Last Monday evening, BBC2 broadcast a Horizon programme with the title Science Under Attack. Both the title and the content of the programme were deeply misleading but, no doubt unintentionally, it may reveal far more about the scientific establishments confused and panic-stricken reaction to the onslaught of criticism that it has witnessed since the Climategate scandal broke just over a year ago than either its illustrious presenter or the programme makers realise or intended.
The white knight who galloped to the rescue of our beleaguered ‘community of climate scientists’ (the presenter’s words) was Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning geneticist and the newly appointed president of the Royal Society. His rather blokeish, seemingly modest, but relentlessly confident and avuncular style in front of the camera, together with a gift for appearing to explain complex issues in a fair-minded and easily digestible way, were more than enough to lull any audience into a complacent acceptance of anything he might have to say. So what went wrong?
Sir Paul’s primary mission was to persuade viewers that the questions posed by global warming sceptics are of no consequence, and that climate science has emerged from a traumatic year of unsavoury revelations without a stain on its good name. But there was another theme that underpinned his thesis: everyone should listen to what scientists say and then meekly accept it as incontrovertible truth. Whether his efforts were appropriate for a scientist of his distinction is very doubtful. It is not unreasonable for the public to expect the president of our national academy of science to take a well-balanced view of such an important subject as climate change, but there was absolutely no evidence of this.
The Royal Society recently attempted to dump its indefensible claims that the science of anthropogenic global warming is settled and the debate is over by drafting a new, and far more cautious, report on the present level of scientific understanding of this vexed topic. It would appear that their new president has no such doubts or concerns about the vast uncertainties that dog climate research. One wonders just how much Sir Paul knows about the present state of play in climate science, which is well outside his field of expertise. It would also be interesting to know how he has informed himself about this subject.
This Horizon programme would seem to have been part of a concerted PR campaign that was launched soon after compromising emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were released on the Internet. The narrative that the scientific community, and it’s cheerleaders in the eNGOs, the government, and parts of the media seek to implant in the public consciousness is that the scientists whose behaviour was laid bare in their correspondence were in fact innocent victims of politically motivated and unscrupulous climate sceptics, rather than the perpetrators of apparently disgraceful behaviour. This is to turn logic on its head, but if Nurse has noticed, eminent scientist that he no doubt is, then he sees no reason to comment.
For all his ‘man of the people’ delivery, one could hardly accuse Sir Paul of false modesty. Only seconds into his presentation, we were informed that “science created our modern world”, a fatuous and arrogant claim that seems to be emerging as a new mantra from the beleaguered science community. Professor Brian Cox used almost the same phrase in his Wheldon lecture last December – “science … delivered the modern world” – while attempting to justify the BBC’s lack of impartiality when reporting climate related matters.
If this is the way that scientists are now inclined to see themselves, and an endorsement of that notion from such an eminent personage as the president of the Royal Society would certainly seem to send a message that it is quite OK to do so, then that is truly terrifying. Are scientists really so hubristic now that they ignore the contributions of philosophers, engineers, businessmen, explorers, academics from a host of non-scientific disciplines, social reformers, entrepreneurs, politicians, and countless others in order to assign all accolades and glory to themselves?
A few moments later, we were treated to a clip of Sir Paul barking, ‘Are you saying that the whole community, or a majority of the community of climate scientists are skewing their data? Is that what you are saying?’ at a rather startled looking James Delingpole. The camera immediately cut away giving the impression that the redoubtable ‘Dellers’ had no response to this salvo, which seems unlikely. Not many sceptics think anything of the kind, although they are well used to hearing the worst kind of climate alarmist, who is clutching at straws, making this accusation. Why the president of the Royal Society should choose to use such a notoriously threadbare ‘straw man’ argument without allowing a reply from his victim is something that each of us must decide for ourselves. And this sets the scene for most of the rest of the programme in which Sir Paul’s views are paramount, and the arguments of climate sceptics – the attackers of the programme title – are not given any serious consideration.
The message that Sir Paul evidently wishes to get across – and there can be no doubt that this edition of Horizon was about getting a very specific message across and doing so ruthlessly – was not particularly complex. If a Nobel Prize winner chooses to lay down the law on a matter as important as global warming, there is no room for dissent from anyone outside the cosy academic world of the scientific establishment that he inhabits. The views of an acclaimed researcher, albeit in a totally unrelated field, who is the new head of the world’s oldest and arguably most respected scientific institution, and by his own estimation a creator of the modern world, are beyond criticism or challenge because they represent SCIENCE. Particularly, no one should pay any attention to the questions that global warming sceptics pose because they are not part of the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT and must therefor be politically motivated troublemakers. In this scenario there are legions of impartial and scrupulously fair-minded mainstream climate scientists queuing up to explain everything, while the sceptics just cause trouble.
As examples of such worthy personages, it is remarkable that Sir Paul chose to interview a very complacent glaciologist from James Hansen’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA who seemed to have a less than adequate understanding of the carbon cycle and, believe it or not, Phil Jones, the researcher at the centre of the University of East Anglia Climategate scandal.
