The controversy over climate campaigner Jo Abbess’s claimed success of intimidating the BBC’s Roger Harrabin into changing a website article rumbles on.
Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph gives his opinion here:
Warmists beat straying BBC man back into line
A talking point among “climate sceptics” on both sides of the Atlantic has been the bizarre tale of how the BBC’s chief reporter on climate change censored an item on the BBC website after being harried by a “climate activist”.
On April 4 Roger Harrabin posted a story on the fact that world temperatures have not continued to rise in the past 10 years, and this year will fall to a level markedly below the average of the past two decades.
Global temperatures ‘to decrease’ [4 April ’08] – BBC News
Citing the World Meteorological Organisation, Mr Harrabin accurately reported that “global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory”.
This was a red rag to Jo Abbess of the Campaign Against Climate Change (Hon President, George Monbiot), who emailed Mr Harrabin demanding that he “correct” his item.
Mr Harrabin insisted that what he had written was true. There are indeed eminent climate scientists “who question whether warming will continue as predicted”.
This only angered Ms Abbess further. She said it was “highly irresponsible to play into the hands of the sceptics”, to “even hint that the Earth is cooling down again”.
Mr Harrabin, though he has led the BBC’s tireless promotion of warmist orthodoxy, stood firm. Even in the “general media”, he replied, “sceptics” highlight the lack of increase since 1998: to ignore this might give the impression that “debate is being censored”.
His item had, after all, added “we are still in a long-term warming trend”.
This was too much for Ms Abbess. She responded that this was not “a matter of debate”. He should not be quoting the sceptics “whose voice is heard everywhere, on every channel, deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth”.
Unless he changed his item, she said, “I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated”. She threatened to expose him by spreading his replies across the internet.
At this point the BBC’s man caved in. Within minutes a new version appeared, given the same time and date as that which he had consigned to Winston Smith’s memory hole.
Out went any mention of “sceptics” who question global warming. After a guarded reference to this year’s “slightly cooler” temperatures, a new paragraph said that they would “still be above the average” and that we will “soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of the global warming induced by greenhouse gases”.
Of course we have long known where the BBC stands on climate change. But it is good to have such clear evidence that, even when one of its reporters tries to be honest, he can be whipped back into line by a pressure group.
In the end, Ms Abbess still circulated the exchanges on the internet, to show the great victory she had won for the “emerging truth”.
Meanwhile, the BBC makes its editorial excuses here.
I’ve made what is probably a futile complaint to BBC and asked for hard evidence of the claimed comments on the article by the WMO.
There is more entertainment on the relevant thread over at the Campaign against climate change, as the Sandalistas argue with the Lentilists, refereed by the Treehuggers.
Here is the original unmolested article:
Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
‘Variability’
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens, La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
LA NINA KEY FACTS
La Nina translates from the Spanish as “The Child Girl”
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific means the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and the earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
“When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year,” he said. “You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.”
“La Nina is part of what we call ‘variability’. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up.”
Experts at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I noted on Saturday that the West Australian newspaper forcefully anounced a series of articles by a UWA climate denier to start this week. It appears that this will be a complete free kick for the author, no correspondence will be entered into. So it would appear that there are is direct editorial support for the denier’s position. I suppose that this balances somewhat the perceived editorial interference with regard to the above although a tin pot outfit like The West is hardly the BBC.
Oh and let’s no forgot JM’s talk on Counterpoint the other a week, hardly an open debate. That had to take place off air in the comments section of the CP web site.
And then there’s Fox News:
“Of course we have long known where [Fox News] stands on climate change.”
Although the Diggers epiphany may caused a shift there.
I think your ravings above, Patrick, would certainly qualify as the rationalisations of an exposed offender. Next you will be telling us that the ABC is a beacon of balanced climate reporting. You must watch Tony Jones on Lateline with a paper bag over your head.
Ian,
Thanks for your balanced criticism. You are really a great asset for the climate deniers cause. In my defence I just was attempting to point out that there are a number of outlets that are also dedicated to the denialist’s ends. All in the interests of balance. I would add that until recent changes to the Govt. here the denialists had the ear of the top policy maker in the country, surely a more effect channel than obscure articles on the BBC web site? Still we all love a conspiracy theory (right Ian).
cheers
Patrick.
The West Australian is running articles this week by Prof Jorg Imberger, Head of the Centre for Water Research at Uni of WA. However he is certainly not a climate change denialist. In fact the heading of his article today is “It’s too late to beat climate change – just deal with it”. He accepts climate change is a reality, and that mankind is to blame. What he rejects is the Rudd Govts mooted proposals for dealing with climate change. Unfortunately the article does not seem to be available online, which is fairly typical for the West. Well worth a read, especially for the denialists, if you can get hold of a copy.
Christmas reading included Bill Bryson”s “Shakespeare”
Some of his comments e.g.
“Even the most careful biographers sometimes take a supposition -that Shakespeare was Catholic or happily married or fond of the countryside or kindly disposed towards animals – and convert it within a page or two to something like a certainty. The urge to switch from subjunctive to indicative is, to paraphrase Alastair Fowler, always a powerful one”:
“There seems to be no reason whatever to believe this except the pressure of a keen desire for it to be true”
“- – – never allowed an absence of certainty to get in the way of a conclusion – – -”
‘So it needs to be said that nearly all of the anti-Shakespeare sentiment – actually all of it, every bit – involves manipulative scholarship or sweeping misstatements of fact. Shakespeare “never owned a book”, a writer for the New York Times gravely informed readers in one doubting article in 2002. The statement cannot actually be refuted, for we know nothing of his incidental possessions. But the writer might just as well have suggested that Shapespeare never owned a pair of shoes or pants . For all the evidence tells us, he spent his life naked from the waist down, as well as bookless, but it is probable that what is lacking is the evidence, not the apparel or the books.’
seem to have an application wider than Shakespeare
Apologies to Prof Imberger. The carfuly crafted spin of the West’s preview on Saturday could lead one to believe that the Prof is in the denialist camp. If the Prof “accepts climate change is a reality, and that mankind is to blame” I guess this means the article will be of little interest here. Still thanks Roscoe for the non-rabid reply.
BTW, I have yet to see any real effort on the part of the Govt. to do anything about climate change. I think a real measure of this kind of change is when we see actual legislation and there is a notivable impact on the life of the community (remember seatbelts and smoking). So far I don’t feel any different. Proposals are one thing, action is another and the Govt. has some very powerful vested interests (business/unions) to deal with.
Patrick,
I’m more than happy to debate who ever on radio. Why don’t you try and organise something – after all its our ABC.
A trouble is that ‘believers’ tend to refuse to debate the issue – remember the debate is over. Then when you are invited, and no one debates they can claim bias.
Bob Brown and his followers have an additional tactic, he refuses to be a part of any debate and then creates a mound of paper work for the journalist (e.g. Robyn Williams) for having me on. Disputing everything from my qualifications to the points I make. Of course nothing of substance – but it puts journalists off interviewing those who are only going to be a source of much offline correspondence.
Michael Duffy is about the only one game enough to cope with all all the flak and paper work invovled in providing an alternative perspecitve.
Interestingly Professor Ian Lowe even once tried to stop a meeting when he found out that I had been invited to address the group. Interesting the invitation was from the Brisbane chapter of the Australian skeptics.
You gotta laugh.
Patrick, a reference to a particular interview of Jennifer on a particular program cannot, in any way, be presented as some sort of justification of the deliberate censoring carried out by the BBC at the behest of a special interest.
Jennifer was clearly providing an opinion piece, the Beeb was presenting news as a publicly funded broadcaster of public record. Only the seriously ethically challenged would not appreciate the distinction.
But your language has already betrayed your intent to mislead. To you, any contrary view is grounds for an accusation of extremism rooted in conspiracy theory while those supporting your own position are, wait for it, “balanced”. You obviously excelled in “Orwellian Newspeak 101”.
But I must thank you for your rather transparent attempt at trying to influence some imaginary “denialist” hierarchy that I might be a liability to the cause. It tells me I must still be hitting the mark, otherwise you wouldn’t try it on. But the news is, Patrick, we don’t have a ruling elite that calls all the shots like the WWF. Climate realists are community based and can all think for themselves. We don’t have a “party line” that all must rigidly conform to. But I guess that is what worries people like you most.
The ABC is no better when it publishes this sort of twaddle.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216494.htm
Along with falling for the rubbish over the Wilkins ice shelf it is pretty clear that the standard of Journalism involved between the ABC and the BBC in not very different, and both are the thrall of the sandalistas.
Back at home now, thanks for the interesting responses. I wasn’t aware that JM’s piece on CP was opinion, it sounded like a report on a conference held in New York and from the tone you could be forgiven for thinking that JM found the reports presented at the conference compelling evidence for climate change scepticism. She certainly regarded the reports as completely credible and no alternative interpretation was offered.
As to a “denialist hierarchy”, you didn’t hear me say that, in fact I’d say the whole thing is rather flat.
And Jen, I think your position at the think tank (sorry can’t remember if it’s IPA or CIS) allows you far more time to set up the debate, how about fitting it in between those overseas trips?
cheers
Patrick.
Malcolm, The ABC report claims 94% ready to act on climate change. (Bearing in mind that 38% of statistics are made up on the spot!) Are any more than 1% of people doing anything more than tokenistic things?
Jon Faine on 774 asked a forum this morning. “Is anybody doing anything about lowering their carbon footprint ”
Nervous laughter
Chrisl
Presicely.
An old saying goes ‘The best way to disguise and promote a lie, is to wrap it in truth’.
Thus the lie of “man made global warming” has been wrapped in the truth of climate change (which has been around forever); and oh boy hasn’t it been promoted!
It is quite clear that AGW is not about science. It is not about truth…
It is about re-distribution of wealth; and on a massive scale. It is about the re-distribution of power….From the democratically elected legislatures of soverign nations to unelected bureaucrats of Soviet Central, (the UN).
And the democratically elected legislatures of soverign nations are handing it over, to the detriment of the people who elected them.
Well, we all know how a very popular mood can change quickly when it starts to hurt; so maybe the ballot box may yet destroy this nonsense. One can only hope so…If by then it is not too late of course.
“Christmas reading included Bill Bryson”s “Shakespeare””
I suggest you read the IPCC report (all of it), then tell me there’s no evidence.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
SJT says,
“I suggest you read the IPCC report (all of it), then tell me there’s no evidence.”
The IPCC report documents evidence of recent warming, however, it fails to provide any empirical evidence that the observed warming has be caused primarily by CO2.
The IPCC hypothesis rests entirely on climate models which claim that only CO2 can explain the recent rise in temperatures. However, this outcome is not surprising since the climate models were programmed to assume that only CO2 can cause the climate to change.
SJT: Before you {or indeed all of us}freeze or starve to death could you report back in the A.M.on…..
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/an-abundance-of-paper-money-is-causing-food-prices-to-soar/2008/04/14/
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/food-fuel-fhttp://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/general-electric-lift-capital/2008/04/14/inance/2008/04/14/
I’ve also heard US farmers are struggling with a cold wet spring preventing a decent start to corn etc sowing.
Paul,
I am just wondering why this little example of BBC bias and lack of objectivity bothers you but you’ve had no comment when the BBC “embed” a journalist on a Sea Shepherd vessel (which is a money making concern)but doesn’t bother to do the same with a Japanese whaling vessel.
Could your own bias be playing a role here?
I thought the original BBC article was relatively objective, it’s the forced changes that are the ‘problem.’ I don’t know anything about ‘Sea Shepherd’ – the climate conundrum is my focus.
U.S. farmers are certainly struggling with a cold wet spring.
My sister and her husband farm corn, soybeans and wheat in South Dakota, (just over the boarder from Sioux City, Iowa). They have been unable to prepare country, let alone sow, as yet, which is most unusual.
From an email from my sister two days ago.. ‘The weather here has been shocking…and no sign of spring….today is blowing rain and snow and just above zero…ridiculous….I usually have some flowers out at this time…’
But then again, this is only ‘weather’; it only becomes ‘climate (sic..change) if it is on the ‘hot side of the ledger.
Temperatures in the US this spring have not been unusual. They have been very close to average – a little above in the south and a little above in the north. You can see for yourself at http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/monthly/TanmMIn0803.gif
Perhaps your sister (Sid) have been accustomed to global warming and are surpised when they see near average? We see the same effect in Australia where people confuse once average temperatures to be cool.
It looks like about 90% of the globes land has experienced above average temperatures last month.
Temperatures in the US this spring have not been unusual. They have been very close to average – a little above in the south and a little above in the north. You can see for yourself at http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/monthly/TanmMIn0803.gif
Perhaps your sister (Sid) has been accustomed to global warming and is surpised when temperatures are near average? We see the same effect in Australia where people confuse once average temperatures to be cool.
