75 Activists Seek to reinforce BBC Ban on Climate Skeptics

UPDATES complained on legal grounds as otherwise they just ignore you and self justify themselves Sun, Oct 20, 2013 18:52 BST 14:40 29/10/2013 : The BBC "we got your complaint letter" arrived more than a week after I complained. - but I am behind schedule also : I did the legal aspects straight away, but fully deconstructing the text to explain OTHER FAULTS like misrepresentation takes time, as it always 1 minute for someone to say something and 10 minutes to debunk what they have said. 19:59 03/11/2013 - I wrote up 2 more aspects to the complaint I actually did receive a reply just as I was about start writing first stage legal letter to the BBC 16/12/2013 7 weeks after I initially complained Text of BBC Reply relevent threads on BH - here and on the Radio4 blog here Harrabins Rhetorical Trick to deceive that "tgere are no skeptical scientists" (he didn't look and ignored emails from them, so "couldn't find any") reproduced here - 14/2/2014 The did it again they aired an organised campaign by activist wiythout counter as if they were members of the public Text of BBC Reply 3 Grounds of Complaint OK the prog was as bent as anything a total travesty. But what to complain about ? Complaining isn't as easy as people think. The BBC normally just shrugs. - 1. Legal : The first thing the prog broke the law : and the BBC is not allowed to do that and cannot afford to. I wish to complain on 2 further grounds & add a point of information that Feedback has "fixed" a climate item vox pop before - 2. BBC Editorial Guidelines Broken - I have only just found these exist - seems the prog should have obeyed them - 3. Gross Misrepresentation : OK the BBC is not about 100% unbiased truth 1. It's not that a prog is always going to be 50:50 it's that overall network should balance 2. Anything with people's opinion is bound to be biased and maybe untruthful (not much the BBC can do about that). So such complaints are usually just brushed off by the BBC. HOWEVER that Feedback item was such a travesty, rather it just being a case of valid viewpoint the prog makers were NEGLIGENT in allowing GROSS MISREPRESENTATIONS - 4. I have found out this is not the first time Feedback have pulled this same routine : Airing full-time activists as members of the public. In January (ASIDE : Damage to BBC Reputation : The item was a total travesty, but 90% of the public don't care, as ever the climate fundamentalists will lie through their teeth to complain the other way, the 5% of popn who are skeptics are right and honest, but we have no power.) 0.1 Context (from my opinion) : Most of the population is not that interested in the climate debate : There are a huge range of opinions, from imminent catastrophists to people who believe it's nothing. However there are 2 strong parties say about 5% of the population each who are very interested : 1. Fundamentalists who are certain of CAGW and 2. Skeptics ususally engineering types. The Fundamentalists main propaganda is that "science is 100% with us" , "skeptics are all paid by big oil", They never agree to publicly debate skeptics (afraid of losing ?) ..Their main propaganda trick is to keep skeptic arguments from being raised in mainstream media. They do this by spreading the myth "science is 100% with us", other peoples view are just opinions", This is ironic as you'l notice on other green issues like GMO, fracking, nuclear the same people have no compunction about speaking vocifourously against scientists. They have very professional PR skills/connections and are often very bullying. - Skeptics will debate openly, but are not free to be too open in official institutes due to the status quo, There is certainly no sign of Big Oil Money..all the money being on the other side of the debate with Big Green Hedgefunds and Oil Companies who benefit from high oil prices green panic brings. 0.2 Not Just Me complaining - I should say that I am not alone and that 40+ people have similar complaint against that particular edition of feedback you can see on Bishop Hill here and on the Radio4 blog here 0.3 But "They" are almost 100% of the Authority - "We don't have to listen to you cos the Alarmist IPCC supporting side is 100% of the authority and almost 100% of the scientists, whereas 'you' are just the 5% of the population who are nutters !" .... except that meme does not stand up to close analysis. Rather that 100% Alarmist IPCC supporting side are a 5% who are "over-confident". I won't do a full step by step essay her, but just one example e.g. An Article in Chemistry World magazine says "I don't understand why when everyone knows 97% of scientists support the IPCC most of the letters from scientists here are against the IPCC !" it nevers enters the writers mind that that 97% figure is fake. e.g. but all the big science associations are CONSENSUS : em list of them that have ballotted their members on that zero ... yes it's that bad .. Read up Prof Curry or Prof Pielke talking about AGU official pronouncements 0.4 Context : Convicted Lying Green Proponents are allowed on & No one Complains - The cheek is unbelievable - The true context is they secretly get lots of BigGreen activists/HedgeFund people aired ..yet they want skeptics 100% banned

Quick Proof the Feedback prog was biased - If IPCC Fundamentalists had done their own programme : it would have been almost 100% the same as the Testbed Whistledown production ; i.e. no skeptic voices, lots of namencalling, pseudo- scientific veneer by pulling on the Big Guns like Harrabin and Steve Jones. The "funded by big oil" accusations etc. all without any evidence cited Other versions would have been nothing like the Testbed Whistledown production. (- If Normal skeptics had made the programme - They would have set the context pointing out how rarely skeptics are allowed on given that most people are opposed to Green Taxes. There would have been skeptics on : specifically Carter himself, but alarmists would not have been banned rather they would have properly question them on their strong assertions and asked for evidence etc. etc. - If Fundamentalist skeptics had made the programme - They would have kept IPCC supporters off, got in one of those American shockjocks .... namecalled the IPCC supporters DramaGreens, trashed harrabin, and Jones, made unfounded accusations etc.etc. - If proper objective journalists had made the programme - they would have set the context properly, they would have had both sides on, they would have questions the assertions of all, they would have asked alarmists what errors there were in Carter's words) 2.1 Detail :BBC Editorial Guidelines Broken : Now I find that the BBC has Editorial Guidelines that Feedback broke ..Like they are supposed to declare conflicts of interests etc. I guess they would try to get around this by saying ah well this is made