Chris Rapley has lamented the "political ineptitude of scientists". But he says they face asymmetries in public debates on climate change.
The Director of the Science Museum, Chris Rapley, says that scientists engaging in public debate on climate change face a series of asymmetries including seeing the rules of scientific discourse rubbing up against political “mud wrestling”. Speaking in a detailed discussion on ‘climate change science and its sceptics’ in central London, Professor Rapley went on to describe the “political ineptitude of scientists”.
The debate, hosted by Policy Network, examined growing public scepticism over whether climate change is manmade and what should be done by the scientific community in response. Mr Rapley questioned the title of the debate and outlined his disquiet with “the appropriation of scepticism by those who oppose the science.”
Professor Chris Rapley, a former Director of the British Antarctic Survey, said he was concerned by the dwindling number of experts who can talk “authoritatively about the big picture” suggesting that the number of ‘T-shaped people‘ with both broad and deep knowledge on climate change was overwhelmed by “people willing to prognosticate”. He quipped that he would not mention Melanie Phillips, who has been criticised for her outbursts on climate change.
In response, Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who heads up the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said:
“You painted a picture that is slightly one side of the honest scientist on the one side and the polemic campaigner on the other. The other part of the debate is that there are honest and eminent scientists on the other side who have been silenced for 10 to 15 years. That is part of the perception that part of the scientific community has been excommunicated. Unless there is a new dialogue, there will be this problem.”
Rapley replied:
“It’s always healthy to have that open debate but it can be bedevilled by passions outrunning logic … I have not been convinced by your eminent scientists … some of whom are very flaky.
“There is a tyranny at work here. My impression is that where scientists know there are big uncertainties, they are afraid to emphasise them because people will misunderstand them. The evidence is that when they confess to them, they are exploited.”
Anthony Giddens, Professor Emeritus at the LSE and author of ‘The Politics of Climate Change‘ said:
“Scientists don’t know anything about politics and are bruised and amazed by the discussion in the wider world. Most people who write about politics don’t know anything about the scientific community – a new dialogue is needed.”
Peter Luff, CEO of Action for a Global Climate Community, asked:
“How do we regain that word scepticism? There is an overlap between climate sceptics and Eurosceptics who tend to see a conspiracy.”
Joss Garman, a regular contributor to Left Foot Forward, told me afterwards:
“The thing that struck me most was that there was a real consensus in the room (amongst those who accepted the scientific consensus view that fossil fuel polluting is driving global warming) that it would be helpful to reframe the argument to one about risk and probability and away from the view that the science is all settled.
“Since we know that the vast majority of scientists – literally thousands of humanity’s greatest minds – are of the view that there is a staggering chance, of 90 per cent, that climate change is caused by fossil fuel burning, and since we know that would increase the sum total of human suffering and drive millions of plant and animal species to extinction, its not an unreasonable expectation that, put like that, most reasonable people will want to take out an insurance plan – in other words for there to be a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide we emit.”
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
61 Responses to “Scientists face assymetries in public debates on climate change”
harry
@Kevin
“Why exactly does the fact that climate changed in the past preclude the possibility that we are changing it now?”
It doesn’t. But if for example there was a pronounced medieval warm period that the models don’t show (Professor Jones admits the jury is out on this one) then that means there is some natural cycle which is large and we don’t understand it. That means current warming could also be part of a natural cycle.
I regard myself as a sceptic in the scientific sense, not as a frothing right-wing AGW conspiracy theorist. But I think if you looked at the data – in an objective manner, you really could not be convinced to make such huge changes to society over such small time frames. The truth will out, but it will take a couple of decades.
Now, I’m all in favour of low carbon energy and and a good case can be made on the basis of energy security, geopolitics, pollution and the rest. I could easily be convinced by AGW – in time. It would take a lot of good evidence to make me believe we are heading for a ‘man-made climate catastrophe’ of the sort Jim Hansen seems to believe.
Oxford Kevin
What do you mean hardly any at CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research Division?
What do you think Atmospheric means? Even the people there working on marine research are doing global ocean models that are coupled with the atmospheric models.
Please define hardly any, because to get to your 3 score we only need 60 people in total worldwide.
The Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC). So who do you think managed the writing, editing and significant contribution of the IPCC interim report that came out just before Copenhagen. See here: http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
You need to do better with backing up your statement with facts.
The 90% likelihood is v.high when considering the impacts they are talking about at the 90% level of confidence.
Kevin
Paul Tran
Scientists face asymmetries in public debates on climate change …: Chris Rapley has lamented the political inep… http://bit.ly/aQA2Ua
Oxford Kevin
For the medieval warm period see here:
http://oxfordkevin.carbonclimate.org/?p=176
Even if it was warmer then it still doesn’t contradict AGW.
As to models not showing, can you please show me any models where they have tried to model climate that far back in time considering the further back you go the less accurate the information is that you have and would be required for the input to the models? This is important for you to answer.
Kevin
harry
@kevin
just because people are working in a group with the word ‘atmospheric’ in the title, it doesn’t mean they are working on present or past global climate change and its causes.