Bishop Hill Ben Pile on Nucc and the consensus
Jul 23, 2013 Climate: other Media Ben Pile has a must-read guest post at the Making Science Public blog, covering l'affaire @afneil and the attempts to keep sceptical arguments off the airwaves. Here are a couple of quotes by way of a taster.
The emphasis on expertise is intended to permit only the expression of authorised opinion: not even the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is allowed to speak. Because when he does, the public debate is revealed to be merely a battle of received wisdoms. Can we imagine this in any other discussion about public life? Should Andrew Neil be allowed to challenge ministers on unemployment figures or other economic metrics? After all, he’s just a journalist.
In spite of all the criticism levelled against him, then, Andrew Neil, in just one show, has done more to promote an active understanding of climate science and its controversies than has been done by the Carbon Brief blog, academics at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and elsewhere, Bad Science warriors, and a legion of Tweeters who claim to speak for science have done in their entire existences.
Reader Comments (31)
After reading the transcript of the Neill interview, I began to think that there may be light at the end of the tunnel after all.
Good piece. The way I see it there are very distinct layers involved (from bottom up):
Reality - Measurements - Scientific Analysis - Advocacy - Policy - Reportage - The Public
The Sunday Politics show *by definition* encapsulates just the top three layers.
Andrew Neil, in just one show, has done more to promote an active understanding of climate science and its controversies than has been done by the Carbon Brief blog, academics at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and elsewhere, Bad Science warriors, and a legion of Tweeters who claim to speak for science have done in their entire existences.
Although I agree with him I think Ben Pile was setting the bar rather low. After all, the above-mentioned people, with the exception of Andrew Neil, have been trying to prevent the public from understanding science because the more the public understand, the more questions they will ask about the evidence. And the Greens wouldn't want that, would they?
Nice piece by Ben Pile. Messy as democracy is, the alternative of "experts" including scientists being in charge of policy is even worse.
I want experts to tell us how we could build a bridge, and how much it would cost, and what the costs/benefits (in economic terms) might be. But, the decision about whether or not to build it should remain firmly in the hands of the democratic polity. The punters may decide that they would prefer a new hospital, or even a sports stadium, for their money. As the folks footing the bill, that is their right, even if all the "experts" disagree. That is the part that the expertocracy never seems to understand.
Good to see him Pile on.
All the talk of 'scientific consensus' is pretty much a red herring. The greens, Lib Dems etc only cite the 'consensus' because it happens to support their pre-defined political, environmental and economic aspirations. One only has to read this piece on genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to see that:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/
In this case, the 'scientific consensus' is that GMOs are safe, but Greenpeace and various others feel quite at liberty to ignore this particular consensus. See also the sordid history of all recent UK governments' refusal to listen to scientific advice on drugs policy:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100015335/will-the-sacking-of-professor-david-nutt-deter-other-scientists-from-advising-government/
Particularly this quote from David Nutt: "I think most scientists will see this as a further example of the Luddite attitude of this government, and possible future governments, towards science" (referring to the Gordon Brown government in 2009).
It's therefore extremely important to challenge the policy makers directly, and not let them hide behind the science. They're quite happy to ignore science when it suits them, so they must explain why they have chosen to act on this embryonic and rapidly-changing science.
Chris, I don't agree with you. While my personal views are inclined to not punishing illegal drug users, if the vast majority of people disagree with me, that's the way it is. In the case you cited, Prof. Nutt had his say, the government decided not to let experts override the public, so he had to sling his hook. Being an adviser to government is not the same as being an impartial scientist, and the sooner people disabuse themselves of this notion, the better.
Taken to it's more logical ending this quote would preclude say farmers publicly discussing any aspect of agriculture. Only agricultural scientists would be allowed to speak publicly on the subject of producing food and on agricultural technologies and problems and the entire food chain from grower to customer.
Can anybody imagine those violently anti agriculture, anti development nefarious green luddite empires of greenpeace, the WWF and etc, conforming to such a demand?
Exactly the same could be said as in that quote above, for literally hundreds of proffessions and trades,
Those advocating that only scientists be allowed to a publicly address a subject are as usual just another bunch of very short sighted loons who are seemingly intellectually impervious to the probable outcomes of the very thing they are proposing and demanding which is far more likely, as public perceptions start to change, to backfire badly on those same proposers of such Stalinists demands.
As for scientists, they are just ordinary people with a usually very limited and narrow but very comprehensive understanding of a specific subject within a much broader field.
Through my political agricultural activities I associated with and have known quite a few scientists over the last 50 years and they aren't any different or any better and certainly aren't any smarter than anybody else except in their own specialized subjects.
Some of course, as with any field of human endeavor, are quite outstanding in their chosen field.
As one agricultural degree holder told me after going through university, you have to pay the 99 no hopers and mediocracies to get the 100 th genuine scientist who really does make a difference to the world.
Scientists are extremely privileged in that they are paid by the ordinary working and proffessionsal person's taxes and are still allowed and encouraged to follow their own intellectual curiosity, a tax payer funded privilege and a class specific dispensation denied to nearly everybody else in our society.
The quid pro quo is they will agree in exchange to advance human knowledge.
Most so called scientists fail dismally in this, a factor with reference to climate science and scientists that is now starting to seep through to the general public, certainly in rural Australia and even more so amongst the farming community who have very long term generational memories and a well deserved and jaundiced outlook to long term predictions on climate and weather.
I am now hearing for the first time, the first cynical mutterings from members of the public who have no grounding of any sort in science, that the climate scientists are just producing all sorts of catastrophe forecasts to frighten the politicals and the public because that way they keep on getting bigger tax payer funded grants.
The increasing public cycism about science and scientists,particularly certain branches of scientists like self professed climate scientists and their overweening, self aggrandising approach to their role in our society is increasing quite quickly.
The great scientific pedestal that so many scientists have occupied in the public mind since the end of WW2 is fast coming to an end as the internet has allowed the past's careful construct of science being a superior following and profession and having a societal and professional superiority over and above everybody and everything else is being demolished in an increasingly sophisticated public mind,
A public perception that is increasingly being educated through the internet in the foibles, the pitfalls and depths of deception that some science and some scientists have always practiced sometime, somewhere but now an entire scientific profession that of climate science along with it's running dogs in the environmental water melon organisations is plumbing new and ever deeper depths.
@ geoff chambers:
"This demonstrates a profound truth that Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky announced a couple of years ago: if there’s one thing journalists hate, it’s being told what to think."
----------------------------------------------
Well, to the extent that they are more vain and professionally arrogant than the average punter, no doubt. But remember:
You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
thank God! the
British journalist.
But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there's
no occasion to.
(Humbert Wolfe, d. 1940, a civil servant as well as a literary person).
johanna
Ben Goldacre once famously said he’d rather stick his cock in a door jamb than enter the climate change debate.nice quote, and probably true about the vanity and arrogance of journalists, which is why some of them, at least, will care about the standards crucial to maintaining their arrogant belief in their own importance.
Their job is to disbelieve what they're told, even (or especially) by government ministers. If its Neil’s arrogance which made him challenge Davey, then let’s have more of it.
From Ben Pile’s article:
Ouch.
Johanna, I think my position on drugs and democracy is the same as yours. The point I was making was that, on climate, the government argues that it must follow the science in spite of the views of, and impact on, the people, whereas on other subjects it is quite happy to ignore the science and follow the focus groups. They need to explain why this is.
geoff, your post seems internally contradictory to me. There is ample evidence that the way many 'environment' reporters maintained their self-respect for years was by not questioning whatever they were fed. As you point out Ben Goldacre was very wary of going there. I suggest that the thing he didn't want in the door jamb was his attempt to understand the issues, which might have led to embarrassing scenes at dinner-parties.
geoffchambers
Ben Goldacre problem is that his developed a total blind spot when it comes to ‘the cause ‘ for many of the issues of poor science his more than happy to attack in other areas are rampant in climate ‘science’ and yet he sees no wrong . My faith right or wrong is no position to take if you want to claim the higher moral ground in this area .
Chris, fair point. Taking selective advice is nothing new, of course. :)
johanna
I think the contradiction you’re referring to is the one between the behaviour of real journalists like Neil, and that of environmental journalists who see their role as environmental activists first, and journalists second.
Goldacre is neither one nor the other; he’s an entertaining self-publicist who’s developed a nice little line in attacking easy subjects for being “non-scientific” (“first they came for the homeopaths...”).
From now on I shall think of Goldacre as “the thing in the door jamb”.
I'm with you on that mental image Geoff. Thanks for brightening up my day with it. I also agreed with this:
I think that deserves a longer discussion some time.
Geoff, you make it sound as though there have been two, fairly equivalent, classes of journalists throughout this debate.
Knowing your posting history, I am sure that this is not what you believe.
All that idealistic stuff about journalists as a class is nonsense, as Wolfe knew before WWII, the internet, and whatever else people are blaming things on this week.
P.S. The slightly grumpy tone might have been influenced by the fact that I have lately been re-reading Evelyn Waugh's "Scoop" - a salutary reminder that some things in journalism never change. cf also Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities'. The notion that traditional journalism has more than a passing acquaintance with the truth in most high profile matters is a myth.
Geoff C
I don't think 'journalism' (in the original sense of the word) is any factor at all in the doings of the 'enviros i the media'. Aktivists 1st, and perceived protector of some nebulous 'environment' or parts thereof 2nd. Thereafter: Enemy of the 'poluters' and also those siding with them, followed by some feel good group identification with other activists.
Reporting on some complicated, contentious issues, different perspectives or decisions with more than one side to them etc ... is not part of the equation.
There is a saying which I think describes the attitudes on that (wider) side quite well. It goes:
'Legal is what you get away with'
Meaning, if you don't get caught, or at least can plead ignorance, or refer to 'source' of alleged authority it is OK to make/write any claims and even spin them a bit further.
There is a very distinctive difference between those wanting to tell a good story, and those who want to factually present a story. Partly because more people prefer to be fed a good-sounding story (especially if it caters to their vanity or prejudice), than who want to be presented with the facts, all the facts and make up their mind based upon that.
Goldacre is far from alone. The unfortunately-named Heather Brooke of FOIA fame is unable to mention 28Gate, even if it was exactly what she pontificated about, a Big Corporation trying to hide information and the little guys on the internet thwarting that attempt.
It's the Betts Syndrome, when there's a choice to be made between career and complete openness. I can't blame them too much, I am aware of how difficult it is to discuss one's day job on the internet and that's why I never do.
Ben Goldacre and his Bad Science column was my last good reason for picking up The Grauniad, and his book of the same title remains well worth the money. His forthright and abrasive manner is usually very entertaining, so I can't really complain about it here.
But I'm at a loss to understand how he got to where he is on this subject. He can be very incisive with the data in his specialist area, though I haven't actually seen any quotes of him detailing which data he considers to be so persuasive. I wonder how much time, if any, he has genuinely spent looking into it.
The slamming-it-in-the-door-jamb comment still managed to make me laugh and wince at the same time.
Michael - yeah, that really got the blokes in. Content-free, but guaranteed for effect.
johanna
It’s the sociological perspective, I think, which can help us to understand what’s going on with our free press and our adversarial politics over climate change, a perspective which is richly present in a book like “Bonfire of the Vanities” (though I don’t think it was the same Wolfe you mention from before WWII).If I made it “sound as though there have been two, fairly equivalent, classes of journalists throughout this debate” I apologise. My whole reason for being in this debate at all is because there aren’t, and there should be.
I can’t find Tony Newbery’s Harmless Sky article now, but if I remember rightly, it quoted a journalist saying that the constant barrage of advice from activists as to how they should do their job would sooner or later make journalists turn against environmentalism.
If there’s one thing Britain can be proud of (and there’s more than one, isn’t there - three if you count the Tour de France) it’s the adversarial tradition of our politics and our relatively free press. Our political parties face (up to) each other across the House like rugby teams, whereas in most countries they string out in a semicircle like spectators at a show or fielders behind the wicket when... (sorry). Every time a journalist says something interesting, another journalist disagrees with him. That’s the kind of vain, arrogant bastards they are. Not with climate change. Why not?
Among much else interesting in the article, Ben says:
They all go gaga on the Guardian in the end-
George Monbiot abuses sheep now-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8920911/meet-the-greatest-threat-to-our-countryside-sheep/
Pharos
They call him “The Shepherd I’ll not want” up in the hills (“he maketh me down to lie..”)
@ geoff chambers:
"This demonstrates a profound truth that Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky announced a couple of years ago: if there’s one thing journalists hate, it’s being told what to think."
----------------------------------------------
Well, to the extent that they are more vain and professionally arrogant than the average punter, no doubt.
Jul 23, 2013 at 12:52 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna, I can't speak for journalists, but they'd have to be going some to be more arrogant than many scientists (and I'd probably sometimes have to include myself in the latter category). The university system, almost by definition, selects for this characteristic (as well as some more noble characteristics).
In the UK this is probably exacerbated by the relatively low salary levels as compared to both their peers in the US, and their domestic peers who may have gone into more lucrative careers such as accountancy. Even the nice guys can have some pretty large amounts of self-respect and be convinced they deserve more of both. We see it on display quite regularly.
I've suggested before that climate-science may have special problems because it can take so long for the pet theories to be falsified. A career might be nearly over before they could bring themselves to face up to it. A synthetic chemist, by contrast, can easily manage one failed experiment per day. And a good chemist twice that number... :)
'Still waiting for Nurse's scientific experts from his cabal to meet and discuss the science with the experts from GWPF ... they're all lined up to demolish a journalist but when the experts arrive the cowards flee.
I'm still waiting, cowards, for you to man up !
'I'm still waiting, cowards, for you to man up !'
Streetcred, maybe Matron is waiting until scooter-boy is made an honourary member of the RS so he can be on the dream team?
@ geoff chambers
If there’s one thing Britain can be proud of (and there’s more than one, isn’t there - three if you count the Tour de France)
-----------------------------------
That was a low blow, Geoff. The national pride is already in the gutter, so what do you do? Grrr, mutter, mutter. ;)
"a perspective which is richly present in a book like “Bonfire of the Vanities” (though I don’t think it was the same Wolfe you mention from before WWII)."
No indeed. One was an Englishman called Humbert, the other is an American called Tom.
michael hart - having worked and socialised with a fair few scientists and journalists over the years, I agree that scientists can be pretty arrogant, but usually this is mostly confined to their area of expertise. Whereas, the dominant characteristic of journalists is their arrogance about pretty much any subject they write about. It's a requirement of the job, as most of them have to cover a lot of different subjects throughout their careers.
Without becoming an Andrew Neil bore it's profound what one example of the right thing can do, in journalism or any other field. This was a point made long ago by Charles Finney. His example - against slavery and what we'd now call sexism - is said to have been an influence on Abraham Lincoln. As I remember he describes Abe writing back asking for clarification on some points, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.
The more I meditate on this moment in our own time the more I think Neil has done something of great worth, simply by being what a journalist ought to be. Thanks seems too small a word.
Mike Hulme has now commented on the Making Science Public site: