4
Feb

BBC Says, ‘Let’s talk’ to climate skeptics: initiative to debate begins

Today I felt I did my bit to help the BBC take its first step along the road back to objective journalism. After yesterday’s shock offer by BBC environment correspondent Roger Harrabin to talk to skeptic scientists at WattsupWithThat I’ve been put on the case.

My first fears, perhaps shared by a lot of sceptics, was that this is a mere sop to make ‘Auntie Beeb’ look less jaundiced in its reporting now that more of the British mainstream media has begun to see the light on the greatest scam ever perpetrated in the name of science. Anthony Watts of WWUT left his readers in no doubt as to where he stood on the Harrabin offer:

“I hope WUWT readers will come to aid, especially since skeptics are now apparently getting a voice in UK MSM.”

Watts may be sold on it. But, I wanted to see for myself whether this BBC environmental journalist was a man we could trust or just another mainstream media shill out to ‘hide the decline’ of the bogus theory of man made global warming.

I spoke with Mr. Harrabin on the phone this morning. We had a very productive one-hour conversation and I felt I got a measure of the man. He was professional and courteous, as you’d expect. But his voice was heavily gravelled from a nasty cold that was keeping him off work for the first time in five years. I pointed out I don’t get any sick pay–I do my journalism for free. Plus, I wasn’t for a moment going to believe the BBC was about to do a ‘U- turn’ when its pension fund committed to green investments.

I do not intend to be made a fool of, I said. Neither does he. We covered a lot of issues.

Mr Harrabin understood that this would be a pointless exercise if his main purpose were just to show how few tenured British scientists–for reasons that are obvious to us but may not be to the wider public–are actually sceptics. I then conceded that at some point skeptical scientists must come out en masse and take the lead in this debate, and a debate is exactly what Mr. Harrabin appears to be offering.

As you read more of this article I hope fellow skeptics will agree that this may, perhaps, be the best way forward to a less acrimonious, less litigious pursuit of our cause. I was sold. This is something we at Climategate.com, like WUWT believe we all need to explore. That is why we must now make an appeal to all scientists who live or work in Britain to come forward to us in total confidence.

We may want to put together a team of sceptics who will go with me to meet with Mr. Harrabin to tell him our concerns, I don’t know. This is all up for discussion. Mr. Harrabin assures me his angle is from an objective policy-making stance and he is not out to ridicule or expose anyone who wishes to preserve his or her anonymity.

The poor was chap suffering; he was being inflicted with further pain from another quarter. He told me the response to his offer on WUWT has been overwhelming. His mailbox is now full of rants and vitriol from irate sceptics eager to vent their frustration. It appears that the BBC has done for journalism what OJ did for his wife.

I got the impression Harrabin was not a nut job from the ‘George Monbiot Class of Loons’ (‘Gaurdian’ Kool-Aid drinkers ), as he is starting to make unequivocal concessions to hard reality as shown in his latest commentary;

“I was shocked to see WWF “science” included in the IPCC report” and was surprised that they also were, “ allowing input from firms, pressure groups and ordinary people.”

I urge readers to take a read of Roger Harrabin’s latest BBC article and see that there are concessions starting to be made by the established mainstream media that do support the case for skeptic scientists now putting their trust in their staunch online allies. We are dedicated to the skeptic cause and will do our utmost to get your important message across more credibly and effectively to the mainstream media.

To all concerned science professionals: please heed the words of Anthony Watts and contact us, in absolute confidence, via our ‘contact’ link as soon as possible so that we may move this most crucial issue forward. Your note and contact into will be forwarded directly to me.

Possibly related posts:

  1. BBC Radio now admits it’s time to talk to skeptics
  2. Revenge of the Computer Nerds
  3. Reader asks, “If global warming is a farce, why is the ice melting in the arctic?”
  4. The corrupted nature of Nature
  5. Associated Press spins more Climategate lies

24 Responses to “BBC Says, ‘Let’s talk’ to climate skeptics: initiative to debate begins”

  1. ecph says:

    BBC reaching out is not the story about the public getting to know the truth. The public already knows via fine blogs like these.

    The story is about if, and how, BBC can gain public trust again. They have already lost the trust of one generation and still owe us a huge apology for misleading us. Looking in the records, it’s not like BBC was uninformed about the bogus climate science before Climategate.

    After Climategate, I have ditched BBC (and other MSM). Instead, I have a growing list of people, bloggers, that I feel are trying to report the truth, and whom I can trust. That is how I get news.

  2. Triple Bay says:

    Editor,
    There is an old saying, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. What is going on here is so serious, it is worth taking the chance. I don’t know Mr. Harrabin so I cannot comment on his sincerity. It is nice to see that he has made an offer and I hope it helps. COP 16 continues later on this year in Mexico. It is most important the leaders get the message and stop these negotiations. I’m sure you know what you are doing. It is also nice to see India questioning the IPCC reports. What is disturbing is that President Obama continues to force CO2 policy either through the EPA or the Climate Change Bill.

  3. Graham says:

    Forgive me if I’m a little off topic, but I couldn’t help but be amused.

    Come on folks, don’t be a party pooper. You know you want to.

    ‘Earth Hour 2010′ (the biggest thing since – swine flu)

    “Earth Hour 2010 will continue to be a global call to action to every individual, every business and every community. A call to stand up, to show leadership and be responsible for our future.

    Pledge your support here and turn off your lights for one hour, Earth Hour, 8.30pm, Saturday 27th March 2010.”

    Admit it – you can’t wait. It seems that Nottingham and many other UK cities can’t, only they’re switching all their lights on. Sounds fun to me.

    http://www.lightnight.co.uk/about/index.php

    http://www.lightnight.co.uk/nottingham.php

    “Nottingham Light Night 12 and 13 February 2010

    Nottingham is hosting its third Light Night – a mixture of outdoor performances from professional artists, performers and community groups, sound and light installations and indoor cultural activities. (See the programme for full details of the events taking place). The event utilises areas of the city that are culturally renown and welcoming to the public but not usually after dark.”

    One night we light up the whole night sky and the next night it’s a blackout. Sometimes being politically correct is just too difficult to understand.

  4. Dave McK says:

    Mr.Sullivan.
    If Harrabin were inclined, motivated, interested, competent or even just curious – he could use google to find out everything he refused to know up until the moment.

    And you are sounding like Jack Nicholson in Mars Attacks.
    Did you imagine there is some ‘alternative’ relationship you could have with a suctorial predator who takes his prey by licking and promising until you are numb and he breaks through the skin.
    Maybe he’s after Arafat’s old Nobel prize.

    The benefit of the doubt does not accrue to you. It’s what religion is built on and you will be fed to it if Harrabin can manage that.

  5. Dave McK says:

    Mr. Sullivan-
    I seriously suggest you google up and watch the Dan Pearl beheading to see how sweet reason works when it goes unarmed against the reality of a clear agenda.
    The inevitable happens despite his most fervent liberal fantasies.
    It’s a lesson you could use right now.

    Whatever makes you think this stranger has the best candy- rethink before you get in that car, son.

  6. JOHN says:

    John O’Sullivan: I’d offer the suggestion (if you haven’t already thought of it) to tape record all conversation with this guy. The media has a way of twisting things to suit their agenda.

  7. Barry Woods says:

    How about a normal (hopefully) reasonably intelligent (hopefully) member of the public…

    I was only ever mildy sceptical, disinterested memeber of the public, until all the hype pre-and at copenhagen..

    I found out about climate gate not from the main stream media, but a news, politics, section of an internet forum, motoring, that I’ve been on for years..
    Particulary, seing MUGABE, and that opening video propoganda…
    Particulary, the girl running from the sea rushing in (tsunami style – still very raw in people memories) to be engulfed… This was repeatedly shown on the tv channels as ‘news’…. And repeated uncritically.. The bbc have a duty to be critical, not a cheerleader for blatant propoganda.

    As a minutes thought, or 20 seconds with a calculator, shows this to be scaremongering propaganda, aimed at closing down debate, indoctrinating the masses. Given the IPCC’s actual sea level projection of 2 m by 2100 (suspiciously, changed from a previous 59 cm previously – not scary enough! and I though the science was settled so how can any change be possible) not al gore’s wild pronouncements of 20 m, 50m or whatever he has made up today.