by an independent production company Relevant brief extracts "provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status." (3.4.12) They failed to do this for Prof Carter "We should not automatically assume that contributors .. are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint " .. (4.4.14) They failed do this for the GreenEnergy Corp owner making him seem like a member of the public. (Maybe you can retrieve a copy of the of the BBC Editorial Guidelines from the Feedback wastebin, cos that seems where they keep it) 3.1 Detail of Gross Misrepresention : a totally one sided, BULLYING HATCHET job against Carter & Skeptics as if broadcast straight out Greenpeace/GreenHedgeFund office. - It was not a fair discussion it was a carefully crafted piece of propaganda, to advance the position of a small political group Climate fundamentalists. - In a dramatic fashion they were able to state their case and do a hatchet job against their opposition without any countering - Strangely they had ample opportunity to say exactly what Prof Carter said wrong, but they did not - Things programme makers should not have allowed - Framing the heavily loaded word "denier", "denialists" is used throughout by all parties - MISREPRESENTATIONS : Rhetorical tricks are used by Harrabin & SJ to allow lies to be formed in the minds of the listeners - it is negligent that these were uncontested - In particular SJ made 3 strong assertions about Skeptics ..that is smearing - The fallacy of authority was used throughout firstly by introducing SJ and secondly by his repeated false assertion that "scientists say=fact" and "skeptics say = opinion" - His whole thesis is based on the fallacy of false dichotomy, dividing a complex argument artificially into 2 so you can claim that everyone is on yourside or evil. * Disproportionate : Why have a 10 min item about a skeptic being allowed on once for 5 minutes ? * Unfair : skeptics were unrepresented - the vox pop was rigged - Prof Bob Carter had no representation ..did they even ask him ? - neither was their any input from the WATO people who chose to air Carter - I would not ban SJ far from it, I would bring him back to challenge him to substantiate his fake assertions ..that is how we progress towards the truth. (you can check by looking at the prog outline I provide below, and in the prog transcript) 4.1 Detail : I have found out this is not the first time Feedback have pulled this same routine : Airing full-time activists as members of the public. - In January they were enraged at a news report seemed to say that the Met Office were backtracking on Global Warnming predictions (which they were, even the new IPCC report hides downfgrades of it's forecasts) feedback staged a 5 minute item starting with a Vox pop where 2 members of the public complain. Then 3 mins with Julia Slingo head of the MO and about it's strongest proponent of catastrophe theory. Barry Williams had noticed so had confronted the 2 women who told him that they HAD told FB they were activists, but Feeback chose not to mention this. More Detail

1.1 Legal BBC Complaint part 1 There seem to be a number of legal issues So I think info needs to be inserted into the prog before other people listen to the Sunday repeat or on Iplayer 1. NEGLIGENCE : They failed to properly disclose the CONFLICT OF INTEREST by commenter Simon Sharp who runs a green energy company www.greenrouteenergy.co.uk/about-us : screenshot, screenshot 2 , screenshot 3 (info was removed & then put back) (please now make public information that prog makers took steps to check for conflicts of interest, without ot forcing the extra expense of doing an FOI on this issue) * 2. Defamation (1) : Every effort was made to defame BC's reputation. SJ was given recognisition as an expert as he wrote a report on the BBC's reporting of Climate Science & his title professor was used. BC was referred to as "unearthed an Australian geologist" & denied his title Professor Bob Carter: Palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist Yet he was brought on to WATO to comment on the IPCC cos he had just written a report Climate Change Reconsidered II another extensive commentary on IPCC science. So he is an expert on commenting on the IPCC reports. He is further qualified to comment as he has written a number of books on the field and additionally through his expertise in the geology field. ** se list of expertise 3. DEFAMATION (2) "denier" "climate change denier" was used 4 Times by Jones and 2 times by Bolton 1 by commenter PV. Despite the BBC claiming that "it doesn't mean liar, & is commonly used", this would not stand up in court & this is contradicted by Joanne Haigh agreeing not use the rterm in future broadcasts. It clearly is a pejorative word, used to load debates, with the effect of lowering the reputation of the people that it is used about. (Therefore it would not be appropriate to use it in a primary school debate so neither is it appropriate for Radio 4 family listening - and the prog makers were negligent in including it.) - Both SJ & RB used it to refer to Prof. Bob Carter so clearly defamed him. The programme makers were negligent (2) in allowing defamation. 4. Negligence (3) : by prog makers in choosing only the anti-Carter view aired. Did they take steps to avoid misrepresentation ? Can they now make available that this was a fair interpretation of the situation ? The argument of "consensus" meaning only climate scientists can comment on Climate Science, does not extend to only "non scientists" green supporters can comment on whether "only climate scientists can comment on Climate Science" They should know 1. that I had already mentioned to them on Twitter that I opposed a complaint against Carter being on WATO, and 2. a large active skeptical community exists on the UK internet, that they could have easily approached for comment. Can they show evidence that you tried to contact prominent skeptics before you made the prog ? * On a similar issue did the prog makers take any steps to check for other conflicts of interest in the 3 members of the public they chose to air were not working together in some kind of organised lobby. Did they know each other beforehand ? At least one is probably personally known by SJ 5. Defamation (3) - It would be defamation if the prog rubbished BC by "playing the man not the ball". The prog contained no evidence of factual errors made by BC in WATO so to substantiate can you please supply evidence that all involved analysed a transcript of BC & found errors. 6. Negligence (3) SJ made assertions that a lot of his"denier" emails are oil industry sponsored. This again is a strong statement defamatory of skeptics yet RB was negligent in that failed to ask SJ to substantiate that claim. 7. Minor failure to disclose conflict of interest PJ's wife makes the Horizon documentaries he raved about.

Prof Bob Carter's Expertise Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Dr. Carter has served as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways). Dr. Carter contributes regularly to public education and debate on scientific issues which relate to his areas of knowledge. His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand Thankyou BBC for Prof Bob Carter on WATO - It was exactly the right thing to do and in the interests of the BBC and the British public for a number of reasons - and may it be the first of many times that he and other such EXPERTS are invited to share their information - If an IPCC supporter were certain that there is a consensus and that the IPCC reports are pretty much alright and Bob Carter is completely wrong the very last thing they would want is people like him banned. BUT - every 2 days Climate Skeptics have cause for concern as there is some kind of large misrepresentation in a BBC program. The greendream believers have an almost total grip on BBC things so it is absolutely astounding that their complaining one time should be given so much weight. Outrageous, how Greens 1 complaint is hyped up - Yet Skeptics could complain every 2 days - The GreenDream activists have hijacked almost every aspect of BBC output (with a handful of honourable exceptions). Yet the one time a skeptic EXPERT is allowed on to comment on a new IPCC report the green activists were upto their normal dramaqueening and complaining not only outrage that that Prof Carter appeared, but aquiring an item on feedback to use as an uncontested public platform for their usual pejorative namecalling and misrepresentations of the state of Climate Science. in the process - This activists pushing on a BBC already unfairly under-representing skeptics is like Hitler saying that Himler has been too soft of Jews..It's nowhere near justice The truth is there is nowhere near enough coverage of skeptical viewpoints considering half the public don't believe "climate catastrophe is a strong possibility due to manmade CO2". My Opinion on General BBC Climate Coverage - It is appalling Yes I want much more criticism of the Greendream viewpoint which seems to get free uncontested passage. I want far less material to originate from lobbying by green NGOs, green business & green pressure groups such sourcing should be declared clearly as such should possible conflicts of interests of the speakers e.g. politicians connections & income from green energy corps/hedgefunds etc. That is why healthy debate without is maintained on the BBC so these things can be thrashed out. If a party shouts out "hey those others should be excluded", that should be a red light to something being up and the signal for investigative journalists to jump in and do some investigating.

