I’ll begin by saying that I do not consider Professor Brian Cox to be an arrogant person, although I only have his TV persona to go by. The television programmes of his that I have watched have been entertaining, informative, full of the excitement of scientific discovery, and thoroughly enjoyable. So this post is not intended to point to a defect in the good professor’s character, but to the mindset that presently afflicts scientists worldwide, and climate scientists in particular. This is a pernicious example of groupthink rather than the hubris of individual scientists, although one might be able to think of a few candidates for exception. They seem to think that their views should be unchallengeable by anyone outside their own profession.
Brian Cox presented his Wheldon Lecture to the Royal Television Society on 26th November 2010 and it was broadcast on BBC2 late on the evening of the 1st December. Under the title of Science: A Challenge to TV Orthodoxy, he spent 40 minutes exploring the controversy that now surrounds the way in which science is packaged by broadcasters for easy assimilation by their mass audiences. By coincidence, perhaps, this thorny problem is also the subject of a review ordered by the BBC Trust, which I have referred to here and here.
Cox has had an interesting career as a pop musician, as a scientist studying particle physics and as a high profile TV presenter. His undoubted talents have recently been recognised by the award of an OBE for services to science.
The subject he chose for his lecture is an important one; our lives are increasingly affected by the outcomes of scientific research and Cox cites an option poll (MORI 2004) finding that 84% of adults receive the majority their information about science from television. It is unlikely, even with the growth of the internet, that this figure has changed very much since then. However the impact that science broadcasting can have on public policy has increased since 2004 because one particular area of research has become inseparable from public policy: global warming. Television is a major opinion former, and presumably this is why Professor Cox chose to focus his lecture on this topic.
The first part of the lecture is devoted to ground-clearing in preparation for the main thesis, and this is illuminating. Apparently Cox considers that the current impact of science on public policy – particularly global warming – places great responsibility on broadcasters who cover this subject. Strangely, he makes no mention of the infinitely greater responsibility that this places on the scientists who brief the media about their work.
He then reveals that he does not consider that there have been any ‘serious deficiencies’ in television coverage of science. This is a point of view that appears to be at odds with his patrons at the BBC in view of their decision to hold an investigation in the wake of the Climategate scandal and a welter of criticism from the general public and the blogoshere. And If he is unaware of any deficiencies, I wonder why he chose to devote most of his lecture to the problems that broadcasters face when dealing with this subject?
Turning to the influence that television science broadcasting had on his own choice of career, Cox holds up Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series as a glowing example, describing it as ‘thirteen hours of lyrically [and] emotionally engaging and accurate and polemical broadcasting’. Unfortunately, he is misusing the term polemic here, and that is important as this word occurs no less than ten times in his lecture as he sets out his arguments, and it’s usage is crucial to his conclusions. A polemic is a verbal attack and not, as Professor Cox seems to think, merely the expression of a point of view[1].
After worshipping at the feet of Sagan, the next item on Cox’s list is defining science; no mean task as an aside in a single lecture, and not surprisingly the effort is superficial and unsatisfactory. Having acknowledged that this task ‘is not easy in a historical context’, he suggests that ‘vast amounts of drivel have been written about the subject by armies of postmodernist philosophers and journalists.’ Sweeping such trivialities aside, Cox settles for a brief clip from a rather light-hearted lecture by physicist Richard Feynman in which he describes the scientific method. It is certainly an example of entertaining television, but comes nowhere near ‘defining science’. But this still leads to the following conclusion:
To my mind, science is very simple indeed. Science is the best framework we have for understanding the universe.
Of course when someone describes a complex subject as being ‘simple’, warning flags should always go up. Almost invariably the person who uses this term is being very selective in the way they are formulating their opinion. In this case it is not clear whether Cox is using the term ‘universe’ in a purely astronomical sense – as in the mechanics of the universe – or in a much broader sense to cover all aspects of existence.