    Anyway, that rate of tidal wave rise works out at:

    0.000000025 km/h

    Plenty of time to get out of the way, i told my SCARED 5 year old daughter. She is STILL WORRIED about that child.

    And yes I have emailed a complaint to the bbc trust enquiry regarding alleged bias in climate change science reporting by the bbc.
    If he wants to talk, I would love to, not on the record, not to be videoed, edited, taken out of context, made to look foolish, by placing things in different order, or only 5 minutes of the least damaging comment to be aired…All of which the bbc have done to others… or then to be targeted personally by the lunatic fringe of the AGW believers -
    an example in the Guardian today: (from a journalist!)
    imagine what some of the more lunatic members of the public are like!!!!

    Our licence fees pay for climate denial
    The BBC spouts rightwing bias while ignoring environmental science. So why not give other conspiracies a platform too?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/03/bbc-climate-change-denier

    the is beyond satire… the bbc whose religion is AGW, has had one or 2 programs, obviously under pressure, to be a least slightly impartial, and ask a few questions!!!

    How difficult is it to then discuss this topic, with that sort of attitude.

    But just an honest off the record chat, how the bbc is being percieved, and why, by this member of the public. might be of interest for Roger..

    He has HAD a look at the FOIA2009.zip contents for himselve hasn’t he.. Surely he must have??
    emails, code, harry_read_me.txt, all the OTHER docs.

    And had someone in the relevant fields, ie it, data handling, programming, statistics, etc give him a briefing on it…

    He has done this, surely, hasn’t he..

    Oh, and invite paul hudson along, he has very relevant qualifications in the field, geo physics and the like..
    me BSC Applied chemistry, MSC Information systems Engineering (comp sci) For my thesis, a complex modelling system, I had to SHOW every LINE of Code, EVERY single bit of data, for review???

    Of course the bbc, has no irony, this week, ‘stem cell experts’ (not sceptics bbc?) complain of other scientists in the field skewing the peer review process on editorial boards, and acting as Gate keepers for their own theories…

    Well Roger, Richard Black, that is what the BBC has been perecieved in to have been doing , fro the IPCC/ CRU:

    Climategate email quotes below for example:

    ————————–

    A qualified bbc person (Paul Hudson) comments on a proccess that might explain the plateaing or cooling in the last decade….

    And INSTANTLY he is dismmissed as a sceptic:

    climate gate email:
    Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
    Steve,
    You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday
    wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
    cooling for the next xxx xxxx xxxxyears. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
    other skeptics views.

    Which gets a reply!!!! (travesty, lack of warming!!!)

    Kevin Trenberth wrote:
    > > > > > Hi all
    > > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
    > > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
    > > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
    > > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
    > > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
    > > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
    > > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
    > > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
    > > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
    > > > > > freezing weather).
    > > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
    > > > > > planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
    > > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
    > > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
    > > > > > (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
    > > > > > The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
    > > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
    > > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
    > > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
    > > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.

    Then they say better have a word with the BBC:

    Michael Mann wrote:
    > > > > > > extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on
    > > > > > > BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard
    > > > > > > Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I
    > > > > > > can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met
    > > > > > > Office.
    > > > > > > We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile
    > > > > > > it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say
    > > > > > > about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
    > > > > > > mike

    So Paul HUdson is just a ‘weatherman’ note the dismissive language. is now a sceptic
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    Paul Hudson bio:
    Paul was born and brought up in Keighley, near Bradford, and after reading geophysics and planetary physics at Newcastle University, he joined the Met Office and did two years at Leeds Weather Centre. He combined this with a two-year stint as Number Two weather presenter for BBC Look North and for the BBC local radio stations in Leeds, York, Humberside and Sheffield.

    Please pass this on to Roger, and Paul Hudson.

