Bishop Hill Richard B at the BBC
Sep 13, 2011 Climate: other Greens Richard Betts has an article up at the BBC, which I'm sure readers here will find of great interest:
Climate "sceptics" accuse climate scientists of exaggerating the evidence for human-caused climate change in order to secure their own funding; but actually I think that any vested interests in talking up the problem lie elsewhere.
The focus on climate change is now so huge that everybody seems to need to have some link to climate change if they are to attract attention and funding.
Hence the increasing tendency to link everything to climate change - whether scientifically proven or not.
The question is: do climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on "our side" against the climate sceptics?
Bishop Hill
Oops, this an old article.
Reader Comments (34)
Interesting article, but it does seem to be from January 2010, so not exactly new!
Q. What do you call a climate alarmist making a small and grudging admission about the near total perversion of huge swathes of our political, economic and scientific world views?
A. A start.
Actually, hats off to Richard Betts. Given his position, that article must have taken no little courage to write.
Compare and Contrast the 24 hour Gore-a-thon....
Date of BBC article - 11 January 2010
I like this comment;
"It's funny how a cold winter is proof of nothing but a couple of hot summers and it's the end of the world? - David, London"
Thanks to Richard for raising some issues that have been discuussed here and elsewhere.
quote:
"but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event.
Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda. "
----
My thoughts: The absolute majority of climate scientists get on with their jobs and resesarch..
Richard Betts says:
"but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"
When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was. "
------------------------------
A few climate scientists, (and cheif scienists, presidents of society, etc as well) have been answering the phone and giving the media what they want to help push their own advocacy (they may genuinely believe it)
I hope the majority of climate scientists now think it necessary(duty?) to correct misreprestations of the science by a few scientists that have crossed over into policy advocacy..
And these tend to be the high profile ones the media go to. Ie Trenberth, Hansen, etc.
I wonder If Richards interesting discussion with Jonathan Jones, contributed to this article...
"You're a nice guy and your presence here is much appreciated. But eventually your silence will be taken as consent. That may well be wrong, it may well be unfair, but that's just how life works." Jonathon Jones
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/5/quote-of-the-day.html#comments
Thanks again to Richard for rasing some interesting questions at the BBC, and I hope all climate scientists can self-reflect on this question he poses..
Richard Betts:
"The question is: do climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on "our side" against the climate sceptics?
I've just noticed the article was dated January 2010....!!
Reading it, now, makes it seem ever so current...
Why haven't we heard this from the likes of Sir Paul Nurse, Beddington, David King, etc...
I hope this reflects what the majority of scientists think..
I hope that this sort of honest thinking and acknowledging of issues gets a much wider audience, especially at the BBC
I think this article is a bit disingenuous of Richard. One is led to believe from the article, without him actually saying it, that the global warming (aka climate change) is all man-made. There is nothing at all to suggest there is great uncertainty about the cause of the warming, or to suggest that it is no different from what has occurred at different times in recent history.
Richard Betts
Nice article, is there anything that needs updating?
With ENSO not performing in accordance with what Hansen told it to do, are we in for a third consecutive cold winter?
If the notorious "barbecue" summer was about a PR spinner over riding scientific advice, what is the opposite negative spin on a cold winter?
A "morgue full" winter?
Why did not the likes of Steve Jones in his review of science have a look at this..
Moderate climate scientists voices are completely ignored, the media and politicians want a soundbite.
As nothing seems to have changd since then, even now every single weather event is linked by some that should no better with 'climate chnage' man made...
I for one can agree with the majority of Richards article, we are on the same side, I think, intelectual honesty. yet nothing much seems to have changed.
My Bad:
Doug Mcneall tweeted the link to the article this morning.
I thought it was current..
Mainly because it sounds so current!
https://twitter.com/#!/dougmcneall
So many things we seem to agree about, what were we disagreeing about?
I refer my honourable friends to the answer I gave at 9.13 am on the 'All in a Davies work' thread.
There are 'genuine' climate scientists (in which category I include Richard Betts and a large number of others whose specialities are wide and varied).
There are 'genuine' environmentalists who believe that we have in some way over-reached ourselves and need to make some effort to return to a less technological lifestyle. I disagree with them but they are entitled to their view.
There is a third group some of whom claim to be scientists but all of whom have developed a vested intrerest in pushing a particular paradigm which (I suspect) many know to be unsound and of uncertain provenance but whose socio-political beliefs are so strong that any method of achieving their ends is legitimate in their eyes.
Then there are the greedy bastards who don't care how they make a quick buck at our expense!