The man from NASA had some very pretty video presentations to show how satellites collect vast quantities of data about Earth’s climate, and how weather models can mimic observed data. No mention was made of the relatively short period that satellite data covers, or that GSMs that can predict weather patterns over a period of days with reasonable accuracy are not necessarily capable of telling us much about what the climate is likely to do during the rest of this century. A brief excursion into the carbon cycle lead to this amazing exchange:
Bob Bindschadler [NASA scientist]: We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground. We know how much we sell. We know how much we burn. And that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It’s about seven gigatons per year right now.
Paul Nurse: And is that enough to explain…?
Bob Bindschadler: Natural causes only can produce – yes, there are volcanoes popping off and things like that, and coming out of the ocean, only about one gigaton per year. So there’s just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.
Paul Nurse: So seven times more.
Bob Bindschadler: That’s right.
So it would appear that neither the NASA expert, nor the president of the Royal Society who has chosen to enlighten the public about the climate debate in an hour long TV programme, know that anthropogenic emissions of Co2 are generally estimated as about 5% of natural emissions into the atmosphere, not 700%.
However Sir Paul did confide, rather breathlessly, that GISS burns $2bn (no it’s not a typo) in funding for climate research each year, rather implying that any data that cost that much must be pretty darned good. The possibility that funding on this scale might be a distinct disincentive to following up on any evidence that casts doubt on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seems not to have crossed the presenter’s mind. This is strange as, at other points in the programme, Sir Paul stresses the importance of scientists considering all the evidence relating to the research they are conducting and to testing their theories to destruction. As his programme appears to be an exercise in assessing the credibility of climate scepticism in face of the wisdom handed down by the creators of the modern world, one might expect him to follow his own excellent advice so far as methodology is concerned. It would seem that he reserves such good practices for the day job in the genetics lab.
Concerning the availability of research funding to those concerned about the climate, there is a deep irony in the fact that the Horizon programme was broadcast about the same time that Jeff Id, who has made a valuable, and sceptical, contribution to the climate debate, announced that he was closing his Air Vent blog because of business and family pressures, and Antony Watts of Watts Up With That took a decision to scale back his activities for similar reasons.
The sceptics that Professor Nurse chooses to interview, supposedly to find out what evidence climate scepticism is founded on, are James Delingpole and Fred Singer.
The former is a journalist who happily admits that he is an arts graduate who only became interested in the climate debate about a year ago, and that he can hardly be expected to be a match for a scientist of Nurse’s standing. Fred Singer, now in his mid-eighties, was introduced as ‘one of the world’s most prominent and prolific climate sceptics’ and interviewed in a crowded and very noisy Washington diner where a few mumbled remarks about solar influence on climate were hardly audible, but gave the impression – as the film makers presumably intended – that he was talking nonsense. Of the multitude of climate sceptics who could have presented arguments that Sir Paul would have had trouble sweeping aside, there was no sign, but then we were not watching that kind of programme and he was not considering all the evidence or testing his theories to destruction on this occasion.
The interview with Phil Jones, on the other hand, was conducted in the tranquil setting of the CRU library and the University or East Anglia campus, where not a syllable of the Climategate emailers responses to sympathetically posed leading questions could be missed. This was an obvious attempt to rehabilitate this still beleaguered scientist, but why should Sir Paul want to do such a thing when doubts about both Jones behaviour and his research findings still so obviously exist? The day after the programme was broadcast, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology published their review of the supposedly independent inquiries into the Climategate affair. They found that the inquiries were not independent, and that they failed to examine issues that could have proved damaging to Jones and his colleagues.
What is perhaps rather strange is that, while giving Jones and the University of East Anglia such an easy time, and claiming that the Climategate emailers have been exonerated by ‘independent’ enquiries even though these just happen to have been set up by their employers, the very institutions that would suffer most if any malfeasance had been reported, Sir Paul omits to mention that he was born (and bred :correction, see below) in the city of Norwich, where UEA is based, and that he received his PhD from UEA in 1973. Nor does he mention that Jones was a part of the Society’s climate advisory network that produced the now discredited and replaced statement on climate change referred to above. Given the degree of mistrust that exists between warmists and sceptics, those would seem to be matters that he should have been quite open about.
There is much more that one could say about this programme which, while purporting to be a dispassionate analysis of the climate debate by an eminent scientist, is just another shocking attempt to influence public opinion by being very selective in the evidence it considers. Instead of reviewing the criticisms, or in the words of the programme title ‘attacks’, that climate research has been subject to, Nurse prefers to home in on a very mild criticism that comes from those within the establishment fold who seek to defend the scientists.
Scientists may not be willing enough to publicly discuss the uncertainties in their science, or to fully engage with those that disagree with them, and this has helped to polarise the debate.
The hostile and arrogant attitude of climate scientists to anyone who may be so impertinent as to want to ask questions about their findings were displayed for all to see in the Climategate emails. Engaging with those who disagree with them and acknowledging uncertainties will not prevent a polarised debate, it will simply bring an increased deluge of embarrassing questions from sceptics, and climate scientists must know this. But the suggestion that climate scientists may merely have been a little bit reticent sounds benign and reassuring to the uninitiated when delivered with a steady gaze looking straight into the lens of the camera. The problem is that if the uncertainties that attend every step on the way to an anthropogenic climate change hypothesis were frankly discussed, then the credibility of climate science would vanish like snowdrifts in a heatwave. Too many unjustified claims of certainty or near certainty have been made in the past for researchers to publicise the true state of affairs now.
But if all else fails, one can always blame the media for any woes. This seems to be a very strange line for Sir Paul to take. In an age when ‘churnalism’ (journalists regurgitating undigested press releases, stories from wire services, and PR packages without checking them) assures any sensational story about imminent environmental catastrophe a place in the headlines it is hard to know what climate scientists have to complain about. But Sir Paul says:
It’s not surprising that the public are confused reading all of this different stuff. There’s these lurid headlines and there’s political opinions, I think, filtering through, which probably reflects editorial policy within the newspapers, and we get an unholy mix of the media and the politics, and it’s distorting the proper reporting of science. And that’s a real danger for us, if science is to have its proper impact on society.
He seems to be referring to the Daily Express, Daily Mail and Sunday Telegraph where climate scepticism is freely reported, but not of course to the Guardian, the Independent, and very often the Times and Sunday Times, which seem to be prepared to print any scare story about ‘new scientific research’, however ill founded and preposterous it might be. And Sir Paul certainly doesn’t address what Steve McIntyre has called ‘the silence of the lambs’: the failure of the climate science community to criticise or correct inaccurate and exaggerated reporting when it stirs up alarm about human impact on the climate.
Indeed there are moments of pure unreality in Sir Paul’s diatribe against those who attack science.
There’s an overwhelming body of evidence that says we are warming our planet. But complexity allows for confusion, and for alternative theories to develop. The only solution is to look at all the evidence as a whole. I think some extreme sceptics decide what to think first and then cherry-pick the data to support their case.
Of course the possibility that climate scientists might be victims of precisely the same affliction is not addressed. As for the so-called consensus view of climate science, he has this to say:
“Consensus” can be used like a dirty word. Consensus is actually the position of the experts at the time, and if it’s working well – it doesn’t always work well – but if it’s working well, they evaluate the evidence. You make your reputation in science by actually overturning that, so there’s a lot of pressure to do it. But if over the years the consensus doesn’t move, you have to wonder: is the argument, is the evidence against the consensus good enough?
It is this utterance, perhaps more than anything else in the programme, which suggests that Sir Paul is way out of his depth where climate science is concerned. The idealised scenario that he proposes may be possible in mathematics, chemistry, physics or genetics, but in climate research it would be professional suicide, as the Climategate emails show. In this field, if no other, dissent is viewed as heresy pure and simple, regardless of how well founded it might be.
And while we are on the subject of the scientific consensus on climate change, it is very strange that Sir Paul has omitted any mention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from this programme about the inviolable authority of climate science. I wonder why?
Controversy surrounding AIDs and GM crops are touched on briefly, but the programme’s focus is relentlessly on climate change. A sequence dealing with aids includes a long, and very sympathetic, discussion with a man called Tony who does not believe that HIV causes AIDs because, although he was diagnosed HIV positive years ago, and has not taken any of the medication he was prescribed, he is still alive and apparently healthy. This would seem to have been included for no other purpose than to suggest that climate sceptics are no different from HIV sceptics, and therefor totally irrational.
Controversy about GM food crops is also given a brief airing, but Sir Paul seems to be oblivious to the irony that the green activists who trash fields of GM maize, and therefore science must be scientific ignoramuses because they do not listen when researchers say there is no danger, are likely to be the very same people who will turn out for anti fossil fuel demonstrations and presumably fully accept all that the climate science community has to say on that subject.
This episode of Horizon begins and ends in the archives of the Royal Society with Sir Paul admiring – almost worshiping – the early minutes of the Royal Society’s meetings and works by Newton and Darwin. No one can doubt the outstanding record of scientific achievement of the Society in the past, and Sir Paul is obviously thrilled to be at its head, but the inclusion of these sequences seem to say to the audience, don’t you dare question what I, the successor of these great men, am telling you.
In the eyes of many scientists, it seems to be becoming as unacceptable to challenge scientific dogma today as it was to question the theology of the medieval church, although it is not yet quite so dangerous. Yet anyone who has read the Climategate emails must know that in climate science a reformation is long overdue: this branch of science definitely needs a spring-clean. In the emails we see a world of people whose sole preoccupation seems not to be curiosity and discovery, but keeping one jump ahead of their critics. And how do they view those critics? As politically motivated ignoramuses of course, while Sir Paul describes, the CRU in the following terms:
‘The unit’s headquarters are [sic] tiny, yet Dr Jones and his colleagues have had a truly global impact’.
Why should such titans of the scientific world be concerned about sceptics who want to check their research? What could they possibly have to fear? And why, in the wake of the Climategate scandal, did the University of East Anglia promise a review of the research that has come out of the CRU, and then quietly drop the idea? And why is asking questions about such matters considered to be an attack on science? Indeed why, if there isn’t any problem really, has such controversy triggered an hour-long programme from the BBC starring the president of our national academy of science?
No one could possibly expect the scientific world’s new chief representative (and shop steward?) to say anything that might stand in the way of concern about global warming providing billions of pounds of research funding, but the subject did deserve something rather better than a tedious and often confused defence of the establishment view; just leave it all to the scientists Sir Paul seems to be repeating endlessly, like Phil Jones, who understand all these things and cannot possibly be wrong.