    I have a close friend IN the climate gate emails. I have a family member very involved in green party politics. They are genuine, nice people with the very best intentins (just wrong, thooug about agw in my opinion, based on what I have seen) We can keep it civil, be friends… But the vitriol, abuse, I recieved, just asking reasonable question, o the bbc blogs, telegraph, guardian comments sections, is shocking. Especially – DENIAR (that is APPALLING – YES I do belive 6 million jews were killed because of their religion. I just don’t believe in an unproven scientific thery, we as we have seen does have some serious questiions to answer – Iam also VERY keen on looking after the planets environment for my children’s future – maybe Roger should have a chat with DR David Bellamy?))

    Or Ed Milliband – Minister for Climate and Energy –
    ‘climate sabatouer’ he says – (the comparison of that 80 year old LABOUR party memebr ejected from party conference, on terror legislation – immediately springs to mind) Who has not even bothered to obtain the basic understanding of his brief.

    As demonstrated in that Radio 5 interview:
    (someone please get a transcript)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html

    “8. At 06:49am on 08 Dec 2009:
    Did anyone hear Milliband on Simon Mayo yesterday (Radio 5Live)?

    First caller, first question, “As a percentage, how much greenhouse gas is man made?”

    Milliband: “Well, er… um… the science is in”.
    Caller: “You must’ve discussed it, as a percentage, how much greenhouse gas is man made?”
    Milliband: “Well… um… All of the C02, all of the CO2 is man made.”

    The guy knows nothing, think about that for a while…”

    Of course 2010 will be another warmest year on record:
    It may well be (the records are very, VERY short (planetary) and IF youtrust the data set..
    What is the human signature, evidence of, vs what the planet can and HAS done naturally countless times in the past…

  8. Stew says:

    I think John Sullivan’s right to work with BBC. They have access to more Taxpayers than all the bloggers put together and its only when the Taxpayers get behind this and see the scam for themselves will things start to move in our direction. Think what could happen if you changed the BBC’s warmist editorial stance. Even just introduced a doubt. You could roll the opposition up by summer. Your not going to do it with 2.5 min discussions on Ch 4. Give the BBC one chance and if they do good give them another. Remember the first justified sceptical BBC report will be a scoop.

  9. Tom Roe says:

    I read Harrabin’s article. The “I was shocked” is fine but what about “why did the IPCC and everyone including myself defend AGW after climategate by shouting “peer-reviewed science” from the rooftops. I was wrong about the strenght of the science and refused to consider another point of view” That would have been a good start. How you proceed with the BBC is a personal call. You have done great work here and have become a cherished resource. I echo something said earlier- the BBC has lost credibility and that is continuing. In my opinion that is why they are speaking to you now. They need you more than you need them so make a good bargin. If they really want a scientist to speak to we have many that are well known. The Christy debate video alone would open many now closed minds.

    • Tom and others, I sincerely want to bust this scam. I will tell Mr. Harrabin exactly what you all think. I will not cow tow to MSM propagandists.
      But my thoughts are that if we get the BBC to steer back to principled, objective journalism we can start to get our message into grassroots America, where the MSM are holding out. BBC America will put us in touch with ordinary US citizens and grow our numbers faster. Winning numbers is the game-the sooner we do it, the sooner we win.

  10. cloud10 says:

    This conjures up an image of Little Red Riding Hood describing how her grandmother appears to have changed with the audience screaming “Look out behind you”.
    A read through the history of the Peasants Revolt and the outcome would be useful.
    The BBC has not changed and will not change easily. They simply fear you and wish to control you.
    Sensible scientists in current academic post should stay underground until they see a real change in government policy.
    As a test ask them to put up the Climategate Timeline by Mohib Abrahaim and The Climategate Analysis by John Costella in a prominent position on their website with an introduction written by you. Their response will give you all the information you need.
    Otherwise use a very long spoon. I think they intend to have you for dinner…with some fava beans and a nice Chianti..

    Remember this below from the emails, just how jittery are they now with an election comimg.

    “Apart from my meetings, I have skeptics on my back—still; I can’t seem to get rid of them. Also the new United Kingdom climate scenarios are giving government ministers the jitters, as they don’t want to appear stupid when they introduce them (late June?).”

  11. cloud 10, I love your excellent suggestion to test Harrabin and ask him to put up the Climategate Timeline by Mohib Abrahaim and The Climategate Analysis by John Costella in a prominent position on the website – plus an introduction by me. The response, as you say, will give us all the information we need.

