Climate Change IPCC Prof on R4 today 09.00

[Tim Streater]

"The Life Scientific", on this morning at 09.00 (after the news) on R4 is talking to an atmospheric science Prof who sits on the IPCC. Might be interesting to see what a proper scientist has to say.

[Terry Fields]

Considering that part of the programme deals with her ability to deal with 'climate change deniers', so we can guess which way the programme leans - hardly surprising since the BBC adopted the policy of never presenting the case against MMCC.

[Terry Fields]

Withing the first minute or so she says "the temperature is going up and up, although with a few wobbles'.

'Interest in CC is slipping' (among the public).

[Brian Gaff]

I'm not sure that is entirely true, but I do know that David Bellamy has not been seen on TV since that program where he pointed out that the earth moves between hot and cold in cycles, ie look how many ice ages there has been, and although we are not helping, we cannot be the sole reason for the changes. Odd that innit?

Brian

[Tim Lamb]

In message , Tim Streater writes

The 8.30 trailer mentioned *climate change deniers* so I think you can guess.

>

[Terry Fields]

There was a secret conference, with no sceptics or deniers present, that made this decision. It finally leaked out, and showed that the BBC had spent a fortune trying to bury the information. The policy still stands, and this programme must be viewed in that light.

[Terry Fields]

It mentioned how she *deals with CC deniers*.

She's also said that "The IPCC do a fantastic job" and 'works well'; also "there are large error bars" (in the models predictions).

[The Natural Philosopher]

he will say whatever allows him to keep his job.

[stuart noble]

Oh dear. He's a woman

[Terry Fields]

This is the Beeb, so he is a she.

[Tim Lamb]

I only heard the last few minutes on satellites monitoring the activity of the Sun. If it was mentioned, I missed any comment about any effect on global temperature.

>

[Andrew Gabriel]

It was earlier in the programme. I didn't hear the beginning, but I caught probably 2/3rds of it.

The interviewer did put to her that they'd had to revise down their heating estimate, and she said the error bars are large. He didn't then go on to point out we're already outside their error bars.

[Steve Firth]

Oh FFS you pillock. Are women not permitted to rise to the top of their profession in FieldsWorld(tm)?

[Steve Firth]

He's a she, you dolt.

[Java Jive]

But perhaps more truthfully in reply to Brian regarding David Bellamy's own career-breaking goof, he finally admitted to another academic that he had mistyped 5% as 55% (remembering that % is ). I don't have a link, but the academic to which it was revealed explained DB's error during a TV programme at least a decade ago.

Somehow I suspect that is more relevant than your c>

[The Natural Philosopher]

shows how little I bothered to check what would be infinitely more predictable than the global climate.

[Terry Fields]

So, there wasn't a secret conference that didn't conclude that the BBC shouldn't to beak its 'balance' requirement, for the first time ever, and then didn't spend lots of taxpayers money not trying to cover it up?

It's a bit different that a frigging typo, dimwit.

[news13k]

For any public facing climate scientist, this would be a serious part of the job. The "climate debate" is pursued aggressively by partisans on all side, so in her role she will come under sustained attack on various fronts. Her "ability to deal with 'climate change deniers'" is a perfectly reasonable question, just as e.g. it would be perfectly reasonable to question a politician on how well they deal with (or are dealing with) attacks from the opposing parties.

I'm a physicist, and have dealt with the media on occasion. Since I'm not in a field which has any public controversy associated with it, I find that the reporters are interested in getting the story more or less right, and do not try to impose any outside agenda, even if they do like and/or fall for somewhat spurious connections to Harry Potter or similar. Nevertheless, even given this informal and relaxed interaction, even simple inquiries can take up a considerable amount of time (which I do not mind). But everything I say to the media about some piece of research is a translation from the actual science, and is necessarily approximate. Even if sometimes there can be a pretty good mapping between the science and the statement, there is no particular guarantee that the target audience will clearly understand very much about the actual research at the end of it - although hopefully they are left with a positive impression and something new learnt.

I dread to think how much preparation would be required in the contentious field of climate science, and of the public consquences of any accidental mis-phrasing of the answers I might give (or, for that matter their deliberate misrepresentation). Probably, I just wouldn't do it.

#Paul

[Brian Gaff]

Why have such a policy though. In reality, even if we have a small effect, its something we need to alter nonetheless to give us more time to adapt to the cycle. Just does not make any logical sense at all. Of course whatever the reason now we are going to get sea level rise and climate change and we need to plan ahead for that, but of course the world is notoriously bad at forward planning and keeping to deadlines. Brian

[Matty F]

400,000 years of ice core data show that the Earth's temperature fluctuates up and down in a major way about every 100,000 years. That was and is NOT caused by humans, but by the irregular orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Also see Milankovitch Cycles.