Bishop Hill Where's Roger?
A couple of people have wondered where Roger Harrabin has got to these days. The answer may be here:
In a special Radio 4 series the BBC's Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin investigates whether the arguments surrounding climate change can ever be won. He questions whether his own reporting - and that of others - has adequately told the whole story about global warming.
Roger Harrabin has reported on the climate for almost thirty years off and on, but last November while working on the "Climategate" emails story, he was prompted to look again at the basics of climate science.
He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate.
But he also finds that politicians often fail to convey the huge uncertainty over the extent of future climate change.
Reader Comments (40)
**whether the arguments surrounding climate change can ever be won.**
... implicitly assuming that there is a particular viewpoint which should 'win'.
More agit-prop, which the public is already very tired of.
Sorry Bish - I posted the same link in a comment before I read this item. Have to get up earlier in future!
It seems he has a balanced set of commentors. But the proof will be in the airtime they each get in the programme - that includes Harrabin himself.
The Australian model with the ABC (equivalent of the BBC) is the interviewer gets a significant fraction of the airtime - more speech making than questions. Depending who is being interviewed the ratio could be as bad as 60% interviewer to 40% interviewee. Or directly opposite if the ABC love you.
Disturbing! He is actually talking about scepticism! Wouldn't have had that from that slippery character before with all his green fingering in every pie! Why does he not ask the question, "Why is the only solution to CAGW the creation of a Global Government under UN auspicies that will be un-elected, un-democratic, un-accountable, & un-sackable, with massive tax-raising powers to levy punitive takes upon poor people in rich countries, then dole it out to rich people in poor countries?" After all that is precisely what Copenhagen was all about. It's all about redistribution of wealth, the Socialists ideal coupled with Global Government. He should also ask "Why are many Greenies asking for a suspension of democracy?" For how long? When would it be re-instated? If ever? Once you take democracy away, it rarely comes back!
How does Tony Blair come to be a "seminal figure" in climate policy making? I thought he was yesterday's man.
Blair commissioned the Stern report. The conclusions were in line with what Blair wanted (rather like his commissioned WMD dossiers). (Now Stern is often referred to as a 'climate expert'.) The Stern report had a strong influence in UK, and I think in Europe in making the case for action on AGW now rather than later.
Blair, as an ex-barrister knows how to 'make your case'. His presentation of political arguments (or in his commissioned reports) are very much in line with a barrister selecting the arguments and words to 'prove' the case for his client - irrespective of the underlying truth and balance.
One lives in hope of media enlightenment.
But, Roger finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate. I think he doesn’t even understand the issues in that simple sentence.
1) Consensus on what exactly? While many climate scientists will agree that man is influencing climate, I’d bet if you asked them to voice an opinion on different scenarios and branches of climate science you’d get as many answers as you got interviewees. eg How many would continue to defend the Hockey Stick as good science?
2) Define ‘scientist’. If you mean climate scientist, it’s a bit like saying 98% of Catholic priests believe in God. If you mean scientists in general then you might still have a large (but smaller) proportion believing in AGW simply because they take climate scientists on trust. Like many, I assumed the basic ideas coming out of climate science were right, until I started examining it. How much support is given from one brach of climate science to another simply because they know almost nothing about it? They act like questioning other branches of their field, weakens their own work.
3) Saying one thing, doing another. Many, many people including scientists say they believe in AGW, however they tell a very different story when their habits are examined. If consensus was measured in CO2 footprint, the climate scientists might actually fall short of the average person.
My overall opinion of AGW believers is they have a severe problem with details and climate is ALL about detail.
The cynic in me says foregone conclusion. The rest of me SCREAMS foregone conclusion.
"He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate."
Why should the public even care about an estimate of the 'degree of consensus'? What does it matter what one's perception about consensus is? Consensus is about politics, not science. And an 'estimate' or perception of consensus is not even remotely connected to science.
We could re-word the sentence just to show how silly it is, when other 'consensus' theories are now seen to be either dead wrong, or at least rather quaint:
"He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that phlogiston is the agent of combustion."
"He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that light needs a luminiferous ether to propagate"
Roger has been on HOLIDAY !!! - at least three weeks...
Don't get into a conspiracy theory..
I emailed him and he said he was going to be away to at least mid August, from the end of 24th July. When he got back Richard Balck is on Holiday ( he wrote au revoir in his last blog, everybody thought Richard was going for good...
It's the summer holiday season..
I await, Roger's thought with interest, especially, that William Connolleys wiki climate manipulation has been exposed..
I might send Roger an email with the links..
The following statement is what worries me most, because everything else hangs on this presumption "He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate."
I agree with TinyCO2. What scientists? How much contribution? What heating of the climate - since the LIA - since the MWP - since the RWP - since the Holocene optimum?