  12. stew says:

    Cloud 10 has a good idea but don’t be surprised if the BBC don’t do things that way. And don’t play the Divas as if you don’t need help to get your message across. Its even money that in 3 month’s time the “Climategate” pond will be flat calm without a ripple to suggest the turmoil of the present. Pachauri will be gone and Jones et al will be on the ‘naughty step’ for a while. Global temp information will be so transparent we’ll get discs in the Daily Mail and every family will be entitled to a free FOI request.

    But we won’t have won! The political elite will bin their climategate files and head smiling to the big conference room where they put the stealth into green taxes. The issue will return to the blogsphere where it started and 388 people per million will resume their arcane discussions.

    Polls this weekend will show more people with doubts but it is not moving fast enough to see victory. Use the BBC. They have access to the real fallguys, the taxpayers. Most people think this is just a spat among bald scientists about name calling. And they don’t want the eyelid-drooping stuff about bristlecones and other dendroclimatological flatulence. But they will sit up if you explain the “So What?” If you tell them that very soon as many of them are about to retire on fixed and impoverished incomes they will be deluged with taxes that will make their paid-off mortgages look like pocket money, they will sit up and listen. Use the BBC.

    • stew, thanks for a shrewd assessment. I’ve just come from the BBC website where Mr. Black is now doing his spin on the latest negative UK opinion polls over global warming. The BBC are not remotely close to doing objective, factual reporting – propaganda is still the fayre de jour. I trust none of them and am staying wary.

  13. Tom Roe says:

    cloud10 is excellent and on the money but I would put a little more weight on the polling trend. Oddly enough the BBC analysis begins by expressing the unusual nature of the results but ends by assuring the reader that based on the norm there’s nothing new here. It will be interesting to see how long they can hold this contraption together with bailing wire and spit.

    Here in the US the climate mafia made a serious run to “settle” the debate and shape the future last year. The Cap-and-Trade scheme in the House was it’s high water mark. With help from climategate we have hurled them from the walls at the very last moment but have not dealt them a mortal blow. As cloud10 predicts climategate may be seen as a speedbump on the road to hell in three months time. That will probably come to pass unless we stay active and continue to grow in mass and message.

    Encouraged by the international collegiality that the skeptic community has demonstrated over the past several months I wonder if we are ready to form a united front? If anyone is interested in discussing the whys and hows of this please meet me on the open thread.

  14. stew says:

    John, I too have just read Black and accept your point. But all the environmental repoters for BBC are a chorus of similar build and maybe Harbin thinks his legs are nicer. I would trust him because I cannot think what you have to lose. Black talked a lot about the populous poll that showed a decline in faith re catastrophic global warming and offered the annodyne statement of ‘dont believe it’.

    We have to widen this debate to keep it alive. I’ve been hassling ‘Yougov ‘as pollsters to ask the obvious re climategate but also what is really apt.

    For exmaple

    (a) Do you think that that global climate warming is man- made
    (b) Do you have doubts about the the role of man in this .

    If (a) are you willing from now to pay significant proportions of your disposable income to resolve your belief,

    For example,

    Are you willing to pay a sum of money close to 5 times what you pay now for your heat and light. So if you pay £1200 per year now have you planned in your retirement for an annual cost of close to£6000 per annum when in your sixties?

    You must press on the financial nerve to win and the only way you can provide a circular logical argument is through people like the BBC.

  15. Barry Woods says:

    It must have been a long day with small children today…
    Just put this on Richard Balck blog (hopefully it appears)

    Rising scepticism – a chill wind?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/cold_view_of_rising_scepticism.html?s_sync=1#postcomment

    For Roger Harrabin:

    Pr, media manipulation, tactics of the AGW/IPCC crowd..

    This DENIAR (many agw people would accuse him of this, by just saying this in print) journalist, felt his unease…
    Prior to Copenhagen…

    “The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.

    The movie is product of a political debate – as is the court case
    Well, the graphs do fit – but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientists believe that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise. ”

    Who is this deniar…

    Roger Harriban
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

    I ask Roger.

