25 January 2011
Science under attack – updated with Youtube links to the video
Posted by Dave Petley
NB this is now available on Youtube – there is a link at the foot of the page.
The BBC broadcast a documentary last night with the above title as part of the Horizon series, presented by Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society and Nobel Prize winner. The programme, which was excellent, sought to examine a strange paradox. Modern society is essentially built upon the fruits of scientific endeavour, and science is an essential part of our future if we are to continue to maintain an advanced lifestyle. Despite this, public trust in scientists has been declining rapidly and is now at a low ebb.
Sir Paul sought to explore this problem primarily through a review of the science of climate change. He first demonstrated the strength and diversity of the datasets upon which our understanding of the climate system is built, and the robustness of the interpretations and models that have resulted. He then interviewed two leading proponents of the deniers’ position. The first was a climate scientist (Professor Fred Singer), who claimed that climate change is caused by the sun through cosmic ray variation (one wonders how many more times this theory can be debunked). The second was the Daily Telegraph’s online blogger James Delingpole, a key player in the storm in a teacup Climategate “scandal”, who popped up in the programme twice. He was surprisingly (and frankly rather amusingly) floored by a simple explanation of consensus (take a look – it occurs about 28 minutes and 30 seconds into the programme), and then later in the programme (about 40 minutes 15 seconds into the piece) explained that in his view peer review is now “irredeemably corrupted”, replaced by “peer-to-peer review”. This is of course an extraordinary position to take, and is far from the reality of the scientific world. Delingpole described his role as being that of an “interpreter of interpretations” – i.e. that he writes about other peoples’ interpretations of the peer reviewed science. Such a fragmented line of communication, especially when the initial interpreter may not actually be in a position to interpret the science properly, or may have a particular political perspective, inevitably leads to the problems that science now faces. As an aside, I am surprised that Delingpole was so apparently willing to undermine his own role, but he I guess he will claim that he was misrepresented through clever editing.
The programme also briefly looked at similar issues around genetically modified crops and denial of HIV being responsible for AIDS, demonstrating that here sections of the public are willing to set aside the robust scientific evidence for theories based upon weak lines of argument and misunderstandings.
Sir Paul ended the programme by emphasising the importance of scientists engaging with the public in communicating their findings effectively. I could not agree more, which of course is one of the reasons for blogging.
The programme is available for the next four weeks on the BBC iPlayer here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack/
UPDATE: The first part of the video can also be found on youtube here, and should be visible below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwJxFBOlX8
The remaining sections are here:
- Part 2
- Part 3 (Delingpole’s first appearance is here)
- Part 4
- Part 5 (featuring Delingpole part 2)
- Part 6
Hopefully it will be made permanently available. It is well worth an hour of your time (and that of your students if you teach at a High School or University).
Dave Petley is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hull in the United Kingdom. His blog provides commentary and analysis of landslide events occurring worldwide, including the landslides themselves, latest research, and conferences and meetings.
Delingpole had a piece about this in the Telegraph yesterday, before the broadcast: he doesn’t mention editing explicitly, but he does claim the interview was set up under false pretences, and that anyone who thinks climate change is likely is a “Warmist lemming” with a “Warmist Weltanschauung”.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
I’m not generally keen on “argument from authority”, but in the field of science, being President of the Royal Society and having a Nobel Prize counts for something …
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gunnar Ries and Chris Rowan, sciseekfeed. sciseekfeed said: Science under attack http://goo.gl/fb/o2LEH […]
Thanks for the summary! I had been wanting to watch this, but I don’t get BBC America in my cable lineup (sad), and the BBC iPlayer insists on telling me that the program isn’t available in my area.
Here is a youtube link to watch if you want. I have a hard enough time on forums with the endless doubters. This sort of explains why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89AeCLCtJQ
Sorry I think you are to cavalier about it. I listen to the BBC every day and in the run up the climate summit no day would go by without the most innane statistics being paraded as “news”. Example: Australias coast will be flooded in 40 years and so on. Even if you believe in man induced climate change, what kind of a statistics is that? One eruption by a major volcanoe could set back this process by many years. But that was presented as “news”. A prediction with as much certainty as the weather in one month time.
