflame the causation debate with arguments from the solution debate. This documentary set out to conflate these debates in order to reach a conclusion which is neither honest nor rationally held.
I urge you to please reconsider the position of the BBC. The best course of action would be for the BBC to admit that this broadcast was ill-concieved. That it was unfair from the outset, and that as an investigation it was a sham.
My best wishes and,
Salutations,
Hengist McStone
P.S. You may be interested that I develop my thoughts publicly on this at http://bbcantigreenbias.blogspot.com/
Dear Stefan,
Thank you very much indeed for your undated letter.
In addition to my letter (of February 5th ) I sent the BBC a number of emails through the internet complaints portal. However I 'phoned the complaints department the day I received your letter and they confirmed that your letter is also a response to all of those emails. You have not addressed the points I made in my emails sent on or around 15th February about editorial guidelines on impartiality and personal view.
I also emailed on 21st February an assertion that sections 7.9 and 7.13 of the Broadcasting Code had been breached. I even received a response from Alec Mackenzie on the 28th February promising a substantive reply. I have to take your letter as an indication that the BBC complaints department is now backtracking on that position. And I must express shock that the BBC ignores accusations of stepping outside OFCOM's rules. On June 8th I emailed to point out that Ms Townsend was unwilling to substantiate or clarify her claim about the “200 environmentalists”. I have repeatedly asked for identification of the 200 environmentalists (most recently on 8th June by email) and the BBC's response has been highly unstatisfactory. Ms Townsend's assertion about the motivations of such individuals has not been scrutinized by the programme makers and does not stand up to scrutiny after the event.
I put it to you again that OFCOM section 7.9 demands that the BBC be able to determine whom Ms. Townsend was referring to, and also demands that an offer to contribute to such persons or organization was made. And that in the absence of that, sections 7.9 and 7.13 have been breached.
I have to suggest that your assertion that the title of the programme was posing a question rather than asserting a point of view is dishonest. As a linguistic construction it was a question, but not one that the programme made any attempt to answer. The title of a documentary is clearly an indicator of a point of view.
Thank you for disclosing the original intention of the programme. I take that as an indication that the bias displayed by Mr Rowlatt was inherited when the documentary was conceptualized, which he has chosen to amplify rather than moderate.
I have to say that I find point (i) very disturbing. An evaluation of what is really justified requires full understanding of the magnitude of the problem, we simply don't have that. By suggesting that some proposals can be dismissed as not really justified, the programme downplays the problem.
I should point out that all informed commentators know that there is a wide gulf between climate science and the public's view of climate change. The climate change problem is a hotly contested issue which many people deny altogether, there is a considerable degree of public confusion and unscientific skepticism about this issue which, I might add, the BBC has played a part in disseminating. This documentary proceeded as if that context did not exist, that the threat of anthropogenic climate change had somehow instilled a shared set of values upon which environmentalists infringe. In essence this documentary has turned reason on it's head.
Turning to point (ii) this documentary produced an argument to that effect without producing any evidence . There was no examination whatsoever of the profile or rationale or numbers of people who were taking climate change less seriously than they might.
We have a vague reference at the end when Mr Rowlatt refers to “many people” but he simply ploughs on to his conclusion that solutions being proposed will serve to confirm scepticism. Whilst there may be some truth in that, he offers no caveat that such an approach is irrational, unscientific,illogical and biased. The listener is left with a false impression that such thinking is reasonable. I put it to you that this is not impartial and is indeed identified in the BBC Trust's guidance on this, which sees causation and solution as separate debates . I am sure we would both agree there is great wisdom in the BBC Trust's approach, which states that it “is not the job of the BBC to close down [the causation] debate”. Likewise it is not the job of the BBC to enflame the causation debate with arguments from the solution debate. This documentary set out to conflate these debates in order to reach a conclusion which is neither honest nor rationally held.