3.2 Summary of the item - compiled from the transcript RB Listener- bad mouths BC RB SJ - opinions RB News - edited in such a way it seems that IPCC backs the fundamentalists RB Harrabin : Hatchet into skeptics ..a HIGH IMPACT Clever rhetoric line, which HAD already been debunked (Skeptic scientists had contacted him) RB BC excerpt .. OK if he is wrong why wasn't it mentioned here what was wrong with what he said ? Vox Pop - Green Journalist : Anjana Ahuja : Hatchet into BC Vox Pop - Peter Verney : Hatchet into skeptics Vox Pop - Owner of Green Green Energy Corp (not mentioned) :Simon Sharp: Hatchet into skeptics - OK members of the public are allowed to express political views - why was no one from Skeptic side given a voice ? they are easy enough to find RB : intros SJ, but uses the "denier" word SJ : long piece, says "denier" has to be expert - strangely Bob Carter is an expert, commenting on IPCC is his job. .. this does really seem like a Greenpeace fundamentalist constructing the edit to make a case RB SJ - opinions RB

SJ - opinions RB SJ - opinions very long ..Concluding "Science is consensus" .. that is SJ's opinion, but it is wrong ..science is VALIDATED facts .. opinion is not science RB SJ : says "scientists say=fact" and "skeptics say = opinion" ..again incorrect as "scientists say=opinion" RB SJ - opinions very long : asserts "whatever the evidence, they will not accept that they are wrong" - that's just SJ's opinion and he gives no evidence RB - very long - "science is settled ?" "should not hear from dissenting voices ?" SJ - "I certainly did NOT say that" ..."the dissenting voice is not the voice of science - it's the voice of opinion" SJ - "how many of them in the hundreds of emails I get, that climate change is a lie, how many of them are generated by the oil industry with an interest in pouring out pollution" paraphrased - VERY HIGH IMPACT statement with no evidence offered ... RB should have not let it pass RB SJ - opinions RB : said BBC cannot comment on BC as it's subject to formal complaint BBC spokesman : speaking in general, believe skeptics are not given too much time, ..small amount to reflect all viewpoints RB : And next week the Head of Editorial Policy, David Jordan, is coming : Let us know what you think about balance and impartiality (paraphrased)

3.3 Misrepresentations : Summary again Summary : It is just totally unacceptable : All of the phrases used by all 6 people who spoke are so heavy loaded it sounds like they were written in a Greenpeace office. Pejorative words, negative framing, unsupported assertions, provable misrepresentation of facts, some of which others will testify are untrue. I demonstrate below going through them 1 by 1 - Harrabin clip is unfairly played and is a rhetorical trick which misleads - Steve Jones -Analysing the transcript SJ makes a number of misrepresentations about Climate Science, which can explained at length,but MAYBE legally he is allowed to express opinions unless he has some malicious intent. - OK overall What is looks like is that Feedback and it's activist friends have just done a one sided hatchet job against Prof Bob Carter and Skeptics, with no other side represented Carter, Skeptics or WATO ..is that fair ?. I guess legally the Feedback can make a completely one sided prog, but I will protest it is misleading. I am saying I feel it was bad prograqmme making to allow SJ to be so misleading. The main ones are his 3 strong assertions about skeptics made without any evidence - He should put up or shutup - and I do understand that within individual progs the BBC does not have a policy of right of reply or a pledge to 100% impartiality. However if an informed skeptics had been on they would have been able to bring up evidence to contest SJs assertions. - (Usually he never showed evidence of his own assertions, this being particularly ironic as his entire premise that in Climate Science "consensus info" is fact and skeptics is just opinion.) 3.4 detail of Misrepresentations 1 by 1 - I transfered my deconstruction FROM THE TRANSCRIPT TO here - offending words from Feedback have a white background, - "But should one be impartial where the facts are clear? The World at One gave airtime to a climate change sceptic" - they seem to try to join the 2 phrases to mean "the facts are clear on climate" - well they are certainly not that is why IPCC predictions are rubbish .. - "scientists say" & "properly VALIDATE science" are 2 different things - It is up to RB & SJ to say what % of IPCC reports are Validated Science - Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification) - "a geologist".. lets not play about context is everything aswell it's a LIE really it's the same as saying "RB, oh he makes coffee at the BBC", "BC is a well respected scientist and expert at deconstructing IPCC reports, who is also a geologist" Male listener: "This person was not a climate scientist, and he was clearly not qualified to speak on the subject. " - OK it's an opinion, not backed up by any evidence -"Kermode is not a film-maker, and he was clearly not qualified to speak on films." - would be OK if prog not constructed to only have one side - "The problem with passionate climate change deniers" - this is called framing it's also normal derogatory namecalling : FALLACY of poisoning the wells e.g. "when BBC news has just aired Caroline Lucas" - the discussion prog says "the problem with this raving Green loony" would that be OK and fair ? ... labelling Lucas a loony would be defamation and so is labelling Prof Bob Carter a "denier" .. ..note how the term "green loony" would defame all political greens , and "skeptic denier" , defames all skeptics - "whatever the evidence, they will not accept that they are wrong" MISREPRESENTATION of a typical skeptic ..a smear without evidence , but what can we do about SJ having strange opinions ? (we recognise it as projection typical of "true believers") - but if he is apply it to mean Bob Carter - then he is clearly defaming BC ..as he shows no evidence that evidence doesn't change BC's mind Roger Bolton: But first, the small matter of the future of the planet. - Loaded words but RB can't resist it again it's giving the Climate Debate a level of importance .. it is quite possible future climate might have positive/neutral/negative effect on "the planet" Female newsreader: United Nations scientists say they're more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming. - popular belief, but that is not what the report says - the actual reports says Humans are responsible for more than half of previous "global warming etc. So the clip is an incorrect interpretation of the IPCCS AR5 report - it does not preclude 49% being natural (and it is only opinion) Roger Harrabin: I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world. I mean, for instance, we've been trying in the UK to find one climate change sceptic who is a working scientist, in this field, and we can't find even one. - Harrabin's team you are brilliant ! That is a great killer statement that impacts rather than informs ...straight out of the politician's playbook. Creating a headline much bigger than the actual story. Lapped up by the faithful, yet ridiculous to the more informed : sceptics or independent analysers. Did that come out of a PR agency ? - It's actually a clever rhetorical trick .. try it by replacing the nouns with exact opposite e.g. skeptics with "IPCC believers" ... whatever you plug in it still works - OK it took me a long time to work that out as I had to go the long ways below is a simple walk through, further below is a much longer separate section I first did. Beware of auto-extrapolation * Extraordinary Claim * No Evidence * From DramaGreen * - I am an idiot. I put time intro deconstructing H's claim, when I should have just followed my own rules 1. Beware of auto-extrapolation .. tricks that make you turn a small claim into a big one - It didn't mean that there are no sceptic scientists in the field or that H had looked very hard. Just that H couldn't find any. 2. The Too good/bad/strange to be true Rule : "If something is too goo/bad/strange to be true" and doesn't have fantastic EVIDENCE " then it probably isn't what it first seems :EXTRAORDINARY claim needs EXTRAORDINARY evidence 3.- Credibility of Source ? H has always been a DramaGreen with very low credibility : The point is when have such claims in past ever checked out. Take a look at the predictions in H's past stories have many ever come true ? Isn't that the same as the "They are lies, cos there is a big oil conspiracy" line, that dismissal line that Greenactivists say to things that don't fit with their dogma ? - No cos when such a claim comes up from sources experience has shown to be credible (can't name them cos the Greens will get them banned) whose stories have always checked out, and supported with a good chain of evidence ..then you can take them seriously - 1. "I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world." : that opinion can be shown to be wrong. There are many scientists in the world who are openly sceptical on the normal definition of man made CO2 is bringing catastrophe. - It's certainly dozens and could be quite a high percentage of all scientits working in the field.. as I explain in a very long deconstruction yes Harrabin's brilliance is that it takes me 200 words to deconstruct his 2 sentences. See long deconstruction

RB: Later in the day, however, the World at One, striving to be impartial, unearthed - framing again RB, they didn't unearth BC, He is one of a number of high profile sceptical scientists so easy enough to find ... and RB is trying to make it sound like it is difficult to find a skeptical climate scientist, they could have just asked one of the ones frequenting the skeptical blogs an Australian geologist - INCORRECT NAMING OF HIS TITLE and credentials so defamation Bob Carter mentioned above from the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change, the NIPCC, who was more than happy to express an opposing view. - yep fine with that Bob Carter: ... climate has always changed and it always will - there is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events. - the main assertion of the whole prog was that BC was wrong & didn't know what he was talking about. So all they had to do was deconstruct his words and show the evidence he was wrong, yet they made no attempt to do that. Roger Bolton: Some Feedback listeners were not amused. This phrasing would be OK if they can show the overwhelming majority of listeners - they showed no evidence of that - Many of us were fine with what Prof Carter said Vox-pop (actually organised greens ?) - points can be easily answered - MASSIVE vested interest not mentioned RB - gives SJ full title yet refers to Carter just as "denier" HIGHLY OFFENSIVE pejorative it is defamation to use this word which means liar.. would you likely label someone a holocaust denier just cos they disagree with Israeli government) - The BBC is politically correct about every other word yet you quickly use this very LOADED word. Since you like authority - check this report http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/03/09/are-they-really-climate-deniers-closing-down-debate-in-science-and-politics/ March 2013 Warren Pearce Leverhulme Research Fellow on Making Science Public programme, University of Nottingham SJ speaks- OK He is entitled to have crazy views beyond the evidence RB acts like a supporter (imagine a conservative MP interviewed by a conservative MP) doesn't challenge, gives him 2 bites of cherry etc. - SJ asserts : BBC science is the best in the world particularly Horizon :(CONFLICT of INTEREST his wife's Wikipedia page opens with the info that she makes films about crises for Horizon) SJ - "Most of it (science) is a consensus." This is a tremendous error Careful, most of it is FACT not consensus of OPINION ..there is a difference yet SJ tries to conflate the 2 RB Makes the point ..In other issues BBC has assumed a consensus and kept out all outside voices, as if this prevented correction. "And belief can never fall apart." seeming to say "skeptics are not logical they just have a firm dogmatic belief" "Well, you're arguing facts against opinions." yes he is saying that Then a very strange phrase"Now, it's so much a fact that even the climate change deniers look away from it and don't deny it." .. Yep generally a measurement is a measurement it's not skeptics who are extrapolating from that it's Catastrophists What Jones seems to be saying is that "scientists opinions are facts" and "skeptic's facts are opinions" RB uses "deniers" (pejorative) "The problem with the enormous number of passionate climate change deniers out there," using the pejorative again "is that whatever the evidence, they will not accept that they are wrong. STRONG assertion without evidence (when you know climate