And that is when I really started to if not doubt then to get suspicious. That is the background to a lot of the scepticism of the wider public. And unless the proponents of man made climate change tone down their rethoric and acknowldege the uncertainties I believe people like me will feel they are taken for fools.
[Reply by Dave: Tom, I think you are confusing scientists with journalists. If you watch the programme you will see that Sir Paul lambasts the appalling coverage of climate science issues in the mainstream media. In many cases this is just as bad, or even worse, than the blog material. I do agree that some of the rhetoric is deeply unhelpful, but this is rarely the scientists speaking. I do feel that scientists should try to be measured and reasoned, though we are just as prone to human failings as anyone else, so will not always get it right. None of this changes the core reality though, which is that the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence indicates that humans are warming the atmosphere and the oceans. The alternative viewpoint just does not stack up from the perspective of credible science. Delingpole was admirably clear, and helpful, as to how his interpretation of the science is derived. Watch the programme to see for yourself!]
[…] Go here for links to the BBC science under attack […]
“Tom, I think you are confusing scientists with journalists. If you watch the programme you will see that Sir Paul lambasts the appalling coverage of climate science issues in the mainstream media.”
And scientist-turned-journalist Sir Paul Nurse promptly adds his own piece of appalling coverage of climate science in the mainstream media. i.e. the BBC!
[Dave: Nonsense. Whilst not perfect, this was a good attempt by a real and very credible scientist to explain why the current attacks on science are unjustified and generally senseless. Delingpole admitted that he does not read the primary literature and noted that it is not his job and he doesn’t have time. Presumably you agree that such an approach genuinely must lead to appalling, and monumentally imbalanced, coverage? Furthermore, Nurse did not resort to the offensive and childish ad hominems that characterise Delingpole’s articles]
Paul Nurse said some good things in his BBC programme. However, he misrepresented the case against the claimed “consensus” view on AGW. He implied, wrongly, that to doubt man-made climate change is to oppose science. He said that scientists should be open with their data, but did not mention the widespread refusal to disclose data (not only by the CRU, and not only in climate science), or the willingness to destroy rather than release climate data.
[Dave – No, this is not the case. He used an analogy, which Delingpole understood. The destroying data claim is a misrepresentation often pedalled in the denialospere].
He did not mention that over 140 scientists qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines say that supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change have utterly failed to demonstrate convincingly that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin.
[Dave – consensus is not unanimity. He did present the views of scientist with opposing arguments. 140 scientists is a minute fraction of the total (after all, denialists are always claiming that billions of dollars are spent on climate research, right?). And you are quite wrong in your final claim here – read the peer reviewed literature. This is the nonsense that Delingpole peddles].
He did not mention the political nature of the IPCC, or that its chairman claimed, falsely, that its reports are based only on peer-reviewed science, or that several of its most alarming predictions have turned out not to be peer-reviewed.
[Dave – again, standard denialist clap-trap.]
He did not mention that three enquiries into “Climategate” did not ask Steve McIntyre to give evidence, despite his being a leading scientific critic of the CRU. Another critic, Douglas Keenan, says that neither the Russell Review nor the Oxburgh Review considered any of the evidence for his allegation of fraud.
[That would be the McIntyre who coordinated the vexacious FOI requests?]
Clearly Paul Nurse trusts the AGW clique and, like the supposedly impartial enquiries, is happy to take its word and not to enquire too deeply. He puts forward good principles but fails to stand by them. This is indeed sad for science.
[Or perhaps he is: a. a credible scientist; and b. is actually willing to read the scientific papers, rather than reply on interpretations of interpreters?].
It is funny how, just because you disagree with the consensus science on GW, you are automatically asked if (and expected to) you disagree with ALL science.
[Dave – NO! This is not what Nurse is arguing. If you don’t even understand this…].
There is a huge difference on the science around cancer, which isn’t as uncertain, and science around climate change.
For starters, very few could predict that all of Europe and mainly the American east coast would get hit with the most severe weather of recorded history. The very person that did predict it refutes the Global warming science that the majority of scientists agree on…
[Weather is not predictable. It is a chaotic system for which predictions cannot be made]. It is possible to forecast weather (not forecasts and predictions are not the same thing) and to forecast climate].