The third group are, of course, fanatics and therefore dangerous. They are also influential and plausible and their best allies are the 'useful idiots' in the media who think (when they think at all) that this is all a game and since scary headlines sell, as Richard says, keep on phoning and phoning and nagging and rephrasing the question till they get the answer they want.
And if you doubt me watch BBC News Channel some time when the interviewer is dealing with a subject on which the BBC have a 'line' they want to stick to. Eg: Harman went up in my estimation (I never thought I'd say that!) when she consistently refused on air to blame the riots on "government cuts" in spite of consistent and blatant pressure to do so.
Oops Bishop Hill update
So worthy of an update by Richard?
Is increasing the cost of fuel way above inflation this govts method of legitimising euthanasia for the sick and elderley, especially when ENSO suggests another cold winter?
Have the Met Office yet done their 30%, 30%, 40% probability warning of a cold winter, after this wet rot summer?
As someone who spent most of the 90s in geology / Earth Science departments of various UK Universities, my comment is that this sort of grant chasing is hardly a surprise.
The big thing in geology at the time was catastrophic events (e.g. meteor impacts) and mass extinctions. Didn't matter what your field of research actually was, if you wanted the grant money you had to tack on a bit to the application that showed some link to these.
The problem for climate science is that it is a LOT less mature a discipline than geology, and should really still be in a phase where gathering high quality observational data is the major aspect, with modelling being a secondary strand from this. Instead, because of the political and economic potential of the findings, the media profile and that the meme of human activity being bad for the planet fitting with the post 1960s ethos of the wider public, the science has been trying to run before it can walk, and has got an awful lot of 'hangers on'.
This will be the way it goes from now on - mainstream science and even the media (eventually) backing off from pushing the hardline CAGW agenda. It's happening already - BBC TV programmes used to always be mentioning Climate Change, but now whole episodes of Countryfile, Blue Peter, etc go past without it being mentioned once. There's a show on Sunday mornings in the UK called Country Tracks, where they show old clips from Countryfile from the last 5 years, and some of those old clips show the harping tone that used to exist in all BBC output. It is changing, but it'll be slow and grudging.
For those people who want a CAGW-Nuremburg or some sort of McCarthy witch-hunt where the dishonorable are punished in public, I'm afraid that's not how it's going to be, so you can put down those pitchforks and burning torches. Sure I'd love to see the wrongs righted, but that only happens in fiction - the main culprits will retire on good pensions, and incomes from dinner-talks to the yet-gullible. Science advances with every funeral. If we're lucky, one of them will do an expose once safely retired(hoping for Phil Jones myself) and the thing can finally be put to rest.
The fight has polarised into Science vs Anti-Science - maybe we don't like those divisions, I have science degrees myself, and have always loved science and engineering - I am deeply unhappy about being named as an 'enemy' of the thing I love. So when people like Richard Betts come along, we should be glad. I don't always agree with him, but he's the sort of scientist I can respect, and only by both of us creeping into the middle ground a little will we ever get Science to see we're not all Moon-landing-doubting creationist UFO-abductees, and that it's perfectly safe for them to admit the deficiencies. It's mistaken identity - some of us want and need science to be strong and brave - yes there are loons amongst our number, you too!
It would help if we stop being bedfellows with Moon-landing-doubting creationist UFO-abductees - we have to look at ourselves too and say - just because that fellow over there shares our doubts about AGW - does that really mean he's one of 'us'? (by 'us' I mean scientific doubters). Also, we accuse science of bringing politics into the arguments, but we do it to : "why should we pay more taxes for an unproven theory?" we shout - why bring taxes into it, it makes your motives look questionable, IMO. The tax argument is null - if it wasn't CAGW, it would be something else they'd blame for taxing us, don't mix them.
*skeptic with a k used to be used as a term in paranormal/ufo culture for paid disinformants, so I don't like it, even if it's correct etymology.
Just a 2p.
I hadn't noticed just how much things had changed until I read the comments. I've not seen such an overwhelmingly pro set of comments since 2010!
Seriously I was beginning to think the comments had been filtered, but now I realise the date, it all makes sense.
Hi golf charley
No update needed - I still stand by what I wrote in that piece.
No, we've not done the winter forecast yet.
Fuel prices and govt policy are not my area I'm afraid - your question sounds like one for your MP or energy provider(s)!
TheBigYinJames
Thanks v. much for the comments. Agreement is not necessary - I'll settle for respect. (Thank you!)
Well said. One thing I have learnt in discussions here and elsewhere is that it is wrong to think of a group called "sceptics" (let alone "deniers") and assume they all have the same views. Clearly they don't - and similarly, there is no group called "warmists" who share the same views either. There is a whole spectrum in between.