But how can any fair-minded person, inside or outside the scientific establishment, be indifferent to demands that climate scientist, who have so much influence on public policy at present, should be subject to intense scrutiny, and particularly by those who are most hostile to their views. Only then can their research findings be fully tested and finally trusted. Although Sir Paul says he is keen on scientists testing their ideas to destruction, he seems terrified if that process is instigated from outside the scientific establishment and applied to climate science. And therein lies the real thrust of his programme.
Sir Paul is now at the pinnacle of the scientific establishment. His views on climate science matter, regardless of whether he really knows anything about the controversies that have engulfed this subject or not. Although he purports to be considering whether the attacks that have been made on climate science during the last year can in any way be justified, it seems evident that his mind was closed to any such possibility from the outset. Had this not been the case he would have chosen very different climate sceptics to talk to and would have attempted to establish just what their concerns are.
The title of the programme, Science Under Attack, points to a fascinating sidelight on the way that the scientific establishment now view the climate debate. As I have said, what controversy exists over GM crops and the cause of AIDs is of a very different type and order from that concerning anthropogenic global warming, and their inclusion in this programme is ancillary to the main theme. So far as I am aware, mathematicians, physicists, chemists and astronomers are not conspicuously under attack. Only climate science and climate scientists are in the cross hairs of public condemnation at the moment. So why was this programme called Science Under Attack? Is this meant to imply that anyone who fails to embrace the consensus view on climate change is challenging science, and the scientific method, in its entirety? If so that would seem to be a very dangerous position for Sir Paul and the scientific establishment to adopt.
If the Royal Society is prepared hold up climate science as the poster child of science as a whole, then the credibility of science is being linked to just one discipline that has a distinctly short and chequered record. This leads to two serious pitfalls. In the first, the old established disciplines – maths, physics, chemistry, astronomy etc – are likely to resent the hype and razzmatazz surrounding their junior colleagues, and become hostile and inquisitive. It would seem unlikely that climate science would come out of such scrutiny by other disciplines smelling of roses.
The second is that the public may come to judge science as a whole by the performance and behaviour of one high profile discipline; climate science. This would seem to be a most ill advised and offering a hostage to fortune. At the moment the frenetic revelations of last year have quietened down, but it would be quite unjustified to assume that all the skeletons have tumbled out of the climate science cupboard and that more will not follow.
Added to these considerations, it seems that criticism is something that the scientific establishment now finds impossible to cope with in an open and constructive way. Hence the rather hysterical title of Sir Paul’s programme and its utter failure to acknowledge and address the origin of the problems that climate scepticism are causing to those who seek to promote and defend science. As I have said, it would be unreasonable to expect the president of the Royal Society to express any outright scepticism about global warming in a popular television series, but one might expect him to acknowledge that doubts exist when it is so manifestly obvious that uncertainties in the science have not been acknowledged in the past. In fact, he does no more than acknowledge that some uncertainties exist, but in a dismissive way that suggests that this need worry no one.
There are various possible explanations for this obtuse behaviour.
It is of course possible that Sir Paul is simply being disingenuous, but this would seem unlikely. Then there is the possibility that, when assessing a controversy in a discipline that he is not familiar with, he has been credulous and willing to retail uncritically the views of his cronies in the scientific establishment. But perhaps the most likely explanation, based on Sir Paul’ own words, is that an overweening arrogance has seized the world of science. Here is part of Sir Paul’s peroration:
I’m here in the Royal Society,[which represents] 350 years of an endeavour which is built on respect for observation, respect for data, respect for experiment. Trust no-one, trust only what the experiments and the data tell you. We have to continue to use that approach, if we are to solve problems such as climate change.
It’s become clear to me that if we hold to these ideals of trust in evidence, then we have a responsibility to publicly argue our case. Because in this conflicted and volatile debate, scientists are not the only voices that are listened to. When a scientific issue has important outcomes for society, then the politics becomes increasingly more important. So if we look at this issue of climate change, that is particularly significant. Because that has effects on how we manage our economy and manage our politics. And so this is become a crucially political matter, and we can see that by the way that the forces are being lined up on both sides. What really is required here is a focus on the science, keeping the politics and keeping the ideologies out of the way.(Emphasis added)
This would appear to be a plea for acceptance of scientific hegemony on a scale that brooks no dissent, but at the same time it is contradictory. The climate sceptics who precipitated the Climategate scandal were, in fact, attempting to establish that trust in the experiments and data is justified. Why hinder them? Concern that only the voices of science should be listened to from someone with Sir Paul Nurse’s influence sit very uneasily with the plea that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming. If this is the case, what does scientific establishment have to fear? And anyway, why should the voice of climate science be unchallengeable? As for the importance of not trusting anyone other than climate scientists when assessing the evidence of AGW, it is necessary for most of us to do so, and not least the audience that has spent an hour soaking up Sir Paul’s anything but objective views on the climate controversy, even though he is a geneticist. Is the title ‘scientist’ really enough to convey the ability to pontificate on any branch of science with authority?
