BBC Science Reporting Praised

[louise]

From www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14218989

BBC praised for science coverage

Brian Cox's Wonders of the Solar System received four Bafta nominations this year

BBC science coverage is of "high quality and significant quantity", an independent review has found.

But the report, by genetics professor Steve Jones, said the BBC "must make a distinction between well-established fact and opinion".

Attempts at balance were giving "free publicity to marginal opinions", the BBC Trust-published report said.

The BBC, which has announced a new science editor role, welcomed the "generally positive assessment".

The review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science includes Prof Jones' independent assessment as well as analysis of BBC science output carried out by Imperial College London.

The report praised "a thriving and improving genre of programming which is well established across a wide range of BBC services".

Its accuracy was "exemplary", it added.

It also found that one in four broadcast news items was science-related with BBC One's Panorama and Radio 4's Today programme providing particularly strong output.

But it found that, where there was consensus on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" could lead to a "false balance".

This meant viewers "might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is".

Prof Jones cited issues including global warming, MMR vaccines and GM foods.

He said the BBC "still gives space" to global warming sceptics "to make statements that are not supported by the facts".

He added that, for years, "the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves".

"Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists, not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent view of research," he said.

The report said that, when opposite views were deemed appropriate, the BBC "must clearly communicate the degree of credibility the view carries".

It also found that the links between science programme-makers across the BBC was "underdeveloped, meaning that internal expertise is not sufficiently exploited".

And it said the range of sources for stories was too narrow and overly-reliant on press releases.

Writing in a blog, head of newsgathering Fran Unsworth said she was delighted by the report's praise for the BBC's science coverage.

She said Prof Jones' findings did not mean that "in future we will, for example, not interview climate change sceptics".

She said some scientific stories "should be presented as a debate purely and simply within the scientific community".

"There will be others when it is appropriate to broadcast a range of views, including some from non-experts, because science cannot be divorced from the social, political and cultural environment in which it operates," she added.

On those occasions, the BBC must explain to audiences "whether they are scientists, policy-makers, lobbyists or whether they are taking an ethical stand".

She also confirmed the creation of the role of science editor "to bring a new level of analysis to science coverage, strengthen our contacts, and help us to take an overview of our coverage".

[StuartG]

"includes Prof Jones' independent assessment"

"head of newsgathering Fran Unsworth"

I'm really impressed. This post has taken the darkness from my eyes. I can now see the light. I recant!


and total cobblers!

He might be "genetics professor Steve Jones" but I don't think He's got the brains of a diseased tadpole when it comes to diplomacy or believing that some one of a lower caste should have their opinions even considered. It's perfectly clear, even without the added advantage of some formal qualification, that the above report cannot be considered 'independent'.

A scientist reports on science and the outcome is for science, it couldn't be expected that the outcome would be anything else. It also points to a very dictatorial attitude. ie. one person speaks to change policy.

However, Like this poster You are entitled to Your opinion. [if indeed the above represents Your opinion, as You can see, You haven't said]

----
found in passing...
"The top ten BBC expenses claimants"
November 12, 2009

"3. Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering

Pay £172,800

Expenses £6,907.95

- £436 for hospitality to ‘discuss partnership issues’

- £170 a night room at Dubai airport

- £1399.90 flight to Kabul "

----

[marchesarosa]

Birds of a feather! Is Louise one of the feathered variety? She's obviously more comfortable with the idea of "consensus science", like the great and the good apologists for the AGW scam, Jones and Nurse, than with upholding the scientific method.

Surprise, surprise!

Wait until the CERN experiments on cloud formation are written up, lady!

[marchesarosa]

I see the coverage comes under BBC "arts and entertainment". Well, that's certainly where Prof Jones and Prof Nurse and Prof Cox and their ilk belong!

[louise]

[rsmith7]

I see, louise; anyone outside the CAGW cabal hasn't done serious research.

Silly girl.

[louise]

Silly boy, read the quote properly

"Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists, not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent view of research"

Nothing there that says opposing views shouldn't be heard but if the issue being discussed is science then scientists should be the ones doing the discussion, not "politicians or activists"

[rsmith7]

Jul 23, 2011 11:07:06 GMT 1 @louise said:

Silly boy, read the quote properly

"Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists, not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent view of research"

Nothing there that says opposing views shouldn't be heard but if the issue being discussed is science then scientists should be the ones doing the discussion, not "politicians or activists"

Be quiet then.
I was referring to your cartoon in the context of the BBC's decision to marginalise dissenting scientists (like Lindzen or Carter or any of the thousands like them.)

[nickrr]

She's obviously more comfortable with the idea of "consensus science"

Once again you betray your ignorance of the basics of science.

Consensus is how science works. Of course consensus can change in the light of new evidence but in the case of AGW the evidence is almost entirely in it's favour - which is why it's accepted as true by the vast majority of climate scientists.

[nickrr]

I was referring to your cartoon in the context of the BBC's decision to marginalise dissenting scientists

If one side of a discussion has overwhelming support from scientists then this should be reflected in the BBC's coverage.

If this wasn't the case then it would be like pretending that evolution and creationism are equally valid theories.

[marchesarosa]

Nothing you have ever contributed to this boards adds anything to the climate debate, nickrr. You are a yesman, a conformist, an abject follower of the band wagon.

Science is NOT about consensus - except in a society where "science" is the creation of STATE POWER. Remember Galileo? Remember Lysenko? Remember Wegener?

Don't be so fast to assume that the days of these sorts of egregious mistakes by the "Consensus" are over.

The Appeal to Authority and the "headcount" which the concepts of "settled science" and "consensus science" depend upon, is intellectual fraud.

“the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual,” to quote Galileo.

[louise]

Jul 23, 2011 18:19:48 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

Nothing you have ever contributed to this boards adds anything to the climate debate, nickrr. You are a yesman, a conformist, an abject follower of the band wagon.

Science is NOT about consensus - except in a society where "science" is the creation of STATE POWER. Remember Galileo? Remember Lychenko? Remember Wegener?

Don't be so fast to assume that the days of these sorts of egregious mistakes by the "Consensus" are over.



The Appeal to Authority and the "headcount" which the concepts of "settled science" and "consensus science" depend upon, is intellectual fraud.

So a post dedicated to trying to take nickrr down a peg or two but not addressing the subject of the thread at all - how surprising.

[StuartG]

"So a post dedicated to trying to take nickrr down a peg or two but not addressing the subject of the thread at all - how surprising."

That..is like the monkey calling the cat a long tailed bastard.

Just because the title says "BBC praised for science coverage" doesn't make it praise worthy. Who made the praise, "the report, by genetics professor Steve Jones". Who was the target of the praise? The BBC. Who caused the report to be commissioned? BBC Trust. Who helped with the report? BBC staff.

"Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, was commissioned to write his own independent report as part of the review."

Face to face one hour interviews (almost all carried out with the participation of my colleague Sarah Hargreaves, previously Head of Editorial Standards and Training for BBC Vision and Head of Documentaries and Specialist Features at the BBC)


"Although no public input was solicited, I have had some correspondence from the online, radio and television audiences."
See what I mean? They don't want unqualified numpties looking at this.

"high quality and significant quantity" this phrase was searched for in the report below, and was 'not found'. Please try it, prove me incorrect.

"A poll carried out by the Cardiff University Understanding Risk Group in early 2010 showed in contrast that one in seven among the British public said that the climate is not changing and one in five that any climate change was not due to human activity. Fewer than half considered that scientists agree that humans are causing climate change24. The divergence between the views of professionals versus the public may be seen as evidence of a failure by the media to balance views of very different credibility. The BBC is just one voice but so many in Britain gain their understanding of science from its output that its approach to this question must be considered."

That's what this report is really about, AGW [or what ever you will call it] and therefore it's Political using an 'invisibility cloak' of Science.

Steve Jones' review starts at page 14....
www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/science_impartiality/science_impartiality.pdf

BBC Bull.

StuartG

[marchesarosa]

Friday, February 13, 1998 Published at 19:25 GMT

BBC Sci/Tech

Scientists blame sun for global warming

The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years.

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
And individual cycles can be more or less active.
The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.
That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.
The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.
They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.
The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

---------------
 


From the days when the BBC WAS capable of a little occasional objectivity about climate. Something about more study required about the variability of our local star? My, my, how revolutionary that would seem today.

If I remember right, chief BBC knicker-wetter, Susan Watts, on reporting the recent predicted cooling announced by the American Astronomical Society
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/the-major-aas-solar-announcement-suns-fading-spots-signal-big-drop-in-solar-activity/ was only concerned to express the fervent hope that the this break in global warming should be used as an opportunity for geo-engineering to make the planet even cooler! And Kirsty Wark went along with Susan’s “interpretation” of a major implications for climate science

And this is the BBC “objectivity” we are now going to get MORE of?

Jesus Christ! It really is 1984 newspeak! And Prof Steve Jones is part of it? Proper little Lysenko the BBC has employed to survey its “science” output! Everything in the garden is lovely he tells the BBC Politburo.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

[marchesarosa]

Here's another one for the BBC to ignore!

