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”
Oxford Kevin
My point was just off the top of my head I could think of a number of institutions where climate change research is happening. Secondly the other people working in those same scienfitic institutions in the same field would not easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.
So about the CCRC now: Do you really think that they aren’t significantly involved in AGW? or was that report headlined on the front page of their website not significant for them as a research organization.
Kevin
harry
@kevin
I agree, a MWP does not contradict AGW. It merely highlights our lack of understanding of the climate system.
I know of no climate models which will predict a medieval warming period and I don’t know if anyone has tried. The fact is we could not explain a MWP if one existed. If one existed then present warming is not unprecedented.
Oxford Kevin
At CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric do you think the ocean modellers have also had the wool pulled over their eyes as well when they are working intimately with the atmospheric modelling team?
harry
@Kevin
Don’t misread me. I’m not saying no-one in CCRC does climate change modelling, but it is a small percentage for sure. Most people working in Enviro, Climate Change, Meteorology …etc groups are not doing research into the causes of global climate change.
Oxford Kevin
I dont think anyone has tried for the reasons I gave that the necessary input data for modelling that far back in time is not there. You cant make the claim you have based on our understanding of atmospheric and ocean dynamics, only on the fact that we do not have good enough input data for the models for the time period you are talking about. Please show me the models that failed to do what you claimed?
Kevin