Bishop Hill More Nurse
Jun 10, 2011 Royal Society The Royal Society meeting seems to have been very interesting, with some interesting feedback from Richard Drake, Doug Keenan and Josh.
I'm intrigued by some of the things we have learned about Paul Nurse - that he thought he had been critical of CRU for not being open with their data, that the Horizon programme was fair and balanced and that he was stung by criticism of it.
The only basis for him saying that he was critical of CRU in the show was a statement that the data should have been open. It is a bit of a stretch to describe this as criticism in my opinion. I wonder if he examined the transcript whether he would be able to repeat the suggestion that he had been balanced with a straight face. I think not. I'm not sure either that he can expect anything other than criticism when he has grouped those who question the AGW consensus - including some of his own fellows - with AIDS deniers. This struck me as a gratuitously provocative step on his part and he can hardly complain about people being rude about him in return.
That said, I share Doug Keenan's view that his position in honestly held. He just needs to get out a bit more and meet people with views outside the consensus. And to work on making clear criticisms where they are due.
On the subject of Prof Nurse, there is an in-depth interview with the great man in New Statesman. There's little of direct relevance to the interests of this blog, but an interesting picture emerges of Nurse the activist who used to sell Socialist Worker:
Nurse's undergraduate socialist spirit is still alive and well: he wouldn't be against scientists getting involved in activism. "We are citizens, and citizens should be involved in politics, and I think those that have a strong view should be involved in party politics," he says. "I'm happy to see fellows of the Royal Society politically engaged, if that's what they see as right."
Reader Comments (48)
I've no objection to scientists getting involved in politics so long as they don't assume that their scientific credentials give them any more reason for being taken seriously. The same goes for clergymen.
"That said, I share Doug Keenan's view that his position in honestly held."
OK, I'll buy that.
But you think that Adolf Hitler / Stalin / Pol Pot's positions were not "honestly held"?
I know. Over the top.
But these "honestly held positions" are used to self-justify the most outrageous and dishonest actions and statements.
Yes, that is over the top. I don't think we particularly need another thread diverted into discussion of totalitarianism. Nurse has hardly said a word on AGW itself so I don't think he can be accused of having any such urges.
His role as president of the RS gives him the opportunity to play referee. He should be loudly condemning people who don't disclose their data and I think expressions of concern over journal gatekeeping would be warranted too. He can be criticised for failing to do these things, but let's leave the Godwinesque stuff out of it.
There is certainly some measure of truth in the thrust of the observation made by Martin.
As I see ir, it is not a question whether the views he espoused were honestly held, but rather whether they are/were negligently held. As the head of the major scientific establishment in the UK, he ought not to present openly in public views on areas of science that he has not thoroughly reviewed and considered. If he intended presenting a programme dealing with skeptical views held against scientific doctrines and scientists in which he intened illustrting his views by giving as an example climate sceptics, he ought to have thoroughly reviewed the AGW issues and the issues on which the sceptics were particularly concerned about before presenting a TV programme aired to a wide audience. Any thing less than this is in my view negligent.
And if he is concerned about honesty, is it not about time that he published on TV a correction to the CO2 emission point? Namely that man does not emit far more CO2 than nature does, and that manmade emissions are only a tiny proportion of the annual CO2 emissions. The failure to correct the record (in prominent form) can in itself be considered dishonest.
So Paul Nurse has no objection if RS fellows get engaged in politics. That's big of him, considering they don't need his permission.
On the other hand, has Paul Nurse, obtained the approval of the RS Fellows for his political, campaigning stance on climate change. Did Lord Rees, Lord May?
Bishop
I do not want to get into a political debate, but in my opinion, in a free society it is perfectably acceptable for anyone to hold any view they wish to hold. Holding a view in itself is not a 'wrong'. The 'wrong' occurs in the manner in which one may or may not act as a consequence of a view held. It is actions not thoughts that may lead to 'wrongs'. When referring to actions, I include espousing the view held and inciting others to act in a certain manner as a consequence of views held (whether in common) or otherwise.
Andrew, it's really important to distinguish between what Paul Nurse claimed to me and what I said back to him. When push comes to shove, the first is more important!