I urge you to please reconsider the position of the BBC. The best course of action would be for the BBC to admit that this broadcast was ill-concieved. That it was unfair from the outset, and that as an investigation it was a sham.
My best wishes and,
Salutations,
Hengist McStone
P.S. You may be interested that I develop my thoughts publicly on this at http://bbcantigreenbias.blogspot.com/
Friday, 2 July 2010
There is only one Bjorn Lomborg
On Monday 28th June BBC Panorama broadcast a documentary entitled "Whats UP With the Weather". A pun that will be not lost on climate geeks. To some extent it moved on the debate but only on carefully controlled terms dominated by the near certainties of anthropogenic climate change. There was nothing new in this programme except that towards the end we were treated to a fleeting moment of the long overdue adaptation/mitigation debate. And for the skeptics the BBC called on, a man who needs no introduction : Bjorn Lomborg . One might ask : Why does the BBC invite the climate skeptics to answer the question derived from their misplaced skepticism ?
The subtext here is AGW is happening but the same old faces are going to get in the way of any serious mitigation. It's a bit like asking the head of Philip Morris if he can reccomend a cure for cancer now.
What is so tragic is that the average TV audience's credentials are better than Lomborg's because he has been wrong for too long . Most people haven't had their knuckles rapped by a national scientific institution. Most people haven't been pretending to be climate scientists when their doctorate is political science - specifically, game theory . Most people do not have a website dedicated to their errors! Or a book dedicated to their deceipt !
Yet the BBC ask Lomborg to pontificate on the moral question of which is the worst cassandra .**
The BBC Trust's view is this : "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC's role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution." *
But Hengist McStone suggests BBC programme makers are conflating causation and solution . The point at which the Adaptation vs. Mitigation debate was reached is surely where Doctor Lomborg has to leave the stage. He has been given a platform on the BBC for at least as long as The Skeptical Environmentalist was first published by CUP. Since then the science has moved on considerably to present a more urgent and a more clear and a more catastrophic scenario.
* From SeeSaw to Wagon Wheel page 40
**Lomborg advocated a projection that sea level rises where predicted to be only thirty centimetres this century, it is the lowest figure this writer has ever heard , it was unchallenged . Further reading try Joe Romm or for a less confrontational view try the eminent and entertaining Doctor Michael Tobis
The subtext here is AGW is happening but the same old faces are going to get in the way of any serious mitigation. It's a bit like asking the head of Philip Morris if he can reccomend a cure for cancer now.
What is so tragic is that the average TV audience's credentials are better than Lomborg's because he has been wrong for too long . Most people haven't had their knuckles rapped by a national scientific institution. Most people haven't been pretending to be climate scientists when their doctorate is political science - specifically, game theory . Most people do not have a website dedicated to their errors! Or a book dedicated to their deceipt !
Yet the BBC ask Lomborg to pontificate on the moral question of which is the worst cassandra .**
The BBC Trust's view is this : "The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC's role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution." *
But Hengist McStone suggests BBC programme makers are conflating causation and solution . The point at which the Adaptation vs. Mitigation debate was reached is surely where Doctor Lomborg has to leave the stage. He has been given a platform on the BBC for at least as long as The Skeptical Environmentalist was first published by CUP. Since then the science has moved on considerably to present a more urgent and a more clear and a more catastrophic scenario.
* From SeeSaw to Wagon Wheel page 40
**Lomborg advocated a projection that sea level rises where predicted to be only thirty centimetres this century, it is the lowest figure this writer has ever heard , it was unchallenged . Further reading try Joe Romm or for a less confrontational view try the eminent and entertaining Doctor Michael Tobis
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
AGW : Does the BBC have a hidden agenda ?
Some months ago I started this blog to document a correspondence with the BBC caused by a controversial radio documentary that I took exception to. It was entitled "Are environmentalists bad for the Planet?" and it was about a lot of things but , oddly, put forward no evidence to justify the title. The BBC have now admitted that the title was to hook in the listeners , perhaps what journalists would call "sensationalist". It's an explanation but not a satisfactory one.
