I am writing to complain about a short news article presented as online video, narrated by Adam Fleming, which contains a number of inaccuracies regarding the operation of Climate Change science and the results of inquiries into it.
The piece that I am referring to is here :-
“Doubts over scientists’ climate change debate claims”
TEXT ON WEB PAGE
19 October 2010
Last updated at 13:48
Press coverage has cast further doubt on climate scientists’
claims that man-made global warming is real and adversely
affecting the planet.
Polls show that the public are becoming increasingly confused
about the issue. Adam Fleming reports.
TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO IN FILM PRESENTATION
It’s the year that “uncertainty” became the buzzword in the
climate change debate, even for scientists who are convinced
that human activity is warming the planet.
Last year saw the publication of private e-mails written in
these buildings, the Climatic Research Unit at the University
of East Anglia. Experts spoke of doing “tricks” with numbers.
They hinted at the deletion of data that didn’t fit their
This summer, an inquiry, the last of three, left the
scientists’ reputation intact, but told them that they had to
be more honest about how they reach their conclusions.
Then came “Glaciergate”. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the group of international scientists that
inform global environmental policy, had written a report
saying that most of the glaciers in the Himalyas could melt by
2035, but that was proved to be wildly inaccurate.
The head of the IPCC, the Indian academic Rajendra Pachauri
came under pressure to quit. In future [the] chairman will
serve just one term, and again the academics were told to be
more honest about the question marks in their research.
Back at home, David Cameron has pledged the “greenest
Government ever”, but there are limits. This week the Coalition
announced it wouldn’t fund tidal power in the Severn Estuary
because the bill was too high.
Firstly, and most importantly, Adam Fleming repeats not once, but twice, the erroneous view that scientists were instructed by the “Climategate” inquiries and the IPCC review to be more “honest”.
That is not only a poor choice of word, it completely undermines the results of the inquiries and the review, which recommend more “openness” about data and methods, whilst at the very same time vindicating scientists of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Much of Climate Change science is very public already. Many data sets are totally within the public realm, and all the research papers are widely available. There are moves to publish more of the data and more of the methods for the models and computer programming. Some of the data and methods have been proprietary, or countries, universities or even individual researchers have placed restrictions on their use. The basic problem is that a non-expert cannot look at some of the data and understand it without background information (“metadata”) on how the data should be treated, how it was assembled and which adjustments should be made to make sense of it in a variety of frames of reference. For example, if I were to give you a database about road traffic accidents at a variety of blackspots and I didn’t tell you what the data measured, the parameters for how data was included, or how information was collected, how could you understand what it really signified ?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to undergo reform in order to deal more effectively with the public, including the media, as it appears that the media consistently get the messaging wrong. The IPCC is not going to undergo reform in order to change its basic discoveries from the science. The science still stands, and the scientists are still right. The implications of the synthesis of Climate Change science is that there are very real risks of very serious disruption to the Earth’s climatic regime, and the evidence is constantly accumulating to back up this projection.
Uncertainty did not become a “buzzword” last year. Way back in 2007, the IPCC published (for free, on the Internet) their Fourth Assessment Report, which contained very clear summaries of which parts of Climate Change Science are robust and where the uncertainties are.
The use of the phrase “even for scientists who are convinced that human activity is warming the planet” suggests that there is a significant portion of scientists who are not convinced that human activity is warming the planet. This is misleading. Of those scientists who have researched Climate Change, the overwhelming majority accept that human activity is warming the planet. Global Warming from humankind’s emissions of Greenhouse Gases is basic Physics, and it’s ridiculous to even suggest otherwise.
The “Climategate” e-mails were not put to “publication” last year. It would be more accurate to say that they were “leaked”, but the actual process of how they came to be in the public domain is more complicated than that. It appears that a number of people had access to the material well before it was broadcast as the e-mails were released with additional material alongside suggesting all manner of nefarious goings-on that could not be drawn from the e-mails themselves, when read in their proper context. A more accurate description would be to say that the e-mails were “stolen” and their contents “hacked” with unfavourable commentary before they were released onto the Internet in a carefully staged campaign to create maximum disturbance to the Copenhagen UNFCCC conference.
“Experts spoke of doing “tricks” with numbers.” This sentence is incorrect. The “tricks” were not to change the numbers in the data, but ways to present the data to reveal certain trends.
“They hinted at the deletion of data that didn’t fit their theories.” That claim is “wildly inaccurate”.
“…told them that they had to be more honest about how they reach their conclusions.” This is incorrect. The three inquiries sought to persuade Climate Change science as a whole to share more data and methods than they currently do, so that others can understand how the data is used to come up with the conclusions. It is a call for full disclosure, not a reprimand over deception.
“Then came Glaciergate.” That is incorrect. The typographical reproduction error regarding the fate of the Himalayan glaciers was discussed in the media before “Climategate” unleashed badly commented confidential e-mails on the world. If you don’t know that, you haven’t done your research properly.
“…that was proved to be wildly inaccurate.” The use of the word “proved” is contentious, as it suggests that somebody did some science that contradicted what was in the IPCC. Not a bit of it. There are still ongoing discussions as to the speed of glacier melt, and its extent, and data collection is continuing. “Glaciergate” was an error in transmission, with an unsupported source. It was like a genetic coding error that leads a cell to a cancerous state. But the medicine is now available – the IPCC will be much more rigorous in future in double-checking what they report from.