I agree - although I do still think that modelling is very important as it's a way of testing the internal consistency of all our bits of understanding, and coming up with the best estimates we can regarding future conditions (given that our very basic understanding suggests that, at the bare minimum, things will probably be different in the future).
Also, bear in mind that climate science is a huge field, especially when you include all the wider aspects beyond just the atmospheric parts, like translating future changes into impacts. Some bits are more mature than others - we're more confident in anthropogenic CO2 rise being a significant contributor to past warming than we are in future projections of impacts. Unfortunately, some of those involved in communicating the science (especially the numerous "hangers-on" who depend on the science being "settled") don't appreciate this either! So it's our job as scientists to be clear about which areas are well-understood and which are not.
Richard Betts
Thanks for your response. I am well aware from your (much appreciated) posts here, that you do stick to the science.
I just wish more of the activists, spinners and politicians listened to the scientists, rather than each other!
So Richard in view of what you have said here, what do you think of Al Gore's "climate reality project" and in particular the second video here ("Take a look at these videos and make sure to share them with your friends"). I wonder if it will be as successful as that 10:10 video.
Richard Betts
I remember the fan fares in summer 1987, when the Met Office had their new super Cray computer installed. I had a very minor involvement.
A few months later, Michael Fish made a famous statement on the 15th October, which I have heard Ian Macascgil admit he wrote. Is this true?
Hi golf charley
I'm afraid I don't know who wrote that famous statement! I was still at school in 1987, but my experience since starting here in 1992 has been that the weather presenters generally tend to formulate their own wording of the forecast after consultation with the chief forecaster and his team (I did do some forecaster training as part of my wider training, and spent a little time in the central forecasting office as it was then - somewhere there is a hilarious video of me doing a mock TV forecast with those old magnetic symbols - hopefully it was destroyed when we relocated from Bracknell to Exeter!!!).
Hi PaulM
I'll look later - better get back to work!
I think the 10:10 folks backed off from the exploding heads video - they realised it was OTT.
Backed off !
Initially a completely flippant facetious non apology by Franny.
Then a more professional one a few days later..
They completly lost the plot making it, over a hundred people involved so lost in green group think, and preconceptions of 'deniers' they had no idea how it would be percieved.
OTHER green / environment groups were the most upset! At how stupid it was.
Most sceptic after initial reaction, were laughing at a total... They've jumped the shark moment...
I wonder whether Al Gore will jump any sharks tomorrow...
As above, I would be interested in climate scientists thoughs on the. Climate Reality Project.
As make no mistake, when Al Gore say he is going to Reveal the DENIERS.Al Gore is going after rhetorically Bishop Hill, Watts Up and me, for spreading confusion and anti science, with supposed nefarious motives.
Al wants people to choose sides.
Richard Betts:
I would be interested (after work of course) in your views on the link I posted on unthreaded about the Government response to the HoC report on winter resilience. Particularly I am concerned about them (government via Beddington) relying on UKCOP9, which to me is nonsense, being based on unvalidated computer models of future climate (I believe they are forecasting in 25km squares). We are talking here, if they are wrong, of £billions of losses, deaths and untold misery (as per the cost last winter of the Met Office getting it wrong).
Your thoughts would be welcome.
It might be an old article but it's still good and still holds true. Lack of critical commentary on some dubious pro-AGW articles and papers has helped create the highly polarised debate we have now. I think this has been bad for science and we need more "Honest Brokers"
Is Richard ducking the awkward questions again? It would be nice to see him practising what he preaches.
Hi PaulM
No, I'm not ducking awkward questions, neither now nor at other times. I have work to do! Sorry if I take longer to answer the more involved questions, it's just that sometimes they need a bit of thought (because they are such good questions) or a bit of background research, like watching the video you posted, and that's not a priority for my day job!
However I've watched the video (The Fat Lady Sings, was that the one?) and to be quite honest I can't see the point of it, I can't see it persuading anyone about anything. I think a lot of these things are done to make the already-converted feel comfortable about being on board (like car adverts making owners of a particular model feel good), rather than seriously hoping to change anybody's mind. And of course I don't approve of the "denial ends" bit!
I'm more concerned about the stuff they say about climate change impacts on London, like "Peak river levels of the Thames and its tributaries are projected to rise by nearly a third in less than a decade — putting more than 1 million people and nearly half a million properties at risk". I don't know where they've got that from - I think somebody somewhere has misunderstood something... Moreover, it's pointless talking about changes over the next decade in an argument for emissions cuts, as even massive global cuts today would probably not affect the trajectory of climate change for two or three decades.
