“It’s not true that the temperature has not changed in two decades.”
Am I wrong or does the BBC interviewer seem just a bit snippy about having her misinformation set straight?
I like this new, liberated James Hansen.
“It’s not true that the temperature has not changed in two decades.”
Am I wrong or does the BBC interviewer seem just a bit snippy about having her misinformation set straight?
I like this new, liberated James Hansen.
On the whole the B.B.C is pretty unbiased, the interviewer seemed a little arrogant and “snippy” in her upper class English way but at least allowed James Hansen to get his message over. I enjoyed the cool way he rebuffed her and got his points over in a confident, honest and straightforward way, also drawing attention to the Canadian Tar Sands issue. He handled himself well.
a little bit snippy in her upper class English way !!
how dare you..we all speak like that.
As they say ‘separated by a common language’ Sarah attended Bristol University which is good but isn’t ‘posh’. It is just very BBC Radio 4.
However the BBC is constantly accused of being the mouthpiece of cAGW scam and there has been a tendency to try and appear to be open minded to ‘sides’.
No offence meant Jules – I was raised way North of the Watford gap and worked on a dock, so she sounds upper class to me, with my Northern ears – sorry if you were offended.
it was humour! although people say I sound terribly posh and I grew up on a farm and then a council housing estate.
You grew up twice? That would explain much 🙂
Dr James Hanson was interviewed on the radio a couple of years ago here in New Zealand, when he was giving talks and lectures here, by a knowledgeable and usually good interviewer, Kim Hill. I thought the interview was appalling, it was as if Kim didn’t believe a word that Dr Hansen was trying to say, she was consistently challenging his statements, ignoring his points and putting the contrarian view. I wrote an e-mail to Kim Hill afterwards, stating how disappointed I was with the tenor and course of the interview. Her producer wrote back to me, to the effect that if she didn’t constantly challenge Dr Hansen, than all the global warming sceptics and deniers would be writing in and complaining that she was biased or that Dr Hansen’s views were being giving a free rein, in other words she was playing the devil’s advocate. I wrote back to say, fine, but since when did an expert and independent interviewer have to conduct her interview on the basis of the opinions of the ignorant? I didn’t get a reply to that.
I have seen Dr Hansen in person, he is mild mannered, never gets ruffled, and as a scientist, I think genuinely puzzled by this antagonism, and was not always sure how to deal with it. I think from his performance in this interview, he’s learning!!.
In fact the interview can still be found on the internet here, see what you think:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/20110514
It seems pretty clear that the interviewer started out with a script in mind– but she didn’t try (as others all too often have) to push back and defend the script. So all in all, it went very well– and Hansen’s performance was close to perfect: steady, calm, authoritative and clear.