debate, you recognise PROJECTION the tendency of alarmists to reflect their own behaviour in the assertions they make against others) "So, under those circumstances, there's no real point in talking to them." (false assertion) - scientific test conducted on IPCC skeptics to prove "they will not accept that they are wrong" NONE evidence of Jones evidence based scientist = ZERO "the dissenting voice is not the voice of science - it's the voice of opinion." (again that fallacy of "scientists say"=science, when in fact a scientists opinion is just an opinion) "And one could dig into where those opinions come from, and how many of them in the hundreds of emails I get, that climate change is a lie, how many of them are generated by the oil industry , in various people with a parti pris * to pouring out pollution - I think quite a lot. " (he believes that, where is his evidence ?) smear post hoc reasoning, but no evidence quoted * (a position or attitude resolved upon or taken in advance.) - every activist does believe this myth that all skeptics are paid by the oil industry, but that is not true ..we are mostly poor and the oil companies love the green panic cos it pushes the price of oil up Basically SJ should put up or shutup with his assertions - 1. scientists opinions are facts and skeptic's facts are opinions - 2. "whatever the evidence, they will not accept that they are wrong." - 3. "how many of them are generated by the oil industry" ..said in a tone of rhetorical question - I want SJ back on air with his evidence It's up to SJ to prove hias case, but I answer his assertions - 1. fallacy of "scientists say"=science, when in fact a scientists opinion is just an opinion - 2. Popular skeptic blogs are full of lots of discussion and reasoning rather than dogma : PROJECTION - 3. None are generated by the oil industry ..it's jsut a greens fantasy also : Few ? Most of the UK population BEHAVE skeptically they have done very little to reduce their CO2 Roger Bolton: ".. wrong to put this geologist on the World at One" loaded : should have used the words Prof Bob Carter a Geologist whose job is to analyse IPCC material and who has written a number of books on the subject Roger Bolton: "BBC can't comment directly on that World at One interview, because they're currently handling an official complaint about it and don't want to prejudge its conclusion. (do they usually say this ? it seems strange ?) - OK overall What is looks like is that Feedback and it's activist friends have just done a one sided hatchet job against Prof Bob Carter and Skeptics, with no other side represented Carter, Skeptics or WATO ..is that fair ? Male voice: "The BBC covers climate change, and most recently the IPCC report, fully on all its outlets, with analysis from its specialist journalists. The bulk of interviews on the subject are with climate scientists, many of whom have contributed to the IPCC report. " (is that true ? a lot of input usually comes from material sourced from activist organisations and read by people like Harrabin.. I expect the number of minutes actual climate scientists spoke would be very little .. a list of occasions when climate scientists spoke would be good)

4.2 Detail on Previous fakery :Feedback in January Feedback has form at giving free rides to activists. In Jan Met said "Met office says Global warming won't be as severe as they first predicted" Climate Campaign ‏@campaigncc 14 Jan 2013 CCC's @HilaryGander featured in the BBC Feedback piece - shows listener complaints can have an impact! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p013n3z4 They were given 2 mins to explain their case - RB : "Just some of the LISTENERS .." Rog you deceptive b*stard ! "normal vox pop", was it ? why didn't you say at least one was from an full time activist org (@campaigncc Campaign against Climate Change mobilises people across the UK and works globally for international climate mobilisations UK · campaigncc.org ) RB : "now over to Julia Slingo" given 3 mins to lobby - hangon Feedback is made by Testbed Productions .. Nick Baker co founder of Testbed Productions, produces most of the Tom Heap's programmes ..so guess he know a lot of dramagreens.. WRONG actually now Feedback is made by Whistledown Productions ..maybe they have strong green connections ? - So when Feedback does a Climate story voxpop are they really the public or people Whistledown people already know ?

Misrepresentation sidesection to explains Harrabin's part in detail

My First Simple Deconstruction of Harrabin's trick - Misrepresentation as it would create an untruth in the mind of a normal listener. Most people would take 2 + 2 and get 5 by jumping to the conclusion that there are almost zero sceptical scientists in the field. BUT stop that is not what he said - 1. "I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world." : well that's false there are many but inocents would just accept H at face value - 2. "I mean, for instance, we've been trying in the UK to find one climate change sceptic who is a working scientist, in this field, and we can't find even one." H has told public first there are few sceptics & that he can't find one ... However if you know H's habit you know not to take him at face value. Oh what's this on Twitter 3 scientist are offering to speak .. oh he's brushed them off. Yes H is so cheeky that he would repeat a claim like that - It's certainly dozens and could be quite a high percentage of all scientits working in the field.. as I explain in a very long deconstruction yes Harrabin's brilliance is that it takes me 200 words to deconstruct his 2 sentences. See long deconstruction NEED TO EDIT Explanation of Harrabin's High Impact trick - Harrabin's team you are brilliant ! That is a great killer statement that impacts rather than informs ...straight out of the politicians playbook. Creating a headline much bigger than the actual story. Lapped up by the faithful, yet ridiculous to the more informed : sceptics or independent analysers. H is One of the best Green party politicians working inside the BBC. Did it come out of some PR agency maybe ? - Ironically it's a statement of denial as the meaning that it conveys : that almost all scientists working in the climate field take the IPCC position, H clearly knows is not true. (PROJECTION again) - It's really is a very clever killer political for statement spreading a message political message rather than explain complex truths .. Popular with the faithful, but And of course does not stand up to deconstruction : Here we know for sure there are sceptical scientist working in the climate field.. indeed there might be many of them ..it might be possible to find dozens of scientists in the field that disagree with fundamental IPCC statements. (It's like SkepticalScience blog seeking to spread a message rather than the truth. You can't exactly say lie, lie , lie but by clever choice of words and spinning the reader is left with an impression somewhat at odds with reality) - In politics politicians make things seem Black & White simple whereas the real world is Full Colour Complex & takes idiots like me hours & hours to deconstruct. - You frame a context, say a wordy phrase ..you haven't exactly told a lie, but a lie is constructed in the mind of many listeners. as people automatically extrapolate it into something simpler e.g. Ahmadinejad Harrabin the Green Party MEP for the district of BBCshire said "IN our land people love the Koran of the IPCC, Naturally they disagree with some minor details," Q: Why does the BBC persecute & ban sceptics ? “It’s wrong for some governments to spread lies that distort the full truth. Our nation is free.” - "In Scienceland we don't have sceptics like in rubbish blogs ... In Scienceland we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this.-- BBC .. Transcript 2.45pm sorry I was paraphrasing H's actual words Roger Harrabin: "I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world. I mean, for instance, we've been trying in the UK to find one climate change sceptic who is a working scientist, in this field, and we can't find even one." - Yes note how it is a political statement statement designed for effect rather than to a light enlighten. It's a killer statement with very high impact which of course does not stand up to close the construction deconstruction. - "Wow" say the party members it is exactly what they want to hear, but outsiders in the know it's ridiculous 4 sceptical scientists have in this blog have shown that they told Harrabin they would speak. But showing the front of Tescos, H just brushes it off & repeats it . (most people think untruths are bad, but politicians know that often it's difficult for truth to get a grip) - If a person who is seeking the truth they are going to take time to thrash it out. - Why sceptics know straight off it's ridiculous The seed planted is that are no sceptic scientists working in the field of Climate. What is it 100% IPCC supporting ? 97%, 97% we have heard again as if to create a meme. Based on that if H had asked 100 scientists he would have got 3 who expressed sceptical views That 97% is the best anti-sceptics have come up with is from a massively flawed small survey. Then Cook came up with his withdrawn paper amazing saying coincidentally 97% of papers are against sceptics.. as if to re-inforce the meme. The fact is that among scientists "climate sceptic" has never been properly defined & surveyed. But people experienced in reading lots of deconstruction on sceptical blogs would expect the figure to be much higher.. it could well be the majority of scientists in the field are sceptics, but the dynamic means most are afraid to show their faces.

Techical Deconstruction Roger Harrabin: "I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world. I mean, for instance, we've been trying in the UK to find one climate change sceptic who is a working scientist, in this field, and we can't find even one." Misrepresentation as it would create an untruth in the mind of a normal listener. - "I don't think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world." : that opinion can be shown to be wrong. There are many scientists in the world who are openly sceptical on the normal definition of man made CO2 is bringing catastrophe. - The impression given is "No scientists working in the this field are climate change skeptics". In fact the percentage might be quite high 1. they haven't been properly surveyed 2. they might be afraid to give honest answer "We couldn't find a single person working inside the BBC who says SkyNews is better or think the licence fee should be cut" IN FACT at least 4 Scientists working in the Climate field had contacted him On Twitter - "Paul Matthews ‏@etzpcm @RHarrabin @aDissentient Rubbish. You got at least 3. Me, Paul Dennis and Don Keiller." - roger harrabin ‏@RHarrabin 28m @etzpcm @aDissentient Spartans? - quote : Spartans! What is your profession? Spartans: WAR! WAR! WAR! King Leonidas reproduced here - other skeptic scientists names are also put forward.. usually independents. - So H could have been trying to weasel out by saying their job is title is not Climate Scientists ? but they are Paul Dennis at UEA (isotope chemistry to environmental and palaeoclimate studies) H's line is probably an adaption of a stock line politicians use - "I don't think there are many girls who don't think I am Adonis, I've been trying to find one girl in Eastbourne who doesn't fancy me, and I can't find even one." .. I've never asked though - 1. It's true : There are not masses of open skeptics within UK institutions. Why ? Plebgate effect - e.g.1 "the BBC couldn't find a single police officer to speak against other police officers in the Plebgate affair" - e.g.2 "the BBC couldn't find a single police officer to speak in favour of budget cuts" 2. It's true : No bosses of UK university climate science departments are open skeptics, but there are some in other parts of the world e.g. Judith Curry - There is scope for being slippery i.e, those words could be chosen carefully to narrow down the field. "in this field" one would think Climate Science is divided into many fields e.g.1 H could dismiss it as "ah I don't include that sub-field" e.g 2. Nic Lewis an "Independent Scientist an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of peer-reviewed papers" - could be dismissed cos he works for himself - Nic Lewis name was given to Harrabin who somehow failed to make any contact substantiated here - Article on biasedbbc.org with more Info about this topic - In a video at 12.50 Lord Monckcton says "Harrabin : An environmental extremist working at the BBC paid by activist groups" ..what's he mean by that (Harrabin's consultancy corp does do jobs like that) - Maybe he means this ..Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at UEA paid him £15k to organise seminars NEW Lucky Roger will get $70K - Roger Harrabin, Knight-Wallace Fellow 2014 - Knight-Wallace Fellows receive a stipend of $70,000 for the eight-month academic year plus full tuition and healthcare insurance. Conclusions Beware of auto-extrapolation * Extraordinary Claim * No Evidence * From DramaGreen * - I am an idiot. I put time intro deconstructing H's claim, when I should have just followed my own rules 1. Beware of auto-extrapolation .. tricks that make you turn a small claim into a big one - It didn't mean that there are no sceptic scientists in the field or that H had looked very hard. Just that H couldn't find any. 2. The Too good/bad/strange to be true Rule : "If something is too goo/bad/strange to be true" and doesn't have fantastic EVIDENCE " then it probably isn't what it first seems :EXTRAORDINARY claim needs EXTRAORDINARY evidence 3.- Credilbilty of Source ? H has always been a DramaGreen with very low credibility : The point is when have such claims in past ever checked out. Take a look at the predictions in H's past stories have many ever come true ? Isn't that the same as the "They are lies, cos there is a big oil conspiracy" line, that dismissal line that Greenactivists say to things that don't fit with their dogma ? - No cos when such a claim comes up from sources experience has shown to be credible (can't name them cos the Greens will get them banned) whose stories have always checked out, and supported with a good chain of evidence ..then you can take them seriously

Good Reasons Why they ban Bob Carter An excerpt from the NIPCC analysis of IPCC AR5 2. Misleading or Untrue Statements The following 13 statements by the IPCC are written in such a way that although they may be technically true, or nearly true, they are misleading of the actual state of affairs. - as discussed on WUWT ..see there for more * Drs. Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon are scientists and lead authors or chapter lead authors of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, a comprehensive review of the peer- reviewed literature on climate change released in September 2013 by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Their biographies appear on pages 16-17. Turns out that Feedback have form on using Activists - Jan 2013 : furious about a new item : "Met Office row back on Global warming" Feedback constructed a report with 2 mins of Vox Pop including 2 people who are climate activists and then Julia Slingo head on Met Office (who is much more alarmist about Climate than most of that dep) Guardian Gagging Skeptics Campaign Bizarre coincidence that the Feedback item is very similar to Steve Jones in an article in the Guardian from the week before .. seems to use many phrases the same ..so was Feedback just a normal listeners complaining or more orchestrated ? Some one please take a look - I am still analysing the misrepresntation in the Feedback item, which seems to include 2 roaring untruths which were shouted yet unsubstantiated as well as 7 legal points defamation etc. 9 October 2013 Another Greg Barker: BBC gives too much coverage to climate change sceptics 9 October 2013 commenting on another article in Guardian : Greg Barker Oct 9th - Jeez is the Guardian running a campaign. I mentioned the first Steve Jones article was Oct 1st then this one A Science Media Centre article that deals with people making a huge issue of the one time Bob Carter was on Give the BBC a break over their IPCC coverage blogpost by Tom Sheldon, Senior Press Officer at the SMC.

Ed Davey 3rd June featured in BBC radio prog Human Zoo : psychology of climate change OK this is going a bit weird cos this war on Skepticism has a seminal momement with a speech from Ed Davy on 3rd June (huffingtonpost. Davey was desperate to low Carbon target established for 2030 it failed , it failed in The House of Lords 28th October also (when CAGW is slowing why would anyone except green hedgefunds be desperate for this.. "Some who even deny the reality of climate change itself. - This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing. This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness. -"This tendency will seize upon the normal expression of scientific uncertainty and portray it as proof that all climate change policy is all hopelessly misguided - from pursuing renewable energy to emissions targets themselves. -"By selectively misreading the evidence, they seek to suggest that climate change has stopped so we can all relax and burn all the dirty fuel we want without a care. - "This is a superficially seductive message, but it is absolutely wrong and really quite dangerous." - Davey points to a survey of 12,000 papers by climate experts - 97% said human activity was driving global warming, he said. - Jesus he dares to declare from the flawed 97% paper which has never actually been published 1 year after it's first press conference and will almost ceratinly be. His who speech is the normal projection, yet why is Harrabin quoted in the reports as if they were working together ? Harrabin said Davey believes editors are "corrupting public understanding of science". - OK the whole rant is full of lies but the biscuit is : "long been privately frustrated swung Conservative back-benchers behind the climate sceptic cause." ..Que ? only 4 heroes voted against the CC bill, the rest of the bloody troughers voted for it ! - You could convert the whole country to skepticism simply by folding a piece of paper in half and putting davey's rant dont one side and Delingpoles Rebutall down the other featured in BBC radio prog Human Zoo : psychology of climate change features : Tamsin had 30s, Davey speech 1 min More notes on that show - the show quotes loony Lew's trial : believers will see a trend in the same data when skeptics see none - convincing yourself that experts are on your side : bias sampling .."everyone I see agrees with me" - but skeptics know many experts don't agree publicly with them ..but do believe authority is wrong - psychologist said faced with contradictions that don't fit our existing beliefs people often just let them fade, later we filter stuff or attack the source "they are paid to say that", It becomes a HOOK part of iyour dentity so triggers anger if attacked. People who feel strongly should ask if they have become HOOKED - FT reporter talking about readers attitudes : If there is money at stake people get really passionate .."ah that's why you should buy my windfarm"