It looks like about 90% of the globes land has experienced above average temperatures last month.
David,
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/33_of_the_ushcn_network_has_be.html
With a well distributed global network of stations as plotted here (scrolldown),one could would have to a have a high level of confidence that what the BOM says is absolutely correct.
90% of the global land mass could be doing anything, and you wouldnt know.
Malcolm the decorrelation length scales of monthly temperatures are very long – 100s to 1000s of kilometres. You need only a small fraction of the available data to know with high confidence what temperatures are doing. This has been known for decades with scientists such as Phil Jones having papers back in the 1980s on this.
You are wasting your time if you think this is a reasonable basis on which to argue against global warming.
David,
Perhaps people are complaining about the “average” weather this year because warmer was better?
David,
Of course one only needs small fraction of data points to know what temperature is doing–providing they are good ones and not like has been seen already,in car parks, alongside airports, and on top of air conditioning outlets.
You would of course have complete confidence in all the stations that cover Africa, Russia and South America for example, and know exactly which ones are poorly located, or have been moved–ie you know which ones to pick?
Seems as though the freezing start to spring in S.Dakota as quoted by my sister (above post)is verified by this report from south of the stateline in Iowa.
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/17646694.html
One can surely be excused for attributing more truth to these real life observations from real life people, then from graphs produced from “adjusted data” that David quotes; which are produced of course by agencies totally committed to promoting the MMGW cause
Raven: “The IPCC report documents evidence of recent warming, however, it fails to provide any empirical evidence that the observed warming has be caused primarily by CO2.
The IPCC hypothesis rests entirely on climate models which claim that only CO2 can explain the recent rise in temperatures. However, this outcome is not surprising since the climate models were programmed to assume that only CO2 can cause the climate to change.”
This is incorrect. The IPCC have NOT relied only on models. (How many times does this have to be said?) I have posted recently to another thread at this site to the effect that there is strong evidence from satellite measurements of the characteristic spectral signatures of atmospheric gases that stratospheric temperatures have dropped in response to increased GHGs (mainly CO2 & methane). See the chapter by Harries in the book Metrology at the Millennium, where a 2 Kelvin decrease in brightness temp. of outward longwave radiation to space between IRIS and IMG satellites (roughly, 1971-1997) is noted. The stratosphere decreases in temp; the lower layers warm, as the outgoing radiation has been lowered.
The radiative effects of GHGs are in fact one of the best understood aspects of the whole science. Problems involving calculation of the radiative forcings by GHGs in the upper atmospherte are often set as problems in textbooks on atmospheric physics.
“I thought the original BBC article was relatively objective, it’s the forced changes that are the ‘problem.’ I don’t know anything about ‘Sea Shepherd’ – the climate conundrum is my focus.”
Yet you know enough to declare yourself anti-whale eating?
David’s argument versus Sid would appear to be:
‘You cannot trust your lying eyes, hayseed.’
Well speaking for the twits living a few hours to the north east, we are looking, in the week ahead, to the first stretch of days above with normal temps since Nov.
The CBO has just told us the cost of the $36 billion dollar biofuels bill passed last year will cost $1.2 trillion by 2018.
I predict “reasonable basis” will be of no interest whatever among the huddled masses long before then.
The Brits invented Yellow Journalism. “Fleet Street” is an infamous phrase.
The BBC is a government organ, and as we all know, governments want power, and that costs money.
Darn straight, the BBC better use government money to scare tax dollars out of gullible Brits.
Is there another reason for the government to spoon-feed “the news” to citizens?
If there isn’t, the BBC may as well pack up shop. Greenpeace and the FOE are always hiring.
‘There is more entertainment on the relevant thread over at the Campaign against climate change, as the Sandalistas argue with the Lentilists, refereed by the Treehuggers.’
Paul – you need to read those comments! Every single one is critical of Abbess, including mine. And I can assure you that I am neither a Sandalista, a Lentilist or a Treehugger.
Btw I have a post up at my blog on the latest BBC shenanigans.
Mike – Great blog! I put Sandalistas/\Lentilists/Treehuggers in as it was in the email from a friend who alerted me to the Abbess comments. It may not have been entirely accurate, but I found it amusing!
I decided to ignore the BBC virtual world sea level rise report.