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)
Alex Cull,
You could be right that it might be difficult but certainly the rewards will be there for anyone who is shown to be right.
The difficulty for you guys at the moment is that you are standing on the sidelines carping on on this and that. The objections are all over the place. Yes its warming but its the sun. Yes its warming but its Cosmic rays. Yes it warming its just the Earth coming out of the LIA. No, its not warming its just an UHI. Yes CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% but their effect on the climate is small. No, CO2 concentrations were this high in the 19th century so they haven’t increased at all etc etc etc.
You can’t compare yourselves to Wegener. He had a coherent theory. You haven’t.
@peter
Indeed, and that’s the nature of science for you. New information constantly comes to light resulting in initial theories having to be redeveloped or even discarded. It’s what makes science so interesting and at times frustrating, especially if people are so fixed on the idea of something being “true”. A good current example of this (outside CAGW) is that the periodic table is about is get a re-write for the atomic mass of 10 elements.
@Max
Just read the link you posted to the peeritarian, one comment from omnologos caught my eye in particular;
Sadly, “blind faith mindless acceptance” is pretty much standard these days. Often people are too lazy to think for themselves or worse, are taught not to think for themselves (english schools being a good example).
Alex Cull
Thanks for posting the Wegener story. It is fascinating.
Who knows? Maybe Henrik Svensmark will become another Wegener.
At present, his cosmic ray / cloud hypothesis is being ridiculed by the “peer reviewed mainstream scientific community” as Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis was in his day.
But let’s wait to see what the CLOUD experiment at CERN tells us. Maybe Svensmark will not have to wait 20 years after his death to be vindicated.
The major difference here is that there is a multi-billion dollar big business and political agenda (plus TonyN’s “convenient network”) fighting against Svensmark, whereas in Wegener’s day there was only a scientific dispute between the “mainstream consensus” and Wegener.
But, as was also the case in Galileo’s day (but has somehow eluded Dr. Brian Cox in his myopic fervor to support the “mainstream view”), the arrogantly elitist “peer reviewed mainstream group” can be dead wrong.
Max
PeterM
You stated:
This is false, Peter.
Wegener obviously also “stood at the sidelines” in his time, so this is no criterion.
But, more importantly, the “coherent theory” is that the IPCC premise of “dangerous AGW” is not substantiated by empirical evidence and has even been falsified by a) the recent cooling of the atmosphere and upper ocean despite record increase in CO2 (Trenberth’s “travesty”) and b) the observed negative feedback from clouds (pointing to an “insensitive” climate and no “danger” from AGW), and is, therefore, very likely to be flawed, unless these observed falsifications can somehow be scientifically refuted.
Wegener could not identify the “mechanism” by which the continental plates drifted, just as those scientists who are skeptical of the “mainstream” (IPCC) hypothesis cannot identify the “mechanisms” for the empirically observed natural forcing factors, which have caused past and most recent climate variations.
The many points you mention (plus several others) are simply corroborating evidence for the premise that AGW is not the principal driving force of our climate and that it does not represent a serious potential threat for mankind, as IPCC would have us believe.
It’s really back to the scientific basics, Peter.
Show the empirical scientific evidence (based on actual physical observations or reproducible experiments), which validates the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis and, at the same time refutes the physical observations of a recently cooling planet despite record increase in CO2.
If you are not able to do so, then we must conclude that your “dangerous AGW” premise is an uncorroborated (or possibly even a falsified) hypothesis.
Ball’s in your court, Peter.
Max
Max
I don’t know if you realised that Wegener ironically died whilst on an expedition that was the first to notice the potential significance of ice cores?
“In 1930, the great German meteorologist and geophysicist Alfred Wegener, the discoverer of continental drift, had died on a meteorological expedition in central Greenland. On that journey, one of his assistants, Ernst Sorge, noticed, upon digging a pit in the ice, that annual layers of accumulation could be discerned, as if they were tree rings.”
I would say that ice cores have turned out to be every bit as reliable as tree rings :)
tonyb
Tony B
Ice cores? Tree rings?
Yeah. Both are (poor but sometimes necessary) substitutes for “real time” data.
To me the validity goes about like this:
1 “real time” analysis or reading (based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation) is worth
10 “interpolations” or “adjustments” (to “fill in” missing data), or
100 “reconstructions” (ice cores, tree rings, other paleo-climate techniques) or
1,000 “model simulations based on theoretical deliberations” (most of the IPCC backup stuff) or
10,000 “true statements by political bodies” (e.g. IPCC)
[The relationship is exponential.]
Max
TonyN,
You wrote: “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.”
I doubt that you’d go along with a majority view should you be in the minority, but it could well be argued that even minority views, and all political parties are in fact minorities, should be represented by the BBC.
No doubt you were thinking of AGW when you wrote this paragraph, but the BBC do have to establish a set of internal rules to cover all scientific topics.
Its pretty obvious just what you have in mind on the AGW issue but how would the BBC apply a more “even handed”, more “impartial” policy to other controversial scientific topics too? Vaccine safety, Abionic Theory of Oil Formation, Peak Oil, Evolution vs Creation, HIV/AIDs etc
Or are you saying AGW is a special case?
PeterM
Yes, indeed.
The “AGW issue” IS a “special case”.
And it is “controversial”.
So is “peak oil” (i.e. the premise that oil reserves are “about to run out”, not that they are “finite”, which is a “no-brainer”).
“Vaccine safety” depends on which vaccine you are talking about; there is no controversy that some vaccines have negative side effects – there is also no controversy that vaccines reduce the incidence of the disease being vaccinated against.
“HIV/AIDs” is a “slam dunk”. The two have been linked.
“Abionic oil” is still a controversial “uncorroborated hypothesis”.
“Evolution vs Creation” is another “slam dunk”. The hypothesis has been validated by empirical data.
“AGW” itself is a compelling hypothesis, based on theoretical deliberations and some experimentation on the absorption of LW radiation by GH gases.
On the other hand, “dangerous AGW” (i.e. the “mainstream consensus” that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and represents a serious potential threat for mankind) is very controversial, and has not passed beyond the stage of an “uncorroborated hypothesis”. Until it does, BBC (and others) should show both sides of the open scientific debate on this issue.
Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.
Max
The other topics you mentioned are not controversial in the scientific sense
Max,
The controversy on all these issues is not so much as within the scientific community as between, maybe not a much majority public opinion, but on each issue a significantly section of it. Each group will naturally consider that its viewpoint should be given more prominence than it might get on publicly funded broadcasters like the BBC.
You argue that AGW be made a special case. Others, who are concerned about different issues would demand “special case ” status for their pet topic too and provide a similar list of reasons to yours. You wouldn’t agree with it , of course, but then they wouldn’t agree with yours either.
So how can the BBC formulate their policy on scientific coverage? I would argue that all claims for “special case” treatment should be excluded and that a formula needs to be developed, taking into consideration all the points raised by Brian Cox and others, to cover all scientific topics in the general case.
What do others think?
TonyN,
You probably feel that you have answered the point in my previous post with your statement that:
” 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…..”
However these aren’t scientific conferences. The IPCC having presented the science via its reports doesn’t get “involved in debates” as you put it.
The debates are about what to do about the problem not about if there is a problem or whether or not the assessments of the IPCC are correct.
PeterM
You opined (##)
Wrong, Peter.
The “controversy on all these issues” [relating to the “dangerous AGW” premise] is very much “within the scientific community” – just read all the stuff out there, Peter. To claim otherwise is simply a form of “denial” (or sticking the head in the sand).
That is precisely why a “publicly funded broadcaster like the BBC” should cover both sides of the controversy impartially and objectively, regardless of how Brian Cox happens to personally feel about it.
Max
Max,
So which British climate scientists would you suggest the BBC invite to give their expert opinion?
I tried to post this on Wednesday as a reply to Ben Pile at his blog but it went into moderation and has not surfaced so I thought I would post it here
I have almost forgotten how to tune into BBC programming and it really is upsetting to see how light weight and partisan the programs have become.