    Take a day off.
    Just pretend for a moment you are new to this, a member of the public that has only really heard about climate change, and possibly it is man made… (some/all?)

    Just have a look at Climate audit (this may be a bit techy for you, no offence, I have 2 science degrees and I find it a bit techy to…)

    Go to somewhere like watts up.. bishop hill.. jo nova.. (actuall all of them)

    Have a read of the story, from the beginning of climategate….
    Imagine, it is a story about a big pharmaceutical company, or a big oil company….

    Read it all with an open mind.

    See how they are days WEEKS ahead of revealingthings, just this last week published, andmany things unpublished in the main stream media.

    Think, how that reflects on tv/press/bbc

    Then, GO and check it, Any source you like, pro, mainstream papers, Telegraph, wall street journal, Times…

    THINK carefully, if any of these people are lying to you. what their motives are… Be an investigative journalist…

    Possibly you may come to a conclusion that AGW theory, was a good theory worth investigating, but that it has been hyped up beyond all physics.. ie contribution (if any?) is an order or 2 of MAGNITUDE less than, the hysteria..

    And the human signature is totally swamped by the muitiple natural cyclical processes. where the cyscles overlap, reinforce, cancel out, to give a highly variable climate over millenia…

    Highest lowest since records began.
    Should raise the question how long the records (30 years for satellite – you should now that this is so insignificant a record, it could not possible show any trend)
    OR worst snow in washington for 90 years, (just means every 90 or years or so you get lots of snow)
    same with flooding ie cockermouth – photo in the papers, it’s ‘global warming -showing a wall with a flood line on it, showing how hig it got… The editor, totally missing the other floodlines on the same wall, show similar and HIGHER flood lines, in the 19th century…

    Politicians shouting Falt earther, anti science, climate sabatouer, sceptic, just before they fly off in sepearte private jets to a climate conference, with huge entourages. Think of the abuse of power, a rprime minister, minister for climate and energy are showing in trying to close down debate..

    All those things out in the open now about the IPCC, that probably shocked you, it was those people that felt that language was unacceptbale, in the blogs, those ‘sceptic’ websites that doggedly purused the truth , Steve mcintyre – felt the statistics was wrong on the ‘HOCKEY stick’ and was RIGHT…(he took years and the abuse!!!)

    Where would the IPCC have been if that had NEVER been used to champion ‘global warming’…

    There is a flood line, near the Kenton theatre in Henley on thames, I just walked past it the other day, at waist hight… SHOCKINGLY HIGH. It is so high, that houses in the road closer to the river woiuld be flooded up to the first floor… Of course no living memory of that…

    I could go on..

    You may be shocked that you have been taken in and perpetuated the agw theory, against very many scientists advice, do you still believe the 2500 scientists story, after we know who they are, and the very small group really controlling it… even one of the climategate emails states, just GET the numbers, the media won’t count/check phd’s or who they are, just get the numbers…

    You HAVE looked at the emails, haven’t you.
    Got some IT experts/stisticains to explain the horrors of their data integrity, handling, ect, revealed in HArry_Read_me.txt, and of course the code…
    The rules of the game pdf, explaining how to communicate climate strategy…
    You have looked at Lord monckton’s work, Paul COstelloes excellent Climategate analysis.. All which you can read FOR yourself, and check for yourself…

    Initially, this leak was brushed aside with, get the criminal, nothing to see, move along please… I’m sure you are aware, that was how the guilty behaved in the MP’s expense LEAK. We would NEVER have known about that except for a WHISTLEBLOWER.

    This is A GOOD NEWS story, we are not about to suffer the terrible effect of the man made diaster scare stories, which you said you felt uncomfortable with..

    The IPCC say 59cm in (or is it 2m) in 90 years.
    Charles says 6 inches in a century.
    Of course some of his subjects ancestors, walked to the UK from France several thousand years ago.. 6 inches a century, would happily explain THE CHANNEL – naturally…

    Is he saying, or the IPCC that ALL NATURAL processes, have stopped, since theindustrial revolution, and will REMAIN stopped?