In the program, NASA is showing off their forecast models on clouds. He boasts with such “jaw dropping” things as:
– Look at the bottom and top pictures. Swirly thing there, streaming line there. They are pretty much identical!
But what they don’t mention is the many many flaws present. Even i, with the limited exposure we got, could see countless inconsistencies in the model. And the funny thing is that it has already been said in the program that even a small flaw can have considerable effects on the end result.
[Again you misunderstand. The models are not predicting, they are forecasting on a global scale.]
The whole point i am getting at is…
If consensus science can’t predict the temperatures and weather two or even one month in advance… How am I supposed to trust them on the climate (temperatures and weather) in 50 to 100 years???
[Because weather is not climate]
And all it takes is ONE man to make an accurate prediction TO THE DAY months before it happened to actually listen to him more than i would ever listen to the “scientists” that all agree with each other but can’t put forward any hard proof (forecast in a near future) on their theory on climate.
[No, this is not possible as climate is a chaotic system. This is not the aspiration of any weather modeller. You misunderstand even the very basics of climate science and meteorology]
The problem isn’t that scientists aren’t talking to media and discussing it with the public… The problem is all they have to show is things that have happened and are happening NOW but they can’t tell us about things that will happen in a reasonable future…
[No – see above]
In 50 years i will be (if i live by then) 97 years old! Even IF they where wrong (or lied) i can’t do anything about it by then. The very reason they are putting it so far ahead is because by then they will have either died from old age or will be living the good life with full benefits.
[You aren’t worried about future generations? I find that to be very strange. The latter comment is a complete misrepresentation]
And history have shown that we humans are capable of adapting to climate change (both hot and cold) without knowing beforehand what will happen… So why do we need to know 50 years in advance all of a sudden?
[Because we have never had to adjust to changes on the scale of the ones on the way]
Heck, it is winter every year yet it seems to come as a shock to transportation just the same every year. But we (the people) get by anyways, just a bit more upset than normal because we (well, most of us) are so comfy with our high living standards today.
If the bus or train is 10 minutes late we complain about it more than the starving children in Africa complain about there not being enough pork to go with their bowl of rice.
[I agree, but so what?]
Look at the full picture! Even IF we are causing GW with our CO2 emissions, what are the alternatives? What has science done in that field?
[Lots, and the findings are that modest investments in technologies that are available now can both mitigate the impacts and reduce the effects, plus yielding other benefits such as promoting new industries, saving precious resources etc.]
I bet all these scientists who believe we are causing GW build their houses from the roof down. While the rest of us rely on reality where you must start from the ground up by developing a working alternative to fossil fuels BEFORE you try and change the world.
[No, actually climate scientists are very ordinary people. The alkternatives do exist. That is the point].
*SIGH* [Indeed!]
Hi you all
Thanks for the exchange. On balance I believe in man made climate change. And I thank Dave for his blog. Still Dave the overkill ahead of the climate summit (and it wasn´t only journalists) has done the cause of the proponents irreparable harm. Especially after the data scandal in Britain. All of that wouldn´t be half that bad hadn´t there been that media blitz beforehand.
And as to this cold winter being a sign that there´s no man made climate change: Sorry that is daft. Just as daft as claiming that the rise in temperatures is caused by humans. In both cases the sample we have is much too small. And we don´t know enough about other factors. But that CO2 is a factor and a major one is undeniable. And that should be ground enough to act.
Finally: I am a science journalist myself and watched the last few years and the debate with dismay. Too much believe and not enough science.
Dr. Dave,
In your response above, you said:
“… the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence indicates that humans are warming the atmosphere and the oceans. The alternative viewpoint just does not stack up from the perspective of credible science.”
First off, where is the “overwhelming mass of scientific evidence” you describe? My understanding of ‘science’ indicates that neither outputs from precisely engineered computer models nor opinions based on statistical analysis of carefully selected empirical observation data rise to the level of ‘evidence’. Once you eliminate these two sources of ‘evidence’, there is not much of a foundation left on which to support the AGW theory. Granted that observed temperature trends indicate a moderate warming in the second half of the 20th century. However, interpreting short term trends without putting the data in the proper context of Pleistocene climatic variabilty is less than honest and is definitely not good science.
Then you said:
“The alternative viewpoint just does not stack up from the perspective of credible science”
I think you are confusing credibility with consensus. Remember that the nature of the scientific method requires only one bit of contrary evidence to invalidate a theory. Why is it that the proponents of this theory refuse to acknowledge that their theory may need some modifications in the face of contrary evidence? Personally, I am not willing to take the gratuitus asertions of government scientists (whose careers are based on the funding derived from the popularization of the theory) and the so called journalists (whose credibility is in jeopardy if the theory they have championed for so long is discredited) as scientific fact. I believe that it is just plain naive not to question the motivation of the proponents of anything that involves money, especially something that has the potential economic implications of AGW theory. Just because there is a consensus of opinion among those who have a vested interest in the promotion of a theory to which they have commited their careers doesn’t mean that an alternative explanation does not exist!
You say: “The destroying data claim is a misrepresentation often pedalled in the denialospere”.
Joanne Nova quotes Richard Lindzen: ‘Lest there be any doubt that these scientists did anything wrong, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains what the CRU documents reveal: “They are unambiguously dealing with things that are unethical and in many cases illegal. … We have scientists manipulating raw temperature data. … The willingness to destroy data rather than release it.” ‘ http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/
You say: “Dave – consensus is not unanimity. He did present the views of scientist with opposing arguments. 140 scientists is a minute fraction of the total […]”. I agree with you on the first point. On the second, Nurse sought to give the impression, as others do, that very few scientists, perhaps just a handful, disagree with AGW.
You add: “And you are quite wrong in your final claim here – read the peer reviewed literature. This is the nonsense that Delingpole peddles”. Actually I referred to the views of 140 or so relevant scientists. See http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/full/26498/Open_Letter_to_SecretaryGeneral_of_United_Nations.html for details of them, and what they say.
They and their views are rarely mentioned, particularly by the BBC, which showed Nurse’s film and the bias of which on the subject of climate change has just been attested to by Peter Sissons, who saw it for himself from inside the organisation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
On my remarks about the IPCC you say: “Dave – again, standard denialist clap-trap.” Actually, even the veteran environmentalist Geoffrey Lean, a believer in AGW, says the Chairman of the IPCC should resign. ‘[…] four more [errors] have now been reported from the part of the latest IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers that contained the notorious – and now withdrawn – claim that they would disappear by 2035. And there are now reports that it erred in relying on an unpublished report in linking natural disasters like flood and hurricanes to global warming. All appear much less serious than the original Himalayan howler, but they add to the impression of sloppiness at the IPCC.’
Earlier he wrote that even ‘an inquiry carried out under the auspices of the world’s top 15 academies of sciences, including Britain’s Royal Society” […] “found that the IPCC had disregarded its own guidelines on how to communicate scientific uncertainties in one of the “summaries for policymakers” that it published with its latest report: “many statements… are assigned high confidence, but are based on little evidence”. Moreover, “the inquiry shows the IPCC to be an amateurish, ramshackle operation’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7974521/IPCCs-Rajendra-Pachauri-is-damaging-the-world.html
Much more can be quoted from other commentators on the IPCC’s abysmal failings if you are interested!
You say: “That would be the McIntyre who coordinated the vexacious FOI requests?” That’s hardly an answer to the point I was making. Incidentally, the FOI requests, even if vexatious, were a result of the CRU’s unwillingness to disclose its data, and the CRU’s behaviour in refusing to comply – when requests were made under the FOI Act – was unlawful. The point is that Steve McIntyre knows more about the CRU’s work than most people outside it, yet several enquiries into Climategate did not ask him for evidence. And have you read Douglas Keenan’s opening statement in the Guardian debate? http://www.informath.org/apprise/a4040/b100714.pdf
Regarding Paul Nurse you say: “Or perhaps he is: a. a credible scientist; and b. is actually willing to read the scientific papers, rather than reply on interpretations of interpreters?” But he did exactly what he accused AGW critics of doing: cherry-picking the evidence to suit his case.
A great piece on the incredibly groovy Delingpole:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole