Buffoonery Masquerading as Journalism
So I’m curious to hear what climate skeptics think of James Delingpole’s shocking admission that he doesn’t have time to read peer reviewed climate science papers. (I think he said this with a straight face, too.) Delingpole said he relies instead on the “peer to peer” review that happens everyday on climate blogs. Well, no news there, I suppose.
But about those time-sucking peer reviewed journal papers. Anybody got a problem with Delingpole’s cavalier dismissal of them? I mean, it’s not like he’s a journalist, or something, right?
Calling Bishop Hill and Anthony Watts.
P.S. Go here for links to the BBC Science under Attack documentary.
Pretty much all the arguments he makes can be applied in both directions. Simply put the extremists on BOTH sides are guilty of the described behavior. Think in terms of a Climate Science Denier as someone who has any pre-judged position and refuses to pay attention to any science. This equally describes both ends of the normal curve. People who cannot conceive of ANY explanation other than AGW just as much as someone who cannot conceive of ANY explanation that could include a human component.
The great mass of people are (hopefully) in the middle and yes we probably don’t all have the time to read every peer reviewed paper written and probably couldn’t get through most of them if we had the time (well time would have to include a few years to take the pre-requisite science and math courses.) So yes we all look to other people to interpret for us.
Which is why we watch and listen to the multiple approaches that the interpreters take and see who appears to have the most open minded approach. Who will look at evidence and analyze it before jumping on a bandwagon.
Keith, there is a cut. Did you never splice a vox pop? Did you never watch for the camera cuts in a magic show!? Come on, Keith. The BBC recorded 3 hours of Delingpole and they spliced together how much? A minute? Two?
There are cuts all over the place. There is obviously only one camera in the room (with crappy ShakeyCamâ„¢). All the time Nurse is asking the question, whether he DOES read peer reviewed papers, Delingpole is nodding vigorously. Then the cut. Then an entirely different conversation, about peer-to-peer review. Think about it. Play the video again. Pay attention. Cut. Splice. Re-jig.
Nurse “Primary publications, books, not really your thing”
-CUT-
Delingpole “It is not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers because I simply don’t have the time, I haven’t got the scientific expertise” [..] “I am an interpreter of interpretations”.
Isn’t that how you’d describe yourself, Keith? Do you spend your time being a journalist or a climate scientist? Do you spend your time reading papers on radiative transfer physics, paleoclimate reconstructions, climate model skill etc, or do you spend your time gleaning your knowledge from those with expertise in those fields in order to interpret and communicate what you have ascertained through your journalism?
There are a lot of problems with Doctor Nursie’s programme, not least of which is a failure to disclose in the course of the programme that he earned his PhD at.. you guessed it.. the University of East Anglia. No, it’s no big deal, but geez, if you’re going to pick at the journalist Delingpole to this extent, Doctor Nursie’s definitely fair game.
I have read a lot of climate papers. It has helped my understanding of the issue. I am not at all sure it helped my opinion commentary at examiner.com, as my better understanding did not change my views on the issue.
I believe there are (and should be) differing ‘rules’ for opinion commentators and beat journalists, especially if the opinion commentator looks at a wide range of issues. (I don’t know if that’s the case with Delingpole–he’s a bit too ‘out there’ for me.)
But that’s dependent on both the paper and the commentator being clear about their role and level of expertise.
When I got sucked back into ‘beat’ journalism after Climategate, I went back to beat journalism rules. I think that the inconsistency may not have served my readers well.
I actually like reading scientific papers. I wish I had more time available to do so.
Not a trick question, Keith, but how many do you get through in a year? I think I read about 25 last year… but am not keeping up this year…
Delingpole, as well as for his rather extreme political perspective, is certainly known to be a good communicator. He packages his views effectively and one cannot seriously argue that he’s unfamiliar with the subject of climate change and policy. He studied English literature at Christ Church, Oxford, he knows how to speak – and does so publicly – and how to form a sentence.
