So we
So we are
So we are descending deep into the
basement
basement here.
My
My name
My name is Paul Nurse. I have just
taken
taken over as President of the
Royal
Royal Society, Britain's academy of
science.
science. This is where all the
books
books are
books are held. The wonderful
archives
archives here bear witness to over
350 years
350 years of scientific
achievements. This is Newton's
great
great work on the laws of motion.
And
And battles. This is the great book
of
of course, The Origin Of Species. I
find
find this
find this an inspiring place for
the
the challenges that science now
faces.
faces. I
faces. I think that today there is
a
a new
a new kind of battle. It is not
just
just a
just a clash of ideas, but whether
people
people actually trust science. One
of
of the
of the most vocal arguments
currently
currently raging is about climate
science.
science. Many people seem
unconvinced that we are warming our
planet
planet through the emission of
greenhouse gasses. Are you saying
the
the whole
the whole community, or a majority
of
of the
of the community, of climate
scientists are skewing their data?
Is
Is that
Is that what you are claiming? And
trust
trust in
trust in other scientific theories
has
has also
has also been eroded, such as the
safety
safety of
safety of vaccines, or that HIV
causes
causes AIDs. You wouldn't see
yourself
yourself as a denialist? No, not at
all.
all. I
all. I don't even know that they
say
say I
say I am
say I am in denial of. There have
been
been angry protests against the use
of
of genetically modified foods. It
is
is time
is time for us to say no, we don't
want
want it,
want it, we don't want their new
technology. Science created our
modern
modern world. So I want to
understand why science appears to
be
be under
be under such attack? And whether
we
we scientists are partly to blame.
For
For me,
For me, becoming president of the
Royal
Royal Society has been the
culmination of a lifetime's
fascination with science, and my
attempts
attempts to answer questions about
the
the world
the world around me. I have been
interested in science all my life.
It
It started when I was at primary
school.
school. I
school. I had a long walk to school
and
and I
and I used to look at all the
plants
plants and the birds and insects. I
got
got interested in natural history.
I
I used
I used to
I used to wonder about things, like
why
why when
why when plants are growing in the
shade
shade are
shade are the leaves bigger? It's
the
the sort
the sort of things an eight or nine
year
year old
year old would ask. 50 years later,
I
I am
I am still trying to answer
questions
questions about the most basic
processes
processes of life. Probably what my
lab
lab is
lab is best known for is
discovering the control which
regulates
regulates cell division, which will
lead
lead hopefully to better
understanding diseases like cancer,
and
and maybe
and maybe a cure. Ten years ago, I
shared
shared a
shared a Nobel Prize for this work.
It
It is
It is fantastic, I'm really
privileged. I have been doing this
for
for 40
for 40 years. I sometimes wonder
why
why people are paying me.
But
But away
But away from my lab, I have
witnessed
witnessed hostilities towards some
key
key areas
key areas of science. There is one
issue
issue that is of particular
importance today... The question of
man-made
man-made climate change.
It
It is
It is a
It is a subject that polarises
opinion.
opinion. Not surprisingly, since
climate
climate science affects so many
elements
elements of our lives, from
politics,
politics, to economics, to how we
live.
live. With so much at stake,
scientists are rightly held to
account.
account. But some of my colleagues
feel
feel not
feel not under scrutiny, but under
attack.
attack. I
attack. I was pretty disturbed by a
letter
letter I
letter I read a few months ago by a
magazine
magazine called Science - that is
one
one of
one of the most prestigious
journals
journals in science - from 255
members,
members, if I remember rightly, of
the
the NAAS,
the NAAS, the Academy of Science in
the
the United States, a very
prestigious organisation. These 255
members
members had written a letter really
expressing concern about how
climate
climate scientists were being
treated.
treated. The letter was about
climate
climate change and the integrity of
science.
science. Two sentences really stood
out.
out. "We
out. "We are deeply disturbed by
the
the recent escalation of political
assaults
assaults on scientists in general,
and
and on
and on climate scientists in
particular". That is pretty strong
stuff.
stuff. And then a sentence towards
the
the end:
the end: "We also call for an end
to
to McCarthy-like threats of
criminal
criminal prosecution against our
colleagues based on innuendo and
guilt
guilt by
guilt by association, and the
outright
outright lies being spread about
them".
them". This is as tough as anything
I
I have
I have read in a magazine like
Science.
What
What worries me is not just that
scientists feel under attack, but
that
that many
that many people think these
attacks
attacks may be intellectually
justified. Recent polls suggest
that
that nearly half of Americans, and
a
a more
a more than a third of the British,
believe
believe climate change is being
exaggerated. It is this gap between
scientists and the public that I
want
want to
want to understand. Are the public
right
right not
right not to trust science, or is
there
there something else that is not
working?
working? As always, the best place
to
to start
to start is with the scientific
evidence.
evidence. Good morning, how are
you?
you? I
you? I want to go to the space
centre,
centre, OK? I'll put my stuff in
the
the boot.
I
I have
I have come to Washington to visit
one
one of
one of the most respected
scientific organisations in the
world,
world, NASA. I am really rather
excited
excited about coming to NASA. I
have
have always been interested in
astronomy
astronomy and space. The strange
thing
thing about NASA is not only is it
looking
looking out into outer space, like
with
with the
with the Hubble telescope, but it
spends
spends a
spends a lot of time looking down
at
at the
at the earth and monitoring climate.
Satellites are very good at
monitoring the changes in earth. I
don't
don't think we recognise that. Most
of
of what
of what NASA is doing is looking
down,
down, not
down, not looking up!
If
If you
If you can park here, I can get out
there.
there. That would be great. NASA is
a
a major
a major centre for climate research.
It
It spends
It spends more than $2 billion a
year
year studying the climate. I have
come
come to
come to meet Dr Bob Bindshadler to
see
see where
see where and how they get their
information. Here, we can really
visualise
visualise a lot of data sets and
this
this is
this is the one I really like
because
because it shows us how scientists
are
are getting their data. I mean,
NASA
NASA does
NASA does a lot of stuff in the
cosmos,
cosmos, but we have half the
satellites just looking at the
earth,
earth, just looking down at the
earth.
earth. Every 90 minutes, every one
of
of these
of these satellites orbits the
earth
earth and
earth and collects data, sometimes
in
in a
in a wide
in a wide swathe, sometimes in a
narrow
narrow swathe. This is our bread
and
and butter, this is where all our
information comes from. So, how
many
many of
many of these satellites are there
up
up there?
up there? There are about 16, 17,
18 satellites up there right now,
just
just that
just that NASA operates. There are
at
at least
at least as many from all the other
space
space agencies. The European Space
Agency,
Agency, India operates satellites,
Japan
Japan does, Canada does. So if you
put
put that
put that full constellation on
there
there it
there it would be so busy it would
look
look like
look like New York streets in rush
hour.
hour. But
hour. But that is a gigantic amount
of
of information being collected?