Finally lets look at what a couple of commentators who can definitely not be described as climate sceptics had to say about Science Under Attack. Here is Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre, one of the most influential climate alarm advocates, writing on the BBC College of Journalism website :
Many, including colleagues in the science communication world, felt that it [Nurse’s programme] was a classic example of ‘scientism’, a growing tendency to demand that science should trump everything else as the only sound basis for good public debate and decision-making.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/journalism/blog/2011/02/when-does-the-vigorous-defence.shtml
And Mike Hulme, former director the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia
In this programme from BBC’s Horizon team, the incoming President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, offers a vigorous defence of the trustworthiness of science. He also reveals an exalted view of the normative authority of science: both in the world of political decision-making (e.g. the cases of climate change and GM crops which the programme selects) and in the private lives of citizens. I suggest that he betrays an underlying adherence both to the linear view that science should drive policy-making and, to a lesser extent, to the deficit model of science communication.
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Science-under-attack.pdf
If concerns such as these are being expressed from the heart of the warmist community, then Sir Paul’s tenure at the Royal Society is likely to be an interesting one. As he acknowledges in Science Under Attack, public belief in anthropogenic global warming is steadily declining in spite of all the efforts by scientists, politicians, the eNGOs and a large part of the media. Evidently it is not enough for scientists to shout ever more kindly that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but is not even capable of having a valid opinion.
And so we finally return to the programme title: Science Under Attack. Is Sir Paul really saying that because climate scientists are being criticised, all science is being attacked and threatened? It would appear that he is, but choosing climatology as the champion and exemplar of science would seem to be illogical and very risky, so why do it? Does he really think that the reputation of scientists everywhere depends on the public image of climate scientists? He may be right, but if so, then the world of science risks being hopelessly compromised by any shortcomings that become evident in a field that is now mired in controversy and, as he admits in the programme, failing to convince the public that human activity is warming the planet.
Science has not been well served by Sir Paul’s programme. If he is right, and the image of science as a whole has suffered from the ructions in climatology over the last year, then the scientific establishment would be wise to cut climate science adrift before it inflicts any more damage on the rest of the profession. Instead, the science establishment seem to think that it can to shore up the reputation and authority of their profession with a blatantly partisan TV film fronted by a man who seems very proud to be following in the footsteps of Newton, Wren and Darwin.
H/t to Alex Cull for an excellent transcript of the programme, which can be found here.
(UPDATE 11/02/2011: I have corrected this post which originally said that Sir Paul was ‘born and bred’ in Norwich. Although he was born in Norwich, he was brought up in London)
PeterG,
Paul Nurse didn’t go into the question of why papers like the Daily Telegraph run a denialist line on the AGW problem but obviously you think that it might have something to with its ownership. Yes you are right so far. Incidentally the Guardian isn’t publicly owned but is set up as a trust. So you’re not quite right in your public vs private analysis.
The Telegraph is owned by David and Frederick Barclay who spend their life in their own Channel island well, as recluses, and well out of the range of the UK tax and legal authorities. They seem to be engaged in some sort of running battle there with local residents. But that’s another story. That’s what the super-rich do.
So why would you consider it preferable that a newspaper should be owned by these sort of characters? What do they know about the science of climate change and why do you want to believe them? The BBC may not be perfect but at least TonyN can campaign to get them to change their ways. The BBC are accountable to a democratic parliament. The Barclay brothers are accountable to no-one but themselves.
Its the same story with Rupert Murdoch and his string of newspapers which also run an AGW denial line. And why do you trust him to give you the truth?
PeterM. You are missing the point. The guardian is full of rubbish and is not supported by the public. That is all you can read into the circulation figures. You are not well enough acquainted with the UK’s press to really comment about editorial content vs ownership. None of the papers have done an adequate job of keeping the public informed and is why they are all losing circulation and becoming irrelevant.
The Telegraph is best of the broadsheets with the Sun the most popular of the tabloids. However it is the Daily Mail alone that has kept its circulation intact and it is no surprise to know it is middle England’s most popular paper. Now that it has started get on the government’s case about CAGW you just know the games up.
PeterG,
You may remember I previously wrote :
“those doubting AGW, at the moment, are largely those with deep seated mistrust of all government, and even deeper seated mistrust of international bodies like the UN”
Max, incidentally thought that was all “hot air.”
However, you obligingly included the following piece of advice to myself:
“you need to get real and understand the public are now sceptical of everything that our Government does, not just climate science, which is but a small part of the discontent.”
So naturally, you like papers like the Mail, Telegraph, which run an editorial line which align with your political viewpoint and dislike newspapers that don’t.
I’m not sure just what point I’m missing here, but I’d say you’re actually confirming my original point, wouldn’t you?
PeterM
In your little note to PeterG you have confused “cause and effect” (a systemic error among devout AGW believers).
If I were living in the UK, I would have observed over years how my taxpayer pounds are being squandered chasing windmills, how the government is attempting to brainwash its citizenry with TV doomsday fairy tale campaigns, how it is supporting the brainwashing of school children with fear mongering, how it is pandering to the IPCC by committing the nation to carbon cuts without any semblance of an energy policy or idea how to achieve these cuts, etc. I would also support the statement
But the reason for my skepticism about the so-called “climate science” supporting all these foolish actions came long before the foolish actions. They came from a rationally skeptical investigation of the so-called “science” and the realization and understanding that this so-called “science” is flawed.