Firstly a couple of observations about the 2 non climate related examples.
The Astrology example is odd because it is not seriously taken as a science by the wider population. However it is of interest to many people so should receive coverage and I dont see anything to be gained by labelling it in anyway to distinguish it from “concensus” science.
The MMR example goes the opposite way in that it resulted from a peer reviewed published article in a respected journal. It is a narrowly defined controversial finding in a broad scientific field. The BBC covered it in a horizon program. I believe it was appropriate to cover it both when the new novel finding was originally published and after the the Wakefield scandal was exposed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml
For the climate examples I get the impression that Brian Cox was out of his depth and is not close enough to understand the nuances of what is going on. He seems to rely on relating everything to an established defined concensus position with an idealistic view that peer review ensures the concensus is ultimately the correct position. However the situation with climate science is very fluid and to the extent that a concensus position has ever been firmly established there is also clear evidence that the concensus position has changed very recently and is still quite likely to revert back to its pre 2000 position. He also appears to be willfully ignorant of what has been exposed by Climategate if he argues that peer review is working well in climate science.
Most people seem to describe the debate as sceptics v warmers to use more neutral terminology. However sceptical of what and warmer than what? As Steve McIntyre has repeatedly pointed out their is no clear engineering quality exposition of the derivation of 2.5C warming so the concensus science is not clear. I understand there is a textbook about to be published by Raymond Pierrehumbert which may address this more fully but at present we dont really have a clear concensus view other than referal to either the body of literature or to IPCC reports.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/02/james-annan-on-25-deg-c/
From my perspective rather that 2 scientific positions I actually see 5 main broad brush scientific viewpoints. There are some others that dont quite fit but these are the main ones.
On the sceptic side
1. People who believe climate change is natural mainly due to solar variation and do not believe that changes in the level of CO2 have any real impact. The reality is that these views tend to ignore the known properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and require a theory along the lines of Miskolczi to explain why it would not have an effect. I dont normally see that level of sophistication from people pushing this scientific view and at a stretch could see how Cox’s astrology example could be used for them
2. Lukewarmer view point. Co2 is a greenhouse gas with a basic sensitivity in the order of 1C for a doubling of CO2. Feedbacks may be slightly positive (Michaels) or slightly negative (Spencer, Lindzen). However there are other first order drivers of climate including natural ones like Solar Variation and human driven ones like land use change, aerosols and soot.
On the “warmer” side
3. Pre 2000 concensus – Increase in CO2 is a major climate forcing but there are other first order forcings out there which may at times add to the effect of CO2 or at other times offset it. Evidence of this viewpoint can be seen from researchers like Briffa and Cook in the Climategate emails. It is also evident in the spat between the Realclimate guys and the authors of the Keelyside paper which demonstrates there is now a firm push back building against the current “concensus”.
4. Post 2000 concensus – Increases in CO2 is the major climate forcing. Other natural forcings are of a much lower order. This viewpoint appears to have been driven into the IPCC by a strong desire for lower natural variability from the climate modelling community and was largely done off the back of the seriously flawed MBH paper. There was also a determination to provide a unified view for political consumption which largely excluded all other views. To me this position still looks scientifically quite shaky. The superficial dismissal of any criticism by the Climate Wars series is arguably promoting one viewpoint over others and intefering in the scientific process by publicly marginalising critical review.
5. Environmentalist viewpoint – temperature increases caused by CO2 increases will cause tipping points where all sorts of bad things will happen such as gulf stream reversal. release of methane clathrates, massive ice melt. As an illustration see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml
and rebuttal from realclimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/global-dimming/
Much of this last viewpoint would also relate well to the astrology example as a belief system but where there is some support in the scientific literature for some of the beliefs. However in many respects it is probably further away from the concensus position than the Lukewarmer position. It is an example of the kind of material much promoted by the BBC none of which gets labeled as a polemic but also clearly fails any “concensus” label.
PeterM
They don’t necessarily need to be “British climate scientists”, Peter – as long as they speak English.
How about Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr. or Roy Spencer?
Max
clivere
Thanks for your excellent post on BBC programming, Brian Cox’s viewpoint on the relevance of peer review and on the different “scientific viewpoints” on AGW.
Max
Max,
The Brits can be somewhat anti-American at times so I would have thought it may be counterproductive to wheel these guys on.
So there aren’t any British climate science sceptics/deniers? What about Viscount Monckton? I’m sure he’d at least say he was. Wouldn’t he do?
PeterM
If some “Brits” are prejudiced against American scientists (your #67) and they let this quirk of character cause them to think irrationally about what these scientists tell them, then that’s just too bad. The names I listed would be my first choice to state the case against AGW alarm most concisely and compellingly, in order to allow BBC to report both sides of the debate impartially and objectively.
Monckton is convincing and quite knowledgeable but a) is not a scientist, himself, b) comes across a bit too aristocratic and c) has been overexposed in the media, so I would not recommend him.
But if BBC wants some “locals” as backup for the main team, here are a few names:
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy & Environment.
Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and Environment Forum, UK
Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist, Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Of course there are many more UK scientists who are skeptical of some aspect of the “dangerous AGW” premise, but this list should give BBC a good UK backup for the main team.
Max
Let’s not be cynical. Let’s assume he is honestly asking for help in finding some scientists who are skeptical of the AGW premise.
Does this make sense?
Harrabin is basically a reporter. He should know that a letter was written to the UN Secretary General in December 2009 stating:
there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes
and challenging
supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate
This letter was signed by over 100 scientists, including 9 from the UK.
As the environmental analyst for BBC, Harrabin must certainly know this, if he is worth his salt..
So is his request really a “curve ball”? Is he trying to demonstrate that there ARE NO UK scientists who are sceptical of the AGW premise? His request specifically asks for “UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW”. Does this exclude UK scientists who are either retired or are working in non-academic posts?
As many posters have already remarked here, openly speaking out against the AGW premise may be career limiting for academic scientists in the UK today, so that many skeptics may simply be hesitant to go on record, thereby proving Harrabin’s point that there ARE NO UK scientists who are skeptical of the AGW premise, and, therefore, that (as Robert Watson proclaimed over 10 years ago) “the science is settled”.
Max
Let’s see how this plays out.
PeterM
If some “Brits” are prejudiced against American scientists (your #67) and they let this quirk of character cause them to think irrationally about what these scientists tell them, then that’s just too bad. The names I listed would be my first choice to state the case against AGW alarm most concisely and compellingly, in order to allow BBC to report both sides of the debate impartially and objectively.
Monckton is convincing and quite knowledgeable but a) is not a scientist, himself, b) comes across a bit too aristocratic and c) has been overexposed in the media, so I would not recommend him.
But if BBC wants some “locals” as backup for the main team, here are a few names:
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy & Environment.
Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and Environment Forum, UK
Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Arnold H. W. Woodruff, C.Phys., M.Inst.P., M.Sc., Consultant Geophysicist, Formerly Atmospheric Physicist then Glaciologist with The British Antarctic Survey, village of Ellington, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
Of course there are many more UK scientists who are skeptical of some aspect of the “dangerous AGW” premise, but this list should give BBC a good UK backup for the main team.
Max
PeterM
Correction
Somehow part of an older post got mixed into my #68.
So ignore #68 and read #69 instead.
Max
@Clivere
I can picture Cox going thru a similar mental process: lining up 5 options on the desk in front of him then discarding the 2 outliers and picking the middle one.
The huge problem with this approach is that it’s built on several assumptions.
The worst of these is that there is a “global climate”. There is no evidence that this is a useful concept or helps anyone to understand anything. This does undermine anything you try to build on top. It makes any further discussion pointless.
Pretending that there is a global climate then the next problem: does anyone understand it? Is today’s global climate OK ? How would we recognise a problem with the global climate ?
Cox hasn’t even asked these questions – so it’s unlikely he has any answers. The whole subject is so out-of-focus that it’s impossible to say if there are any problems or will be any problems or even if it’s worth putting any more effort into getting it into focus.
PS: if you’re new here then welcome aboard and thanks for your post.
Jack Hughes – only my second post here and only because I couldn’t get it posted at Climate Resistance! I occasionally post elsewhere but am not a frequent poster anywhere.
I totally disagree about Brian Cox lining up various options. He was promoting Climate Wars as one of his good examples and I dont believe his understanding of the debate about Climate has any more depth than the superficial view provided by that series. I found Brian Cox to be totally unconvincing. Because his arguments and examples are so poorly defined I struggle to articulate what view he is really promoting and what it is based on.
With respect to your comments about a global climate you are making a very wishy washy argument which I occasionally see used which stifles debate without recognising the key issue. The foundation for your argument is weak and without a stronger foundation I am unimpressed.
I will make the following observations as a counter.
1. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas. If you dispute that then you are arguing against a widely accepted scientific viewpoint.
2. Increasing CO2 is believed by most scientists to result in an overall global increase in temperature. There are certain exceptions to that view of which one of the main ones is currently Miskolczi. I am not currently pursuaded by any of the exceptions.
The key issue is will the increase in temperature be of a magnitude that will result in adverse conditions that have detrimental impacts on this planet that outweigh beneficial impacts? You are expressing a view that effectively fails to acknowledge even the potential for impact?
There is an IPCC concensus view that the likely magnitude is between 2.0C and 4.5C for a doubling of CO2. However that range is already quite wide and must reflect a high level of uncertainty. In addition there are arguments by Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen on the sceptic side that the range is pitched too high. The argument by Spencer does not dispute the basic science just how the magnitude of increase has been derived.
I am happy to recognise legitimate discussion that results from various different viewpoints and the level of uncertainty that surrounds them.
Clivere and Jack Hughes
I think we can all agree that Prof. Brian Cox was not making a “scientific” statement as a knowledgeable climate scientist, but rather a “political” one.
His worshipping at the feet of his boyhood idol, Carl Sagan, is symptomatic of an emotional, rather than a rational analysis.
In the same fashion, his off-the-cuff dismissal of the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” film as a “factually total bollocks” was also not based on rational scientific critique of the specific points made, but simply an outright rejection. The fact that many of the scientists quoted directly in TGGWS were specialized in various aspects of “climate science” (a field, in which Cox is definitely “out of his depth”) makes his rejection all the more questionable.
Cox stated that the only way to tell the difference between a “documentary” and a “polemic” is to appeal to the “peer reviewed scientific consensus”; if the film is based on this view, it is (by Cox’s definition) a “documentary”, if not, it is a “polemic”. And “peer review” (according to Cox) is “by definition impartial”.
Since the “peers” making the “review” are, above all, human beings (with their own built-in paradigms), “peer review” is by definition “subjective” (and, therefore, not “impartial”, as Cox would have us believe, so Cox’s assertion obviously puts him on a “slippery slope” logically.
Cox then compounded his error by holding up another TV documentary on global warming (this time with a rather emotional alarmist message) as a “good example”: “Earth: The Climate Wars, The Fight for the Future”. The narrator (a “father” with two young “daughters”) warns us “the stakes are so high [that] doing nothing is not an option”.
So, interestingly, a documentary film including statements by several leading scientists in climate-related fields and showing a lot of actual physical data on temperature, solar activity, CO2 concentrations, etc. is considered a “polemic”, without even bothering to address any of the specific scientific points made while an emotional appear to “act now” with no statements by leading scientists and no actual data, but two young children as the “victims” if we do not “act now” is seen as a good example.
Cox’s TV lecture appears to be a very slick political message but (to use his words) “factually total bollocks”.
And TonyN is right: it was also arrogant.
Max
Clivere
As a “luke warmer” (as I believe they have been named), I can agree with some of what you wrote.