July 19, 2011
Earth Getting Greener, not Browner

A new study in Scienceexpress (Science magazine’s pre-paper-publication outlet) by Yude Pan of the U.S. Forest Service and colleagues finds that the net carbon sink in terrestrial forest systems across the globe has been expanding, taking up ever more carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere. (A “sink” is a place where something—carbon dioxide, heat, water, etc…winds up.)


The net carbon sink in the world’s forests is made up of carbon uptake less carbon loss. Carbon (C) uptake is expressed as bigger trees and more dense forests, storage in leaf litter, dead wood, wood products, and in the soil. Carbon loss occurs through deforestation and burning. By analyzing “recent inventory data and long-term field observations coupled to statistical or process models” Pan et al. conclude that “the global net forest C sink was 1.0 ± 0.8 and 1.2 ± 0.9 PgC yr–1 for 1990-1999 and 2000-2007”—indicating that the terrestrial forest sink has been at least consistent, if not expanding, over at least the past 18 years (1990-2007). A “Pg” is a Petagram, which is 1 followed by 15 zeroes worth of constant grams. For comparative purposes, our federal deficit is 14 followed by 12 zeroes worth of inflating $$$.

In fact, if it were not for tropical deforestation, the world’s forests would be taking up a huge percentage of the carbon dioxide emitted from anthropogenic activities. Pan et al explain:

Notably, the total gross C uptake by the world’s established and tropical regrowth forests is 4.0 PgC y–1, equivalent to half of the fossil fuel C emissions in 2009 [emphasis added]. Over the period studied (1990-2007), the cumulative C sink into the world’s established forests was ~43 PgC, and for the established plus regrowing forests was 73 PgC; the latter equivalent to 60% of cumulative fossil emissions in the period (i.e., 126 PgC). Clearly, forests play a critical role in the Earth’s terrestrial C sinks, and exert strong control on the evolution of atmospheric CO2.

The researchers find that even though the greatest annual carbon flux is occurring in tropical forests, those fluxes nearly balance out with the result being that tropical forests are largely carbon neutral. That’s because the annual carbon sink from tropical forest growth and regrowth (after logging), is offset by continued deforestation. Temporal and boreal forests, on the other hand, prove to be net carbon sinks (Figure 1).



Figure 1. Carbon sinks and sources (Pg C yr–1) in the world’s forests. Down-direction represents sink, while up-direction represents source. Light and dark purple colors are for global established forests (boreal, temperate and intact tropical forests), dark brown and orange colors are for tropical regrowth forests from deforested lands; and yellow and yellow green colors are for tropical gross deforestation emissions. (source: Pan et al., 2011).

Pan et al. describe the situation in the United States as follows:

The U.S. forest C sink increased by 33% from the 1990s to 2000s, caused by increasing forest area, growth of existing immature forests that are still recovering from historical agriculture, grazing, harvesting, and environmental factors such as CO2 fertilization and N deposition. However, forests in the western United States have shown significantly increased mortality in the past few decades, related to drought stress, and increased mortality from insects and fires.

Basically, the bottom line is that the world’s forests systems are subject to a number of difference influences, many of which are rooted in human activities (logging, CO2 emissions, nitrogen emissions, climate change), but overall, are expanding their carbon reserves—a pretty good sign that the world’s forests are thriving.

When it comes to the actual numbers forwarded by Pan et al., there is not a lot that is particularly surprising. The net annual forest sink determined by the Pan et al. team was 1.04 PgC in the 1990s increasing to 1.20 in the 2000s (through 2007). The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported the annual net terrestrial carbon sink to be about 1.0 Gt/year for the 1990s, a value pretty similar to Pan et al.’s numbers.

And the good news reported by Pan et al. that the terrestrial carbon sink continues to expand, is also not particularly shocking. After all, we have known (and reported here at World Climate Report) for some time that the percentage of anthropogenic CO2 emitted each year that actually stays in the atmosphere has remained pretty constant for several decades, despite ever-rising CO2 emissions from human activities. In order for that to be the case, the earth’s total (land + ocean) carbon sink must be expanding. And as we know that CO2 makes plants grow faster, better, stronger, more nutritious, more water use efficient, etc., is seems only reasonable to expect that the terrestrial carbon sink in the world’s forest systems is expanding.

We thank Pan et al. for work further confirming that (with all due respect to the departed Climate Czarina) the world is getting greener, not browner.

Reference:

Pan, Y., et al., 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Sciencexpress, July 14, 2011, doi:10.1126/science.1201609.

www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/07/19/earth-getting-greener-not-browner/#more-499