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)
TonyN
Very interesting article. This bit from it chimes very much, as we are trying to get Peter to acknowledge this very point but he just refuses to even discuss it.
“Strangely, he makes no mention of the infinitely greater responsibility that this places on the scientists who brief the media about their work.”
On the New Statesman thread we have cited a number of examples where the scientists appear to be wrong. If WE know this, they must know it as well.
So is it arrogance not to acknowledge their responsibilities? ? A disbelief that anyone dare question them? Are they so far above everything that they just don’t comprehend there are concerns?
If anyone would like to pop over to the other thread and give us their opinion as to whether the instances we cite demonstrates hubris on the part of scientists-and blind unquestioning faith by the acolytes cheering them on- your comments would be appreciated.
Incidentally I have met Brian Cox when he presented a prize to my son for his studies on particle physics. A charming man.
I have also met Dr Ian Stewart-Climate Wars- who,apart from Al Gore must have the worlds most annoying screen presence, but again in person is charming.
Tonyb
Cox’ lecture is a long-winded appeal to authority.
By his own words he has not published any peer-reviewed work in the field of astrology so isn’t qualified to comment on the subject. Ditto vaccinations. Ditto ethics in broadcasting.
Is the speed of light invariant? Well yes it is. The motion was passed unanimously by the Time Lords at their annual intergalactic 1900 centennial conference just in time to fit in nicely with Einstein’s theory of Relativity which came shortly afterwards. :-)
Of course, as the 20th century progressed and ideas of democracy spread, the Lords of the Universe may well have faced demands for increasing and even universal suffrage. We all now want a say in what the science behind anthropogenic global warming should be. It would be good to live in a more democratic universe.
We’d all vote along the same lines for sure. Yes, we can emit as much CO2 as we please. No, it won’t do any damage to the environment. Yes, oil is an abiotic substance and will be continuously replaced as we use it. No, there is no danger of of ‘peak oil’ or of it ever running out.
Unfortunately, the laws of universe are not of our making. They can’t be decided on a show of hands. They can be understood, at least up to a point, by those who are interested enough to learn. However, that’s not everyone. Prof Cox is stating the obvious by reminding us of that. If anyone is arrogant on this topic, it isn’t him!
Peter M The fate of 6 billion people should not be in the hands of a few agenda driven scientist. Climate change is NOT a scientific issue; you yourself have proven this by not being able to produce any science backing the contention that CO2 cause dangerous warming of Earth. Climate change is a political issue, and as such involves us all.
This thread, and Cox’s lecture, is about the way in which climate science is reported on television. It is not about physics, and I don’t want physics discussed here.
Peter Geany,
You are partially right. There are two separate issues.
[snip – but neither of them have anything to do with the Cox lecture or Peter Geany’s comment]
TonyN,
What was I thinking about? Bringing Physics into the question of climate change. Whatever next?
Anyway where do the BBC say they have made a “decision to hold an investigation in the wake of the [so-called -PM ] Climategate scandal” ?
I seem to remember their specifically denying that they were doing anything of the sort, but rather they were conducting a general review into the way Science, which is more than just Climate Change, is presented on TV.
[TonyN: At the moment there is no blog rule about posting irrelevant comments which are only intended it distract and irritate. Pretty soon there is likely to be]
CLICK HERE TO READ THE LECTURE
I’m not sure why but the previous link doesn’t work.
Try this: http://www.rts.org.uk/Events_det.asp?art_id=8396&sec_id=3171
There is a link to a full text version of Prof Cox’s lecture just to left of his photo on this page.
TonyN
Once more you have done an excellent job of dissecting this lecture. I watched this only because I had first taken note of Brian Cox that day he had the altercation with David King on the News, and I thought to myself here is someone with a bit of passion about science. I thought his recent science program entertaining and informative to youngsters but not informative to anyone with 6th form science.
It’s obvious now that I wasn’t listening too attentively as I my antenna only came out when he started to quote examples of science broadcasting, and thought to myself he’s going to bring climate change in for sure, but must be going to signal a change in attitude by the BBC. Having thought I heard him say one thing I was dumb struck by his treatment of TGGWS.