And yet, after the three hours of footage that the BBC recorded is whittled down to 2 minutes of on-screen interaction, Delingpole is reduced to that of a completely blithering and almost unintelligible idiot.
Really?
CUT, SPLICE! It’s FUN!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
What is so shocking about Delingpole stating (not admitting) the he doesn’t have time or expertise (you skipped over that) to read the peer-reviewed literature? How much time to you reckon that his nemesis Monbiot spends reading the primary scientific literature? How much would he understand if he did? What would be the point of either of them spending much time reading what they are not equipped to interpret? Also, I did not hear Delingpole cavalierly dismiss the value of scientific literature. At what point in the piece does he do that?
While I’m asking questions, why is it so important to the apologists for alarmists to lump climate skeptics in with other groups who are antagonistic to science most of us would support? Who are the true denialists, those of us who challenge the “settled” science or those who refuse to admit that there are huge unanswered questions regarding the reliability and uncertainty of the surface temperature record and climate projections (not the basic phenomenon of the Tyndall effect or that humans have impacts on the environment including some unknown contribution to warming)?
The narrator states that “extreme” skeptics decide what to believe first then cherry pick the data to support that belief. Why does he overlook the possibility that “extreme” climate scientists and their lay brethern might be guilty of the same charge? The fact that scientists are capable of selective vision is after all the principal reason for peer review. If that process is corrupted, as it all too apparently has been in climate science, the whole field as well as the public and politicians can be led astray.
BTW, I find Delingpoles polemics amusing, but no more definitive than Monbiot’s which are usually merely ludicrous.
@1
Nobody expects you to read the journal papers. But readers of a so-called journalist/blogger with a large circulation at a major newspaper should expect more of someone who writes often about climate issues. It’s pathetic that he says he doesn’t have time.
@2 & 4
I’m in total favor of the BBC releasing the entire, uncut exchange with Delingpole, which should reveal if the edited exchange is fair to him and that he has no one but himself to blame for looking like, as you say a “blithering and almost unintelligible idiot.”
Well, I wouldn’t presume to speak for either Andrew Montford or Anthony Watts, but speaking strictly for myself ….
Come on, Keith, surely you can do better than attempting to make such a mountain out of a cherry-picked molehill!
Unlike some (for example, the CBC’s science maven, drama major, Bob McDonald) Delingpole has never pretended to be a “science” journalist – least of all a “climate science” journalist.
On the subject of peer-review, what Delingpole said in the interview, however, is basically that times have changed; and that one of the derivative understandings from Climategate is that peer-review is not what it was always cracked up to be (my phrasing, not his). Did you happen to read Richard Horton’s contribution to the Muir Russell report, btw?
As for not having the “time” to read peer-reviewed papers, what Delingpole actually said was that he doesn’t have the time or expertise – but that he relies on the interpretations of those who do.
This strikes me as being an honest and not unreasonable position.
However, you seem to be suggesting that this should disqualify him from commenting (en passant, as he sometimes does) on the science.
But if that’s not what you’re suggesting, I’m not sure what your beef might be.
Keith, I have just filed a FOI request for the raw video material. We’ll see what their response is.
@8
So you want to split hairs, fine. How does that make any difference that he said he didn’t have the expertise or time to read peer reviewed papers. Most journalists don’t have the expertise to fully comprehend many journal papers, especially the really technical ones. But we make a good faith try if we’re going to write about the topic, and then try to make sure we understand the paper by interviewing the authors and his/her peers (if we’re writing about a particular paper.)
He’s just blatantly saying he can’t be bothered. But I did notice over at the loving send off to Jeff ID that Delingpole also sent his valentine, which included this:
“You’ve done some sterling work.”
What do you suppose he was referring to there–Jeff’s very technical threads, (which Delingpole must have been reading and grasping) or the lefty/socialist rants by Jeff (which I’m sure Delingpole also appreciated).