– CO2 is a greenhouse gas
– GHGs absorb and re-radiate outgoing LW radiation
– human activity emits CO2, largely from fossil fuel combustion
– atmospheric CO2levels have been increasing since Mauna Loa measurements were installed in 1958; this has occurred at a fairly constant compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.4% per year
– the surface temperature record shows us that global temperature has increased since it started in 1850
– this increase has roughly resembled a sine curve with multidecadal warming/cooling cycles of around 60 years total cycle time and an amplitude of around ±0.2°C, all on a slightly tilted axis showing a long-term warming rate of 0.04°C per decade
That much is not disputed (at least not by most people).
There are, however, disputes concerning the validity of the surface temperature record, with some scientists pointing to specific areas where spurious warming signals may have exaggerated the apparent warming.
But where the biggest dispute comes is in the 2xCO2 GH effect.
Without feedbacks, this is estimated to lie between 0.65°C (Lindzen) and 1.4°C (Sharnock + Shine), with IPCC preferring an estimate of just under 1°C (Myhre et al.). [Dr. Judith Curry has pointed out that scientists have not adequately dealt with the uncertainty of this most basic number in the field.]
An even greater disagreement between climate scientists [also underscored by Curry] is in the uncertainties related to the net “amplifying or mitigating” effects from feedbacks, such as changes in surface albedo, water vapor or clouds. Here the estimates are “all over the map” from a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.4°C (Lindzen) or 0.6 °C (Spencer) to one between 2.0 and 4.5°C (IPCC).
Then finally there are the estimates of future growth of atmospheric CO2. IPCC lists several model scenarios, ALL of which show a higher rate of increase than that we have seen over the past 50 (or 5 years), and all this despite the fact that UN estimates for population growth are only a fraction of the growth actually seen from 1960 to today.
As an example: continuation of the past rate of increase would put us at around 560 ppmv by year 2100, while the IPCC “scenarios” range from 600 to 1590 ppmv (the top value more than would occur if all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet were consumed!).
These uncertainties (or “disagreements”, however you want to call them) result in differences of projected theoretical GH warming from today to 2100 from an imperceptible 0.2°C to an alarming 4°C.
That’s what everyone is talking about here.
Max
Clivere #72
Welcome to Harmless Sky. Max has beaten me to answering your post so I will just give you my personal observations. When I started to take an active interest in issues of CO2 and climate back in 2006, I assumed that theory had been tested and that there was some empirical evidence that any increase in the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere did in fact cause some warming. I set about seeing what I could do to help. Four years on I have still not found that evidence and have decided science has nothing at all to do with dangerous AGW and that it is entirely a Political movement.
The movement has not been fuelled by rational thought but by irrational thought, sustained by scientists, who call themselves climatologists, but when it’s all boiled down , are just counting tree rings or collating temperature records, endeavouring to convince all and sundry that the temperature has been increasing at unprecedented rates. This has completely hoodwinked our political leaders, but increasingly the population at large is not happy with the situation we find ourselves in.
Going back to your point one, no one disputes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they never have; it’s the magnitude of its warming effect that is disputed. And it is almost impossible to come up with an experiment that will answer this question.
Your point two; the reality is very few scientists are actually prepared to state what you are saying. The words “Most Scientists” are banded about with gay abandon without any qualification as to who these “most scientists” are. The public are left with an impression of everyone in agreement, but this is not so.
It turns out some 99% of all scientists, climatologists or otherwise, studying climate change, blindly accept the premise that increasing CO2 concentrations are causing dangerous warming, and are studying the effects, real or imaginary and not the cause. They most definitely are not qualified to comment authoritatively on the causes.
What have I learnt in four years? I know that we know very little about how our atmosphere works, I am fairly certain that of all the drivers of our Climate CO2 is a relatively minor one, I know there is no sensible physical evidence that can demonstrate at all that man is entirely or partly responsible for the current increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that not only is the temperature record being challenged, but almost all other measures that have been thrust at the public are now under scrutiny.
Back in 2007 several independent scientists started to tell us that the evidence was pointing in the direction of cooling. They were often mocked, except by those like me who like to have a good think about what everyone has to say. And I have to say just about everything thoughtful scientists have been saying is coming to pass.