For me he has destroyed at a stroke any respect I had for him. Even if he was a passionate believer in Dangerous AGW, the place to tell us about it is on a program dedicated to the science, NOT in a lecture on science in broadcasting. Having thought about what he did it obvious to me that he abused his privileged position, at the behest of others no doubt, to get across a message that we the public have no right to question the scientists.
I draw several inferences from Cox’s behavior. He must be going for a cushy position with the Royal Society, or has been offered a top job in a University but needs to demonstrate his credentials first. Surly his job at the BBC doesn’t depend on his ditching all credibility. But certainly someone has noticed he does have (had) some credibility and convinced him to use it debunk the AGW skeptic.
I also feel that the science establishment is getting desperate, for no matter what they do, we the public are not happy and want to dig further. This demonstrates that collectively the science establishment has understood nothing about Climategate, they understand nothing about democratic accountability, and think they are above even the Law and that somehow no one should be able to challenge them. They are behaving just as the Vatican used to behave.
I have said it before and will say it again, the longer they carry on like this the more and more damage they are doing to science. They have very little time left to get their house in order.
A little piece of Politics which on the face of it doesn’t seem related but very much is. 10 Tories voted against the Tuition fees bill, 7 of who were new intakes. They were not against the bill but against the authoritarian regime of David Cameron. Ummm where have we heard that before? Apparently there would have been more if the numbers had indicated they could stop the bill, more to force a change of direction in David Cameron. All is not well in the coalition and many Tories are not happy. Watch this space and keep writing those letters.
TonyN
Your excellent piece is missing a powerful header.
Can I suggest your loyal readers vote on one of the following images to head it up, and that you dedicate the article to “Climate science and its unquestioning followers.”
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=three+monkeys+hear+no+evil&rlz=1R2HPEA_enGB363&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=r2kGTbTuJoyqhAfo3vDsBw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQsAQwAQ
tonyb
Peter Geany,
You accuse Prof Brian Cox of wanting “to get across a message that we the public have no right to question the scientists.”
It’s pretty obvious on this blog that some of the public not only want to ask the questions, they want to supply the answers too!
Of course, solutions to the problem in a political sense have to come from the public and politicians. But Brian Cox is saying that scientific answers can only come from those with a thorough understanding of climate physics. And I’m sure he would not be including himself in that group either.
The message perhaps sounds too elitist for some in these democratic times, but that’s just the obvious reality of the situation.
TonyB,
I wouldn’t disagree with your suggestion re the images.
Certainly the monkeys who can’t see or can’t hear, on the questions of climate change, seem to be doing plenty of talking. The one who can do both isn’t saying anything of course.
Brian Cox is an honourable exception. We need more scientists like him to step up to the plate.
Peter said
“But Brian Cox is saying that scientific answers can only come from those with a thorough understanding of climate physics.”
As we continually point out to you, a very large part of Ar4 (for example) is nothing to do with the physics but merely the attempted justification for what they say the physics is doing. Such aspects of contention relate much more to climate history than physics,
For example, the historic changes in sea levels can be observed throughout recorded history and attempts to claim modern rises are unprecedented can not be supported. Similarly global temperatures are a statistical artefact, yet you believe no one else can comment on them
You must know that much of Ar4 relies on errors omissions, suppositions and downright mistakes. (see Chapter 5 of AR4)
However like the three monkeys you do not want to see it, hear of it, or speak of it.
It seems Brian Cox shares your opinion that only a small group of people should be able to comment on something affecting us all.
Tonyb
“But the peer-reviewed consensus is by definition impartial.” A circular and rather fatuous argument, surely, like saying “a good thing is by definition good” (and therefore, by definition, this or that specific thing is good, because it just is). Another way of seeing no evil?
I found this article from 2005 interesting, in Slate Magazine: “Quality Control: The case against peer review.” The author describes the efforts of editor Drummond Rennie, at the Journal of the American Medical Association, to find out whether peer review actually worked.
This Wikipedia article on peer review quotes Rennie:
It also quotes The Lancet editor Richard Horton, writing in 2000 (emphasis mine):
Brian Cox’s lecture isn’t all bad, but he is guilty of some statements that betray if not outright arrogance, perhaps an incorrigible naivety?
Alex Cull, #15:
I seem to remember that Horton was rather more diplomatic in his submission to the Russell inquiry.
A really excellent essay, and an accurate summary of the main fallacies presented by Dr Cox in his “by the numbers” lecture.
I have to say that I disagree with you on one point: having seen the trailers for his TV show I found his corn-fed good looks and sugary style of science presenting a real turn off. I didn’t watch the shows, but expected nothing less than pure orthodoxy from this grinning pixie when I heard about his lecture. I often find Tony Robinson (despite the genius of Baldrick) similarly irritating when he drools his almost evangelical enthusiasm for archeology all over my screen. It is obvious this young guy may have “charm” and he obviously has a Phd, but when it comes to looking at difficult questions in the real world he appears to have no analytical talent whatsoever.
Of course, he’s cool! – he was in a band you know(as a fellow musician I can only say wow, er,…how ordinary!) so has to say stuff like “bollocks” and “drivel”. He struck me as a young boy trying to please his elders by saying all the right clever things. Not the remotest hint of an original thought; a psychological, social or historical insight.
Contrast such towering figures as Bronowski, Attenborough (despite his unwise pitching in on AGW), even figures like Schumacher. These are the kind of guys who USED to discuss the philosophy and implications of science on the BBC. Such authority is entirely absent from young starlets like Cox, who should really be presenting kids’ science progreammes. Just like its flagship, Horizon, BBC science programming has become fatally populist and increasingly dumbed down in the last 30 years.
Over on Bishophill, I posted the following half-joking comment on the badly thought-out tenor of some of Cox’s ideas.
========
Before going on to praise Prof Iain Stewart for getting the tone right in the BBC Climate Wars series(‘Iain Stewart delivered a message, and I think he walked a fine line with great skill.’), it’s interesting that Brian Cox insists that TV science must ‘avoid the maverick and eccentric at all costs.’
Can he be discussing the same Iain Stewart who announced at the start of his new series, ‘I’m going to show you how this landscape was used by a bunch of brilliant, maverick, eccentric scientists to solve the greatest mysteries of the earth.’
Some BBC science policy disconnect shurely?
===========
However silly, the contradiction is a real one: it is often the maverick and eccentric who show us the way to truth, usually against a raging consensus of mediocrities (your Orwellian sheep analogy is well taken.) Unfortunately many of these mediocre “business as usual” men have Phd’s and litter up science departments all over the world.
Perhaps Prof Cox should actually read some of Orwell’s essays, or even some Koestler, before he bandies around terms like “Orwellian” that he doesn’t really understand.
Apologies for the tone of this rant, but BBC science makes me angry at the moment!
TonyB,
You say “It seems Brian Cox shares your opinion that only a small group of people should be able to comment on something affecting us all.”
I think I’m on safe ground in saying that it isn’t Brian Cox’s opinion and, certainly, it isn’t mine either.
The scientific advice is that allowing CO2, and other GHG concentrations, to rise in an exponential and uncontrolled manner is putting the environment at serious risk.
Everyone is free to comment on that as they wish. It’s fair enough to argue that nothing should be done about it. There is a chance that the scientific position is wrong. It probably won’t affect our generation too badly either so why not just wait and see what happens? Who knows? Maybe there will be a technical fix is 20 years time.
But it’s not fair enough to argue that there is no risk. It’s not fair enough to argue that “its all a hoax” and it certainly isn’t fair enough to deliberately distort scientific reports, as do some newspapers and TV channels, giving the authors of the reports no right of reply.
PeterM
To start off,Brian Cox is a particle physicist, not a climatologist.
He doesn’t know any more about “climate” than you or I do, and probably much less than TonyB, who has studied this topic a bit more deeply than you or I (or BC) have.
You wrote:
That is the IPCC sales pitch, Peter, but the “scientific advice” is that the “jury is still out on the science”, and this “scientific advice” is getting stronger day by day, with “mainstream” scientists, like Dr. Judith Curry joining those who question the many uncertainties in IPCC sales pitch.
You state “it’s not fair enough to argue that there is no risk”. Wrong, Peter. It is very fair (and logical) to argue that “there is no [empirically validated] risk”, because, Peter, that happens to be the reality of the situation.
The “hoax” is seen in the false forecasts of Hansen and the exaggerated and poorly substantiated claims of IPCC (some of which have turned out to be outright fabrications), along with the gross understatement of the many uncertainties.
“Deliberately distorting [or ignoring] scientific reports”? Are you referring to IPCC here? There are many examples of this conduct by IPCC.
Peter, you should become aware of what is going on around you. Climategate, etc. have changed the world and there is no going back to the heady “glory days” when climate scientists and activists were regarded as heroes and awarded Nobel Peace prizes and Hollywood Oscars.
Those days are gone forever, Peter. And I believe that this is a good thing for climate science and science in general as rational and skeptical scientific thinking return to the climate debate.
Max
Anycolouryoulike,
I would say its not quite correct to suggest there is a particular flavour of science called “BBC science”. It tastes the same, as far as I make out, as the science of the World’s leading bodies: the Royal Society in the UK, the CSIRO in Australia, and the US National Academy of Sciences.
The point of Brian Cox’s lecture was that there shouldn’t be any difference, even if a sizable group of UK taxpayers and BBC licence fee payers might feel otherwise.
If this is the way broadcasters should report science then by default they can only report on issues where there is a scientifically peer-reviewed paper in support of whatever they are reporting, so out goes all the doom mongering IPPC twaddle no more headlines that read “Himalayan Glaciers to melt in 30 years due to climate change” without a link right under the headline to the published paper. (in this case they would have to link to the WWF press release on what they overheard at the pub)
If no peer-reviewed paper exists then the report should go to the new “polemic” section of the news to be found after the “oddbox” section filed with all the other non-science news such as Intelligent design and young earth creationism.
Jason F,
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen a contrarian call for all scientific reports on the media to be properly peer reviewed.
Normally you guys are quite scathing about the peer review process, regarding it as a mechanism to ensure that any dissenting comment is censored out.
The vast majority of the many IPCC references are properly peer reviewed, but not all. The Himalayan glaciers story wasn’t and still slipped through. But you are quite right, it should have been. It may still have not been corrected of course. Nothing is perfect. As Brian Cox says:
“This is the method 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.”
I doubt if the BBC would have any problem justifying their line. There is no shortage of peer reviewed papers to support it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html
@tempterrain
I think you’ll find I said “IF this is the way broadcasters should report science”, with a big IF; in the context of what Cox appears to be advocating. I don’t recall scathing the peer review process either and who exactly are “you guys”?
I’ll contend as climategate has shown that a great deal of climate peer review is extremely suspect, if we adopt Cox’s contention that peer review is some kind of quality badge and we abandon investigative journalism in favour of it then science will suffer.
My point was and still is that 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.
Peter
As you well know we are talking about uncertainties. We have the IPCC presenting information as certainties, when some of it is isn’t even correct.
A lot of this has to do with statistics, records, history, observations, not the physics.
We have demonstrated to you for example that sea levels are not extraordinary, nor the levels of sea ice exceptional, that the global temperature is a statistical nonsense derived from individual, potentially inaccurate records, and numerous other aspects of the IPCC story.
All you do is point to authority and refuse to even discuss them.
tonyb
Of all the comments here, at BishopHill, and at Climate Resistance, AnyColourYouLike #17 says it best:
and Alex Cull #15 picks up the immortal quote when he says:
I’d go further. It’s not an argument at all. It’s an unsupported, obviously false assertion, which would be torn to shreds if offered up in a sixth form essay. The Royal Television Society should ask for their money back.