“Anybody got a problem with Delingpole’s cavalier dismissal of them?”
Not really. Sorry.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/06/more-data-refusal-nothing-changes/
@11
So a blanket dismissal of peer review literature as unimportant enough to read is okay by you.
Since you reference Steve McIntyre, perhaps it’d be good to ask him also what he thinks of Delingpole’s intellectual laziness.
@8
You write: “…make such a mountain out of a cherry-picked molehill!
Hmm, forgot to point out that this is, well…you can imagine.
13, got me thinking… I think you’re blowing up a casual statement a bit. I’d like to see Delingpole write a bit more about the encounter.
Me too. But right now he’s too busy writing about what it’s like being called a penis.
Keith-
Delingpole is speaking within a climategate context. Not archiving data for independent validation by independent scientists was bad enough pre-climategate. Post climategate… it’s beyond insulting.
You can be interested in the products of science, and/or you can be interested in the processes of science. From this small quote, Delingpole appears to be more interested in the latter. I’m not familiar enough with his writings to say for sure that’s really the case… but a lot of sceptical or critical climate reporting goes that way. As a metaphor, if you’re interested in reporting on the shocking health and safety standards of the local chocolate factory, whether the chocolate tastes ok or not is a fairly secondary concern.
@16
Really? He was just talking within a climategate context? How do you know this? So before climategate he was okay with reading climate papers, but that event soured him on the experience? Be interesting to find out if this is true once he stops obsessing about the penis insult.
There were some he said/she said reports of his experience before the programme aired:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/24/james-delingpole-tv-interview
Tbh, I hadn’t even heard of Delingpole before climategate broke- so I can’t answer. But the problems that climategate revealed very publically were being discussed in various places well before then.
Delingpole is indefensible, but it is interesting that certain people who are so hellbent on taking affront at imagined nazi connotations at every opportunity have no problem with a man who so tastelessly refers to the Guardian forums as “Komment Macht Frei”.
Meaningles Ad hominem.
Sad.
Criticism of the programme itself:
I think Nurse should have engaged with the deeper allegations made, if only to avoid charges of softballing Jones. Yes, wider media reports focused on a complete misunderstanding of “hide the decline”, but some people had a different point and one that bore a better explanation. Similarly the context of how the FOI requests came into being deserved an airing.
As it is it looks like he totally didn’t understand the full breadth of the charges, so no doubt there will yet more be accusations that this was a free pass. Note – I disagree with the “skeptic” interpretation and I would have enjoyed a solid rebuttal, but as it is I feel that this part was a missed opportunity and more fodder for critics to snipe with.
Keith:
@ 10
“So you want to split hairs, fine.”
No, I have no interest in ‘splitting hairs”; I just happen to believe in truth in posting. Always have, and always will 😉
[But I will concede that perhaps you and I have different definitions of “splitting hairs” and “blatant” (pls. see below).]
“Most journalists don’t have the expertise to fully comprehend many journal papers, especially the really technical ones. But we make a good faith try if we’re going to write about the topic, …”
Fine. So which specific journal papers has Delingpole commented on that he has demonstrably failed to read and/or failed to ‘interview the authors and his/her peers’?
“He’s just blatantly saying he can’t be bothered.”
I must have missed that part of the interview in your video clip. Could you give me some indication of the point at which he makes such a “blatant” statement? Thanks.
Then we can deal with the non-sequitur two-smears for the price of one goal-post moving comment in the rest of your “reply”.
As for your @13 … Reality check: is it the case that you believe your beef constitutes a mountain with an abundance of solid evidence for its existence?
Or is it simply the case that (not unlike the authors of that dreadful PNAS Anderegg “study”) you subscribe to the view that only those who can be counted amongst the IPCC-convinced are deserving of a journalistic platform on the matters related to “dangerous” global warming/climate change/whatever the phrase of the week might be?
Keith, I’m not really bothered by your disparagement of Delingpole. Politically I think you’re probably diametrically opposed. I’ll admit to only enjoying some of Delingpole’s delicious rebuttals and scathing analyses of climate science antics. I’m still not interested in the politics.
You’re giddy in the belief that the way the interview is presented by the BBC is the way that the interview happened. However, because of the visible (if you care to look) cuts, we know with absolute certainty that the interview could not PHYSICALLY have happened the way it’s presented.
The same camera, from the same position, across cuts means that what you see is NOT what happened. And you have to ask two questions. Firstly, WHY is it cut? Secondly, WHAT is the truth?
Because, as it is, whatever it is, the truth it is NOT.
KK
You have nothing on Delingpole. You think you have a better understanding of the climate change debate because you are non-polemical?
Hell hath no fury like an envious journalist. Look at James Randerson for example.
As climate science is not Professore Nurse’s feild of expertise, presumably he also relies on others to review the peer reviewed ‘climate science’ papers? and then has his own program to put it across…
Take a look at Mike Hulme’s comments on the Nurse programme. http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Science-under-attack.pdf
I thought Delingpole’s Goldacre piece was pretty good, essentially asking why an excellent sceptic on all kinds of issues has a blind spot when it comes to AGW and the IPCC.
There’s an interesting extract from a veteran BBC Newsman’s memoirs on BBC attitudes to Climate Change reporting here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
And I’m not sure I disapprove of journalists writing about stuff when they haven’t read the peer-reviewed paper(s) behind it. It would be a bit limiting. For example on legalising drugs – the peer-reviewed literature I suspect will say anything you want it to. And when Delingpole says, for example, that Mann’s hockey stick is flawed he does direct you to the people, like Climate Audit, or Montford, who have actually done the work.
“presumably he also relies on others to review the peer reviewed “˜climate science’ papers?”
Yes. And since key scientists are still putting out papers without archiving their data it comes down to a matter of trust (some would say ‘faith’), without an ability to verify. Since the roundup conclusion of the program was the old Royal Society motto ‘trust no one’, or in other words, trust the data, this was all rather surreal, imo.
Well, I blew a fuse (seriously) so I only watched about half of the program and came in right when Professor Nurse was sitting looking rather kindly at Delingpole, like he was a slightly retarded children that the Professor was desperately trying to reach (ultimately with no success) and Delingpole was looking at Professor Nurse with an expression I last saw on the face of my two year old daughter when a rather flirtatious security man in the Copenhagen Airport tried to body search her (roughly translated to “I don’t think so! get away from me, filthy man”). I have to admit to be rather taken aback by the admission from him that he didn’t read the peer reviewed papers but then I thought about it. I am an employment lawyer. Do I read every relevant judgment within my area of expertise in its entirety? No, I don’t. I rely on legal updates, legal websites etc and I have a pretty good idea as to where to go for a correct, concise summery of a relevant case. However, I do, of course, rely on the people putting out a summery to have read the entire case and I am sure that they sometimes haven’t. Hence why you sometimes see the same mistake repeated endlessly because everybody is relying on somebody else to have done the homework. This is of course more worrying. I guess it depends on where you see yourself in the “food chain” :o) the higher up the “chain” the more responsibility to get it right as you are trusted by others.
Oh and I should of course read the things that I write through as well ….that would be “child”, trying to work and blog at the same time etc etc
Hannah- agreed. Especially on the ‘food chain’ part.
Shub has an interesting post on the data availablity issue, over here
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/data-availability-cancer-climate/
27 agreed, that was my point, maybe Professor Nurse would like to review Phil Jones’ latest work. Of course whilst having a look at any archived data and code 😉
See climate audit on that one…
Presumably as a pal who would be allowed to see for himself 😉
Climate science is essentially high end statistics. (About 1.2 C rise in temperature, [maybe] since 1880) Since Michael Mann and Eric Steig are statistically challenged, there is no reason to expect a journalist to read and understand peer-reviewed literature; statistics is beyond many of those who work with climate science every day.
JD
I would add parenthetically that Hansen is ignorant of anything beyond Climate Science but that doesn’t keep him from expressing opinions on policy. (For instance, he has no understanding of early American government (See Love Bunny thread) and he has no understanding of law or human rights, since he advocates the application of ex post facto criminal prosecutions.)
Keith
What do you suppose he was referring to there”“Jeff’s very technical threads, (which Delingpole must have been reading and grasping) or the lefty/socialist rants by Jeff (which I’m sure Delingpole also appreciated).
I suspect he was referring to two things:
1) Being the blog where the link to climategate files appeared and
2) Co-authoring a paper showing problems in Steig’s into the peer reviewed literature and discussing that paper in public.
Delingpole is not intending to suggest he specifically evaluated the technical merit of #2.
I’d also like to see the full Delingpole interview. Certainly, the two minutes makes him sound very cavalier about peer reviewed literature. But I’m always suspicious of coverage that looks “60 minute-ish”. Even prior to editing, answers can be shaped by choice of questions. The result can, somewhat, mis-represent the interviewees position.
More importantly, I think I’d like to see a 2 hour long side by side interviews of a panel of reporters from the climate beat and ask all of them to describe the extent to which they actually read peer reviewed literature.
For example: I think Revkin covers climate well. I’m sure that he reads peer reviewed literature — in some sense of the word “to read”. He certainly covers the papers and respects the importance of peer reviewed literature.
I don’t think we need an interview to know that Revkin does give peer review literature higher weighting than Delingpole — who does see the process as somewhat skewed. Delingpole has expressed the opinion the peer review is biased before the interview and will do so again. The person making the documentary knew that prior to interviewing Delingpole.
But even given Revkin’s respect for peer review, I doubt if Revkin has delved into principle components, its application to temperature measurements in Antarctica or read both Steig et al and O’Donnell et al sufficiently to have his own opinion of the merits of either paper. Certainly, Revkin did not delve into the discussions at ClimateAudit, The Blackboard (where Ryan blogged briefly) or The Air Vent sufficiently to recognize the flaws in Steig that were later discussed in the peer reviewed paper. Meanwhile, Delingpole likely read those.
In this case, who reportage provided readers correct advance information that there might be a problem with Steig?
I suspect that generally speaking, Revkin relies mostly on interviewing authors and other scientists to assist him in understanding what is (or is not) important in peer review literature. Delingpole leans on a different crowd — often bloggers.
Ideally, one would process information from both and also know precisely how to weight arguments presented both at blogs and in peer review papers. Unfortunately, that really is impossible.
In the meantime, we have each type of journalists doing something a little different. It would be interesting to round up several and ask them all open ended questions and then have that on youtube. But, that’s not going to happen. For one thing, the funded BBC guy likely has a story he wants to shape. And his story isn’t the story about how the full range of journalists budget their time.
This has probably been noted elsewhere, but is it not the height of irony that Dellingpole and his defenders are whining about having just selected comments of his highlighted, and allegedly out of context?
How tone deaf can one be?
RustN
Don’t see any irony at all. McIntyre had a revealing analysis of what “Hide the Decline” actually meant in context. Also, warmists have this assumption that what the email writers stated about their meanings is conclusive as to what they really meant. There are innocent and non-complimentary meanings of the writings in the emails. There is no reason to give the writers a presumption of good faith, when they either hide or are careless with data and when they have engaged in nasty campaigns to enforce groupthink.
JD
rustneversleeps, I’m not a defender of Delingpole, just a critic of what appears to be a questionable cherry-picking and manipulation of interview content. As JD Ohio notes, you’re on a hiding to nowhere trying to invoke a double-whammy logical fallacy, with a tu quoque over a strawman.
Lucia,
An hour worth of interviews has been posted at ClimateCrocks.