Since The Enlightenment, science has certainly gone some way towards replacing superstition, religious belief, and fatalism as a means of explaining the phenomena that surround us, but it is still a long way from doing so completely. On a worldwide scale, atheism remains a minority point of view, and scientists would do well to humbly acknowledge this fact rather than claim a position of supremacy and infallibility for their profession that many would dispute.
In the film clip Feynman stresses that, if a scientific proposition is not supported by observation and experiment then it is wrong regardless, as he says, of how ‘beautiful, the idea may be’, or how eminent its author may be. Cox amplifies this by saying,
Authority, or for that matter, the number of people who believe something to be true, counts for nothing.
[and]
… when it comes to the practice of science, the scientists must never have an eye on the audience. For that would be to fatally compromise the process.
This is a hostage to fortune, for without the notion of consensus and claims by eNGOs and politicians for the authority of the IPCC, promotion of anthropogenic global warming would never have cleared the launch pad. The most startling ‘findings’ in recent IPCC reports are not based on the scientific method at all, but on expert judgement by the authors, and the Climategate emails have revealed an obsessive concern among climate scientists with the response of their audience.
Having started to dig himself into a hole, Cox then redoubles his efforts recounting an incident in which he made a dismissive on-screen reference to astrology as being ‘a load of rubbish’, which resulted in complaints to the BBC from ‘all over the web’. The BBC issued a cautious statement that almost amounted to an apology, saying the views expressed in the programme were not those of the BBC, but of the presenter, a response that Cox considers to be inadequate:
Now, that’s a perfectly reasonable response on the surface. In fact, you could argue that it’s correct. Because a broadcaster shouldn’t have a view about a faith issue which is essentially what astrology is. The presenter can have a view, and I was allowed to have a view. What I did was present the scientific consensus.
But he goes on:
I think, however, that there are potential problems with broadcasters assuming a totally neutral position in matters such as this.
Cox then moves on to use a clip from a news item about concern over the use of the MMR vaccine. In this Ben Goldacre (of Bad Science fame) gives his views on this controversy citing a Danish study showing that there has been no increase in autism among children who have received the jab, saying:
You’ve not heard about research like this, because the media chose not to cover the evidence that goes against their scare story.
This message, and its relevance to media coverage of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), seems to have passed Cox by. Instead he castigates the broadcaster for concluding the piece with a caveat that these are Dr Goldacre’s views only, in spite of his being a qualified doctor and having based his opinion on peer reviewed and published research. In support of this criticism he cites a US news anchor, Keith Olbermann, as follows:
… obsessive preoccupation with perceived balance or impartiality [is] worshipping before the false god of utter objectivity. His point was that by aspiring to be utterly neutral, it is easy to obscure the truth. And the BBC’s editorial guidelines state that impartiality is at the heart of public service and is at the core of its commitment to its audience. I’m sure that very few broadcasters would disagree with that.
This reference is striking because I have seen precisely the some argument used by the BBC to justify its anything-but-neutral position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). There is a certain irony too in using the opinion of a US broadcaster in this way given that so many North Americans seem to envy the standards applied to public service broadcasting in the UK.
On the specific point that Olbermann makes, being ‘utterly neutral’ is obviously far less of a threat to impartiality than not being neutral. And the suggestion that being neutral may obscure the truth – which is the crux of Professor Cox’s lecture – implies that the broadcaster will necessarily be able to determine what the truth is. This conjecture becomes even more problematic when the means by which this feat might be accomplished are considered.
In Cox’s view, reporting science should hold no such dilemmas for the broadcaster: all that is necessary is for complete reliance to be placed on the peer review process. That which is peer reviewed should be the sole reference point for reporting science, and any contrary views should be disregarded. This position is arrived at by having implicit faith in the peer review process, which may for all I know be justified if, like Professor Cox, you are a particle physicist, but it is unlikely to impress anyone who has cast a critical eye on climate science, where political and ethical considerations seem to carry at least as much weight as robust findings. But this is not the place for a detailed discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the peer review process. Instead, here are some of the propositions which Cox uses to back up his argument:
In science, we have a well-defined process for deciding what is mainstream and what is controversial. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people believe something to be true or not. It’s called peer-review.
Peer-review is a very simple and quite often brutal process by which any claim that is submitted for publication in a scientific journal is scrutinised by independent experts whose job it is to find the flaws.
This is the method [peer review] that has delivered the modern world. It’s good. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the current scientific consensus is of course correct. But it does in general mean that the consensus in the scientific literature is the best that can be done given the available data.
Now you may see there that I’m redefining what impartiality means. But the peer-reviewed consensus is by definition impartial. To leave the audience with this particular kind of impartial view is desperately important. We’re dealing with the issues of the life and death of our children and the future of our climate. And the way to deal with this is not to be fair and balanced, to borrow a phrase from a famous news outlet, but to report and explain the peer-reviewed scientific consensus accurately.
So for me the challenge for the science reporter in scientific news is easily met. Report the peer-reviewed consensus and avoid the maverick, eccentric at all costs.
Such faith in the reliability, independence, and impartiality of peer review may be justified in the field of particle physics where, I assume, political and ethical considerations have a very minor role. So far as climate science is concerned, it flies in the face of what has been learned from the Climategate emails, and much else that has happened in this discipline during the last decade. How many news stories have we seen citing sensational ‘new research’ that has swiftly been discarded? Predictions of massive sea level rise by the end of the century, an 11o C rise in global average temperature over the same period, the vanishing snows of Mount Kilimanjaro and the drying-up of Lake Chad, the imminent demise of the Himalayan Glaciers, slowing of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) with the onset of a new ice age for Northern Europe, and of course that poster-child of the third IPCC Assessment report, the Hockey Stick graph. One could go on and on.
There can be little doubt that Cox is indeed redefining impartiality, and in a way that brings us back to the sub-title of this post – an exercise in arrogance. He seems to be telling us that journalists and programme makers who report science should be guided entirely by the scientific community, and leave any critical faculties they may have at home. If this is to be the new standard for impartiality in broadcasting about science, or even a new world order, then who scrutinises the world of science? And lets not forget the Feynman clip that Cox used in his superficial attempt to ‘define science’ at the beginning of his lecture. The great physicist makes no mention of peer review, but there are strictures in both what he says and Cox’s interpretation of it that rule out authority and consensus as being relevant to the scientific method.
Having cleared the ground, the professor now moves on to the red meat of the lecture; climate change.
This is heralded by a clip from The Great Global Warming Swindle (TGGWS), which Cox dismisses as ‘bollocks’, which does him little credit either as a scientist or a TV presenter. On the other hand he accepts that such programmes should be allowed to be broadcast – one gets the impression that he thinks he is being rather daring here – so long as they are suitably labelled, not as ‘bollocks’ as one might expect, but as polemics rather than documentaries, which Cox seems to think amounts to something similar, but with a warning that it’s probably all rubbish.
In the case of TGGWS, the description ‘polemic’ may be justified. Durkin’s film was undoubtedly a vehement attack on contemporary climate research, but apparently Cox would like any factual broadcasts that do not adhere to mainstream views approved by the scientific community to be branded in this way. Presumably this would mean that a programme about the views of Michael Mann could be promoted as a documentary, while one about the views of Richard Lindzen would be a mere polemic, thereby undermining the credibility of that eminent scientist before the audience even become aware of what he has to say. And this raises a new problem, which Cox steers well clear of.
Climate scientists, and particularly the IPCC, have failed to acknowledge the massive uncertainties that are attached to much climate research. This, of course, feeds through into broadcasts where journalists and program makers are unwilling to acknowledge uncertainly for the reason that Ben Goldacre identified. Why water down an eye-catching prediction by saying that it may never happen when there is no danger of the scientists concerned complaining? But under reporting uncertainty is as misleading as misreporting conclusions.
Even Cox expresses some concern that his approach may be Orwellian, but quickly backs off by saying that he doesn’t really know whether it is Orwellian or not, which makes one wonder why he raised the issue in the first place. Unsurprisingly, he quotes a passage from Nineteen Eighty-Four about history constantly being re-written so that nothing remains on record that cast doubt on the infallibility of The Party. He may have chosen the right author, but the wrong book. In Animal Farm, the precursor of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the dim but compliant sheep are portrayed as the ruling pig’s most effective weapon in stifling opposing views and awkward questions. They can be drilled to bleat any slogan persistently enough to drown out dissent. I hesitate to draw any parallels between the arrogant culture that pervades climate science and the pigs, or between broadcasters and the sheep, but the temptation is great. Cox’s plea that broadcasters should retail only what scientists tell them is acceptable makes it very, very tempting indeed.
By this stage in the lecture, one might begin to wonder how much serious thought Cox has given to his subject, or whether he has been influenced by the views of the BBC in reaching his conclusions. As a scientist, surely he should not attempt to draw an analogy between the way in which broadcasters should treat climate scepticism and the way they should treat those who believe in astrology or question evolution. This is another line of argument of which the BBC is fond, but it makes no sense; the issues are quite different. No institution such as the IPCC is involved in debates about astrology or evolution. Tens of thousands of delegates do not flock to Copenhagen or Cancún to discus these matters and formulate a world policy, neither astrology nor evolution are new ideas, and scientists are not being funded to the tune of countless billions to conduct research in these fields.
Cox’s peroration begins with these words:
So what are my conclusions about the challenges of presenting science on television?
Well, firstly, scientific peer-review is all-important. It’s not possible for a broadcaster to run a parallel peer-review structure, but it is possible for the broadcaster to seek out the consensus view of the scientific community. This is the best that can be done and appropriate weight should be given to it in news reporting.
Documentary is different because polemic is a valid and necessary form of filmmaking. But having said that, the audience needs to know whether they’re watching opinion, or a presentation of the scientific consensus. And whilst I acknowledge that this is extremely difficult to achieve in practice, it is something that filmmakers and broadcasters must strive to do.
Cox’s final message to broadcasters is clear: they should do what scientists tell them to do and not trouble their pretty little heads with anything that might be too difficult for them to grasp properly. As to listening to ‘mavericks and eccentrics’ who question the scientific consensus established by a supposedly interdependent and reliable peer review process, that would be foolish in the extreme, like listening to astrologers or creationists. And screening the views of people who scientists might consider to be reprehensible in such a way that audiences would be allowed to make their own mind about the credibility of what they are being told would be a betrayal of the broadcasters duty to comply with a re-defined kind of impartiality; a kind of impartiality in which the broadcasters determine where the truth lies on the basis of the majority view of those who are being challenged.
This is, of course, a supremely arrogant point of view, but the scientific community seem to have convinced each other, and themselves, that society should confer such authority on them. One can hardly blame Professor Cox for falling into line.
[1] A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something. (Oxford Dictionary of English)
JasonF,
You say “a great deal of what the IPCC punt out and the media report is far removed from the actual science it purports to be based upon.”
Much has been made of the Himalayan Glaciers mistake. But as has been pointed out this was a case of where the ‘original science’ itself, if we can use that term, was wrong. It hadn’t been peer reviewed.
No system is perfect. Mistakes happen and, in the case of the Himalayan glaciers, they were corrected. Incidentally, not by by contrarians but by scientists themselves who had spotted that something wasn’t quite right. As Brian Cox says, the peer review process is the best we can do with the available data.
So in what else, besides the glaciers, have the IPCC failed to ensure that the peer review process hasn’t been properly applied? Give me some examples of what you are getting at.