If Harrabin comes up with a truly balanced programme, I'll eat my hat.
Barry Woods said
I have just posted on unthreaded regarding Glacier de Tête Rousse and uncharitably asked if William Connolley had made edits. Moments after posting I checked that and yes he did!
Sir Crispin Tickell is the formidable opposition. The epitome of Establishment, dripping with honours, seasoned lecturer and BBC speaker, an evangelical green guru with a long history of environmental political influence. Very unlikely that he will concede the very rudimentary current understanding of natural climatic mechanisms, or any exaggeration of man's role at the expense and understatement of natural influences, or any admission of malfeasance in the cause of green advocacy, such as the HSI saga.
Another opportunity to scare the 'horses'......there will be no 'balance' just as there has been no debate...because it's all sorted mate..
Jerry: I fear the commentators mentioned may not be as balanced as you think. My impression is that Steve McIntyre focuses specifically on statistical analysis and does not offer opinions on the overall CAGW hypothesis. And Nigel Lawson’s position is that, even if the hypothesis is valid, our response is absurd. That leaves the “basics of climate science” field open to the “formidable” Crispin Tickell supported by the eloquent Tony Blair.
Mind you – none of these people are “climate scientists”. I expect Jo Abbess is already on the case.
How does one go from being a sports sub-editor for The News of the World to being the BBC's Environmental Analyst when you have only studied English at St Catharine's College, Cambridge?
Oh I get it, he is an Oxbridge type!
I wonder if my uni studies of Earth and planetary science will get me a job as a sub-editor for Nuts magazine?
I am more optimistic than most commenters above, that the BBC and Roger are moving towards more reasonable analysis. After all, didn't the BBC just have Montford on?
If we pre-emptively attack Roger's program, is that any different than Bob Ward's Guardian pre-emptive attack on Montford's review of Climategate reviews prior to the report having been written?
"He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate."
Whenever I see that magic word "consensus", I am reminded of what Michael Crichton stated in his 2003 Caltech Michelin Lecture:
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus: Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. ...... (cites examples) ..... Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Incidentally, the title of Crichton's famous lecture was: "Aliens cause global warming".
But that is an obviously incorrect and impossible vision of science, let alone of engineering or political decisionmaking informed by science.
Donb, I'm sure we're all entitled to be cynical, given the background to the way the media have treated this subject, and given the likely participants, but you're absolutely right let's see what they come up with. With Steve M having an input it is a big improvement over past experience.
I'm not going to disparage Mr Harrabin before he even is 'on air' with these talks.
However, my hackles rise every time when these establishment types pronounce on what 'the public' is doing wrong, according to their view. This is a denigration of all of us, and even providing this question shows that Mr Harrabin still thinks that wide-spread acceptance of AGW is a function of propaganda, not of scientific argument.
It is the same mind-set which has The Team and their hangers-on shout about peer-review, or about how so-and-so can't be taken seriously because they are not 'climate scientists'.
It is the same mind-set which assumes that 'the public' is just one big dumb beast which needs to be told what to think and do, by those 'elites' who 'know best'.
It is the mind-set which will not allow any critique, of anything, by us who actually pay their salaries.
Sorry about the rant - but I'm not kindly inclined to give the Harrabins of this world one more inch.
You fellows are over estimating yourselves. As you happily pratle on about your little victories, AGW brigade keeps on message and pushes on. And nothing will change untill the "man made CO2 causes global warming" is burried.
Once the "CO2 causes global warming" is burried the climate can warm and cool as it wants and as it always did and the ecco loonies will become quiet. But untill then the ever so reasonable Montford and McIntyre will be used as fellow travelers. Not sceptics, just sticklers for following rules.
anonym
"Consensus" has no meaning in science; it is an irrelevant term. Look back through history for a moment and you will find that a number of great scientists broke with the "consensus" in their discoveries. The point is that science is never "settled". Every scientist but one could be wrong. That is why scientists should always have open minds and should be questioning their hypotheses and attempting to examine all possibilities. You will find the latter concept in Feynman's philosophy; it is also the logic backbone of Bayesian statistics.
"Consensus" only has meaning in politics; i.e., it is a political concept.
I don't know, I've noticed a hint of softening in Roger's stance just recently. Clearly a degree in English doesn't give you the type of training that discounts anyone whose claiming consensus as proof.
The analogy that springs to mind is transubstantiation a pillar of Catholicism. No doubt in the medieval ages the cleverest minds entered the Catholic church and to a man stood four square behind transubstantiation. The consensus was 100%, for anyone to think anything else was heretical. No doubt there were many in the priesthood who thought "Pull the other one!" but none spoke out and the consensus was sealed. But was it right Roger?
DrCrinum: ""Consensus" has no meaning in science; it is an irrelevant term."
I think this is an over-statement. I can think of several reasons why consensus, understood as general agreement, is an important feature of the practice of science.
