BBC Climate Model
| April 22nd, 2006That’s right, the BBC Climate Model. According to the BBC an error has struck their model. Yesterday they explained the problem was caused by an error in their downloadable install (the model processes data using Berkeley’s BOINC distributed computing infrastructure); today the story’s changed and problem’s now said to be caused by the model ignoring sulphate emissions.
Whatever the cause of the error and whatever the BBC’s odd way of correcting errors in reporting here’s the question I’d ask: why is the BBC funding climate research?
The majority of climate researchers agree the globe is warming up and the majority again think our CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause. This subject and the representation of research and opinion seems to annoy libertarian and right-wing bloggers but I’m going to believe what the majority of sensible scientists tell me. I don’t know much about climate models and though I thought weather systems were chaotic – in which case I can’t see how it’s possible to provide dependable long-term trend forecasts – I’m not a chaotician. I’ll believe the experts.
But why is the BBC supporting and funding this research? The BBC is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation. It isn’t a science research funding body. This is as baffling as if the Beeb had decided to fund, say, research into plastics or aeroplane wing shapes or better ways of preserving frozen chicken. It’s science research but it’s nothing to do with broadcadsting.
The BBC derives its income from a compulsory, flat-rate (and therefore regressive) tax. I can’t see how it can continue to defend this revenue model if it misuses its funds in this way.
The BBC also has a The BBC also has a responsibility to educate though and get people involved in the issues around them. This seems to me to just be one of those occasions.
That’s true. But this is – That’s true. But this is – as the BBC itself reports – the world’s biggest online climate prediction project. And I’d never heard of it before the error made a front page. Had you?
So much for the responsibility to educate, then. I didn’t know, I’m guessing perhaps wrongly you didn’t know, that the BBC was involved.
As communicators, why couldn’t the BBC have simply informed rather than getting involved in direct funding of research?
And then there’s the question being begged. If the Beeb is charged with educating us then why this particular issue at this particular time in this particular way? God knows, the BBC’s science coverage is generally poor save for some spectacular shots of snow leopards recently – and even then the camera work was the marvellous thing.
There’s so much science education, and education generally, the BBC could have a part in. I’m sceptical of their motives in this instance.