PeterM
You ask JasonF
Well, to start off with there is the howler about African crop loss and the goof about the demise of rain forests.
But even more basic are the understated uncertainties pointed out by Dr. Judith Curry on
– the 2xCO2 temperature impact without feedbacks
– the net “amplifying or mitigating” impact of feedbacks
– the impact of natural variability (or forcing)
And then there is this whole list of errors, distortions and exaggerations in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
It is a long list, Peter, which (like Curry’s specific “uncertainties”) goes to the very core of the IPCC claims and projections for the future.
Any comments?
Max
Geoffchambers
I wish I had said “the peer-reviewed consensus is by definition impartial.” Not sure about by definition, but it’s a good one, isn’t it?
Brian Cox has obviously given quite a bit of thought to what is a difficult question. The problem arises because even in the 21st century there is still a large gulf between scientific and popular opinion.
Its not just on questions of climate change. For instance a large section of popular opinion would believe in spirits and ghosts. Or things like spoon bending and telekinesis. What’s the definition of scientific impartiality on these issues?
I guess on climate change you guys have two options. You can argue that there is no consensus on the causes of global warming. So, the question of impartiality doesn’t arise. Or, you can concede that there is a consensus, but argue that science isn’t about consensus anyway, so it can’t be impartial.
But why not do both?
Max,
I’ll get back to you shortly on the other thread. I’m trying my best to keep on topic as far as Brian Cox’s lecture is concerned.
PeterM
Your statement is doubtful, i.e. that Brian Cox “has obviously given quite a bit of thought to what is a difficult question” regarding the impartiality of the “peer review process” in climate science today. I believe he has simply given a (rather arrogant) “knee-jerk” answer. There are many opinions on this, Peter, and they vary widely, usually depending on how closely the individual is locked in to the “mainstream dogma” on AGW, as Brian Cox obviously is.
You then opined:
This may well be so with regard to several topics, but on anthropogenic global warming it is also fair to state:
This is the “uncertainty” to which Dr. Judith Curry refers and which IPCC underplays in its zeal to “capture the public’s imagination”.
And it is this “gulf” we have been discussing here, Peter.
Max
Tempterrain #28:
You’re not sure about “by definition” but you think “the peer-reviewed consensus is by definition impartial” is “a good one”.
Suit yourself. We’re talking about value judgements, after all, so your opinion is as good as mine.
Do you not see the problem with mixing a logical term like “by definition” with a value judgement like “impartial” in the same sentence, and passing the whole off as a glorious knock-down argument?
Try: “In a democracy, the government is by definition right”, or “Aeroplanes are by definition safe”. Now try saying the first phrase just after an economic crisis, or the second just after a plane crash, and you’ll see the problem we are having in taking Brian Cox seriously.
Max,
Its probably just the opposite of what you are saying below.
“…still a large gulf between one and another scientific opinion”.
Its quite remarkable that, unlike religions, or political groupings which often split and re-split many times over, science is effectively a single monolithic world body.
It is the peer review process, and the continuing testing and resting of ideas, which helps keeps it that way. Certainly, there are certain small groupings of anti-consensus scientists on the AGW issue. Given the political nature of the controversy it would be surprising if there weren’t. However, there have always been small, and still are, groupings of anti-consensus scientists on everything else too, from Relativity, Quantum Theory, Relativity, Smoking and Health to AIDs/HIV and the safety of vaccines. [I won’t mention Evolution. TonyN doesn’t like it when I do that :-) ]
Just very, very, occasionally they may turn out to be right. Otherwise, in all cases they have fallen by the wayside and haven’t established another body of opinion with their view as the “new mainstream” as might happen in, say, a breakaway political party. If you’d backed every anti-consensus grouping even with the odds of 100-1 you’d still be well out of pocket over the years. The consensus nearly always wins.