Nurse claimed:
1) that he had criticised CRU about their lack of openness with their data and code. (He may not have mentioned code but I don't think he would deny this statement, with code included.)
2) that his recent 'Guardian article' was very well balanced, and he jolly well hoped that I had read it in full.
He didn't claim to me that the Horizon programme was very well balanced. He may think that but it was me that mentioned the programme. And he didn't say exactly where he had criticised CRU about their openness. Maybe that was in a private conversation - but the strong impression I had was that it was in public, somewhere he could have expected me to have read about it, before having this conversation with him.
What I said back on point 1 was that yes, I remembered he had asked the right question of Phil Jones on openness on 'that BBC programme'. I couldn't even remember that it was Horizon if you really want to know :)
What I said back on point 2 was that I hadn't read the article in full. I was however aware of Steve McIntyre's criticisms of one thing in it, that was implicit in our chat by now.
I can be accused of being stupid in what I said. Surprisingly, it wouldn't even be the first time. But it is important to detach that from what the President of the Royal Society took the trouble to say, as he was fleeing the Southbank Centre with a colleague, with whom he had something else to discuss before leaving the area entirely (thus bringing our own interaction to an end).
@Jun 10, 2011 at 8:36 AM | richard verney
Thanks, Richard.
Having had breakfast I felt narked about the Bish's original posting and re-started the computer to make pretty much the same point.
And found the Bish's comment 5 minutes after mine. And yours.
I wouldn't doubt that Nurse's views are held sincerely. But he isn't just a shoe salesman or a bloke in a pub. He isn't even 'just' a Nobel prize winning geneticist and cell biologist. He is supposed to President of the Royal Society which in turn is supposed to be Britain's premiere Scientific Institution.
Yes, right.
So when the Beeb inveigled him into heading up their latest agit-prop campaigning piece, what did he do? Did he read the HSI? Did he get in touch to have a chat? Did he spend a few hours at Climate Audit, WUWT or here? Or did he gely on the old boys Houghton / Watson / Beddington / Tickell and all the rest? Is he proud of selecting Delingpole as a stooge and putting him on the backfoot with his ridiculous non sequitur question. Is he proud of the use the Beeb and the media made of this?
If someone was to publish a new paper casting doubt on one of the central tenets of Genetics and it gained a small but vocal group of supporters, would he just rely on the views of a few colleagues or would he trouble to inform himself on the subject?
Bearing in mind that we aren't talking about a scientific squabble about the mating dance of the little spotted godwit but a "hypothesis" that is being used as justification for spending trillions, now, on replacing the energy basis for all human societies (with stuff that can be seen not to work); this is more than just a bit careless. It is barefaced incompetence or malice. Either one or the other.
Sincerely meant or not.
Martin, since I started to srite this little experience down (and it was the malaria part that was easily the most important for me) I have been thinking the same thoughts or rather asking myself the same question. Is the believer better or worse than the conniving cynic? The normal examples come to mind at that point. As it happens I watched BBC's astounding Storyville documentary on the trial of Comrade Duch in Cambodia last night, just before it expired on the iPlayer. The question you ask goes very deep. But I firmly respect Andrew's right to set editorial policy here. Another time.
We have one Nobelist strongly on the skeptical side, Kary Mullis, who is also however a very outspoken skeptic of the HIV/AIDs connection as well despite simple evidence that infected blood full of virus spreads the disease. No matter what the details of the argument are, and the ones I've heard seem pedantic and narrow, the gross unpopularity of his view on this means, no, we don't have a Richard Feynman to save the day.
What we have learnt about Sir Paul Nurse is that his younger self would have hated what he actually became, namely a beknighted member of the establishment.
Honestly held views does not mean we have an honest debate.
Climate science is riven with honestly held views that are based on advocacy, ideology and politics.
What of the science and of science?
When you see scientists laud tricks, hide data, act as consensus gatekeepers then you know that their honestly held views count for absolutely nothing.
Sir Paul Nurse is a hypocrite, he is no man of the people, he has become self-serving protector of a dishonest elite.
