Paul Nurse: science under attack

by Bryan Walker on January 29, 2011

Paul Nurse is the new President of the Royal Society. His predecessor Martin Rees was firm in his insistence on the seriousness of climate science and climate change, and Nurse is equally so. In a striking BBC Horizon documentary Science Under Attack he examines why public trust in scientific theory appears to have diminished, especially in relation to  climate change. The documentary is not available from the BBC for viewers outside the UK, but it has been uploaded to YouTube, broken into six segments. It is well worth an hour of viewing, but I’ll offer some comment on it here for those who don’t have the time.

Nurse is a geneticist and cell biologist, distinguished for his work in the discovery of the control which regulates cell division, for which he shared a Nobel Prize in 2001, and which is relevant to a better understanding of diseases like cancer.  In this documentary he steps outside his lab to investigate how it is that climate science has come under attack and whether scientists are partly to blame.

 

The documentary opens and closes in the archives of the Royal Society which include among their books the manuscript version of Newton’s Principia Mathematica and the first edition of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, presented to the Society by the author. Nurse and the librarian pause over these two outstanding examples from the Society’s past of science fundamental to our understanding of the world, a useful backdrop to the programme’s investigation of why a well-established science, as climate science now is, should be leaving many people unconvinced or thinking it is exaggerated.

He visits NASA and talks with Robert Bindschadler, who shows him in visualisation how satellites (16-18 from NASA and a similar number from other agencies) circling the globe are gathering enormous amounts of data related to climate. Three quarters of a degree of warming over the last fifty years will be matched by at least another three quarters of a degree over the next fifty even if we do nothing more to modify the climate. Asked whether this could be a natural fluctuation Bindschadler acknowledges that there have been times in the past when the Earth has been warmer than it is today, with less ice and higher sea level, and times colder than it is today, with much more ice and lower sea level. However in the past climate changed very gradually whereas it’s now changing really fast, and it’s the pace of change that is so important in the climate change that we’re living through right now.

Nurse considers not only the NASA data but also the work of seven decades of research from scientists across the globe and concludes that the extent of the data gives us reason for confidence in the idea that the globe is warming and we are causing the change. Yet this evidence is clearly not convincing a substantial part of the wider public. And those who are sceptical turn to other scientists.  Enter Fred Singer, who meets with Nurse over a cup of tea in a café and explains his theory that solar activity, not CO2, is the cause of warming which he regards as variable.

Nurse talks to viewers about the importance of the wider picture, which Singer ignores in his cherry picking. Things need to make sense together.  Solar activity needs to be looked at in the context of all research.  You cannot ignore the majority of available evidence in favour of something you would prefer to be true. Bindschadler comments that small variations in solar activity today don’t match up with the climate data. There’s no doubt, he says, that the sun is not the primary factor driving the climate change that we’re living through. It has to be the huge amounts of carbon dioxide our fossil fuel burning is putting into the atmosphere. You need to stand back and look at the big picture and there’s really no controversy if you do that.

“Who do you believe?” asks Nurse. If you’re not a scientist then ultimately it’s a question of trust. At this point he goes to the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and talks with Phil Jones, the scientist who was accused in headlines, on the basis of stolen emails, of being at the centre of one of the worst scientific outrages of all time. Nurse points out there was no scientific scandal, as enquiries have established. At worst there was an understandable but perhaps less than wise resistance to meeting obviously engineered requests for information.

Nurse then visits James Delingpole, one of the journalists prominent in proclaiming the climategate email scandal. He is perfectly polite with Delingpole, but his gentle questioning elicits from the interviewee the brash certainties of a man who has no knowledge of the solidity of the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming but is an articulate and bellicose proponent of the theories of the deniers, accepting the few scientists among them as authoritative interpreters of the peer reviewed science which he himself doesn’t read. Nurse is surely right to see an unholy mix of the media and politics as distorting the proper reporting of science.

He acknowledges the problem of uncertainties, particularly in projecting the future and particularly in projecting cloud formation. But a fascinating picturing at NASA displays how the uncertainties are reducing. Bindschadler shows him a screen, along the upper half of which real global cloud data is pictured and in the lower half what the models predict would be happening at the same time. It’s a test of the models, and the level of their accuracy is astonishing to Nurse. Binsdschadler is clear there will always be some uncertainties because there are processes which are not fully understood, but by the measure of reducing uncertainties the science is making extraordinary progress.

