The Climate Change Science hasn’t changed, the scientists haven’t changed, and the Earth System hasn’t suddenly become healthier, so why did we need a review into e-mail traffic between researchers ? What was it all for ? Answer : to delay progress. Clue : follow the old revolutionaries, still trying to create a fuss.
The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review :-
“Sir Muir and the Review team held a press briefing at the Science Media Centre in London on 11 February 2010…”
Transcript of Sir Muir Rrussell’s opening remarks on 7 July 2010 :-
“Good morning – good to see you all here again. A lot has happened since February! I hope you have enjoyed reading the fruits of our labours. Thanks first to Fiona Fox [Director of the Science Media Centre] and her team for hosting us this morning…”
Just who is Fiona Fox ? And what is the Science Media Centre ?
“Fiona Fox : Director : Fiona has a degree in Journalism and 15 years experience in media relations. She held the position of Senior Press Officer for the Equal Opportunities Commission for six years, followed by two years running the media operation at the National Council for One Parent Families. A total change of environment followed as Fiona became Head of Media at CAFOD, one of the UK’s leading aid agencies. She founded the Jubilee 2000 press group, which helped to force serious Third World issues onto the media and political agendas. Fiona is an experienced public speaker and a trained journalist, who has written extensively for newspapers and publications, authored several policy papers and contributed to books on humanitarian aid.”
What’s not to like ?
“‘Too many sceptics in BBC’s climate change reporting’ says ‘independent’ ‘expert’ : By James Delingpole : April 24th, 2010 : At last we know what’s wrong with the BBC’s reporting on Climate Change. It gives too much space to sceptics, according to a woman called Fiona Fox who directs something called the Science Media Centre. Fox – who has a degree in journalism (!) …was called as the independent expert witness on a brief BBC TV Newswatch investigation…Surprisingly, the investigation concluded that on the whole the BBC’s splendid team of 45 science, health and environment specialists do a marvellous job under difficult circumstances…Then there’s Fiona Fox’s outrageous claim that the way the BBC could really improve its science coverage is to have fewer sceptics. She says: “To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.””
“George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and anti-capitalist campaigner, started looking at the group [Living Marxism (LM)] closely in 1997, after some of them contributed to Against Nature, the notorious anti-Green television documentary; over the years he has called them ‘industry lobbyists’, ‘a bizarre and cultish network’, ‘an obscure and cranky sect’. ‘Invasion of the Entryists’, originally published in the Guardian in 2003 but better read in the extensively footnoted version on Monbiot.com, contains a nicely compressed digest of the author’s main objections to Living Marxism…Monbiot also follows Jonathan Matthews of Lobbywatch in reporting curious clusters of former LM contributors now working in public science education. For example, according to Monbiot the educational charity Sense about Science – a prominent supporter of Simon Singh in his recent dispute with the British Chiropractic Association – has a former LMer for a managing director, and another one as her deputy; the director of the Science Media Centre is Fiona Fox, a former LM contributor and younger sister of Claire Fox, the IoI’s [Institute of Ideas] head honcho. (‘Various people have brought allegations about my past involvement in politics to the attention of my current and former employers,’ FF [Fiona Fox] said when I asked her about this. ‘At every stage my employers have robustly defended me and my right to be judged on my ability to perform my job now rather than either my past or my family associations.’)…”
“Complaint about Science Media Centre and the LM group (16/4/2007) 1.Introduction to the submission…Below is an edited version of a submission made by the writer and investigative journalist, Andy Rowell, to the board of the Science Media Centre (SMC) at the suggestion of one of its board members. The submission raises concerns about the role of the SMC’s director, Fiona Fox, in the light not just of her long-term involvement with the climate-sceptical LM group but of the SMC’s lack of proactivity in combatting climate change denial – something that stands in marked contrast with the SMC’s record on a number of other issues, such as GM crops. Andy Rowell’s submission arose out of a talk he gave at a seminar organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry on The Science of Global Warming. On the panel with Rowell were Professor Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Professor John Mitchell – Chief Scientist at the Met Office, and Professor Colin Prentice of Bristol University…The LM group were not only behind the magazine LM (originally known as Living Marxism), but also its successor organisations: Spiked-online and the Institute of Ideas. Rowell also mentioned that this group included people working in a number of other organisations such as Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre. After the talk Rowell was approached by an SMC board member who asked him to justify his reference to the SMC, and this later lead on to the suggestion that he submit his concerns in writing to the SMC’s Board. This he did on behalf of SpinWatch – https://www.spinwatch.org, which monitors corporate PR and spin. Not for the first time, the SMC’s Board completely rejected the concerns about its director…”
“Interview with Monbiot on the LM group (11/4/2007) : 1. About the Monbiot interview : LobbyWatch has just published an incisive interview with George Monbiot about the LM network – a political group that engages in infiltration of media organisations and science-related lobby groups in order to promote its own agenda. Although the Monbiot interview took place some time ago, its publication now is particularly timely in the light of the enormous controversy following Channel 4’s recent broadcast of Martin Durkin’s documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. This controversy has lead to considerable focus both on Durkin’s past record as a documentary film-maker and on his links to the LM network. Soon after ‘Swindle’ was broadcast, the editor of Spiked-online, the Internet-based successor to the magazine LM, published an admiring ‘interview’ with Durkin in which he claimed ‘the film poked some very big holes in the global warming consensus’. The Spiked article also denounced the ‘anti-LM conspiracy-mongering’ that had connected the LM group to Durkin. According to Spiked’s editor – Brendan O’Neill – this ‘conspiracy-mongering’ amounted to no more than the fact that, ‘a few people who contributed articles to LM appeared as talking heads on [Durkin’s previous documentary] Against Nature. That’s all.’…”
A lot of public money has been shovelled into this “independent” review of the actions of Climate Change scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The results : Phil Jones and his colleagues are clean as a whistle, and come up smelling of roses. So how did we get sucked into this appalling waste of time ? And why ?
The Climategate yarn was spun by a spectrum of journalists, who even now do not realise they were hoodwinked by the Climate Change denier-sceptics.
For some unbeknownst reasons, Fred Pearce at The Guardian is still trying to keep the pseudo-scandal of Climategate alive :-
Come on Fred ! Climategate is as dead as a proverbial extinct flightless bird. Drop it, won’t you ?
Can’t you see that countless people in the Media have had their heads spun on this ?
Climategate was a non-story, and yet it served the aims of the Climate Change denier-sceptics very well – as it has planted doubt in the public mind and wasted a lot of political and personal energy when we should all have been getting on with the real job : the Climate Change Science and its proper and effective communication.
Shame on the Media !