1. Teachers of science need to be able to pass along an agreed body of knowledge to the next generation of scientists, so that students can gain a grounding in the subject and be able to communicate intelligibly with their fellows when they begin work as scientists. Some of those new scientists may rebel against their teaching and eventually produce a new consensus.
2. Some scientific advances occur though wholly original eureka! moments, but most scientific progress is incremental, building on previous work. This incremental progress constitutes the development of a consensus.
3. Resources are limited and need to be focused on the areas that are showing the most promise. Consensus is a means to identify those areas of promise.
4. Michael Crichton’s notion of an independent reasearch institute sounds plausible, but in practice such research cannot be entirely open-ended. Various criteria would have to be applied as to which independent research shows promise, which is marginal, and which is out of contention. That will in turn require its own consensus to delimit the boundaries of acceptable independent research.
So while it may be true that consensus is a small-p "political" concept, I don't think it can be easily abandoned without damage to the practice of science.
All part of the multifaceted but futile effort to get the AGW train back on the rails, post Climategate.
Some try to sound reasonable. Some try bullying or smear. Some disappear up their own dark mountain.
Brendan, I think you're confusing "acceptance" with "consensus". Acceptance stems from a theory that has been verified by the observations. All scientists know that this may be true because the observations confirm it, but that there may be something lurking out there they don't quite understand, so they accept the idea. Quantum mechanics is just such a theory, every prediction comes true, but you never hear a physicist say, "The science is settled". History isn't on their side.
Consensus is a softer option, it relies upon people accepting that something is true without the observations being confirmed, nor the sums being done. Hence CO2 has caused global warming because it has warmed and CO2 has increased. No sums, that we can test this hypothesis by, just an assertion and a vote of confidence.
it is a finer distinction than that, the sums suggest a degree of warming....
The assumptions,etc of positive feedbacks programmed into computer models, give various 'scenarios' of extra warming..
all without any physical evidence.
geronimo: "Consensus is a softer option, it relies upon people accepting that something is true without the observations being confirmed..."
I interpret "consensus" as "general agreement". In that sense, acceptance is an aspect of general agreement.
Climate sceptics seems to interpret consensus to mean accepting something in the absence of evidence. I don't see that as a correct use of the term.
ScientistForTruth, right on. "He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that
humans have contributed towards the heating of the climatephlogiston is the agent of combustion."I don't underestimate at all, in fact it's the o*&%$(enely high "consensus" among "scientists" that concerns me so much.
Aha, I've just figured it out. I think climate scientists have a finger handicap. All their fingers point in the wrong direction. When they point to us and say "oil-funded! misleaders! denialists!" they really mean themselves; when they point to themselves and say "scientists!" they really mean us.
Hahahaha!
Brendan
To me, science has always been about investigation: hypothesis, scientific method, experimentation, theory, cause and effect, replication ..... all hopefully leading to a scientific proof. Admittedly, "proof" is a human conception, but it serves as a useful building block in science. I don't disagree with you that scientific advancements tend to build upon one another, but the building blocks have a basis in proof. It is understood in science that a proof is not infallible. As we expand our understandings and advance our technologies, some proofs fall by the way side. Hence, science is never settled. Scientists may believe in a theory, but until the proper experiment is performed and replicated, then it remains just a theory. A "consensus" does not prove or give validity to a theory; a "consensus" is not a scientific proof.
Now a "consensus" can certainly be used to give direction to a particular line of experimentation, especially in a field of applied science, but this decision is not a scientific decision. Rather it is a political or expedient decision, particularly in modern day physics where to perform many of the experiments, huge sums of money must be expended. A "consensus" would not be applicable to a classroom teaching program; in the latter, the basic building blocks or proofs would be taught, and any unproved theories would be presented as such. I taught physics at one time; I always attempted to be very clear about basic experiments and scientific proofs in my interactions with my classes.
The field that brings us to this blog is Climatology, a science which is very much in its infancy and which lacks many rigorous aspects of proper scientific investigation as I outlined above. I could cite examples, such as: 1) Readers here are very familiar with the HSI, and after reading it, one can easily understand how flawed the Hockey Stick is from a scientific perspective; 2) I just finished Roy Spencer's new book wherein he addresses several issues: (a) climatologists know very little about meteorology, (b) climate modelers consider clouds to be dependent upon temperature rather than clouds regulating temperature (mixed up cause and effect relationship, a significant issue), and (c) the IPCC does not recognize natural variations (such as ocean currents) in climate change; and 3) Lindzen has been very critical of Climatology, stating that it has become politicized and claiming that theory and observations have been replaced by simulation and computer programs, with the government determining the nature of scientific activity, and he gives examples (see: Climate Science, Is It Currently Designed To Answer Questions? available on the Internet). Currently, how many Climatology studies do you find in the literature that do not involve a computer model? In Climatology, proofs are notably lacking. Just imagine the global surface temperature models: in any other field of science, these models would be laughed out of the auditorium because the raw surface temperature data utilized in these models not only is uncalibrated and lacks standardized collection methodology, but the inaccurate basic data subsequently is adjusted and homogenized and smoothed and infilled and cherry picked and .... it ain't science.