As I’ve told you many times, the “science” comes first.
So there you have the real “cause and effect”. Not your imagined bassackward “hot air” version of it.
Max
PeterM
In your 72 you opined:
It is certainly true that Climategate, the revelations of IPCC duplicity, the failures at Copenhagen and Cancun and the unusually cold winters across the northern hemisphere (where most folks live, like it or not) have caused an increased skepticism among the public of the IPCC “mainstream” postulation on the dangers of AGW. If you call this “more polarized”, then I agree with you.
Those climatologists who have desperately tried to link the cold winters to global warming have only hurt the cause further: this suggestion is so counter-intuitive and stupid that people only roll their eyes (as they are shoveling the snow).
The political leadership of the once-venerable scientific societies, like Paul Nurse – the topic here – is still backing the IPCC party line, but these leaders are apparently coming under increasing pressure from their membership to tone down their support.
The “dangerous AGW” hysteria was (and still is) a multi-billion dollar big business, with many groups (TonyN’s “convenient network”) still hoping to benefit in one way or another from the craze, and thus it still has a lot of momentum. But the momentum is slowly dying as the general public (including many scientists) no longer support the premise.
Face it, Peter, the “dangerous AGW” scare is dying, like all doomsday scenarios before it.
It may still take a few years before it is dead and buried, but that’s what’s going to happen.
Max
Max,
Are trying to tell me that PeterG who, as far as I remember, has never presented so much as a single scientific argument, has sat down, starting with an open mind and digested the contents of various IPCC reports?
It’s just absurd. If PeterG hasn’t been a lifelong Tory/UKipper all his life, then I’d say his conversion is highly unlikely to have been brought about by any perceived weaknesses in the scientific case on AGW. I just can’t imagine Peter waking up one morning and saying anything like “Well I’d like to carry on reading the Socialist Worker, but you know I’m just not totally convinced that the 1450nm CO2 absorption band is properly handled in T.R. Shippert et al paper on ‘Spectral Cloud Emissivities’, so I’m going to switch to reading the Telegraph instead!”
But PeterG is a big boy and I’m sure he can speak for himself, Max.
PeterM
I’m sure PeterG can speak for himself.
And, if you had really read what I wrote (79) you’d have seen that I was speaking for myself (not for PeterG).
Read it again, slowly. Make sure you really understand every word that’s written. Read it twice, if necessary.
You were blathering on about political viewpoints, etc. and I was simply telling you:
Get it?
Max
Asking me if I’ve ‘got it’ is like asking me if I’ve ‘got’ a bad joke!
The idea of all these cretins who rant and rail about Al Gore, the IPCC, the UN, World domination and “its all a hoax” (and didn’t you say that too?) studying the IPCC reports and coming to a genuine and considered scientific opinion on the strength of the evidence is just that. A bad joke!
PeterM
Sorry.
Your last rant has not addressed the real issue here, so I’ll repeat it again:
And that, Peter, is the weak spot of your premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of 20th century warming and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity.
Max
Max,
Well, yes, I’m sorry but I just don’t believe you.
At least James Delingpole had the good grace to admit that he didn’t understand climate science and told Paul Nurse he was an ‘interpreter of interpretations’.
OK it all sounds a bit lame, I know, but its quite a bit closer to the truth.
PeterM I could say I resent your insinuations that I don’t understand the science just because I haven’t discussed it line by line with you. That is nonsense. I am a working engineer I don’t have time to repeat what others are doing a brilliant job of, but it doesn’t stop me having an opinion, and obviously doesn’t stop you refusing to comprehend the obvious. I’m also a New Zealander so I have no preconceived views about anything in the UK. So please stop guessing and stick to what you know. I am sceptical of CO2 being a significant climate driver because I can find not scientific evidence that stands up to examination that supports this view.
And for the umpteenth time, CAGW is a political movement, that has a tenuous claim to be based on science that many have demonstrated to you over and over does not support the view. This thread is about Paul Nurse and his bungled attempt to discredit the sceptical view. You have continued in that vein by attempting to discredit individual’s contributions rather than discuss what has been written. This is not a thread for discussing the science but rather one for discussing ones views about our obsession with the false notion of CAGW.
Peter really do wish you would read carefully what both Max and I have written and comment intelligently about it.
PeterM
You wrote me:
“Believe” what you will, Peter. I have observed here that you “believe” a lot of screwy things, so this does not break my heart.
Max
PeterM
You stepped into it again, with your silly statement:
It’s really too bad that Paul Nurse was not astute (or humble?) enough to admit the same. His performance showed that that was, indeed, the case, as TonyN and others have made quite clear.
Max
PeterG,
Why do you think the scientific case on AGW is political? What should, if anything, be done about it does of course involve political considerations. But the science itself? You must be an extreme conspiracy fantasist to think its all a hoax! Scientists are just about the most difficult group imaginable to organise into a conspiracy. Herding cats is quite easy by comparison.
Has Max got it right as far as you are concerned. Did you ever look through the scientific evidence with an open mind, or did you decide that AGW was all wrong first and look at the science later to pick out the bits that you thought would justify your position?