“[the IPCC] had written a report saying that most of the glaciers in the Himalyas could melt by 2035”. It was not the IPCC who wrote the original error. Since Adam Fleming does not appear to know, it needs to be said again – the IPCC only reports on other peoples’ work – it doesn’t do any scientific research of its own. Minor mistakes in IPCC reports do not break Climate Change science.
“…the Indian academic Rajendra Pachauri came under pressure to quit”. The so-named “pressure” has only from the Climate Change sceptics and the dogbark media. I do not know of any person in the Climate Change science community who is applying “pressure” of any kind for Rajendra Pachauri to quit.
“…again the academics were told to be more honest about the question marks in their research.” This is incorrect. The IPCC are already very open about the “question marks” in their research. If Adam Fleming were to take the time to actually read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, (note well, Richard Black, senior environmental reporter has admitted that he has not yet done this), you would discover the normal academic presentation of both sides of every argument about every facet of the science. They could not be more “honest” about how they arrive at their conclusions. What will change is that they will start to be more “transparent”. There is a major media initiative going on in the IPCC management to use modern communications techniques to present the findings to the public in a more structured, accessible way, in order to restore public confidence in the work of Climate Change science.
I don’t expect the BBC to answer this complaint in the time period that they pledge, and I don’t expect them to answer correctly.
I don’t expect the BBC to start getting their Climate Change information right at the moment, but when the IPCC media team get to work, I can assure you the BBC will be changing its tune.
The BBC has proved consistently that it cannot report accurately on Climate Change. It would be far better if they outsourced their reporting on Climate Change to people who actually know something about it, instead of repeating Climate Change sceptic arguments as if they were the truth. This article by Adam Fleming is a revision of history and the current state of play and is not only “wildly inaccurate” to use his own phrase, it is “informationally contentious” in a manner that is misleading and ultimately incorrect.
2 replies on “Adam Fleming : BBC Complaint”
Face it Jo
The truth is out. You tried to influence the BBC once before and it blew up in your face.
Now when a fairly accurate (for the BBC) report actually states what did happen – you get all upset.
The UoEA and the CRU were admonished for not being honest. The science was not looked at by the three enquiries despite the U0EA trying to make out that it was.
The information commissioner stated that a criminal offence would have taken place BUT for the silly law that states that if a legitimate FoI request is ignored for 6 months then the is an ass and does not need to be followed.
So how does the Climate Scientists look now?
Very dodgy indeed
And your trying to prop them up just makes you look silly.
10:10 look desperate now that blowing up kids was seen for what it was
Mann is under pressure to reveal his emails that may show financial fraud if the local DA has his facts right.
And the climate models now look as though they ignored the condensation presure drop which would account for why the models indicate a positive feedback loop between CO2 and Water vapour but reality by way of actual observations show that feedback is neutral or negative.
Jo – you are letting you blind faith cloud your judgement.
I have just sent off to BBC News my letter commending Adam Flemming’s excellent short program. Here’s what I said
NB: I have removed http://www. from the three links.
Yesterday (19th) Adam Flemming narrated on an excellent short program “Doubts over scientists’ climate change debate claims” (bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11574503). Many sceptics in the UK have been annoyed by the reluctance of the BBC to broadcast items that put forward the alternative scientific opinion about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis so it was good to see that short program. May I commend Adam for having the courage to present the truth about Climategate and ask that the BBC continues to present opinions from those who are sceptical of the Hypothesis. I ask the BBC to broadcast more news about the sceptical argument against The Hypothesis. What about giving the Science and Public Policy Institute an airing. Lord Christopher Monckton is an excellent sceptical debator. Now would be an appropriate time for such a debate, with the UN’s COP16 caper in Cancun coming up shortly. It would be a good sequel to the BBC’s coverage of the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen a year ago.
As is to be expected, supporters of The Hypothesis are upset at the BBC’s attempt at even-handedness, exemplified by the letter of complaint from staunch supporter Jo Abbess. She has posted her letter of complaint on her “Adam Fleming : BBC Complaint” thread (joabbess.com/tag/adam-fleming/) in which she suggests that Adam Flemming has misrepresented the findings of the “whitewash” enquiries into the leaked UEA CRU E-mails (Climategate).
Jo Abbess does not appear to be a scientist with any demonstrated expertise in the processes and drivers of global climates. *************** ***************** ********* advise that she is a ************* ******** *********** ************ ********** *********** ********* *********** ************ ********* ************* ************* *********** ************** ****************
These are hardly qualifications justifying a stance of having expertise in the subject of global climate change.
You may be as surprised as I was to see that a committed Christian such as Jo Abbess claims to be has no qualms about placing information that has been sent to her as “Private and Confidential” into the public domain. Have a look at her “Pete Ridley : Three Strikes” thread (joabbess.com/2010/10/18/pete-ridley-three-strikes/comment-page-1/#comment-12785) where she has posted private and confidential information that I E-mailed her.
Best regards, Pete Ridley