It's
It's huge, it's terabytes. It is
petabytes
petabytes of data, every day,
coming
coming down.
NASA
NASA is
NASA is just one of many
organisations collecting global
climate
climate evidence. This information
has
has helped create a view of how our
planet's
planet's temperature has changed in
the
the recent past. Paul, I want to
show
show you
show you this science on a sphere,
a
a fantastic way of looking at data.
Recognise
Recognise that world. You can just
walk
walk around here, see the clouds
moving
moving round. It's an absolutely
fantastic
fantastic way of looking at data.
So,
So, I
So, I guess the real question is,
is
is this
is this planet warming up? The
planet
planet is
planet is warming up, the climate
is
is changing. Just over the last 50
years,
years, it
years, it has been about three
quarters
quarters of a degree Celsius, which
doesn't
doesn't sound like a whole lot. And
we
we have
we have been able to calculate that
over
over the
over the next 50 years it is going
to
to warm
to warm at least another three
quarters
quarters of a degree if we do
nothing
nothing else, if we don't even
continue
continue to modify the climate. So
temperatures are rising. But what
is
is really
is really at dispute is the cause
of
of that
of that change, whether it's simply
a
a natural
a natural temperature fluctuation.
There
There have been times when the
earth
earth has
earth has been warmer than it is
today.
today. Less ice, higher sea level
and
and colder than today, with much
more
more ice
more ice and lower sea level. But
an
an important thing to remember is
that
that back
that back in those times, climate
changed
changed very gradually and now it
is
is changing really fast. That is a
very
very important characteristic of
climate
climate change that we are living
through
through right now. The pace of that
change.
NASA's
NASA's data is not the only
evidence
evidence that our climate is
warming
warming rapidly, and that we're
causing
causing the change. There is also
several
several decades of research from
scientists across the globe. The
extent
extent of
extent of the data suggests we
should
should have a lot of confidence in
this
this idea. Yet, this evidence is
clearly
clearly not convincing many of the
wider
wider public. And those who are
sceptical
sceptical turn to other scientists.
There
There is
There is no scientific evidence
that
that greenhouse warming is
occurring, or if it is that it
would
would lead to disaster. We see no
evidence
evidence in the climate record that
the
the increase in CO2, which is real,
will
will make
will make any appreciable
difference in the climate.
Professor
Professor Fred Singer has a
reputation as one of the world's
most
most prominent and prolific climate
sceptics.
sceptics. He is an atmospheric
physicist
physicist who has been battling
against
against the consensus view for over
20 years.
20 years. Professor Singer's views
influence
influence sceptics all over the
world.
world. Dr
world. Dr Singer, I'm Paul Nurse.
Very
Very pleased to meet you. Delighted
to
to meet
to meet you finally. Come and sit
down.
down. Can
down. Can we have an earl grey tea
with
with milk? Here's your tea. Thank
you
you very
you very much. They really don't
know
know how
know how to do tea in New York. The
water
water isn't hot enough. God, I hate
that.
that. We
that. We suffer that. The first
thing
thing I
thing I wanted to ask Professor
Singer
Singer was his views on global
temperatures. You are happy, or
agree,
agree, that there has been warming
in
in the
in the last century? Some warming.
Under
Under one
Under one degree, 0.7 degrees, I
think
think I've read. Something of that
sort.
sort. Something of that sort. There
is
is warming and it has been cooling,
and
and then
and then it has been warming again.
It
It is
It is not
It is not a clear record.
But
But where
But where he differs from the view
of
of the
of the vast majority of climate
scientists is the cause of this
warming.
warming. He does not believe that
humans
humans are responsible. He
attributes it to natural forces.
I
I am
I am of
I am of the opinion that the major
natural
natural effect comes from the sun,
and
and specifically from variations in
it
it where
it where it is called solar
activity.
activity. That is not the total
radiation
radiation from the sun, but it is
the
the emission from the sun we call
coronal
coronal ejections, which produce
the
the solar
the solar wind. And the solar wind
is
is a
is a particle streaming from the
sun,
sun, it
sun, it pervades interplanetary
space
space and
space and can effect a situation
near
near the
near the earth.
A
A record
A record of this solar activity can
be
be read
be read from deposits in caves by
measuring
measuring the level of a type of
carbon
carbon atom created by the sun's
rays.
The
The good
The good evidence we have comes
from
from stalagmites in caves, but it
is
is published in Nature. But there
is
is a
is a correlation, so if you look at
these
these estimates of solar activity
and
and the
and the temperature of the globe,
they're
they're well correlated. You cannot
say
say the
say the globe. This refers to the
local
local measurements in a cave on the
Arabian
Arabian peninsular.
In
In our
In our conversation, Professor
Singer
Singer drew on this stalagmite
evidence
evidence to support his conclusions
about
about solar activity. But it is
important
important to consider how this
specific
specific finding fits into the
wider
wider body of evidence. An
important
important aspect of science is it
makes
makes sense as a whole. Just
imagine
imagine this field of grasses and
plants
plants that we see here, imagine it
as
as a
as a scientific field, imagine that
we're
we're looking at a lot of ideas or
a
a lot
a lot of
a lot of facts or observations. You
have
have to
have to look at each one of them
and
and make
and make sure they make sense
together.
together. It's no good cherry-
picking
picking one part of it and just
basing
basing your argument on that. Just
look
look at
look at this tree here. It attracts
your
your attention, but if you just
concentrate on that and ignore
everything else then you're not
going
going to
going to make progress, you're not
going
going to
going to make sense of what's going
on.