    This IS GOOD NEWS, we only have to worry anbout real natural disatster, 250,000 killed by a tsunami, 200,000 killed in HAiti, terrible diaster in Burma, and the news moved on, and I feel guilty I cannot even remember the details…

    Has ANY death occured due to man made global warming… NO reputable scientist,weatherman has EVER linked any weather event, to this.. ALL completely within the realms of natural variability.

    So free my children, from the scare stories that polar bears are dying out because of humans (5 fold increase in 50 years, beacause humans STOPPED shooting them), or they are all going to be engulfed ny a tsunami (the copenhagen opening video, sea engulfing a land and a child in seconds! 0.59 or 2.0m in 90 years! remember less than 0.00000025km/h)

    My children are at Infants school, spare them this humans are killing the planet/evil self hating religion, this is JUST a smal group of AGW people, the majority are just like me and want to do the right thing for their childrens future. And I know you will have encountered this smaller group of people for yourself.

    Think of the money that will BE WASTED on carbon trading, carbon offsets, carbon economy, carbon FRAUD, rainforests destroyed to grow bio fuels, lithium mining for those hybrid car batteries, china/india ravaging the environment mining those rare earth metals needed, for the carbon technology solutions.

    Where a tenth of the money, or less, could help address real environmental concerns, address real human poluution, rainforest destruction, save the tiger, EVERYTHING else.

    Give Dr David Bellamy a call.
    Life long passionate, commited environmentalist, now branded A DENIAR. Read his interview, about how when he said he did not believe in AGW, he never worked for the BBC again.

    To quote somone working at CRU, Tim in the Harry_Read_me.txt file, that HARRY, is trying to struggle with the hadcru datasets!

    “…Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).

    Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.”

    http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1129-Climate-change-and-the-Christian.htm

    People who go into climate science in the last 20-30 years are taught man made global warming, they are a self selecting group, who in the main, WANT to save the planet, stopp the pollution, all enviable objectives/intentions. It does not prove the science, it just blinkers it…

    Have they been testing the null hypothesis

    ie AGW has a minimal or zero effect, in the overall planetary cycles)
    It was definetly a good idea, a theory worth investigating, but it appears to have been used, latched onto, by people who want it to be true, to acheive theie goals (many varied, and conflicting) no conspiracy required, just human nature…

    So this sceptic (cynic now – after the last 10 weeks)
    Asks you to lock the study door, – this Sunday, next week, if you do not get to read this in time) and just do what I suggest with an open mind…

    Take one day and think:

    What if, what the sceptics are saying –

    (Why not say sceptical scientists – you know there are many, petition project lindzen, plimer, etc, Bishop hill could give you a list of the ones that do not fear – DENIAR).

    Think:
    What IF, everything they are saying is actually true

    (except the really lunatic fringe, counterpointed by the lunatic pro agw believers, who want dams blown up, cities emptied, etc. ie the kind Hanson, controls a satellite dataset, endorses, and won’t provide the raw data, despite foi requests)

    Talk to Bishop Hill, watts up, etc – OFF the record, they have reason to mistrust the BBC’s intentions.

    I hear you are reaching out to sceptical scientists (but somehow can’t find any! – there are many on the record)

    This memeber of public asks you do take one day and see it from my point of view.

    Take that day and do as I suggest.

    Please.

    (it’s for MY children, and THIER planet)

  16. This is all good feedback. I’m happy to follow up on all suggestions- time and resources permitting. I can report that I’ve had no response from Mr Harrabin since my last email. He did sound ill though and had received a mountain of ‘suggestions’ from skeptics in his mailbox.

    I should also add that he did tell me that his views began to change when he interviewed Al Gore. Gore tore him to shreds after the interview for daring to probe into the scam too deeply.

  17. barry woods says:

    Think about Tim’s labyrinthine software suites… (harry file)

    Tim Mitchell’s first degree: Geography

    “At Oxford University I read geography (1994-1997, School of Geography). My college was Christ Church. At Oxford I developed a special interest in the study of climate change.”

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/personal/index.html

  18. [...] particular interest are Roger Harrabin’s contributions. You may recall that Mr. Harrabin has extended an offer to debate with [...]

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.