I would have liked Paul Nurse to go a little further than just observe that different newspapers took different lines on the AGW question.
Just why some papers had a problem with accepting the scientific line could have been discussed a little more.
PeterM
You asked PeterG a question, which he will, of course have to answer when it is convenient for him to do so, but since you referred to me in your post, let me turn your question around and pose it to you:
A simple yes/no answer will do.
Max
PeterM
You are opining that Paul Nurse should have gone “a little further than just observe that different newspapers took different lines on the AGW question”.
I personally believe that the best option for Paul Nurse would have been to admit
a) that he knows nothing about climate science professionally, and
b) that he has not looked at the various scientific reports in sufficient detail to be able to judge personally whether or not the “mainstream consensus” position was correct or not, but
c) that he is simply assuming it is correct because the IPCC and several scientists have said so.
That would have been an honest position to take.
Instead, he made himself look foolish by pretending to personally know something about AGW and then making a silly boo-boo, which demonstrated that he did not.
But this has been discussed here ad nauseam.
Max
Max,
From a scientific point of view an observation is a first step. Paul Nurse rightly observed that newspapers tended to be either supportive or rejectionist of the scientific case on AGW.
He could have gone on, but I don’t remember his mentioning it, to further observe that the left of centre ones were with the Royal Society but the more right wing ones were against.
So, what theories would fit the facts?
1) The more right wing newspapers have the problem I have previously described, in that an acceptance of the wider implications of AGW theory is quite unacceptable politically to them. Increased role for government, possibility of taxes, cap and trade schemes etc. Some loss of individual freedom etc
2) AGW is all a left wing conspiracy. As Peter Geany claims “CAGW is a political movement, that has a tenuous claim to be based on science that many have demonstrated ……..” So naturally all the left wing papers suggest it’s real. And somehow they’ve, or we’ve, managed to co-opt just about every world scientific body into this worldwide scam to bring down capitalism.
Considering that the left aren’t well known for super efficient political organisation, the second option would an absolutely stupendous achievement. Somehow we’ve managed to convince people like Paul Nurse, who doesn’t strike me as having a vested interest in wanting to overthrow the system, to maintain absolute security.
Much as I’d like to think otherwise, I do have to admit that this would be quite beyond us. We aren’t quite as inept as often charged. We could run a whelk stall , I’m sure. But not anything like this !
So, it just has to be the first option doesn’t it? Surely no intelligent person could think otherwise.
PeterM
You listed two “theories” to “fit the facts” (92), but you failed to mention two others that come to mind
3) “Dangerous AGW” skepticism is a secret but tightly controlled right wing conspiracy, fueled (pardon the expression) by the oil and coal companies, other big industry, their conservative political stooges, right-wing religious co-conspirators and their lackeys in the right-wing media (which is controlled by unscrupulous liars, such as Rupert Murdoch) as well as a considerable number of corrupt scientists, who have sold out to this conspiracy for financial gain. As you have stated of this conspiratorial group, “acceptance of the wider implications of AGW theory is quite unacceptable politically to them”.
4)”Dangerous AGW” skepticism is a manifestation of the basic scientific principle of rational (or scientific) skepticism, as defined by Wiki as follows: “Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism, sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.” The rational skeptics have demanded (in vain, so far) that the supporters of the DAGW premise provide empirical evidence to support the veracity of this hypothesis, before they are prepared to accept it as a corroborated hypothesis.
In view of the individual greed and selfishness plus political ineptitude of the “right wing”, it appears that putting together such a coalition and keeping it secret would represent an absolutely stupendous (but highly unlikely) achievement. I would agree with you, Peter, that neither a “right wing” nor a “left wing” conspiracy is very likely.
Your option 1 can actually be seen as a sub-set of option 3 above (the “right wing conspiracy”), which we have just ruled out as highly improbable.
So we are left with option 4 above as the most reasonable, especially in view of the fact that no empirical data to support the DAGW hypothesis have been provided by the supporters of this premise.
Can you agree with the logic here?
Max
Peter in 89 said
Why do you think the scientific case on AGW is political? What should, if anything, be done about it does of course involve political considerations. But the science itself? You must be an extreme conspiracy fantasist to think its all a hoax!
I do not say this is a ‘hoax’ but it is certainly political.
Here is the House of Lords verdict on the IPCC in 2005-this is from an independent and prestigious committee;
“The IPCC process 171. We can see no justification for an IPCC procedure which
strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at
least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science
cannot emerge from an unsound process (para 111).
172. The IPCC Summary for policy makers says that economic studies underestimate damage, whereas the chapter says the direction of the bias is not known (para 114).
173. We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of
scientists to the IPCC. Nominees’ credentials should rest solely with their scientific
qualifications for the tasks involved (para 116).
174. The IPCC process could be improved by rethinking the role that government nominated
representatives play in the procedures, and by ensuring that the appointment of authors is above reproach. At the moment, it seems to us that the emissions scenarios are influenced by political considerations and, more broadly, that the economics input into the IPCC is in some danger of being sidelined. We call on the Government to make every effort to ensure
that these risks are minimized (para 118)”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
Climate change has become highly politicised and the British Govt – long-time
leaders in funding research into the subject – were very heavily implicated in making it a political issue in order to promote their own agenda. My article cited under examines the politics and is referenced with numerous links and quotes from such bodies as the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of
Commons.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advertto-
change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
Tonyb
Max,
There is an element of 3. Naturally the oil and coal companies have an economic disincentive to accept the scientific conclusion.
Your #4 is essentially the same as my # 1. Those with right-wing inclinations find acceptance of AGW theory politically unacceptable. Therefore they cook up excuses to reject it. Like your “lack of empirical evidence etc”
PeterM Tonyb has given you a good answer and here is another. Climate scientists by their very nature are usually experts in a very narrow field. This field could be in physics, chemistry, geology or even cosmology. This is the nature of science today and it is acknowledged these experts are often blinked when it comes to matters outside their field. Climate scientists either measure past climate in a narrow field, say tree rings or ice cores or they study processors trying to better understand how things work, for example how clouds form or how CO2 absorbs and readmits infrared radiation. But the common denominator is they all look backwards to try and add to the knowledge of those who look forward, just like an accountant. They are NOT policy makers. Nor are they of any direct use to policy makers as their information must be put in context and they are not the best to do this.
If one such expert broadens their horizons we call them a meteorologist, where they learn to monitor and predict the weather. These people use the information gathered by climatologists and many others, they measure the weather and have developed computer models that can give us a good idea of what coming a few days in advance. As we know models are useless for anything more than a week in advance.
Somewhere in this mix of people, one process out of thousands has been picked, one we cannot directly measure, and that is the infrared absorption characteristics of CO2, to explain the gentle warming since the little ice age. Around this process have been invented other processes to try and explain what is occurring in nature, processors that have no basis in fact, notwithstanding they may be correct, such as the feedback theory where by small increases in CO2 cause larger increases in water vapour which as we know is the main greenhouse gas. They have no basis in fact because they cannot be measured and any study of this area is hotly debated suggesting no one really knows.
Out of what we really know about climate it take and enormous leap to get to CAGW. To sustain CAGW in the face of no measureable evidence takes politics. Just as those who maintain the only reason we went to war in Iraq was oil, then the only reason we continue with CAGW is control of energy. The only reason why so many people (scientists) have gone to such extraordinary lengths to confuse or distort so much data is to prevent any sort of repudiation of the theory of CAGW. This takes political clout.
It took 25 plus years to develop CAGW. It will take 25 more to recover from the wasted billions but it has taken only 3 years for general acceptance of it to end. The main reason we have now turned the corner and as Churchill said, it’s not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning is because of the financial crisis, and now we are seeing the beginnings of a political crisis that will spread throughout the world. And not withstanding this much is coming home to roost. The dismissal of the Suns influence looks to be more and more of an own goal, and dismissal of the regular ocean cycles is another. The temperature is going down and this is adding to the pressure on Politician’s. Politics Peter politics; remember that.
PeterM
Aha! So now you evoke a “DAGW denier conspiracy”!
This (in your mind) is obviously much less hare-brained than the concept of a “DAGW believer conspiracy”, right?
Duh! Get serious, Peter.
As for your conclusion that “#4 is essentially the same as # 1”, I can only say, “read the two options carefully (and repeatedly, if necessary) in order to grasp the quintessential difference between the two, i.e.: #1 is based on politics first, whereas #4 is based on science first”.
Get the difference? (It’s really not that hard to grasp if you really want to.)
Max
PS But this conversation is getting sillier with every new post of yours, beside being OT, so let’s break it off (or move it to the NS thread).
PeterGeany
Your analysis (96) is spot on.
It took an enormous leap of faith to get to CAGW from the bit of conflicting data that was out there. And it has taken a lot of politics to keep the CAGW scare alive despite the lack of measureable evidence.
As rational skeptics, you and I never made that “leap of faith” to accept CAGW without first seeing the empirical evidence.
PeterM, on the other hand, embraced it eagerly despite the lack of evidence, apparently because it suits his political philosophy.
It appears that Paul Nurse fell into the same trap as Peter, probably not for exactly the same political reasons, but perhaps because it was the PC thing for him to do as RS president (and what BBC wanted to hear from him, in the first place).
Max
Max and PeterG,
I don’t think either Paul Nurse or myself have ever suggested that there is any conspiracy among ‘deniers’. Its much more easily explained by a reluctance of those, with pre-existing world views, to revise those views to accommodate new scientific evidence. It’s much easier, even though it nearly always isn’t understood, to deem the scientific evidence to be lacking, or wrong, the result of some conspiracy or whatever. Its probably an interesting field of research for psychologists. There’d be plenty of scope and there would be other topics too where there is a similar sort of clash.
You are right too to suggest that oil, coal, and mining groups do have an economic vested interest in resisting the same scientific evidence too. My original thought, a couple of years ago, was that they were the main reason for the denialist movement. Whilst they do provide funding to such organisations as the Australian Public Affairs Institute, the US Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and many, many, others, and obviously that does have an effect, I’m now of the opinion that this is probably a secondary issue.
Peter 99
So its not ok for oil companies to fund such as Heartland but its Ok for oil companies-such as Shell and BP- to fund Phil Jones and CRU?
Double standards?
Tonyb