In
In the
In the climate debate, some have
placed
placed a
placed a lot of emphasis on the
evidence
evidence of solar activity, but
this
this data
this data needs to be looked at in
the
the context of all research. You
cannot
cannot ignore the majority of
available
available evidence, in favour of
something
something you would prefer to be
true.
true. Data that we are not warming
our
our planet needs to be placed in
the
the context of the greater body of
evidence
evidence that we are, such as that
gathered
gathered by NASA.
When
When you
When you actually look at the data,
the
the sun
the sun doesn't turn out to be that
important. On the historical scale,
the
the paleoclimate scale, the sun is
important. We know the sun is
driving
driving these long cycles. But if
you
you look
you look at the small variations in
the
the solar
the solar radiation and the
variations in the climate data that
we
we have
we have now, with these data sets,
they
they don't match up. So there's
just
just no
just no doubt that the sun is not a
primary
primary factor driving the climate
change
change that we're living through
right
right now.
The
The scientific consensus is, of
course,
course, that the changes we are
seeing
seeing are caused by emissions of
carbon
carbon into the atmosphere. But
given
given the
given the complexity of the climate
system,
system, how can we be sure that
humans
humans are to blame for this?
We
We know
We know how much fossil fuel we
take
take out
take out of the ground. We know how
much
much we
much we sell, we know how much we
burn,
burn, and
burn, and that is a huge amount of
carbon
carbon dioxide, it's about 7GT per
year
year right now. And is that enough
to
to explain... Natural causes only
can
can produce, there's volcanoes
popping
popping off and things like that
and
and coming out of the ocean, only
about
about 1GT
about 1GT per year, so there's just
no
no question that human activity is
producing
producing a massively large
proportion of the carbon dioxide.
So
So seven
So seven times more? That's right.
Why
Why do
Why do some people say that isn't
the
the case?
the case? I don't know. I think
they
they get
they get worried about the details
of
of the
of the temperature record, or the
carbon
carbon dioxide record. But again,
you
you need
you need to stand back and look at
the
the big
the big picture and there really is
no
no controversy then if you do that.
In
In this
In this market place of ideas, who
do
do you
do you believe? If you're not a
scientist, then ultimately it's a
question
question of trust. Despite the
weight
weight of
weight of evidence in its favour,
the
the theory of man-made climate
change
change is
change is not bringing a large
section
section of the public with it. I
think
think some clues as to why may be
found
found at
found at the University of East
Anglia,
Anglia, the scene of Climategate, a
story
story that broke in November 2009.
The
The work
The work of one of the world's
leading
leading climate research units at
the
the University of East Anglia is to
come
come under unprecedented scrutiny.
Thousands
Thousands of emails were taken from
the
the computer at the Climatic
Research
Research Unit at the University of
East
East Anglia and posted online.
According
According to the headlines, the
emails
emails contained one of the worst
scientific outrages of all time.
Just
Just look
Just look here, Christopher Booker
in
in the
in the Sunday Telegraph. "This is
the
the worst
the worst scientific scandal of our
generation". Here, the Daily
Express.
Express. "Now there are lies,
damned
damned lies and global warming,"
implying
implying that global warming is
nothing
nothing but lies and a sham. Here
from
from The
from The Spectator, an article by
James
James Delingpole watching the
Climategate scandal. Here he says
in
in the
in the first sentence, this is the
greatest
greatest scientific scandal in the
history
history of the world. At the heart
of
of the
of the scandal was one email in
particular. Correspondence from the
head
head of
head of CRU, Dr Phil Jones, talked
about
about using Mike's nature trick to
hide
hide the
hide the decline'. This seemed
proof
proof climate scientists were
tricking
tricking the world into thinking
our
our use
our use of fossil fuels is warming
the
the planet. The news immediately
went
went international. The timing
couldn't
couldn't have been worse. It was
just
just three weeks before the UN
Climate
Climate Change Convention, what
many
many saw
many saw as the world's best hope
to
to reduce
to reduce carbon emissions before
it
it was
it was too late. And at the centre
of
of it
of it all
of it all was one man, Dr Phil
Jones,
Jones, head of CRU.
The
The unit's headquarters are tiny,
yet
yet Dr
yet Dr Jones and his colleagues
have
have had
have had a truly global impact.
These
These are
These are German books. These are
Japanese
Japanese books. There's American
books.
CRUs
CRUs library holds centuries' worth
of
of temperature data collected from
instruments in every corner of the
globe.
globe. To
globe. To look further back in
history,
history, climate researchers have
to
to extrapolate information from the
rings
rings in
rings in ancient pieces of wood.
This
This is
This is a
This is a measurement from a tree
from
from the
from the Andes in Argentina. This
is
is a
is a bog
is a bog oak from Germany. It has
been
been preserved in the peat bogs.
How
How old
How old is that piece of wood? It
is
is about
is about 3,000 to 4,000 years old.
Tree
Tree rings have been shown to be a
good
good way
good way of measuring ancient
temperatures. And they have mostly
matched
matched instrumental measurements
since
since the
since the advent of thermometers.
However,
However, after about 1960, some
tree
tree ring
tree ring data stopped fitting real
temperatures so well. The cause of
this
this isn't known. When Dr Jones was
asked
asked by
asked by the World Meteorological
Organisation to prepare a graph of
how
how temperatures had changed over
the
the past
the past 1,000 years, he had to
decide
decide how to deal with this
divergence between the data sets.
He
He decided to use the direct
measurements of temperature change
from
from thermometers and instruments,
rather
rather than indirect data from the
tree
tree rings, to cover the period
from
from 1960. It was this data
splicing,
splicing, and his email referring
to
to it
to it as
to it as a trick', that formed the
crux
crux of
crux of Climategate. The
organisation wanted a relatively
simple
simple diagram for their particular
audience.
audience. What we started off doing
was
was the
was the three series, with the
instrumental temperatures on the
end,
end, clearly differentiated from
the
the tree
the tree ring series, but they
thought
thought that was too complicated to
explain
explain to their audience. So what
we
we did
we did was just to add them on and
to
to bring
to bring them up to the present.
And,
And, as
And, as I
And, as I say, this was a World
Meteorological Organisation
statement, it had hardly any
coverage
coverage in the media at the time
and
and had
and had virtually no coverage for
the
the next
the next ten years, until the
release
release of the emails. Why do you
think
think so
think so much fuss was made over
the
the emails and this graph rather
than
than the
than the peer reviewed science? I
think
think that it's a number of the
climate
climate change sceptics, doubters,
deniers,
deniers, whatever you want to call
them,
them, just wanted to use these
emails
emails for their own purposes to
cast
cast doubt on the basic science.