My contentions only start with the title. So what was the documentary about. Well , one account from the producer of the documentary ( Helen Grady ) says it was lamenting the use of religious language in environmental campaigning. The BBC complaints department divulge "The original intention was to explore whether the assertion by some prominent environmentalists such as Jonathon Porritt that capitalist economic model and tackling climate change are (i) really justified and (ii) in danger of alienating some people who might be persuaded to take the issue of climate change more seriously. " And the presenter (Justin Rowlatt) says it was about hidden agendas in the environmental movement. So that's four things that it could have been about. Which makes the focal point of the documentary hard to pin down.
But one angle stands out. Anthropogenic Global Warming . Humanity has never before faced a threat quite like it. Our scientists, the brainiest people on the planet are saying and have been saying for years that the planet , our life support system is endangered by our habitual use of fossil fuels. Consensus was reached long ago , indeed Jim Hansen head of NASA's climate science unit testified before Congress that he was 99 per cent certain that the signal for anthropogenic climate change was being detected above the background noise. That was in 1988. Since then the political football has been kicked in to the long grass. And the science has become more exact , the warnings more stark. But the public are, to this day, largely misled into doubting the science that prophesises the demise of life as we know it.
In such circumstances to adopt a contrarian view of the science (without fully understanding the science) is to argue from a position of ignorance.
Justin Rowlatt asserts his credentials as someone who passionately wants to fight global warming with words like "the urgency and scale of the climate issue " , but delivers a conclusion that takes us back to the skeptics point of view.
Comparison of climate science with the mainstream media's representation of it reveals a startling anomaly. We are being lied to. This is to be expected of the Daily Mail and Murdoch stable which most of us would take with a pinch of salt but the malaise goes much deeper. Try it for yourself. You have already been exposed to the mainstream media's version, now look at what the scientists are saying . Ninety-seven per cent of climate scientists agree that humans are the cause of global warming. But they express themselves in hard to read scientific papers so we have journalists to understand it for us. Let's ask scientific institutions at national level . Well it's worth noting that there is 100 per cent agreement amongst these scientific institutions. You wont have read that in the Daily Mail. OK I reccomend NASA which gives a no-nonsense summary of the evidence causes and the impacts of global warming.
Here are two ways of evaluating a hypothesis , starting out with no prejudices and solely going by evidence to arrive at a conclusion ; or , searching for evidence to support one's favoured theory whilst ignoring or downplaying evidence which is contrary to such a theory. The first is (broadly) the scientific method and the second is called 'confirmation bias'.
The documentary's claim to being impartial is a pretence. In his conclusion Rowlatt delivers a monologue detailing improbable conditions , false allusions and fictitious premises to arrive at the words "that will only serve to confirm their scepticism. " A clear example of confirmation bias.
Now one might argue that Rowlatt is just making an observation of how a skeptic's brain might work. But climate science has to stand or fall as science, there is a scientific method for arriving at a conclusion and this is not it. A skeptic might well choose to reject climate science because he doesn't like the political, social , or economic ramifications but that would not be rational . The only valid opposition to the science is better science, and the skeptics are conspicuously short of that commodity.*
Justin Rowlatt's conclusion is biased because it rationalises this fallacious dogma. He doesn't cauition that such thinking flies in the face of cause and effect, nor does he remind us of the concensus mentioned above . He boldly leads the listener to a conclusion that climate science can be rejected on terms he has invented which defy all logic. That is not impartiality.
In doing so he posits the words "hidden agenda".
Now, Ive got to take issue with this. By definition a movement (in this sense) is diffuse . Of course there are many agendas in the environmental movement. But just because the BBC has chosen to ignore them for so long does not make them "hidden" . Examination of this requires a definition of hidden agenda , Dictionary.com gives "An undisclosed plan, especially one with an ulterior motive." Pretending to endorse anthropogenic global warming whilst subverting public confidence in it would seem to fit that definition . Which is exactly what Justin Rowlatt has done.