So there is a political game being played because politics has corrupted Climatology; i.e., politics controls virtually all funding of Climatology research. This political game involves substituting "consensus" for "scientific proof". To me this is evil.
DrCrinum: "A "consensus" does not prove or give validity to a theory; a "consensus" is not a scientific proof."
I am not arguing that it does. But a consensus in science arises from the scientific evidence and the judgements of scientists about that evidence.
"A "consensus" would not be applicable to a classroom teaching program; in the latter, the basic building blocks or proofs would be taught, and any unproved theories would be presented as such."
And how does one distinguish between the "basic building blocks" and the "unproved theories"? Does every teacher get to decide these matters for themselves, or do teachers work from some general agreement or consensus about the content of the curriculum?
"This political game involves substituting "consensus" for "scientific proof". To me this is evil."
This clam is frequently made by climate sceptics, but it is irrelevant to the points I was making, which were in response to your claim that the concept of consensus has no meaning in science.
In this case you have shifted the argument to claiming that some bad people have hijacked the notion of consensus and improperly or prematurely applied it to climate science. But that's not the same as saying that consensus has no meaning in science.
Brendan H
Can things like 'consensus' exist amongst scientists? Yes, surely they can. But can that tell us something about the underlying science that produced the consensus?
No.
I think part of the problem is, if you are beating down skeptics who question very specific aspects of the science with the 'consensus argument' (as in, so many great, great scientists do not even ask these questions and agree on these things, so who are you to even question us?) - you are not doing great.
Shub Niggurath: "Can things like 'consensus' exist amongst scientists? Yes, surely they can. But can that tell us something about the underlying science that produced the consensus?"
The existence of a consensus can tell us that the people who are experienced and knowledgeable about a particular subject have a view or range of views based on their work. All else being equal, these are the people who are most likely to have an informed and authoritative understanding of the subject.
In my view, that counts for a good deal, especially since most of us are laypeople on any particular subject. In a complex world with a high degree of specialisation, a dependence on the views of experts is unavoidable.
As to whether appeal to the consensus on specific issues could be regarded as "beating down skeptics", I think that would depend on the situation and the degree of expertise of the participants.
I have just listened to the first broadcast, and I am cautiously optimistic that he is leading somewhere interesting. The first program covered the past, but it was notable that he explained how the uncertainty in the AR4 future temperature estimates was suppressed by an edict from within the BBC! He also described how Al Gore tried to verbally intimidate him after an interview!
The whole tone of the program seemed to be that he was going to reach some unorthodox conclusions. I look forward to next week's installment
David: I agree – there were signs that he may be going somewhere interesting. Nonetheless, you’re right to be cautious. In my view, he appeared to be gently supporting the established position: viz. his various references to the fossil fuel industry funding sceptics and the usual disparaging remarks about George W Bush. OK, that was perhaps balanced (but only a very little) by the story about his being bullied by Al Gore.
But the overwhelming impression he gave was that, although it’s a complex subject and a degree of uncertainty is inevitable (and maybe that’s been insufficiently acknowledged), if these are the views of pretty well the entire scientific establishment then surely there must be something in them? And perhaps that’s a reasonable reflection of the story up to 2007.
But, at the end, I had doubts. Having referred to “hacked” CRU emails, he suggested that the reason the Copenhagen conference failed was US reluctance to make a clear decision. Well, maybe that was a factor, but the main reason by far and the real story was the developing world’s refusal to sign up. And that has far-reaching consequences. Perhaps he’ll come to that next week. We’ll see.
(If you missed it this morning, it’s being repeated this evening (21:30) on BBC Radio 4.)
If you cannot wait till then, you can listen here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525
I agree with David (and partially with Robin). Bob Watson was made to look a little foolish, though at least he admitted it. I thought it was a really interesting programme from the point of view of a behind the scenes look at how policies developed within the British establishment.
Bob Watson reverted into his typical advocacy role with Harrabin which now comes automatic to him. Kudos to Harrabin for pointing it out. At the Guardian debate he openly admitted to not having read the emails but seemed happy to opine on them. I am not sure Watson has anything new or accurate to say about the matter since I also think he does not read the science either, as Doug Keenan made clear.
I thought there was too much emphasis on ancient history. But the conflicting recollections of Tickel and Lawson on Thatcher's views were mildly amusing.
I think I counted three oil smears and one tobacco. Not bad for a half hour show.