The
The basic
The basic science is in the peer
reviewed
reviewed literature and I wish more
people
people would read that than read
the
the emails.
As
As well
As well as the emails, much
criticism
criticism of Dr Jones centred on
his
his reluctance to hand over data.
The
The team
The team at CRU had been receiving
requests
requests under the Freedom of
Information Act, also known as FOI
requests,
requests, for access to their
scientific data.
Well,
Well, we
Well, we started getting some
requests
requests in about 2007 and we
responded
responded to those. These are
Freedom
Freedom of Information Requests?
Yes,
Yes, they
Yes, they were specifically for the
basic
basic station temperature data and
also
also for
also for the locations of the
stations.
stations. The situation got a bit
worse
worse in
worse in July 2009, when we got 60
requests
requests over a weekend. Over one
weekend?
weekend? Over one weekend, where
there
there was
there was clearly some sort of co-
ordination between... Was that from
different
different people? Different people,
but
but there
but there was clearly some co-
ordination of the requests, because
they
they each
they each asked for five countries,
in
in alphabetical order. I thought at
the
the time
the time it was just to waste our
time,
time, in
time, in order to deal with these
requests
requests and maybe to get the data
together.
together. So this is an interesting
dilemma
dilemma that we have here, really,
because
because obviously science is based
on
on open
on open access to data, but
obviously
obviously you can also be disrupted
by
by having, if you like, more
legalistic attempts to get data, or
simply
simply trying to waste people's
time.
time. How
time. How do you balance that? Well,
sometimes
sometimes we get requests and
sometimes
sometimes not through FOI, just
from
from other scientists. We point
them
them in
them in the right direction as to
where
where you
where you might be able to get the
data.
data. But
data. But when it became more sort
of
of through the FOI, it really then
became
became clear that it was some sort
of
of harassment.
This
This event raises questions about
the
the openness of scientific research.
Dr
Dr Jones
Dr Jones and his team clearly felt
persecuted. However, scientists do
have
have to
have to be open with their data.
It
It might
It might be useful to think about
the
the human
the human genome project where
similar
similar issues came up about a
decade
decade ago. There was clear
discussion about this, and in the
public
public genome sequencing
laboratories a real commitment,
dedication to getting that data out
to
to the
to the public as soon as possible,
and
and I
and I think that maybe there is
maybe
maybe something to be learnt from
that
that for
that for climate science.
There
There were at least four
independent reviews of the work of
CRU.
CRU. The
CRU. The reports found there was no
evidence
evidence of dishonesty'. They said
splicing
splicing the temperature data
wasn't
wasn't 'misleading' but this
technique
technique should 'have been made
plain'.
plain'. They said generally the
unit
unit should have been more open.
But,
But, crucially, they found no
evidence
evidence of any 'deliberate
scientific malpractice'.
This
This seems to have been the
greatest
greatest scientific scandal that
never
never really took place. I mean, it
just
just doesn't make sense to me at
all
all why
all why it got blown out of
proportion. It makes me wonder
whether
whether us scientists are not well
suited
suited for dealing with situations
like
like this
like this and we perhaps let them
run
run out
run out of our control. I mean, the
world
world is
world is changing, the digital
world,
world, with blogs and tweets and so
on.
on. We're
on. We're perhaps not able to deal
with
with that, to cope with a sort of
maelstrom
maelstrom of media attention that
fell
fell upon
fell upon UEA during this event. I
think
think there's something to be
learnt
learnt here, we've got to think
about
about how
about how we defend our science,
how
how we
how we project ourselves to the
public.
In
In the
In the end, the integrity of
climate
climate science was not faulted,
but
but somehow a leak of some 10 year
old
old emails did real damage to its
reputation. In all the clamour, the
science
science seems to have been left
behind.
I
I have
I have come to meet James
Delingpole, one of those who led
the
the campaign. I want to tell you a
story
story about something extraordinary
that
that happened to me late last year.
It
It was
It was an
It was an ordinary Thursday morning
and
and I
and I was
and I was sitting at my desk, and
into
into my
into my lap fell the story that
would
would change my life and quite
possibly
possibly save western civilisation
from
from the
from the greatest threat it has
ever
ever known. That story? Climategate.
Sir
Sir Paul.
Sir Paul. Hello, you must be James.
Pleased
Pleased to meet you. Do call me
Paul,
Paul, though.
James
James Delingpole is an online
journalist for the Telegraph
newspaper. He picked up the leaked
emails
emails from a denier's website, and
ran
ran with
ran with it on his Telegraph blog
under
under the
under the name Climategate. That
week,
week, his
week, his page got an extraordinary
1.5
1.5 million hits.
Well,
Well, the
Well, the suggestion of the
scientists in the climate gate
emails
emails was that you hide the
decline,
decline, using Mike's nature trick,
which
which I
which I think is some sort of fudge.
This
This very
This very fact of splicing two
different
different sorts of data together on
a
a graph,
a graph, apples and oranges,
scientists don't do that, they
don't
don't try
don't try to hide the decline by
using
using Mike's nature trick. What
they
they do
they do is they admit to the flaws
in
in their
in their data, and don't try and
disguise
disguise that fact.
James
James told me the independent
enquiries
enquiries into what happened at CRU
were
were a
were a whitewash'. He also said
scientists fall too easily into a
'consensus' and fail to be critical
enough
enough of
enough of the data.
I've
I've been
I've been following this
Climategate story very closely for
the
the last
the last year. And I think that
what
what is
what is being done in the name of
science,
science, the consensus is
essentially advancing a political
agenda,
agenda, and that political agenda
has
has much
has much more to do with control,
with
with governments intruding further
into
into our
into our lives Consensus can be
used
used like
used like a dirty word. Consensus
is
is actually the position of the
experts
experts at the time, and if it's
working
working well, it doesn't always
work
work well, but if it's working well,
they
they evaluate the evidence, you
make
make your
make your reputation in science by
actually
actually overturning that, so
there's
there's a
there's a lot of pressure to do it.