When I was in my teens I regarded my father, who had been a front-line soldier in two world wars and the survivor of a farm which he and my mother very largely cleared by hand from scrub and standing bush during the Great Depression, as someone who had both read enough history and experienced enough of it at first hand to have acquired some wisdom along the way. I remember him advising me to be very cautious in dealing with believers and to avoid zealots at all costs. He preferred the sceptical path as they, in his view, 'tended to act on the basis of evidence'. He also warned me that the mass of people generally accepted obvious beievers as leaders to overcome their own inability to think things through, a choice which he was inistent usually ended badly. I still hold to those views as I have seen little, over the years, that would persuade me otherwise.
Alexander, what say what I like about Paul Nurse is that he passionately believes in the scepticism and spirit of inquiry lying at the foundation of true science. Is that 'belief' also dangerous?
Of course I may be misreading the man. Mac thinks so - but also implies that Nurse is honest.
I think we have to admit we draw a blank when dealing with the complexity of one human being raised up on high in an outfit like the Royal Society.
It does matter though, to me, whether he has indeed criticised CRU over their lack of openness. I'd like to be shown the best example of that.
And the role of FoI also bothers me. But I've just said enough about that in the other thread.
I would really love to know if Paul Nurse has read the climategate E-Mails. If he hasn't, then his words are more understandable. He prtrayed Phil Jones as a hard working honest scientist who had been treated badly by the scandal.
If he has read the E-Mails, then I am with Martin Brumby.
Phil Jones is a really nasty piece of work and he is fully aware of what he has done and is doing.
Even if he has not read them all (which he should have done) he has to be aware of some of the contents but he put a very favourable slant on the "hide the decline" episode which was outragiously misleading.
"That said, I share Doug Keenan's view that his position in honestly held. He just needs to get out a bit more and meet people with views outside the consensus."
Sorry to both Bish and Doug but I just do not see this and tend to agree with Martin.
Here is a guy who when younger held openly left wing views. No problem.
Here is a guy with enough grey matter to win a Nobel Prize.No problem.
Here is a guy who has somehow made his way to the position of President of the Royal Society without any political nounce. Okay, No problem.
Here is the guy that ambushed Dellingpole on the Horizon program. Okay, Dellingpole should have been better prepared.
Now looking at them all together and ....well, I tend to get the impression that I would not trust him at all. Its a little like my approach to the AGW people....Prove me wrong and I await Nurse to prove me wrong.
He took a position on 'bombarded with FOI requests' without checking the truth of the matter. That is enough for us to see that he does not act as appropriate to his responsibilities. There is no need to go further and analyze his motives or honesty. Nullius in Verba.
He did not AMBUSH James Delingpole, he did a complete deliberate hatchet job on him, whilst being fully informed on real sceptical issues by James. No doubt the three hours of footage of that interview would show.
Nurse spoke with James for over three hours and James explained everything that was wrong with the enquiries, etc..... then they left it out.
Why give him any benefit of the doubt, he is fully aware..
"So when the Beeb inveigled him into heading up their latest agit-prop campaigning piece, what did he do? Did he read the HSI? Did he get in touch to have a chat? Did he spend a few hours at Climate Audit, WUWT or here?"
Jun 10, 2011 at 8:59 AM | Martin Brumby
It's absolutely astonishing that you think this. That a senior, respected and decorated scientist, when wanting to find out more on a scientific matter, would start logging onto crank blogs or start reading highly partial books written by people with vested interests.
This really does demonstrate your ignorance of how science, and scientists, function.
When Paul Nurse wants to find out more about AGW, he looks to the science, and credible science giving the opposing view is almost non-existent.
In your opposition to what climate science tells us, do you all forget that there is virtually no science supporting your views? There is such a thing as the balance of probabilities you know.
Richard, I suspect you missed my point that 'believers' and sceptics are different categories of people - scepticism is an attitude, one which does not allow blind belief to occur but insists that all the available evidence should be examined and tested. Your assertion that PN 'believes passionately in scepticism and the spirit of enquiry' seems rather conflicted to me, in that PN did a hatchet job worthy of a true believer on Delingpole, PN has not read the majority of the released emails relevant to the 'Climategate' affair and seems to have forgotten the RS's motto. I realise he is feeling his way as the new pres. of the RS, and that he was an ardent Socialist in his youth, but that is a very normal developmental stage for intelligent youths, but his statements and actions do not add up to a coherent whole to me. I am suspicious that the former Socialist youth has, along with his stellar success in his chosen field, become a full and powerful member of the ruling elite. I would be delighted for him to prove me wrong but the sceptic in me insists I wait and judge him on the evidence.