* GP Wayne 2010
My contentions only start with the title. So what was the documentary about. Well , one account from the producer of the documentary ( Helen Grady ) says it was lamenting the use of religious language in environmental campaigning. The BBC complaints department divulge "The original intention was to explore whether the assertion by some prominent environmentalists such as Jonathon Porritt that capitalist economic model and tackling climate change are (i) really justified and (ii) in danger of alienating some people who might be persuaded to take the issue of climate change more seriously. " And the presenter (Justin Rowlatt) says it was about hidden agendas in the environmental movement. So that's four things that it could have been about. Which makes the focal point of the documentary hard to pin down.
But one angle stands out. Anthropogenic Global Warming . Humanity has never before faced a threat quite like it. Our scientists, the brainiest people on the planet are saying and have been saying for years that the planet , our life support system is endangered by our habitual use of fossil fuels. Consensus was reached long ago , indeed Jim Hansen head of NASA's climate science unit testified before Congress that he was 99 per cent certain that the signal for anthropogenic climate change was being detected above the background noise. That was in 1988. Since then the political football has been kicked in to the long grass. And the science has become more exact , the warnings more stark. But the public are, to this day, largely misled into doubting the science that prophesises the demise of life as we know it.
In such circumstances to adopt a contrarian view of the science (without fully understanding the science) is to argue from a position of ignorance.
Justin Rowlatt asserts his credentials as someone who passionately wants to fight global warming with words like "the urgency and scale of the climate issue " , but delivers a conclusion that takes us back to the skeptics point of view.
Comparison of climate science with the mainstream media's representation of it reveals a startling anomaly. We are being lied to. This is to be expected of the Daily Mail and Murdoch stable which most of us would take with a pinch of salt but the malaise goes much deeper. Try it for yourself. You have already been exposed to the mainstream media's version, now look at what the scientists are saying . Ninety-seven per cent of climate scientists agree that humans are the cause of global warming. But they express themselves in hard to read scientific papers so we have journalists to understand it for us. Let's ask scientific institutions at national level . Well it's worth noting that there is 100 per cent agreement amongst these scientific institutions. You wont have read that in the Daily Mail. OK I reccomend NASA which gives a no-nonsense summary of the evidence causes and the impacts of global warming.
Here are two ways of evaluating a hypothesis , starting out with no prejudices and solely going by evidence to arrive at a conclusion ; or , searching for evidence to support one's favoured theory whilst ignoring or downplaying evidence which is contrary to such a theory. The first is (broadly) the scientific method and the second is called 'confirmation bias'.
The documentary's claim to being impartial is a pretence. In his conclusion Rowlatt delivers a monologue detailing improbable conditions , false allusions and fictitious premises to arrive at the words "that will only serve to confirm their scepticism. " A clear example of confirmation bias.
Now one might argue that Rowlatt is just making an observation of how a skeptic's brain might work. But climate science has to stand or fall as science, there is a scientific method for arriving at a conclusion and this is not it. A skeptic might well choose to reject climate science because he doesn't like the political, social , or economic ramifications but that would not be rational . The only valid opposition to the science is better science, and the skeptics are conspicuously short of that commodity.*
Justin Rowlatt's conclusion is biased because it rationalises this fallacious dogma. He doesn't cauition that such thinking flies in the face of cause and effect, nor does he remind us of the concensus mentioned above . He boldly leads the listener to a conclusion that climate science can be rejected on terms he has invented which defy all logic. That is not impartiality.
In doing so he posits the words "hidden agenda".
Now, Ive got to take issue with this. By definition a movement (in this sense) is diffuse . Of course there are many agendas in the environmental movement. But just because the BBC has chosen to ignore them for so long does not make them "hidden" . Examination of this requires a definition of hidden agenda , Dictionary.com gives "An undisclosed plan, especially one with an ulterior motive." Pretending to endorse anthropogenic global warming whilst subverting public confidence in it would seem to fit that definition . Which is exactly what Justin Rowlatt has done.