But
But if
But if over the years, the
consensus
consensus doesn't move, you have to
wonder,
wonder, is the argument, is the
evidence
evidence against the consensus good
enough?
enough? Science has never been
about
about consensus and this is one of
the
the most
the most despicable things about Al
Gore's
Gore's so
Gore's so called consensus.
Consensus
Consensus is not science. I want to
give
give an
give an analogy, which, in a
different
different situation, say you had
cancer
cancer and you went to be treated,
there
there would be a consensual
position
position on your treatment, and it
is
is very
is very likely that you would
follow
follow that consensual treatment,
because
because you would trust the
clinical
clinical scientists there. Now the
analogy
analogy is that you could say, well,
I've
I've done
I've done my research into it and I
disagree
disagree with that consensual
position,
position, but that would be a very
unusual
unusual position for you to take.
And
And I
And I think, sometimes, the
consensual position can be
criticised, when in fact, it is
mostly
mostly likely, to be the correct
position?
I
I don't
I don't accept your analogy, really.
I
I think
I think it's, I think... Look, I
think
think it's very easy to caricature
the
the position of climate change
sceptics
sceptics as the sort of people who
don't
don't look left and right when
crossing
crossing the road, or who think
that
that quack, you know, the quack
cure
cure that
cure that they have invented for
cancer
cancer is
cancer is just as valid as the one
chosen
chosen by
chosen by the medical establishment.
I
I think
I think it is something altogether
different. And I do slightly resent
the
the way
the way that you're bringing in
that
that analogy. For many, the
Climategate debacle is the
embodiment of our current
relationship with science. The
anger
anger it
anger it generated reveals the
tensions,
tensions, and the widely divergent
views,
views, that exist on both sides of
the
the debate.
And
And through all this noise, people
are
are left
are left to try and make sense of
it
it all.
it all. Good morning. Could I have
at
at times
at times and an independent,
please?
please? I
please? I think the public have got
every
every right to feel confused about
the
the reporting of science in the
media.
media. Let me just show you some
reports
reports of different scientific
issues.
issues. Starting with Climategate,
the
the Daily
the Daily Mail reporting this issue
concludes
concludes in its headline,
"Secretive and unhelpful, but
scientist
scientist in Climategate storm
still
still gets his job back".
Completely different tone about
this
this news
this news item in the Guardian.
"Climategate scientists cleared of
manipulating data on global
warming".
warming". It is difficult to
imagine
imagine it is reporting the same
thing.
thing. But it is not just reporting
news
news events to do with science, but
the
the science itself. Let's have a
look
look at
look at what the Daily Express is
saying
saying here, for example, about the
effect
effect of
effect of the sun on global warming.
They
They have
They have their provocative
headline,
headline, "What a climate con." but
specifically they say here that the
sun
sun is
sun is the major cause of
temperature variation and sun spots
in
in particular. If we now look at
the
the Independent, almost the same
day
day we
day we have, "Sunspots do not cause
climate
climate change, say scientists". I
mean,
mean, what is going on here? This
is
is just
is just reporting science coming to
completely different conclusions.
It's
It's not
It's not surprising that the public
are
are confused reading all of this
different
different stuff. There are these
lurid
lurid headlines, and there are
political
political opinions filtering
through
through which probably reflects
editorial
editorial policy within the
newspapers. And we get an unholy
mix
mix of
mix of the media and the politics.
And
And it's
And it's distorting the proper
reporting
reporting of science. And that is a
real
real danger for us if science is to
have
have it's
have it's proper impact on society.
Somehow
Somehow science has got to get
through
through all these competing agendas.
I
I wonder
I wonder if part of the problem
lies
lies with
lies with communicating the
complexities of science, what it is
we
we understand what it is we don't
understand.
We're
We're mainly taught science at
school
school as
school as if it's made up of
immutable
immutable facts. Such as Einstein's
theory
theory of
theory of relativity or Newton's
Laws
Laws of
Laws of Motion.
Hi,
Hi, how
Hi, how are you doing?
And
And it
And it was seeing these theories
being
being translated into the real
world
world that first got me hooked as a
child.
child. One of the most exciting
things
things was seeing Sputnik 2,
1957/58.
1957/58. It was going across the
streets
streets of London. I was so excited.
I
I was
I was in
I was in my pyjamas. And I ran out
and
and saw
and saw this satellite going across
the
the sky.
the sky. Everyone thought I was
crazy
crazy of
crazy of course. But that was the
beginning
beginning of the space age and I
was
was there. I want to enthuse a new
generation with the optimistic
belief
belief that science is a force for
progress.
progress. However at the cutting
edge
edge of
edge of science, where I work, the
truth
truth is
truth is not always so obvious. We
often
often have to deal with uncertainty
in
in science but I think it helps to
think
think of
think of uncertainty in two
different
different sorts of ways. There's
uncertainty that often happens at
the
the beginning of a research project.
And
And we
And we don't know what's going on.
And
And by
And by testing and doing
experiments, things get more and
more
more certain. Knowledge becomes
less
less and
less and less tentative. And
there's
there's another sort of uncertainty
which
which is
which is more probabilistic like
for
for example if we treat somebody
for
for a
for a certain disease, we don't
know
know whether that individual will
be
be cured
be cured or not. But we do know
probabilistically over a hundred
individuals that 20 will and 80
won't
won't for
won't for example. And that
uncertainty never goes away.
Thanks
Thanks to
Thanks to decades of research and
experimentation, our knowledge
about
about the
about the fundamentals of climate
science
science has become less tentative.
But
But there
But there are uncertainties that
won't
won't go
won't go away. Especially in our
ability
ability to predict the future,
where
where scientists can only talk in
terms
terms of
terms of probabilities. Does this
uncertainty mean that the science
is
is flawed?
Some
Some of
Some of the biological problems I
study
study are
study are complicated and so is
climate
climate science.
Clouds,
Clouds, ice, chemicals in the air,
plants,
plants, and the sun all interact
with
with one
with one another to affect our
climate.
Clouds
Clouds are one of the most
significant of these, yet also one
of
of the
of the most complex. Depending on
their
their height and make-up they can
either
either warm or cool the planet. So
it's
it's difficult to represent them
correctly
correctly in the climate models.
But
But if
But if the scientists don't get
them
them right, then quantifying what
the
the temperatures might be in the
future
future is
future is very hard.
However,
However, through enormous amounts
of
of data
of data collection and research
climate
climate scientists are becoming
more
more certain in their knowledge of
our
our climate system.