Geoffchambers,
The phrase “the scientific consensus is by definition impartial” is certainly a good sound bite. Its gets a certain meaning across, which I wouldn’t of course entirely disagree with, in a very clear and succinct manner.
I take your point about comments like “In a democracy [workers state -PM] , the government [party -PM] is by definition right [ impartial -PM] ” which can be constructed to sound quite Stalinist or Orwellian.
A more considered view may be that the concept of impartiality just shouldn’t apply in Science. It has no place. It never has. Or at least I can’t think of any examples where Scientists have ever tried to be conciliatory toward each other. It’s all about deciding who has the correct and best theory. You are either right or you aren’t. There are no prizes for coming second.
Abandoning the idea of impartilaity is a more difficult position to justify. TonyN, and many non-scientists, would probably accept that argument on Scientific topics they agreed with, but not on any that cut across their political or world view.
It’s much easier to use Brian Cox’s phrase.
tempterrain #33
That’s not my point at all.
“… by definition impartial / right / safe” is not Orwellian, it’s daft. “Impartial” is a value judgement, “by definition” is a logical or etymological term. Mixing the two produces nonsense (or, at best, another value judgement, with the impressive sounding “by definition” thrown in to give it a logical feel).
You are quite right when you say: “the concept of impartiality just shouldn’t apply in Science. .. It’s all about deciding who has the correct and best theory. You are either right or you aren’t…”
Which brings us to Cox’s second howler, when he described the science in Durkin’s film as “a load of bollocks” when what he obviously meant to say was “the opinions of peer reviewed scientists, and therefore by definition impartial”.
From the short clip from the Iain Stewart film, I get the impression that both his and Durkin’s film carry the same message i.e. “You’re not being told the whole story”. The difference is that Stewart and Cox think this is a good thing. Durkin doesn’t. Nor do I.
Who you agree with is not a scientific question, though it is influenced by your view of what science is, or should be.
Geoffchambers,
Your use of the phrase “the opinions of peer reviewed scientists, and therefore by definition impartial” shows you don’t understand how the system works.
Prof Cox is himself a “peer reviewed scientist”. That’s not unusual. Everyone who has had a paper accepted can say that. But, it’s not the scientists themselves who gain the badge of impartiality. That never happens. It’s the science itself, which, if accepted by the consensus, can lay then lay claim to be impartial.
Brian Cox doesn’t have a licence to come out with “a load of bollocks” any more than you, or I.
Tempterrain #35:
Dear oh dear.
Durkin’s film consisted largely of the views of peer-reviewed scientists who are not part of the consensus. By Cox’s definition of science, such beasts cannot even exist, since science is defined as the peer-reviewed consensus. But still, there they are, and Durkin says: “listen to them, they’re experts, and their views should be heard”.
Cox is trying desperately to find a way of saying that the views of Lindzen, Spencer &co shouldn’t be heard. He can’t say: “don’t listen to them, they’re a minority”. He can’t say: “Don’t listen to them, their views have been falsified by the consensus”. What he could say is: “Their views are false, (or, less likely to be true) because…” That would be the only possible course for someone interested in scientific method. Cox won’t do that, and spends 40 minutes attempting to tell us why he won’t. I conclude that Cox is not interested in science.
Groundhog day again.
“Peer review” is a QC procedure in the academic publishing trade. Nothing more.
Its purpose is to check that new papers have something new to say and aren’t full of ridiculous errors. Nothing more.
A paper is “peer-reviewed”. Not a person. Cox is not “peer-reviewed”.
This thread – like the Cox lecture – is turning into a long-winded appeal to authority.
Geoffchambers,
No, you’ve still not quite got it. “Such beasts” as you describe them certainly do exist. There is no mystery, even using Prof Cox’s definition of science. Dr Fred Singer is a case in point. He did some quite good stuff in his younger days. I suppose he just turned from man into beast as he aged.
In fact it would be quite possible for someone, with a similar background to Brian Cox, to be a “peer reviewed scientist” writing papers, which were well within the scientific consensus, in his day job as a particle physicist.
And, by night, he could turn into the climate contrarian beast you are referring to.
This exchange has taken a rather entertainingly Gothic turn. So Peter, if eminent climate scientist Dr Henry Jekkyl, PhD was to publish a peer-reviewed paper which did not support the consensus position, it could be dismissed as being the work of his beastly contrarian alter-ego Mr Hyde, and thus safely excluded?
Alex #39
Your Gothic theory explains a lot. It must be past midnight in Australia, way past Dr Tempterrain’s bedtime.
Jack #37
Thanks for reminding me of that. It’s one I want to keep for later use.
PeterM
Maybe so, Peter.
But when it loses, it loses “big time”.
“Consensus” versus Galileo. Oops!
“Consensus” versus Wegener. Ouch!
And now:
“Consensus” (IPCC – and camp followers, such as Cox) versus “skeptics” (Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke et al.)
Max
Alex Cull,
You ask “So Peter, if eminent climate scientist Dr Henry Jekkyl, PhD was to publish a peer-reviewed paper which did not support the consensus position, it could be dismissed as being the work of his beastly contrarian alter-ego Mr Hyde, and thus safely excluded?”
No, not quite. The criterion is correctness rather than consensus per se. If anyone were to submit for publication any paper which was substantially new, and different from the consensus, it is fair to say that it would receive a much higher degree of scrutiny than it might otherwise. But, the rewards , not necessarily financial, for the scientific group in producing new work, ‘groundbreaking’ to the use the usual cliche, would be that much higher.
Of course, one paper wouldn’t necessarily change the consensus. Peer review would still effectively continue after publication. As, Brian Cox says it is this system which has brought science to where it is today. To dismiss it as a convenience of the publishing trade is to completely miss the point.
Max,
Yes the consensus does shift. It has already shifted twice on AGW since the early 20the century when Arrhenius first warned that increasing GH gases could be a problem. It was thought, by some, in the mid 20th century that CO2 absorption was effectively saturated and that therefore adding any more to the atmosphere would not matter.
Others did think a return to glacial conditions was a greater danger and that CO2 emissions could actually be a good thing. This argument is, of course, still promulgated on contrarian websites.
It has now shifted back and Arrhenius has been vindicated. Its possible that it will shift again in the future, but it could go in either direction. The consensus will, however, be dictated by what scientists believe to be correct, and, much as you’d all like to have a say, not public opinion.
TonyN,
Both Brian Cox and yourself have mentioned “Orwellism”. Everyone thinks they know just what that term means. After all, wasn’t George Orwell that well known anti-communist who wrote just two books. Animal Farm and 1984?
But here is is putting Winston Churchill, and our friends at the Daily Mail, and other members of the British Establishment in the dock over their pre-war encouragement of Mussolini:
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/criminals/english/e_crime
and here berating you know who for its attitude towards Franco: “The Daily Mail, amid the cheers of the Catholic clergy, was able to represent Franco as a patriot delivering his country from hordes of fiendish ‘Reds’”.
http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Homage_to_Catalonia/english/e_htc
So, we can’t know for sure just what he would have thought of the Science behind AGW but he sure would have cautioned against believing anything the Daily Mail might write about it!
[TonyN: Neither Cox nor I used the term “Orwellism”, and I doubt whether considering what someone who died in in the mid-20th century might think about global warming if they were still alive at the beginning of the 21st century would cross either of our minds.]
PeterM
Yes. You are right in saying that the “consensus” on the magnitude of the climate impact from AGW has shifted in the past. Even Arrhenius, himself, had a major shift from his first estimate to his later revision of this estimate (to around 1/3 of the first estimate).
It seemed to have crystallized around 3.2C for 2xCO2 (2.0 to 4.5C) in 2006 (IPCC AR4 WG1). but is gradually being lowered since then to somewhere between 1C and 2C (model studies from latest NASA report cited on the NS thread by Barelysane). Empirical data on cloud feedbacks over the tropics (Spencer/Lindzen) seem to indicate an even lower 2xCO2 effect of less than 1C. Model studies using super-parameterization for clouds seem to give similar results for all latitudes. Judith Curry has raised doubts about the net “mitigating or amplifying” impact of feedbacks, so there appears to be a most recent shift to a 2xCO2 impact between around 0.7 and 1.6C (although a part of “mainstream science” may not quite have caught up with this latest shift).
Suffice it to say that scientific knowledge evolves and if the “mainstream view” does not evolve with it, it becomes meaningless (as was the case in Wegener’s day with his “continental drift” hypothesis).
And it should be noted that a 2xCO2 impact of 0.7 to 1.6C would mean that the AGW does not represent a serious potential threat to humanity (requiring immediate mitigating action), but represents a rather insignificant amount of warming that would be lost in our planet’s natural climate variability.
And that is the key issue here, Peter.
Max
Just trying to keep the thread on the topic of Brian Cox’s lecture and the points raised by TonYN I might just say that a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polemic
It’s not necessarily a verbal attack.
Is Prof Cox misusing the term? He’s perhaps overusing it but I can’t see that it can be descibed as misuse.
[TonyN: See footnote at end of post.]
Those of you who have been discussing peer review, particularly as it appears to be applied by climate science, should certainly have a look at Steve McIntyre’s latest post at ClimateAudit:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/15/mckitrick-and-nierenberg-2010-rebuts-another-team-article
There are times when I wonder if The Team suffer from learning difficulties, in the literal rather than the medical sense of the term.
TonyN
Thanks for link to Steve McIntyre’s latest post at ClimateAudit, but I could not get your link to work.
This link works better:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/15/mckitrick-and-nierenberg-2010-rebuts-another-team-article/#more-12612
Max
[TonyN: Corrected, thanks]
TonyN
Steve McIntyre’s ClimateAudit post shows how totally absurd the statements below by Prof. Cox on the importance and impartiality of “peer review” really are:
and
It appears from his statements that Cox replaces the key importance in the scientific method of empirical data from physical observations or replicable experimentation with the notion of consensus by peer review.
And how can “peer review” be “by definition impartial”, if it is conducted by humans, who are not so?
Particle physics may be Cox’s specialty and strength; logic obviously is not.
Max
Regarding “peer review” as a new religion see Maurizio Morabito’s blog of last year:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/about-peer-reviewed-dogmas-or-meet-the-peeritarians/#comment-2755
Hits the nail on the head.
Max
Max, the Peeritarian article is fun, very relevant to much that goes on in Guardian CiF.
In the Climate Audit thread TonyN has linked to, there’s a comment by someone called Dave, which is also fairly to the point, although when he refers to the “scientific method” I think this is not so much about the scientific method as such (observation, experimentation, etc.) but about the ways that science has been published, reviewed, disseminated, etc. :
Peter M, you write:
About the scrutiny, I tend to agree. About the rewards, I’ve often heard this, but the Alfred Wegener case tells us a very different story, if this article is accurate:
And a little further down, the article states wryly:
Instead of rewards, Wegener underwent a barrage of personal attacks, much of it because he was an outsider, a meteorologist on geologists’ turf. A familiar problem he faced was that he was operating in a field that was still in its very early stages of being understood. He had difficulties getting a professorship in his native Germany and died in 1930 without getting the recognition he deserved while still alive.
Not every climate scientist who expresses doubts about the importance of man-made CO2 in the climate system, or advances alternative ideas, will be of the same stature as Alfred Wegener, of course. But I think this is a telling example, and one which clashes with Brian Cox’s rather rosy and simplistic picture of peer review; the existence of deeply held beliefs in the minds of those who are exposed to controversial new ideas does matter, despite Cox’s assertions, even when the people concerned are scientists.