* GP Wayne 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
Conclusion of Stage 1
Here is the written response to my complaints. It is undated, recieved by post on 16th June. I have foned the BBC complaints department and spoke to Matthew and he said it was a response not just to the original letter but to ALL the follow up emails. Which brings them all together, a manouver I am ok by. I am not okay about the lack of disclosure and I have to say that I have been misled by the email I recieved from Alec Mackenzie on 28th Feb.
Dear Hengist,
Reference 725605
Thanks for your letter regarding 'Analysis' as broadcast 25 January.
Firstly, please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.
We forwarded your complaints on this issue to Innes Bowen who explained in response that the reporter was not assuming that envronmentalism necessarily encompasses anti-capitalism. Indeed the reporter's main point was that environmentalism need not be anti-capitalist.
He was merely challenging the views of those environmentalists he has come across in his role as a BBC journalist specialising in green issues who assert that environmentalism and capitalism are incompatible.
We are sorry if the distinction the presenter was trying to make between environmentalism and the views of some prominent environmentalists was not sufficiently clear in the programme.
The title of the programme "Are Environmentalists Bad for the Planet?" was intended as a short and provocative hook to attract the attention of potential listeners. It was posing a question rather than asserting a point of view.
The programme itself was far more nuanced , exploring tensions between environmental campaigners. The title had to be submitted even before production of the programme was under way.
The original intention was to explore whether the assertion by some prominent environmentalists such as Jonathan Porrit (sic) that capitalist economic model and tackling climate change are (i) really justified and (ii) in danger of alienating some people who might be persuaded to take the issue of climate change more seriously.
She added that:
"I don't think we need , as Mr McStone suggests, a balancing programme about why environmentalists are good for the planet as that is the assumption, usually unchallenged, in most coverage of environmental groups. Justin Rowlatts's programme was a rare opportunity to explore whether that assumption is always true"
I realist that you may continue to have concerns with the impartiality of this broadcast . There let me assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log.
This is an internal daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff including members of the BBC executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always appreciated.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.
Kind regards
Stefan Curran
[Trancribed by HMcS 18th June]
Dear Hengist,
Reference 725605
Thanks for your letter regarding 'Analysis' as broadcast 25 January.
Firstly, please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.
We forwarded your complaints on this issue to Innes Bowen who explained in response that the reporter was not assuming that envronmentalism necessarily encompasses anti-capitalism. Indeed the reporter's main point was that environmentalism need not be anti-capitalist.
He was merely challenging the views of those environmentalists he has come across in his role as a BBC journalist specialising in green issues who assert that environmentalism and capitalism are incompatible.
We are sorry if the distinction the presenter was trying to make between environmentalism and the views of some prominent environmentalists was not sufficiently clear in the programme.
The title of the programme "Are Environmentalists Bad for the Planet?" was intended as a short and provocative hook to attract the attention of potential listeners. It was posing a question rather than asserting a point of view.
The programme itself was far more nuanced , exploring tensions between environmental campaigners. The title had to be submitted even before production of the programme was under way.
The original intention was to explore whether the assertion by some prominent environmentalists such as Jonathan Porrit (sic) that capitalist economic model and tackling climate change are (i) really justified and (ii) in danger of alienating some people who might be persuaded to take the issue of climate change more seriously.
She added that:
"I don't think we need , as Mr McStone suggests, a balancing programme about why environmentalists are good for the planet as that is the assumption, usually unchallenged, in most coverage of environmental groups. Justin Rowlatts's programme was a rare opportunity to explore whether that assumption is always true"
I realist that you may continue to have concerns with the impartiality of this broadcast . There let me assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log.
This is an internal daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff including members of the BBC executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
All feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always appreciated.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.
Kind regards
Stefan Curran
[Trancribed by HMcS 18th June]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)