Back
Back at
Back at NASA, Bob Bindschadler
showed
showed me
showed me just how much progress
has
has been
has been made. Just to emphasize
how
how good
how good these models are. Side by
side
side comparison. Here is data,
actual
actual observations. And this is
what
what the
what the computer is generating.
Predicting what should be happening.
And
And you
And you look at one, you look at
the
the other, these major systems it's
there.
there. These cumulus clouds popping
up
up in
up in the
up in the tropics. And this is all
happening
happening in the same time scale.
But
But one
But one is just built on
observation, what we actually see
and
and below
and below that is data and the
modelling
modelling that that produces.
Exactly,
Exactly, so we're just testing a
model
model here. We've got data, weve
got
got a
got a model. How good do they, do
the
the model
the model predictions match the
data.
data. And
data. And your eye will just tell
you
you the
you the answers it's very... It's
reflecting swirling here and then
they
they swirl up there and then little
puffs
puffs there and little puffs there.
So,
So, so
So, so even that kind of detail
about
about clouds, models are getting it
right
right now. And you know, visually I
think
think this is just so stunning
because
because seeing is believing.
Climate
Climate science is sort of moving
from
from more
from more tentative knowledge to
more
more certain knowledge. It still
has
has uncertainties but they're
getting
getting less as time goes on. There
will
will always be a little bit of
uncertainty because there are some
processes
processes that we don't fully
understand. But we measure
scientific progress in our ability
to
to reduce
to reduce the uncertainties and by
that
that measure we're making
extraordinary progress. All the
information we have today helps us
predict
predict our future climate, but the
more
more we
more we learn the more complex the
climate
climate system becomes. This
doesn't
doesn't mean the science is flawed
or
or that
or that we shouldn't act but there
may
may be
may be a
may be a problem in the way those
uncertainties are communicated to
the
the public. Scientists may not be
willing
willing enough to publically
discuss
discuss the uncertainties in their
science
science or to fully engage with
those
those that disagree with them, and
this
this has
this has helped polarise the debate.
Making
Making this film has made me think
about
about the
about the place of science in the
modern
modern world, and whether we
scientists are keeping pace. Free
and
and open
and open access to information
means
means our
means our voices are no longer the
only
only ones
only ones people hear. What I think
is
is changing in the way that we're
talking
talking about science in the public
sphere,
sphere, is the fact that now almost
anybody
anybody can say what they like on
the
the blogosphere and this is getting
read
read and
read and I'm really used in my
science
science which I've done for 30-40
years
years for
years for a much more cooler
approach.
approach. When I read these blogs I
mean
mean they're full of righteousness,
full
full of
full of zealousness. They're
clearly
clearly trying to convince you
strongly
strongly of their point of view.
They
They cherry pick data. They don't
seem
seem to
seem to be always completely
consistent. And what I get the
sense
sense of
sense of is that they don't
actually
actually try and put a reasoned
argument
argument here. There's a case here
on
on the
on the left there's a case here on
the
the right. It's always very
strongly
strongly on one side. Searches on
the
the internet do not differentiate
between
between thoroughly researched
evidence
evidence and un-sourced
uncorroborated assertion.
Conspiracy theories compete on
level-terms with peer reviewed
science.
science. In this new world of
information overload we look to
people
people we
people we trust to find those
answers.
answers. And these days it's not
necessarily the scientists. One
question
question I would ask as someone who
has
has done
has done quite a lot of scientific
publishing, are you looking mainly
at
at peer
at peer reviewed material or non-
peer
peer reviewed? Peer reviewed being
material
material that in principle, and
flawed
flawed that it is, cos I know it
can
can be
can be flawed, that has been looked
at
at by
at by other scientists and the case
said,
said, well there is an argument
here
here worth publishing? One of the
main
main things to have emerged from
the
the climate gate emails, was that
the
the peer
the peer review process has been
perhaps
perhaps irredeemably corrupted. Um,
what
what I
what I believe in now, and I think,
I
I think
I think we are seeing a shift in
the
the way
the way science is conducted. And
at
at least
at least transmitted to the outside,
to
to the
to the wider world is a process
called
called peer to peer review. The
internet
internet is changing everything.
What
What it
What it means is that ideas which
were
were previously only able to be
circulated in the seats of academia,
in
in private, in papers, read by few
people,
people, can now be instantly read
on
on the
on the internet. And assessed by
thousands
thousands and thousands of other
scientists and people with
scientific backgrounds and people
like
like me
like me who haven't got a
scientific background, but you know
are
are interested. Just back to the
evidence
evidence again though. Because so
you,
you, we
you, we get, obviously there's a
source
source of
source of evidence through, through
the
the internet. Books, primary
publications probably is not your
thing?
thing? It
thing? It is not my job to sit down
and
and read
and read peer reviewed papers
because
because I
because I simply haven't got the
time,
time, I
time, I haven't got the scientific
expertise, what I rely on is people
who
who have
who have got the time and the
expertise
expertise to do it and write about
it
it and
it and interpret it. I am an
interpreter of interpretations. As
a
a working
a working scientist, I've learnt
that
that peer
that peer review is very important
to
to make
to make science credible. The
authority
authority science can claim comes
from
from evidence and experiment and an
attitude
attitude of mind that seeks to test
its
its theories to destruction.
Scepticism is really important. We
are
are often
are often plagued with self doubt.
I
I always
I always tell my students and post
doctoral
doctoral workers, be the worse
enemy
enemy of
enemy of your own idea. Always
challenge
challenge it, always test it. I
think
think things are a little different
when
when you
when you have a denialist or an
extreme
extreme sceptic. They're convinced
that
that they
that they know what's going on and
they
they only
they only look for data that
supports
supports that position. They're not
really
really engaging in the scientific
process.
There
There is
There is a fine line between
healthy
healthy scepticism, which is a
fundamental part of the scientific
process,
process, and denial which can stop
the
the science moving on. But the
difference is crucial. Denial is
not
not just
not just a feature of the debate
over
over climate change. People deny
the
the evidence in favour of many
things
things like certain vaccines or
that
that HIV
that HIV causes AIDS. I want to
understand better how people reach
this
this state of mind.
