No false balance at the BBC

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the BBC and the Guardianista types who take it seriously.

The Today programme's piece this morning on the 2-degree temperature target was a case in point: a hilarious example of the corporation's attitude to balance in the climate debate.

The discussion centred around the ideas of Petra Tschakert, an expert in the relationship between climate change and gender, and in particular her view that the 2-degree target should be reduced to 1.5°C.

And to counter this view, the corporation decided to invite none other than Lord Deben, trougher extraordinaire and a man whose tangled relationship with the concept of accuracy is a constant source of stories for this blog.

Too funny.

Me and Kaye

I was on BBC Radio Scotland's Kaye Adams programme this morning, discussing unconventional oil and gas and INEOS's recently announced charm initiative. Audio is available here. The fracking slot was right from the top of the show.

I came in after ten minutes or so, facing off against an American green called Joshua Brown who came out fighting and left abruptly, apparently with his tail between his legs. I fear that between us Kaye and I may have left his reputation a little the worse for wear.

Update on Mar 19, 2015 by Bishop Hill

James Verdon tweets to point out that most of the injection wells in Oklahoma are actually not even peripherally related to fracking. It comes from a process related to conventional production in areas where the well contains high levels of water. By dewatering, the oil becomes extractable.

The dewatering process is one which allows for extensive oil and gas production in fields generally known to contain oil and gas but bypassed by certain other operators due to high water saturation of reservoirs. Dewatering is simply the removal of these large volumes of water, which in turn reduces the pressure on trapped hydrocarbons and allows them to move to the wellbore (a physical hole that makes up the well), for recovery.

Cuddly greens turn to blackmail

ITV News inform us that in New Zealand, environmental campaigners have turned to blackmail to try to get their way, threatening to poison the nation's babies if they don't get their way.

Suspected 'eco-terrorists' have threatened to poison baby formula in New Zealand unless authorities ban a particular agricultural pesticide.

Anonymous letters have been sent to a national farmers' group and to Fonterra, the world's largest dairy exporter, containing samples of infant formula laced with the poison known as 1080.

This seems like an opportune moment to note that the BBC has never allowed a critique of environmentalism to be aired.

The BBC's misinformation box

According to BBC News, the head of the engineering firm Weir Group has said that the nascent shale gas industry is on the back foot because of all the disinformation that is being put out:

Spin is "beating science" in the debate over fracking in Scotland, the head of the Weir Group has claimed.

Keith Cochrane, chief executive of the engineering firm, said that he feared Scotland would be left behind in the global market place.

You can see his point, particularly as the BBC has provided a perfect example of the spin Mr Cochrane was talking about, accompanying the story with a box that is indistinguishable from the worst kind of environmentalist disinformation. Has anyone else noticed that this same set of half-truths accompanies almost every BBC news story on unconventional oil and gas?

I have pointed this out to more than one senior journalist at the BBC and while they didn't dispute that it is misleading they don't seem to feel they have any responsibility to see it corrected because they were not personally responsible for authoring it. 

Your taxes at work.

The BBC: an advertising agency for greens

Once again demonstrating the curious ability of environmental NGOs to get their press releases reported by the BBC, the corporation has today decided that the big news on the science front are claims issued by a US green group called the World Resources Institute. According to the BBC:

The number of people affected by river flooding worldwide could nearly triple in the next 15 years, analysis shows.

Climate change and population growth are driving the increase, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI).

In the UK, about 76,000 people a year could be at risk of being affected by flooding if defences aren't improved, it says.

Click to read more ...

Historical horizon

So, I have now managed to watch the BBC Horizon show looking back at the way the corporation has covered the climate change issue since its beginning.

The first thing to say is that it was clearly from the same propaganda-lite stable as Climate Change by Numbers, with official lines on the climate issue repeated dutifully and unquestioningly from beginning to end. The only point at which the litany was interrupted was a segment on the effect of clouds from Tomorrow's World which was interesting and scientific and - icing on the cake - was even rounded off with presenter Helen Czerski noting that the effect of clouds was still unsettled.

Click to read more ...

Horizon open thread

Here's an open thread for those who want to discuss the BBC Horizon show on climate change coverage.

Climate Change by Numbers

Updated on Mar 3, 2015 by Bishop Hill

I almost gave up on Climate Change by Numbers last night. By ten o'clock I was flagging fast and not really getting a lot from it which is a pity because it could have been brilliant.

The presentation was really well done. I thought the decision to have three different presenters paid off in spades and the producers did well to come up with three such engaging people - Norman Fenton, Hannah Fry and David Spiegelhalter - to front the show. I liked the style of having them completely separate and avoiding the cheesy infills that TV people seem to like so much. The decision to get just a little bit closer to the maths was a good one and the radical step of showing equations on screen seemed like a bit of a breakthrough.

Click to read more ...

Countdown to alarm - Josh 317

Posted by Josh

I thought the BBC 4 programme 'Climate change by numbers' started well (and I am a big fan of Hannah Fry). But sadly it descended into the usual climate change innuendo and alarm.

The first number was fine - 0.85˚C is not scary and not catastrophic. 

The second number, 95%, was, as ever, vague and hand wavy. So the 50% of the warming since 1950s we've caused amounts to... maybe 0.3˚C? So not that much after all. And the pause continues. And Arrhenius was wrong about the ice ages. And there's lots of uncertainty. How is Chelsea doing?

Worse was that by the third number the programme had left the planet and decided that the 0.3˚C warming had magically turned into 1˚C warming and we simply must do something about it. Or else.

Nice try BBC, great start by Hannah but it needed a medic by the end. At this rate I'm not sure the patient will make it all the way to Paris.

The number 63 comes from here.

Cartoons by Josh

By the numbers open thread

This is an open thread for anyone who wants to discuss Climate Change by the Numbers. I'll set some thoughts down in the morning.

Readers may also be interested in the post-match thoughts of one of the presenters, Norman Fenton.

Quote of the day, chutzpah edition

As a social scientist and policy researcher with a particular interest and involvement in the media I’ve long been frustrated by the predominant tactics aimed at mobilising public concern. Phrases like “the science is finished” and “the greatest challenge facing humanity” have sought to enrol the public and politicians in a grand cause. But these approaches may alienate as many as they attract.

This comes from Joe Smith, in an article at the Conversation. Smith's career to date involves trying to get just these kind of messages on the BBC airwaves, preferably by stealth.

Diary dates, look back in anger edition

Readers are no doubt looking forward to tonight's Climate Change by Numbers on BBC4, which promises to be the talking point on the climate blogs for a couple of days at least. It turns out, however, that there is another BBC show on climate this week:

Today, the topic of climate change is a major part of daily life, yet 40 years ago it was virtually unheard of. Since then, Horizon and the BBC have followed scientists as they have tried to unpick how the climate works and whether it is changing. Dr Helen Czerski delves into this unique archive to chart the transformation of a little-known theory into one of the greatest scientific undertakings in history. It has been a constantly surprising journey of discovery that has revolutionised our understanding of climate, and seen scientists face unprecedented controversy and criticism.

Czerski, you may recall, won plaudits for her intelligent coverage of the Antarctic sea ice issue a few weeks ago.

There is a trailer for the show here.

The BBC on climate, circa 2007

While trawling through my archives last night I came across a dead link, which I was fortunately able to resurrect through the Internet Archive. Well worth a look.

Building up to Paris

No sooner do we learn of the BBC's Climate by Numbers, than climate change makes another appearance on the airwaves, this time Philomena Cunk's short slot in the Charlie Brooker show. Climate scientists on Twitter seem to like it. See what you think (from 25 mins).

I wonder if this is the start of the BBC's big push for Paris.

More numbers

Tamsin Edwards has posted some more details about the Climate by Numbers show at the start of next month. Of particular interest is the official blurb for the show:

In a special film for BBC Four, three mathematicians will explore three key statistics linked to climate change.

In Climate Change by Numbers, Dr Hannah Fry, Prof Norman Fenton and Prof David Spiegelhalter hone in on three numbers that lie at the heart of science’s current struggle to get a handle on the precise processes and impact of climate global climate change.

Prof Norman Fenton said: “My work on this programme has revealed the massive complexity of climate models and the novel challenges this poses for making statistical predictions from them.”

Click to read more ...