So I'm not impressed!
Oh, and another thing....
Any changes over the next decade will probably be dominated by natural variability not GHG forcing anyway, especially on things like floods, making statements about impacts on that timescale doubly irrelevant to the low-carbon cause...
Thanks Richard, its good to hear you say these things explicitly. We do appreciate that you have a day job as well as trying to answer all our awkward questions!
Phillip Bratby
Thanks very much indeed (yes I mean it!) for drawing my attention to that, it makes interesting reading. Sorry I missed your post on unthreaded.
Clearly (as with the Climate Reality thing highlighted by PaulM above) somebody somewhere has misunderstood - the projection is indeed for milder winters, but on average and in the long term (several decades away). This definitely does not rule out severe winters still happening sometimes, especially in the near-term when things will still be dominated by natural variability anyway. UKCP09 does account for natural variability and a proper understanding of the projections would have revealed that point.
But I think you need to be careful in assuming where this misunderstanding has come from - I don't think it was SJB. The quote about his report clearly says "long term" so I think the misunderstanding has arisen elsewhere.
You are right to be sceptical about whether 25km model projections are useful as forecasts. The models used in UKCP09 do indeed run at that resolution but the user guidance for the projections is very clear that results at such scales should only be regarded as "indicative to the extent that they reflect large-scale changes modified by local conditions such as mountains and coasts". So high resolution in itself does not mean the outputs are automatically more believable locally: if the large-scale (bigger than UK) changes are wrong then the 25km projections will merely be wrong at a higher resolution.
The UKCP09 projections make clear that there are very large uncertainties in the future projections (that's why some people don't like them - they just want "the answer"!). For example, the old "milder wetter winters, hotter drier summers" meme which arose from the old UKCIP02 scenarios is shown (as suspected) to be far too strong a statement when we illustrate the uncertainties with UKCP09, especially the "drier summers" bit - the UKCP09 projections include wetter summers as well as drier ones .... good job too after the last few summers .... the bottom line is that we don't know whether climate change will make British summers wetter or drier!
One thing we (Met Office) have learnt over the last few years is that we need to get much more involved in the communication and application of our science. Previously we left it to middle-men to do this translation, so we could get on with the science, but clearly this hasn't really worked as there's been a lot of misunderstandings and lack of appreciation of the uncertainties in future projections, especially in the application to impacts assessments (which are often far too certain). The same problem has been present in IPCC - a noticeable disconnect between WG1 and WG2. We're doing our best to rectify this....
Richard:
Thank you for that. It really concerns me that policy-makers and their advisers at all levels just interpret what you in the Met Office have said in the past, and plan for warmer wetter winters and hotter drier summers with catastropic sea level rises, regardless of what the uncertainties and variability from year-to-year really are. Devon County Council is planning for that sort of future regardless of having the Met Office next door. Somebobdy needs to do a better communication job and point out to the policy-makers where they are going wrong. The country's economy is rapidly going downhill on the back of planning based on the belief that "we have 60days to save the planet". Who in the Met Office stands up to politicians when they spout alarmist rubbish? The Met Office website doesn't inspire one with confidence and I have never heard Julia Slingo (to take one MO example) saying "hold on here, the science is very uncertain" (at Copenhagen she was as alarmist as the rest). All we are told is we must act yesterday, regardless of cost. Just listen to and watch the BBC.
Hi Phillip
All I can say is, we are now doing much more to talk directly to the people that make decisions based on our science. Don't get me wrong, I still think that climate change is a problem to be addressed, but it is important that the science is properly considered, for adaptation as well as mitigation.
If it's any reassurance, Julia and I were both in Whitehall last week saying exactly what I said above about UKCP09 and its uncertainties. Maybe I have a different definition of "alarmist" to you, but I really don't think Julia is one.
Are you in or near Exeter then? Have you been to the Met Office? If you're interested, drop me an email (fairly obvious address) - I'll be pleased to show you round.
Richard - interesting comment, relevant, even if out of date.
"It's easy to blame the media and I don't intend to make generalisations here, but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"
When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was."
have you ever asked the 'somebody else' why they would make such a comment? not your problem I realise, but have the relevant journalists got direct lines to all MET contacts for these stories & pick & choose quotes at will.
anyway thanks for your attempts to bring sanity & science back to this debate.
ps - Richard re your comment to Phillip
"Don't get me wrong, I still think that climate change is a problem to be addressed, but it is important that the science is properly considered, for adaptation as well as mitigation."
i agree & 90% on this blog would (i think), but which is better warming or cooling? ...fight...:-)