A climate discussion without skulduggery and intolerance? Please.
Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill was on the BBC recently (!). This is what happened:
Host: Prince Charles says sceptics are headless chicken. Any thoughts?
Scientist: I agree. We have mountains of evidence that ‘climate change is real and humans are causing it’. CO2 is going up.
Montford: Well, CO2 is going up. But so-called evidence that humans are cause comes from computer models. Models have problems. They’re running hot.
Scientist: What problems? I don’t know of any problems. …
Montford: They don’t do aerosols well. They didn’t get the pause right….
Scientist: No, they do have pauses. Just …erm…
Montford: Why recently, another scientist Hans von Storch said in Nature magazine…
Host: Thanks gentlemen. That’s all we have time for.
First, from the blog owner:
…if the BBC wants to interview someone about how climate models work and about the uncertainties associated with climate modelling, why do they choose to interview a blogger …
I have nothing against having climate ostriches in the media. It is an opinion that should be represented. However, it should not be in a program about science.
Something I do find a little strange is that I haven’t seen more complaints about this from the scientists themselves. … why would they be happy about Montford appearing – more than once – on the BBC …
The question here is really whether Montford is a suitable person to be interviewed about climate modeling.
Do you think that Montford is suitable? Yes or not. Simple answer.
He has no business there, and the BBC did their listeners a disservice by bringing him on that show.
I don’t think this is a good way of informing the public.
Putting people like Montford on the a big media outlet like BBC, spouting nonsense about how the planet hasn’t warmed in 20 years and climate models are way off so there’s nothing to worry about – that’s going to give people the perception that it’s not an urgent problem.
The point is that fringe contrarians are fringe and should not be given a platform by the MSM. There is no point in “debating” with them or listening to their rubbish.
Do you agree that if someone like Montford continuously says, “there hasn’t been any warming at all for the last two decades” he should be held accountable
the real problem is that the guy who can be expected to make wrong statements, given that he’s not a climate scientist and rejects the expert climate consensus (and is usually wrong about climate science), was brought onto BBC Radio to begin with.
But by the same token, I think that they should be asked to be accountable for what they say.
Should the scientist … be challenged by someone who is playing a political game and either knows that what he says is not true or isn’t qualified to be pontificating on the issue?
The point is that this isn’t the best way to inform the public, and it’s about time that institutions that are supposed to be informing the public came to realise that.
Richard Tol … Maybe I should ban you here for the same reason?
and on and on ad infinitum until the end:
So, yes, there are people commenting on this thread who would rather Montford were not interviewed about climate science. I happen to have the same opinion.
The display would prompt anyone to pause … Montford the sceptic appears on radio for 5 minutes and wailing and gnashing of teeth breaks out over hundreds and hundreds of comments. …there is something off here. This is abnormal.
Let there be no doubt: this is not media criticism or ‘concern’ for the ‘quality of discourse’ though such robes are hastily donned. This is a problem. This is a major crisis. This is sceptics and sceptical views acquiring exposure in prestige press outlets such as the BBC.
The modus operandi is standard. First, the encounter is framed as something different, in this instance as being “about how climate models work”, transferring the realm-of-argument behind lines of supposed expert judgement. This disqualifies the participant Montford. Next, the interviewer mutates from a journalist to educator whose job is “informing the public”. Suddenly, it is ‘false balance’ (i.e. pitchfork) time.
In a thread filled with loud protest, a ‘badgersouth’ stood out making nothing else but cries for ‘justice’, i.e., cleansing and complaints to the authorities.
It turns out, badgersmith is a alias for Skepticalscience writer and moderator John Hartz. Hartz is one half of ‘Crusher Crew‘, the caped climate duo of John Hartz and Rob Honeycutt, who planned to ”pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles” and “cruise comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush”.
Over a year back Stephen Lewandowsky was harvesting online comments from critics for his paper and an active location was ‘shapingtomorrowsworld.org’. Unknown to readers the comments on the website were managed by Skepticalscience’s moderators, a team that includes Hartz. Posting under his real name, Hartz appeared to drop hints on what was going on:
The moderators co-operated with the paper authors, even selectively releasing comments for the purpose of citation in the paper:
Likewise, in this instance Hartz did not reveal himself or his Skepticalscience links. Curiously enough he didnt stop at complaints; he was offering help from Skepticalscience to run the blog:
I wonder how much more of the sock-puppetry and noxious dirty tricks climate activism can take before it overdoses.