APP - Government's chief scientific adviser says sceptics should be heard

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Top climate change adviser calls for honesty from scientists in global warming debate


By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:28 AM on 28th January 2010



article-0-05F4AD22000005DC-175_233x312.jpg
Professor John Beddington: Scientists should be more open about uncertainty


Scientists must be more 'honest and open' about the uncertainties of global warming, the Government's chief scientific adviser declared yesterday.
Professor John Beddington said climate researchers should be less hostile to sceptics who question their predictions.
But he added that the underlying physics of climate change - that carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels warms the planet - was 'unchallengeable'.
Professor Beddington's comments follow a series of blunders by climate scientists.
Last week, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming most of the Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years.
The warning, which appeared in the IPCC's 2007 report, turned out to be taken from a news story from New Scientist magazine in the late 1990s based on an interview with a glacier expert. The expert later admitted his comment was speculation.
The same report also exaggerated claims that global warming will increase the number of tropical storms.
In November, leaked emails appeared to show scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulating data to strengthen the case for man-made climate change - and debating ways to stop sceptics getting hold of their raw temperature data.


Professor Beddington said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.
'I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,' he said.
article-1246404-080D2D52000005DC-495_233x423.jpg
Glaciers: Claims they will melt by 2035 were not backed up, the UN said

'Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.'
He said that the false claim about glaciers in the IPCC report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.
'Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,' he added.
'We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism.
'All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, "There's a level of uncertainty about that".'
Professor Beddington also said that computer climate modelling resulted in 'quite substantial uncertainties' that should be communicated.
'It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,' he told the Times.
'But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change. When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties.
'On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.'
The UN is under increasing pressure to reform the IPCC - and include research from sceptical scientists in its reports.
Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation thinktank, said of Professor Beddington's remarks: 'His public rebuke is a highly significant development which we hope will help to restore some much needed balance and realism to the climate debate.'
 
LOL it's the same thing rubes like me have been saying for years. Thanks, mr. scientist, we really appreciate you guys doing... umm, science
 
Top climate change adviser calls for honesty from scientists in global warming debate



Scientists must be more 'honest and open' about the uncertainties of global warming, the Government's chief scientific adviser declared yesterday.
Professor John Beddington said climate researchers should be less hostile to sceptics who question their predictions.

But he added that the underlying physics of climate change - that carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels warms the planet - was 'unchallengeable'.

'Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertaintyabout climate change prediction that can't be changed.'

I concur with this.

I have to deal with public skepticism a lot with regard to science, and what I’ve learned is that questions and criticism even from lay persons can be valuable. The problem I’ve found is that teabaggers, birthers, and other lower forms of life are fundamentally confused about what science is and what it is capable of. There seems to be a profound expectation that science must provide proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Bullet proof conclusions, essentially. Oddly enough, this seems expectation seems be more prevalent with respect to environmental and earth sciences, and with evolutionary biology. In contrast, teabaggers seem perfectly willing to accept the word of a dunce like Shrub about Iraq’s WMD, without ever pausing to shout for concrete evidence. Or they’re willing to believe that ACORN is some shadowy organization that is corrupting democracy, without having a shred of plausible evidence to back this up.

This british dude is right, its always worth trying to explain to teabaggers that science, by its very nature, deals in uncertainties....that it deals in probabilities, not in iron-clad truth. And this is always a challenge (and occasionally gut-bustingly hilarious) with people who believe Eve actually spoke to a snake, or that Republican trickledown economics makes sense for average working schmucks.

Some people you can make understand the nature of what science does. Then there’s the crowd that watches Fox News, and goes around yelling “junk science!”. They just basically react on emotion and propaganda. I had this dude yell and me in a meeting, and storm out screaming about junk science. Those dudes are always a barrel of fun and you can tell those are the dudes that listen to Rush Limbaugh, and who were easily fooled into thinking Iraq was a grave threat to the U.S. Good times!
 
I concur with this.

I have to deal with public skepticism a lot with regard to science, and what I’ve learned is that questions and criticism even from lay persons can be valuable. The problem I’ve found is that teabaggers, birthers, and other lower forms of life are fundamentally confused about what science is and what it is capable of. There seems to be a profound expectation that science must provide proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Bullet proof conclusions, essentially. Oddly enough, this seems expectation seems be more prevalent with respect to environmental and earth sciences, and with evolutionary biology.

Oh, I think we have reasonable expectations of what science could and should do...
They should be honest....
They should freely share data....
They should encourage others to duplicate their findings...

The AGW scientists did none of these things...they lied, they perpatrated a hoax, and almost caused a world wide economic catastrophe with bogus nonsense about capping emissions, etc...

No one expects scientists to be super-human and mistake proof....


In contrast, teabaggers seem perfectly willing to accept the word of a dunce like Shrub about Iraq’s WMD, without ever pausing to shout for concrete evidence. Or they’re willing to believe that ACORN is some shadowy organization that is corrupting democracy, without having a shred of plausible evidence to back this up.

What you have about Bush and Iraq is not concrete evidence...and there are NIE reports, intell. from numerous countrys, the infamous Dem. declarations about Saddam and WMD even pre-Bush that prove it..., etc....facts uncovered in 2005 are irrelevant to what was thought to be factual in 2001

ACORN was proven to be registering bogus names and dead people, people were arrested, people were fired from their employ, there was undeniable video showing disregard for the law...
Your claim about 'without having a shred of plausible evidence to back this up"is hardly factual.....
Calling them 'shadowy' hardly does justice to their organization...dozens of names and front organizations, whose connections are difficult to pin down even by experts...all of course government financed and tax exempt....


This british dude is right, its always worth trying to explain to teabaggers that science, by its very nature, deals in uncertainties....that it deals in probabilities, not in iron-clad truth. And this is always a challenge (and occasionally gut-bustingly hilarious) with people who believe Eve actually spoke to a snake, or that Republican trickledown economics makes sense for average working schmucks.

I don't ridicule people of religion, you can if you must...

and trickledown economics, compared to socialism works just fine...its an undeniable fact that its made this country the most powerful, the most advanced, and the most democratic in the world, long before others....and being what we are, have saved hundreds of millions from death and slavery by tyrants....


Some people you can make understand the nature of what science does. Then there’s the crowd that watches Fox News, and goes around yelling “junk science!”. They just basically react on emotion and propaganda. I had this dude yell and me in a meeting, and storm out screaming about junk science. Those dudes are always a barrel of fun and you can tell those are the dudes that listen to Rush Limbaugh, and who were easily fooled into thinking Iraq was a grave threat to the U.S. Good times!

Propaganda ? Propaganda from the liberals can start in kindergarten and continues into college lecture halls...under the guise of ecology, diversity, tolerance, civil rights, class warfare, etc..., .few even care to deny this accusation....

Your quip about Fox News just shows your ignorance and bias...if your happy to be in that minority that doesn't enjoy news that is by far, more fair and balanced than other networks, thats you business....and people that listen to Limbaugh are no more fools than those that watch Kieth Olbermann or Jon Stewart....
You seem to be the one with the closed mind and partisan stubbornness...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top