On Delingpole, I would say that if someone leans on anything except science to pass judgement of science, he has a bit of a judgment problem.
<b>rustnevesleeps</b> is right : the hypocrisy is astonishing. It would appear that some people will just defend Delingpole no matter what he gets up to. Not only that but they will try to make excuses for him and try to imply that others are just as bad – the ‘Yeah but…’ defence.
<i>”Yeah but…what about Monbiot ?”</i>
Akin to the ‘Yeah but what about fat Al’ diversion and equally as poor.
Monbiot – degree in zoology and Visiting Professor in Environmental Science, i.e. more than enough to allow him to distinguish between science and anti-science.
Delingpole – degree in English Lit, i.e. can only be an “interpreter of interpreters”.
Not an appeal to authority : an appeal to rational decision-making.
<i>”Yeah but Nurse isn’t a Climate Scientist (not that I believe there is such a thing but, in this instance…)”</i>
Again, Nurse has more than enough of a science background (far more than enough) to distinguish between science and anti-science, which is why he also pointed out the links between AGW denial and HIV-AIDS denial. Perhaps he should also have brought out the similar levels of science-denial that go into Creationism and 9/11 troofism, but he only had a limited time, I suppose.
There is also the bewilderment at how a doctor like Goldacre could be such a sceptic normally and yet accept AGW ! I also wonder how he can be such a sceptic and yet accept evolution and deny 9/11 troofism. As Delingpole himself says on his own blog : (I paraphrase)”How can anyone believe anything accepted by all Western governments, all science organisations, all newspapers, all universities, all…everyone ? Can’t they see it’s all just a conspiracy ?!!”
When does the penny drop and people like Delingpole stand back and think : “Hang on, am I a troofer ?”
There is also the illogical acceptance that Delingpole isn’t a science journalist and has to go by what others tell him…and yet he is somehow able to decide which scientists and bloggers can be believed, and can be willingly accepted as being able to decide that peer-review and the ‘hockey-stick’ are bust. How does he manage to do that ? He must be very bright about science, in a non-scientific way.
Finally, there are the untruths and defamations :
“…Hansen is ignorant of anything beyond Climate Science…”
James Hansen – Degrees in Physics/Maths and Astronomy, PhD in Physics. Research into radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres one of his many studies “beyond Climate Science”.
Again, not an appeal to authority : an appeal for acceptance of the facts.
How desperate and sad some people are, to be able to make things up and create their own reality and ‘facts’.
We’re looking for the footage, rather than the edited broadcast version, Bart.
#40 Finally, there are the untruths and defamations :
“”¦Hansen is ignorant of anything beyond Climate Science”¦
Hansen in the article quoted in Love Bunny thread stated: “Democracy of the sort intended in 1776 probably could have dealt with climate change, but not the fossil-money-‘democracy’ that now rules the roost in Washington.” He was apparently unaware that in the late 1780s [I’ll give him a pass for mistakenly assuming that there was a constitutional American government in 1776) that only white property owners were entitled to vote — which was approximately 10-16% of the population.
He also favors ex post facto criminal prosecution of those who disagree with his views, which is a violation of constitutional and human rights law. I have never seen the slightest indication that he has any understanding why there are ex post facto laws and why it might not be a good idea to have them. Additionally, he has a flat earther simplistic view of sustainability and has obviously never even bothered to engage the works of Julian Simon, who is the preeminent authority in matters dealing with sustainability and energy availability.
All Hansen is is a fanatic with a messiah complex and a decent amount of climate science knowledge. He continually shows how narrow-minded he is in his simple-minded public statements of policy.
JD
Minor correction to #42
2d Large para, 2d sentence should read:
I have never seen the slightest indication that he has any understanding why there prohibitions against ex post facto laws and why it might not be a good idea to have them.
JD
One amusing note. This data is getting out much faster than climate data appears to. The BBC is usually quite quick to clamp down on copyright breaches of it’s shows, yet seems to be letting this one run. Otherwise it’d be restricted to UK audiences via it’s iPlayer or released via it’s own YouTube channels. Perhaps sceptics would also read more peer reviewed publications, if they weren’t hidden behind paywalls.
But after 3hrs of interview, this was the best they could cherrypick to embarrass Delingpole?
Someone needs to read The Declaration of Independence (4 July, 1776), to understand the sort of Democracy intended in that year (as Hansen stated) :
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
AH: But after 3hrs of interview, this was the best they could cherrypick to embarrass Delingpole?
I can do better, cherrypickingwise. Back when Delingpole was a fashion hack (2004), he began an article in The Times with the spookily prescient words, ‘What kind of man do you need to be to carry off Duffer of St George?’
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article473438.ece
@Roddy Campbell # 27
Perhaps Delingpole would like to compare his views on DDT with those of Dr. Goldacre also.
@#40
“Again, Nurse has more than enough of a science background (far more than enough) to distinguish between science and anti-science, which is why he also pointed out the links between AGW denial and HIV-AIDS denial. Perhaps he should also have brought out the similar levels of science-denial that go into Creationism and 9/11 troofism, but he only had a limited time, I suppose.”
What links? Undoubtedly there are people who have all of these views, but there are many CAGW skeptics who don’t. Ian Plimer, for example, is one of the foremost anti-creationists in the world.
Why IS it so important for you to attempt to put everyone in the same pot anyway? Is it merely a tactic or do you really believe it?
Stop lumping people and start splitting. You might learn something. If you guys would stop denying that there are (many) skeptics, including those highly qualified in science and engineering, who disagree with the claims and projections of climate scientists based solely on scientific and statistical considerations, we might be able to find some common ground.
David44, but.. if he can’t lump sceptics in with HIV deniers, troofers and flat-earthers.. he can’t make any semblance of an argument!
You can’t challenge fundamental alarmist logical fallacies like this.. it’s not fair! If they can’t have their logical fallacies, their hidden data, their model “data”, their old boy’s network peer review, their unobserved, interpolated Arctic hotspots and their unfalsifiable alarmist hypotheses, what have they got left to fight with!? Such cruelty, David.. such heartlessness! O, for shame!
#45 JSmith “Someone needs to read The Declaration of Independence (4 July, 1776), to understand the sort of Democracy intended in that year (as Hansen stated)”
Maybe you need to read your own quote. It refers to MEN and doesn’t include women. Also, didn’t include slaves although that wasn’t mentioned in the Declaration. Additonally, Hansen referred to democracy in 1776, not the Declaration of Independence. Also, even white males were denited the vote if they did not own property. Hardly a more democratic time than now, of which Hansen is clearly ignorant as he is in so many areas.
JD
@39 Bart–
That doesn’t seem to be any hour’s worth of interviews. I’m seeing a bunch of 10 minute clips, with no particular concentration on interviews. Could you, describe, in words, which things you think constitute an hour long worth of interviews so I don’t have to click randomly, start listening and wonder if I’m ever going to get to any hour long worth of interviews?
@49 Simon
Yep, next thing you know they’ll be promoting subsidized windmills as a cheap, reliable, environment-friendly power source. Oh …
Another person who studied English is Bryony Worthington (now in the House of Lords), who was instrumental in writing the UK’s Climate Change Act, and in her spare time, campaigns/lobbies for emmissons trading (Sandbag – Pielke has written about them) and she is also board member of the 10:10 Campaign….
Bryony presumably thought ‘No Pressure’ was a good idea, I do not buy the 10:10 board did not know about it, miss an opportunity to hobnob with Richard Curtis, not likely 😉
So whilst James can be a little to tribal for me, ie the anti monbiot 😉
Bit unfair to criticise him for his English degree.
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/climate-connections-an-alarmist-in-the-houses-of-parliament/
I am sure that James will have mentioned, hide the decline, email deletion, foi’s, the inquiry whitewashes, vested interests of board members, the fact that the science was NOT examined by them, etc and a host of other issues regarding ‘climate science in that 3 Hour interview.
It would have been interesting to see how Professor Nurse dealt with those issues.
Sorry to report, lucia, Bart et al.. the BBC has refused my FOI request for the raw footage of their interview with Delingpole.
“The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of “˜journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion.”
While the BBC is clearly within its rights to withhold the footage I’ve requested, it is not actually obliged to reject my request. Since I made the reason for my request clear to the BBC in the request itself, the only reasonable conclusion is that the BBC rejects my request for assistance in assessing the balance of its journalism.
So I guess we’ll never know the truth, which is unfortunate but appears to be par for the course.
Simon Hopkinson, rather than post on here about what you think might have been ‘binned’ by the BBC, why not ask Delingpole himself ? He can let you know what words of scientific wisdom he uttered, or which devastating arguments he made which were suppressed.
Instead of making stuff up, misunderstanding or dissembling (as has been done further up with regard to Hansen), why don’t you show that you prefer the truth and the facts in the real world and get the information straight from the horse’s mouth, i.e. Delingpole. Dare you ?
JSmith, my understanding is that Delingpole doesn’t have the footage that I’m seeking. Do you have information to the contrary? I don’t see how I could any more take Delingpole at his word than I do Paul Nurse.
I’m really not sure how to take your comment in my direction, JSmith. Please do point me to where I am “making stuff up”, where I have implied that I am not interested in the truth or in “facts in the real world”.
The reason I am seeking the raw footage, rather than the edited version presented in the Horizon programme and rather than taking as gospel the protestations of Delingpole, is to be able to assess, for myself, independently, where in this sorry quagmire the truth actually lies.
Dare me? To do what?
Simon Hopkinson, I was not implying anything in your direction – the comments were about what has been written by Hansen above, i.e. not by you.
However, you are claiming that there may be more to see in the footage that wasn’t shown, and that implies that you think Delingpole may have been treated wrongly, or that he may have come across as more normal and rational in other footage. The reason I ask you to find out from Delingpole himself whether this is in fact the case, is that I have seen no comments from anyone, particular Delingpole, to suggest that what was shown is not representative of Delingpole and his opinions. Therefore, I assume that there is nothing else that would be found in any footage that wasn’t used.
So you see, in some cases, what you see represents the reality of a situation and the truth doesn’t always lie in the middle, between two points of view.
I finished by asking whether you dared to find out for yourself from Delingpole, if the film as shown was a good representation of his interview with Nurse. Sometimes, people don’t like to face the truth and I wonder how you would respond if you were to discover that the Delingpole you saw on that programme is the the same Delingpole that some seem to believe is an authority of some sort on AGW. The two Delingpoles cannot exist at the same time – he is either someone whose opinion on scientific matters is deluded nonsense (as shown in the programme), or he is someone who should be listened to when he gives his views on AGW.
JSmith: “However, you are claiming that there may be more to see in the footage that wasn’t shown”
The interview was approximately 3 hours long, of which, broadcast, was less than 2 minutes. Of course there is more to see in the footage that wasn’t shown.
“The reason I ask you to find out from Delingpole himself whether this is in fact the case, is that I have seen no comments from anyone, particular Delingpole, to suggest that what was shown is not representative of Delingpole and his opinions.”
Well I’m not sure what to tell you, JSmith, except that if you don’t look, you won’t see.
I have already looked and am still waiting for any claims that what was shown wasn’t representative of Delingpole. It clearly was, which is why he can only moan about being set-up, stitched-up and other ways of admitting he was made to look a fool. Sorry, he made himself look a fool and, because he can never blame himself, he is blaming everyone else involved with this.
Shame he can’t take it like a man.
I’m surprised that, having read Delingpole’s column, you’re under the impression that he’s satisfied that the interview is representative of his position on climate. Clearly, mileage varies.