There’s much more in the documentary than I have covered here, but hopefully this gives a sense of the thoroughness and reasonableness which marks Nurse’s investigation. He’s a person of intellectual substance who, in his own words has “an idealistic view of science as a liberalising and progressive force for humanity.”

I’ll conclude with a section of quotes I’ve transcribed from the latter part of the documentary, where he sums up what he has been seeking to communicate. First, on the centrality of peer review (irretrievably corrupted according to Delingpole) and the importance of scientific scepticism:

“As a working scientist I’ve learnt that peer review is very important to make science credible   The authority science can claim comes from evidence and experiment and an attitude of mind that seeks to test its theories to destruction…Scepticism is very important…be the worst enemy of your own idea, always challenge it, always test it   I think things are a little different when you have a denialist or an extreme sceptic. They are convinced that they know what’s going on and they only look for data which supports that position and they’re not really engaging in the scientific process. There is a fine line between healthy scepticism which is a fundamental part of the scientific process and denial which can stop the science moving on.  But the difference is crucial.”

On complexity:

“There’s an overwhelming body of evidence that says we are warming our planet but complexity allows for confusion and for alternative theories to develop.  The only solution is to look at all the evidence as a whole.  I think some extreme sceptics decide what to think first and then cherry pick the data to support their case.  We scientists have to acknowledge we now operate in a world where point of view not peer review holds sway.”

That means taking trouble to communicate:

“Scientists have forgotten that we don’t operate in an isolated bubble. We cannot take the public for granted. We have to talk to them. We have to communicate the issues. We have to earn their trust if science really is going to benefit society.”

It matters for the world:

“Over the next few years every country on the globe faces tough decisions over what to do about climate change. I’ve been thinking how scientists can win back the confidence we’re going to need if we’re going to make those choices wisely.”

He turns to the record of the Royal Society:

“350 years of an endeavour which is built on respect for observation, respect for data, respect for experiment. Trust no-one. Trust only what the experiments and the data tell you. We have to continue to use that approach if we are to solve problems such as climate change.”

That brings responsibility with it:

“It’s become clear to me that if we hold to these ideals of trusting evidence then we have a responsibility to publicly argue our case because in this conflicted and volatile debate scientists are not the only voices that are listened to.”

Politics enters the picture but scientists have to keep their focus:

“When a scientific issue has important outcomes for society then the politics becomes increasingly more important. So if we look at this issue of climate change that is particularly significant, because that has effects on how we manage our economy and manage our politics, so this has become a crucially political matter and we can see that by the way the forces are being lined up on both sides. What really is required here is a focus on the science, keeping the politics and keeping the ideology out of the way.”

But that doesn’t mean disengaging:

“Earning trust requires more than just focusing on the science. We have to communicate it effectively too.  Scientists have got to get out there. They have to be open about everything that they do. They do have to talk to the media even if it does sometimes put their reputation at doubt because if we do not do that it will be filled by others who don’t understand the science and who may be driven by politics or ideology. This is far too important to be left to the polemicists and commentators in the media. Scientists have to be there too.”

Paul Nurse has certainly put himself there in undertaking this documentary. Needless to say it cut no ice with the affronted James Delingpole, but surely many viewers will have been impressed with the evidence urgently yet reasonably presented by this distinguished scientist, and equally impressed that he goes to such trouble to make it all accessible to the general public.

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

bill January 29, 2011 at 11:38 am

Delingpole reminds me of the guy who can always come up with some breathtakingly cutting retort 2 hours after the argument he’s just lost is over!

He was clearly absolutely flummoxed by Nurse, and by a question that’s based on such an obvious – and entirely justified – analogy he should have been over it in his own mind at least a dozen times.

Instead he’s left flapping around like a startled haddock! A pathetic attempt to change the subject, hapless equivocation, and then faltering faux-indignation – where’s the steely man-of-action and all-round rabble-rouser? The man who sits proudly behind his trusty keyboard spraying the ‘eco-fascists’ and opining that ‘there simply aren’t enough bullets’ to deal with the warmists? (Warmists, incidentally, are held to be nazi-style violent bullies – again we see how psychological projection is a key part of the denier personality, as is frequently exhibited here by our most regular contrarians.)

No, instead we see a weaselly git blatantly caught picking bits out to suit his own agenda. How much more face could he have lost? Well, he could have run around squealing that it was all so unfair and he’d been ‘intellectually raped’, I suppose… oh, apparently he did!

I’ll say it again – it is amazing the calibre of person the denial machine consistently manages to elevate to public prominence. That alone should be a warning to any thinking person…

Johnmacmot January 29, 2011 at 12:42 pm

Good comment, Bill. I read it out to my wife, in fact.