@ZBD
Er......no....it it no use. Your complete inability to get a handle on the matters under discussion has left me lost for words..
After having learnt the hard way with Cedric over on the Goot thread, may I suggest that we do not feed the troll on this one?
Jun 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM | Zed'sDeadHead
If I was the paragon you describe and was asked by the Beeb for my views on (say) a paper on the drinking habits of female Cornish amateur bunny huggers, I would at least make the effort to look at the facts and both sides of the argument. How difficult would that be?
The fact that you assert that any "credible science giving the opposing view is almost non-existent" is proof positive that you, like Nurse, have carefully avoided looking at any views that do not agree with your religious beliefs. Which is why you repeatedly come on here, quickly pick a nit, make sneering comments about it and subsequently try to avoid reading (let alone understanding) responses given.
But it is worse than that. You try to deny the fact that the actual data is increasingly at variance with the computer prognostications you treat with such reverence.
Let's not rise to the bait shall we?
When a scientist becomes an activist in his own field of study, he or she loses all credibility as a scientist.
You simply cannot be both.
It's like asking a theologian about the existence of God. He would seem to have a vested interest.
Do not, under any circumstances, feed the troll.
The issue is not of scientists going into politics, but politicians going into science. Sadly, too often it is the same people, usually with advanced degrees doing both.
While politics by it very nature is corrupt, it is the corruption of science that I object to.
I might add that what we are in is a political fight, one that has to be fought with rhetoric, not facts. Facts are meaningless even to people like Nurse when it comes to political issues.
Maybe Nurse did ask many more pertinent questions of Phil Jones, but maybe he did not have editorial control and maybe, as with Dellers' interview, much more of it ended up on the cutting room floor, hence his confusion.
(Not that I am of the ZDB or Hengist persuasion; I was fuming at the biased bloody programme.)
Nice find on the newstatesman article...
"he wouldn't be against scientists getting involved in activism."
Right...
"In many branches of science there are radical movements. Increasingly, both in the rich and poor worlds, scientists are involved in active advocacy which they see as an intellectual and ethical duty."
From the 1976 book titled 'RIO: Reshaping the international order - a guide to the club of rome,' Page 133 of the paperback with Bilderberg attendee Jan Tinbergen the coordinator of the book.
As far as I'm concerned, scientists have been involved in activism for decades.
The New Statesman article is pretty fascinating. One thing you can read between the lines is how ashamed/proud he is of his UEA PhD. He comes from the wrong side of the tracks both from his background and his education, and still has a chip on his shoulder. Fair play to him - the UK does snobbery on both counts very well. Even McIntyre chips in with Monty Python-inspired snobbery about UEA. I'm sure the UEA thing contributes to his defense of Jones and co. At the same time, they're indefensible and he really should try to work that out...
"Maybe Nurse did ask many more pertinent questions of Phil Jones, but maybe he did not have editorial control and maybe, as with Dellers' interview, much more of it ended up on the cutting room floor, hence his confusion."
Paul Nurse interviewed Delingpole...... !!!
So he knows all about what Delingpole said despite it ending up on the cutting room floor..
Don't see how he can be confused!
I interviewed James delingpole about the Horizon program. Chapter and verse here....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
extract:
My interview with James Delingpole
James actually received a lot of criticism from sceptics for somehow ‘failing’ to get across the sceptical arguments in this program. When I spoke to him his frustration was obvious as he said he had spent three hours talking to Professor Paul Nurse about the detail of the climategate emails, the failings of the inquiries and the many and varied sceptical arguments with respect to man-made climate change.
James said he had explained in detail why sceptics describe the inquiries as whitewashes, this included the vested interest of the participants, the fact that no one actually asked Jones about whether he had deleted emails, the failure of scientists to provide data to critics and journals (as scientific process would expect) the importance of hiding the decline in proxies, the fact that scientist had become advocates for policy.
Yet in the program all that comes across is a fade to voice over where Professor Paul Nurse states that James believes the inquiries were whitewashes. Why not allow the public to consider some of these reason from James Delingpole
Why did Professor Phil Jones say to delete emails? Why did he ask colleagues to delete emails relating to the IPCC reports. And most importantly of all. Why did Phil Jones feel the need to ask colleagues to delete these emails?
Those question surely support James Delingpole’s view that the peer-review process and the IPCC processes had been corrupted.
"I'm not sure either that he can expect anything other than criticism when he has grouped those who question the AGW consensus - including some of his own fellows - with AIDS deniers."
How so, because he made a programme that examined both? I'm a bit surprised to read this , I mean are you saying that climate skepticism can only be examined in a vacuum ? Please explain
Is there any way to get hold of the Delingpole interview material that was "left on the cutting room floor?"
FOI likely doesn't apply, but what would happen if the producer were simply asked to provide the material?
By the way, one method for avoiding being blindsided by the BBC, or others, would be to insist on making one's own video record of the interview in parallel.
Richard Drake: "I firmly respect Andrew's right to set editorial policy here."
Yes, but do you respect the policy itself? It is a policy that (i) allows ZDB free rein to trash threads, but (ii) attempts to suppress potentially relevant C20 analogies from serious commenters.
"On the subject of Prof Nurse, there is an in-depth interview with the great man in New Statesman. There's little of direct relevance to the interests of this blog, but an interesting picture emerges of Nurse the activist who used to sell Socialist Worker..."
I would not call people who once sold "Socialist Worker" activists. More accurately, I would call them committed revolutionaries who want to install a communist system and who work to promote that effort. The few colleagues and ex-colleagues of mine who followed this path during graduate school never left it. Though some of them are tenured in highly rewarding jobs in the USA, they remain dedicated to the revolutionary goals.
Anthony,
Despite the negative points made against Nurse on this post, I suggest that an honest attempt should still be made, strictly in private, to try to inform him of the true facts of the criticisms of the AGW conjecture and of the unfortunate manner these criticisms have been handled in both the many recent enquiries and also in the scientific journals.
I suggest that you are the ideal person for this task, or failing that, that you attempt to encourage someone else with the nesessary facts in hand and ability to speak forcefully, but in a relaxed, friendly and non agressive manner.
The results of this conversation could then be reported back here.
If Nurse, despite all the critism, is a fair minded and corageous person, he is the ideal potential recriut to the cause of those who seek the unvarnished truth about the climate to be made public around the world.
If not, then we can forget him and get on with the task in other ways.
A formal approach by a group of senior scientists for a private meeting with Professor nurse would be the best way to get a positive response and to encourage him to come to such a meeting in a spirit of enquiry, rather than as a very senior represeintative of the scientific community, prepared to do battle against ingorant critics.
It would be very useful for someone with the nessary public standing, to initiate and co-ordinate such a venture.
Anthony, I again I urge you to make such an attempt.
This nonsense has gone on too long and is now beginning to cost both you country and mine far more than we can afford to waste on a fairy story.
Bish: On hearing mention again of Stalin and Hitler, you plead that we not be diverted by such 'ott talk of totalitarianism'.
Well it's not ott. Totalitarianism implies a high degree of coercion/state_control, and hence a low degree freedom. And that describes very well much of the world today, and certainly the trend. True, we are (mostly) not in a war - what we experience now - more precisely - is a totalitarian welfare state.
And CAGW thinking fits its bill perfectly, justifying as it does all manner of additional taxes and social controls. Remember too that CAGW thinking is funded almost entirely by the very totalitarian welfare state that stands to benefit from its acceptance.
Conclusion : totalirianism is highly relevant to the CAGW debate. So please no more attempts to stifle this.
@AusieDan
Who is Anthony? Do you mean Andrew?
"I'm not sure either that he can expect anything other than criticism when he has grouped those who question the AGW consensus - including some of his own fellows - with AIDS deniers."
How so, because he made a programme that examined both? I'm a bit surprised to read this , I mean are you saying that climate skepticism can only be examined in a vacuum ? Please explain
Here is a letter to the President of the Australian Academy of Science. A similar one was sent a year later. There has been no answer.
I suspect that I am asking the same questions that Sir Pual Nurse has not exercised in his mind as appropriate, or even required, for his position.
..............................
For Professor Cory as President or Professor Lambeck, past President.
Having just read again the August 2010 AAS publication
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
it is germane to ask the concise past reactions of the AAS to these 3 Australian advances:
(a) http://dnacih.com/SILVA.htm which is a minority view on the toxic effects or otherwise of trace lead in children, with its obstructionist difficulties of acceptance; and
(b) http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Ulcers.one.html#anchor04 the ulcers/Helicobacter story of Marshall and Warren, with its obstructionist difficulties of acceptance; and
(c) http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/2016/1/CAREY.pdf S. Warren Carey on plate tectonics and the expanding earth (with Elliston), with its obstructionist difficulties of acceptance.
Having worked with several of the above named authors and spent many hours/days of discussion with some, it is evident that the growth of important new scientific concepts often divides into a mainstream camp and a minority camp.
Here, I am asking are whether the AAS recognises this not uncommon pattern of progress; and notes that the minority view can evolve to the more accepted view.
For example, does the AAS have a set of guidelines to assist emerging talented scientists to manage the minority view?
An answer framed around “man-made climate change” would illuminate the Academy’s stance and indicate how it has learned from past experience. I could name several test examples on request.
Yours faithfully
Geoffrey H Sherrington
Scientist, (chemist), retired.
All
Making abusive analogies about people on either side of the debate is not going to help us have a meaningful conversation. It is possible to discuss the threat of to liberty presented by greenery without reference to Hitler. It is possible to discuss climate sceptics without reference to people who dispute the HIV/AIDS link.
Yes, Your Grace. And in answer to Jane earlier, total respect for the host, both in principle and in practice. Has your blog attracted such high quality debate as this one? Nor mine. I rest my case.
@Bishop Hill
I agree it is possible to discuss climate sceptics without reference to people who dispute the HIV/AIDS link, however you're evading my question. You allude to a "gratuitously provocative step" or "abusive analogy" by Sir Paul Nurse in the Horizon programme, which you invite your readers to criticize him for but you don't pinpoint the offence. If I understand you correctly Sir Paul's offence was in making one film that examined both phenomena , is that all you mean by the word 'grouped' ?
Ergo you are asking for climate skepticism to be examined apart from other skepticism of scientific issues, in a vacuum in other words. It can be , but that isn't a standard you reciprocate with.
I think my words earlier should be sufficient for you HM: another time. It's good to have boundaries in discussions like this. And lo, we have some.
I find it strange that Prof Phil Jones and Sir Paul Nurse haven't taken on the various commenters and bloggers as represented in this thread for libel/defamation. There have been very many usages of "fighting words". Does their lack of legal attack imply something? Do people start libel cases only when they know they will win? Do people avoid libel cases, even when sprayed with defaming comments, if they feel they won't succeed? I know that in UK/Australian law "truth" does not have the same effect as in US law. "Very Interesting!"
The following is taken form the transcript referred to by his Bishopness
"Bob Bindschadler: Just to emphasise how good these models are [pointing to dynamic wall display]. Side by side comparison, here's data, actual observations, and this is what the computer is generating, predicting what should be happening. And you look at one, you look at the other of these major systems - it's there. These cumulus clouds popping up in the tropics...
Paul Nurse: And this is all happening in the same time scales...
Bob Bindschadler: That's right.
Paul Nurse: ... but one is just built on observation, what we actually see, and below that is data and the modelling that that produces...
Bob Bindschadler: Exactly. So we're just testing a model here. We've got data. We've got a model. How good do the model predictions match the data? In your eye, will just tell you the answer."
If Nurse was a scientist he would have asked the obvious question. If computers can model the weather minute by minute how come the weather cannot be forecast accurately more than 48 hours ahead?
Nil points
Hi
Is there any online medical transcription materials that can help me in my career?