Hi,
Hi, are
Hi, are you Tony? Pleased to meet
you.
you. I
you. I was taking a routine
physical.
physical. My doctor said I've got
some
some bad
some bad news for you, you're HIV
positive.
positive. My name is Sparkles. Have
you
you been
you been here before? Yes. It's my
first
first time here.
My
My doctor
My doctor said, "Look, if you don't
take
take these drugs you're going to be
dead
dead in
dead in two years." So he handed me
the
the prescriptions. I walked out the
door
door and
door and on the way to the car I
passed
passed by
passed by a trash can, ripped them
up
up and
up and threw them in and never went
back.
back. That was 13 years ago and
that
that was
that was the last time I went to a
doctor
doctor for anything HIV-related.
Tony
Tony Lance does not believe a virus
causes
causes AIDS. And rather than take
anti-retrovirals he treats himself
using
using pro-biotics like yoghurt.
This
This is
This is not a vanilla flavour. More
like
like a
like a tartness. Hey. There is
actually
actually active culture right, so
it's
it's got
it's got a little bit of...
There
There is
There is such an overwhelming body
of
of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, I
really
really want to understand how Tony
has
has reached his opinion. I came to
the
the conclusion that much of what is
called
called AIDS at least as it appears
in
in gay
in gay men, is the result of severe
dysregulation of internal micro
flora.
flora. And the causes of that.
That's
That's all the microbes growing in
the
the gut.
the gut. Exactly. We have in our
gut,
gut, a
gut, a very complex and rich eco
system.
system. Microbes living in a
symbiotic
symbiotic relationship with us.
They
They directly affect our immune
system.
system. Our uptake of nutrients.
And
And it
And it occurred to me after many
many
many years of reading and self
analysis
analysis and observing the gay
community
community that there really are
some
some very
some very good reasons why certain
subsets
subsets of gay men would have
internal
internal micro flora that are
abnormal.
abnormal. To get right down to
brass
brass tacks, I think HIV is a
marker
marker for immune dysfunction as
opposed
opposed to being a cause. I think
immune
immune dysfunction actually
proceeds
proceeds HIV positivity and makes
it
it possible.
Holding
Holding these views puts Tony in a
very
very small minority.
What
What is
What is it like psychologically for
you
you and
you and for people who think like
you
you to
you to be
you to be on the outside? It's
isolating. One of the labels tossed
at
at me
at me and
at me and others like me is a
denialist, and that's actually kind
of
of hurtful to tell you the truth.
You
You wouldn't see yourself as a
denialist? No, not at all. I don't
even
even know
even know that they say I'm in
denial
denial of. I mean, I've lost many
scores
scores of
scores of friends to AIDS so I'm
certainly
certainly not in denial of the
actual
actual illness. I just view the
cause
cause and
cause and effect differently.
I
I found
I found that discussion with Tony
really
really interesting. I mean I'm
completely mainstream about HIV
AIDS.
AIDS. AIDS is caused by the HIV
retrovirus no question about that.
He
He doubts
He doubts that, he's sceptical
about
about whether it's causal, you
could
could say
could say that he denies that it's
causal.
causal. But he's at the end of the
spectrum
spectrum where you can have a
conversation with him. As a
scientist, I find Tony's views hard
to
to understand.
However
However I
However I think there may be a link
between
between how he approaches the
evidence
evidence for the causes of AIDS and
how
how some
how some climate sceptics may look
at
at the
at the causes of global warming.
Problems
Problems arise when you're studying
complex
complex data and trying to
distinguish cause from effect.
Understanding what causes what in
complex
complex systems in like biology,
that
that I
that I study, or climate science is
really
really difficult. Let me illustrate
this
this here. Imagine that each of
these
these poles are different events.
Events
Events A,
Events A, B and C and we have time
running
running up here on the floor. Event
A
A causes
A causes event B. Event A also
causes
causes event C. But if you're a
scientist
scientist you don't know anything
about
about event A and you're simply
studying
studying B and C, what you'll see
is
is after
is after a certain period of time
you
you will
you will see B and then always or
nearly
nearly always you will see C a
certain
certain amount of time afterwards.
It
It would
It would be a natural consequence
to
to think
to think that B will cause C when
it's
it's absolutely not the case. I'll
think
think of
think of a concrete example, for
example
example smoking and lung cancer.
Let's
Let's imagine event A is smoking,
and
and event
and event B is yellow teeth, that
occurs
occurs after a certain amount of
time.
time. And
time. And let's imagine event C is
lung
lung cancer. You could perhaps
imagine
imagine as a scientist that you
observe
observe yellow teeth and then you
observe
observe lung cancer and then maybe
yellow
yellow teeth causes lung cancer.
That's
That's obviously nonsense but if
you
you didn't know about smoking you
could
could be
could be led into that erroneous
conclusion. That's the problem with
complexity, that's the problem with
working
working out what causes what.
There's
There's an overwhelming body of
evidence
evidence that says we are warming
our
our planet, but complexity allows
for
for confusion and for alternative
theories
theories to develop. The only
solution
solution is too look at all the
evidence
evidence as a whole. I think some
extreme
extreme sceptics decide what to
think
think first, and then cherry pick
the
the data
the data to support their case. We
scientists have to acknowledge we
now
now operate in a world where point
of
of view
of view not peer review holds sway.
I
I think
I think part of the problem may be
past
past controversies, where
mainstream science has failed to
win
win over
win over the public.
There
There is
There is one such subject where the
research
research has to be carried out
under
under strict security because
feelings
feelings are still running high.
Isolated
Isolated in a remote corner of the
country,
country, a highly contentious
scientific trial is being conducted.
We're
We're not
We're not protecting the public
from
from them. We're protecting them
from
from the
from the anti-GM activists who have
been
been very
been very keen to disrupt GM trials.
This
This field is home to a large
experiment in Genetically Modified
food.
food. Professor Jonathan Jones is
working
working to create a new kind of
potato
potato that would be resistant to a
mould
mould called late blight. Alongside
standard
standard potatoes, he also planted
two
two GM
two GM varieties, and waited to see
what
what would happen. This is perfect
blight
blight weather actually. If you're
a
a late
a late blight pathogen you would be
very
very very
very very happy today. Potato
blight
blight is
blight is a disease that caused the
Irish
Irish potato famine. It causes £3.5
billion
billion a
billion a year of losses in
potatoes
potatoes and tomatoes. It's a
fungus-like organism but it makes
spores
spores that can blow around. We
didn't
didn't inoculate this. It blew in
from
from somebody else's field probably
20 to
20 to 30
20 to 30 miles away. It can rip
through
through a
through a crop in a week. The trial
is
is at
is at an
is at an early stage, but the GM
varieties
varieties seem to be standing up to
the
the blight much better than the
standard
standard ones. Farmers actually
spend
spend about £500 a hectare
controlling this disease so if you
have
have 100
have 100 hectares of potatoes
that's
that's £50,000 out the door for
spraying
spraying 15 times a year to control
the
the disease. Clearly it would be
better
better if
better if we didn't have to do all
that
that spraying. What we're trying to
do
do here
do here is get genes into the
potatoes
potatoes that would mitigate the
need
need for
need for all that spraying. But
it's
it's this
it's this manipulation of genes
that's
that's the source of contention.
Critics
Critics have objected on several
grounds,
grounds, from safety issues to
environmental concerns. It's time
for
for us
for us to
for us to say no, we don't want it,
we
we don't
we don't want their new technology,
it
it doesn't benefit us, it doesn't
benefit
benefit the environment, in fact it
threatens
threatens us and the environment.
The
The GM
The GM debate once again raises the
question
question of public trust in science.
There's
There's a
There's a gap between the fears of
some
some sections of the public, and
the
the opinion of scientists that what
they
they are
they are doing is both useful and
safe.
safe. I
safe. I think my primary emotion is
bemusement. Where are they coming
from?
from? What is going on in their
heads
heads that they feel so strongly
that
that this
that this must be campaigned
against.
They
They often assert this is a failed
technology.
If
If it's
If it's failed why do 14 million
farmers
farmers plant 134 million hectares
of
of it?
of it? They do so because it works,
farmers
farmers are not stupid. There seems
to
to be
to be a
to be a mutual misunderstanding
from
from both
from both the scientists and the
public.
public. The controversy surrounding
GM
GM was
GM was something I really wanted to
understand. I went and talked to
members
members of the public to find out
why
why they
why they were so against it. One
thing
thing that came up very often was
that
that they
that they were against eating food
with
with genes in it. That's something
that
that would never occur to a
scientist
scientist because a scientist
obviously
obviously knows all food has genes
in
in it.
in it. But why should a member of
the
the public know that? What had
happened
happened here, is that we
scientists hadn't gone out there
and
and asked
and asked what bothered the public,
we
we hadn't
we hadn't had dialogue with them.
Scientists had forgotten that we
don't
don't operate in an isolated bubble.
We
We cannot
We cannot take the public for
granted.
granted. We have to talk to them,
we
we have
we have to communicate the issues.
We
We have
We have to earn their trust if
science
science really is going to benefit
society.
Over
Over the
Over the next few years, every
country
country on the globe faces tough
decisions
decisions over what to do about
climate
climate change. I've been thinking
how
how scientists can win back the
confidence we're going to need if
we're
we're going to make those choices
wisely.
wisely. Quite a grand door. To a
rather
rather workman-like area, we're
going
going down to the basement. Oh wow!
Before
Before I
Before I started my Presidency of
the
the Royal
the Royal Society, Keith Moore, the
head
head Librarian, wanted to take me
on
on a
on a tour
on a tour of the archives to give
me
me a
me a glimpse of some of the jewels
they
they contain. Here we hold some of
the
the genuinely rare materials from
the
the book
the book stock. Being surrounded by
the
the products of so many brilliant
minds
minds is
minds is quite a humbling
experience. These are the minutes
of
of the
of the meetings. All the notes! Yes,
this
this goes
this goes right back to the first
meeting
meeting of the RS Really? What year
is
is this?
is this? 1660. So here we have the
memorandum on 28 November 1660.
First
First meeting of the organisation.
Look
Look at
Look at that. Not even called the
Royal
Royal Society. Is that Wren? That's
Christopher Wren. Robert Boyle,
they're
they're all here! You know this has
made
made me
made me feel a bit star struck here
I
I have
I have to
I have to say. I'm here in the
royal
royal society, 350 years of an
endeavour
endeavour which is build on a
respect
respect for observation, respect
for
for data,
for data, respect for experiment
trust
trust no
trust no one trust only what the
experiment and data tell you, we
have
have to
have to continue to use that
approach
approach if we are to solve
problems
problems such as climate change.
It's
It's become clear to me that if we
hold
hold to
hold to these ideals of trust in
evidence
evidence then we have a
responsibility to publically argue
our
our case.
our case. Because in this
conflicted and volatile debate
scientists are not the only voices
that
that are
that are listened to.
When
When a
When a scientific issue has
important
important outcomes for society,
then
then the
then the politics becomes
increasingly more important. So if
we
we look
we look at this issue of climate
change
change that is particularly
significant because that has
affects
affects on how we manage our
economy
economy and manage our politics.
And
And so
And so this has become a crucially
political
political matter and we can see
that
that by
that by the way the forces are
being
being lined up on both sides. What
really
really is
really is required here is a focus
on
on the
on the science keeping the politics
and
and keeping the ideologies out of
the
the way.
the way. One thing you can't get
away
away without seeing is Sir Isaac
Newton.
Newton. Is this Principia? This is
his
his great
his great work of the laws of
motion.
motion. This is the book that laid
foundation for gravity. That's
right.
right. This was a standard text for
scientists for about 200 years, it
was
was really not until Einstein came
along
along that it people began to
seriously
seriously revalue the way the
universe
universe worked. I need to touch
it!
it! Yes,
it! Yes, do. Maybe just finally
here.
here. This is the great book of
course,
course, the origin of species. This
was
was presented to the society. Look
at
at it.
at it. From the awful. Rather
overwhelmed by the librarian. The
nasty
nasty 1980s biro!
Earning
Earning trust requires more than
just
just focusing on the science, we
have
have to
have to communicate it effectively
too.
too. Scientists have got to get out
there.
there. They have to be open about
everything that they do. They do
have
have to
have to talk to the media even if
it
it does
it does sometimes put their
reputation at doubt because if we
do
do not
do not do
do not do that it will be filled by
others
others who don't understand the
science
science and who may be driven by
politics
politics or ideology - this is far
too
too important to leave to
commentators in the media,
scientists have to be there too.