The psychology of denialism is a disturbing and horribly fascinating issue. The projection thing is often bizarre.

I hadn’t seen Delingpole live before, and he turned out to be all flimsy, ignorant bluster. Pathetic.

BTW, what is your blog’s title? (I’m sure Gareth/Bryan won’t mind,,, :-) )

bill January 29, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Thanks John, but my blog is tied to a specific issue here in South Australia and is probably of little more general interest.

However, I do think this set of images of the Victorian floods I just culled from NASA’s modis service and posted at flickr would be of more general interest.

Nick January 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm

“Intellectually raped” ,eh? That’s Delingpole in a nutshell…striving for effect over substance. What is his use of ‘intellectual rape’ if not a glib, offensive construct using the shock of juxtapostion? A signal to his vapid followers that he still has his wits? The wits that have conspicuously failed him throughout the sorry years of his tenure in public commentary. Completely oblivious to the fact that his publicly admitted lack of curiosity and sense of duty to his subject matter has exposed him as not qualified to pass comment.

Nigel January 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm

hmmm.. perhaps a case of good old fashioned Attitude polarization

nigelj January 29, 2011 at 10:08 pm

Good article. Fact is some very powerfull and ruthless interests are aligned against AGW. All we can do is refute them loudly and often, on the science, in an honest, balanced way. Reality is the best refutation and reality is catching up with the sceptics fast, like 2010s temperatures.

nigelj January 29, 2011 at 10:27 pm

One other thing on the doubters and attacks on science. The public understand the Greenhouse theory in essence but get lost on the finer points of natural forcings like the sun and what effect they have or dont currently have. They get annoyed.

What the public do understand is multiple data sets showing the same trend. And multiple Greenouse signatures showing the presence of a C02 based heating. Thats why the sceptics avoid these two issues.

They try to discredit the temperature record as thats their only real hope. If it cant be trusted then predictions mean nothing and predictions go to the heart of science.

Show the public that there are 4 main temperature series plus datasets on ocean heat content and upper atmspheric radiative heat loss. They are all broadly consistent. What are the chances all of these are all in serious error? Pretty much zero.

Toby January 30, 2011 at 1:53 am
Bart Verheggen January 30, 2011 at 8:15 am

Excellent documentary indeed; thanks for the round-up.

One (of many) things that mde it special was that Paul Nurse was so *nice*. He was extremely friendly and polite with e.g Delingpole. I think that’s one reason that makes this documentary powerful (and it caught Delingpole off guard, see how uneasy he responds to the medical analogy Nurse brings up).

nigelj January 30, 2011 at 10:24 am

Nurses piece is a good example of firm strong clarity and strength, but politeness, coolnness, and rationality. I feel loose your cool with the denialists and they win hands down. Be just a bit too polite and they will walk all over you.

Science is being attacked ignorantly and irrationally, the last gasp attack of the sceptics. But society knows this is nonsense. Intuitively society knows its a big issue, so is testing mainstream science to see if its a) too weak or b)cracks and panics. Its also giving the sceptics a bit of leeway to see if they hang themselves, which they will. Stay cool.

Mike C January 30, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Being a true skeptic requires you to know and understand the evidence. Delingpole’s admission that he doesn’t have time to read, or the ability to understand, the evidence is a perfect example of why he is not a true skeptic.

Side note: a few years back Paul Nurse visited Otago Uni and gave several extended talks to graduates and undergrad students. A top bloke.

CTG January 30, 2011 at 10:36 pm

Delingpole’s position is nonsensical. He says that he does not have the expertise to understand the science, but this means that he also does not have the expertise to tell whether any given scientist is credible or not. Therefore, he cannot reliably be “interpreting the interpretations” either.

J Bowers January 31, 2011 at 2:05 am

CTG, look up ‘prophet’ in a dictionary.

CTG January 31, 2011 at 7:16 am

I think augur is closer to the mark.

Macro January 31, 2011 at 11:18 am

Surely you mean “profit” !

Macro January 31, 2011 at 11:24 am

On the other hand – applying a strict interpretation of the use of the word you may be right on the money!

“In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and serves as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.[1][2] The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.” Wiki

Quite an accurate description of the man don’t you think?

nigelj January 31, 2011 at 1:55 pm

To profit, derived from the ancient word “prophet”, he who examines the entrails of goats to predict the future and charges a bomb for it.

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: