Horizon - Science under attack

[louise]

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql#synopsis

Still available in iPlayer

I thought the section when English Lit graduate James Delingpole tried to lecture Nobel prize winning scientist Dr Paul Nurse on science was particularly entertaining.

Especially when James said that he never read peer reviewed papers. He relied on others' interpretations of them and that he saw his role was to reinterpret those interpretations.

Classic :-)

[rsmith7]

But this agriculture "graduate" can tear holes in the CAGW hypothesis, louise.
The fact that the majority of the great british public don't buy your silly theory despite billions spent and blanket MSM propaganda is also "classic".
Doesn't this show that the CAGW hypothesis is extremely weak?

[carnyx]

Louise,

I too though that the bit where Delingpole said that consensus of scientists is not science per-se, and the response, illuminated Nurse's essentially political attitude.

Nurse responded by giving Delingpole the analogy of having cancer and then not accepting the 'concensus' of the medical fraternity as to treatment. Delingpole rejected this analogy, and rightly. The correct answer to Nurse's argument could be given in one word; 'Thalidomide'.

And, Louise, regarding your own point about journos lecturing scientists on science, you are probably too young to remember that it took a mere journo and not a scientist to discover the real truth about that drug. I suggest you read up on it.

But later in the programme, Nurse balanced things up via his discussion with the Aids guy, who does not believe that it is caused by a retrovirus, but as I understood it, via a compromise of the lower bowel flora and then the immune system, by unhealthy practices. His own treatment does not involve antiviral drugs, and he is apparently healthy after 8(?) years ...whereas many of his cohort who went the medicine route, are dead. Nurse had nothing much to say to that.

But overall, I thought that while Nurse was trying to do a massive damage-limitation PR exercise, even his efforts could not hide the basic problem that 'public science' per-se, is f***ed .... and he knows it. I suggest you go back and watch it more carefully.


(BTW, do you know what the motto of the Royal Society means?)

[marchesarosa]

"he never read peer reviewed papers. He relied on others' interpretations of them"

Sounds just like you, Louise, with your skepticalscience crib sheet. Classic

[Progenitor A]

Well they did pick a very congenial person, Mr Nurse to investigate the alienation of science from the public
And a very smooth job he made of it - hiding his partisanship very well
The way he presented it, science is very detached, very objective and the word of the experts should be trusted

Would that science were really like that.

In fact scientists are just as self-interested as devious as any other clever people seeking to advance themselves

Science has always been like that (with some exceptions)
Newton, for all his brilliance was notoriously self-interested and his disputes with fellow scientists and mathematicians are notorious
Darwin only published his work when he heard that a competitor was about to publish the same theory
And so it goes on....

Today scientists, and this is without any doubt in my mind, sacrifice their integrity for the vast amounts of money and prestige that is available to PC science

None of the scientists interviewed exhibited this greed and self-interest though. No they were very reasonable men,men of honour unlike the nay-sayer charlatan non-scientist Dellingpole - the only one to show passion- who was 'tricked' into accepting 'consensual medical diagnoses' as an analogue of consensual science.

Dellingworth should have replied that if he did not trust the 'consensual diagnosis' and had enough money, he could easily have commissioned a distinguished team of medical men to give him any diagnosis that he liked

Sorry Mr Nurse, You are nice guy and just the one to sit on the fence while whitewashing one side.

[robinpike]

what sir paul nurse failed to grasp is, it is not the data and mechanisms that scientists know about, it is all the data and mechnisms that they don't know about (and therefore don't realise how sound their conclusions are or not).

climate is an incredibly complicated system, how does he know that his data analysis has considered everything?

(I noted that he was suitabley impressed by the nasa guy who proudly showed him the weather prediction model that followed the real weather perfectly for what appeared to be no more than about a day - wow, as long as that?)

sir paul nurse failed to mention all the instances when scientists have said: we have studied all the evidence and blah blah must be true, and blah blah must be false - only for the real world to subsequently do something different.

examples:

1) scientists: we have studied all the evidence and feeding sheep remains to cows will have no ill effect on the cows, it is a perfectly safe way to supplement a cows diet. and then when cows got mad cow disease, scientists: although we didn't expect that... however mad cow disease cannot jump across to people, it is perfectly safe to eat beef. and then when people started to get mad cow disease...

2) scientists: killing germs with antibiotics has no drawbacks. when germs started to get resistant to the current antibiotics, that's all right we've got some new antibiotics that work even better. and when germs got resistant to even those antibiotics and mrsa got a hold in hospitals....

and an example of a current issue that scientists have concluded without doubt is safe: modifying the genes of crops can only be a benefit for us, what could possibly go wrong?

and global warming is an example that scientists have concluded without doubt is a disaster?

how does he know, that actually without increasing the carbon dioxide level, the earth would have got colder and slipped irreversibly into another ice-age?

or, with global warming, more rain will fall, and huge arid swathes of the earth will become fertile increasing the amount of food, etc, etc....

[speakertoanimals]

and an example of a current issue that scientists have concluded without doubt is safe: modifying the genes of crops can only be a benefit for us, what could possibly go wrong?

Except you grossly misprepresent science when you claim they say 'without doubt'...........

without reasonable doubt (based on all current experiments), but scientists always know surprises might crop up.

The problem with mad cow disease and other transmissable spongiform encephalopathies is that for a long time, we didn't know what the transmissable element WAS. So, feeding sheep to cows seemed a sensible use of protein. Especially if you used a method of rendering that killed all disease vectors we KNEW about.

Except we didn't know about prions.

So, when it comes to GM crops, the science is -- what COULD be the possible routes to harm?

and global warming is an example that scientists have concluded without doubt is a disaster?[/quote

without doubt? No. Extremely reasonable based on our understanding of the climate, analysis of past climate, best available models of climate etc etc etc YES.

'Scientists say without doubt' is just the usual strawman.

[rsmith7]

So you reject the "science is settled" position of Slingo, Pachuari, Beddingfield etc?

[louise]

You're out of date with regards to Beddington at least

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

“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. 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.”

[rsmith7]

So you agree that the science is far from settled?

[speakertoanimals]

Jan 25, 2011 19:28:36 GMT 1 rsmith7 said:

So you agree that the science is far from settled?

Some parts are, some parts aren't, usual complicated situation. Can't capture it all in a few word sound bite.

So you reject the "science is settled" position of Slingo, Pachuari, Beddingfield etc?

Again, WHICH bits of the entire field? It is COMPLICATED.

Saying -- I think it is ALL settled /not settled is a grossly simplified statement that actually gets us nowhere in this discussion.

'Far from settled' doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't still a lot to do as regards climate modelling, even if we are all agreed about the conclusion that AGW is true.

Sorry, these simplistic statements are just more strawmen -- if I say 'it's all settled' someone will pull up some quote from a famous bod that says it isn't. If I say it isn't, I'll be accused of disagreeing with some famous summary of the state of the art as regards AGW. Neither of which actually aids discussion of the actual science, it's just the usual cheap point-scoring...................

[rsmith7]

Then why do these "scientists" continually state that the science is settled?
Slingo, Beddington etc?
Are you suggesting they simply mean an increase in co2 causes warming however slight?
That may well be the carefully chosen wording designed to alarm but technically defensible.

It doesn't alter the fact that these "scientists" are bought and paid for by their political masters and have ditched any pretence of upholding the scientific process.

A scandal.

[speakertoanimals]

It doesn't alter the fact that these "scientists" are bought and paid for by their political masters and have ditched any pretence of upholding the scientific process.

Yeah, yeah, usual conspiracy theory nonsense! Something which you obviously believe, but that's about it, no actual reliable evidence that that is the case.

Scientists are pretty much like everyone else -- some are honest, some are a bit dodgy, some are downright fraudulent, some cheat on their tax returns of their expenses..............


But as regards the science, the whole point is that science is designed to be self-correcting. Thiose that fake get found out. Some climate scientists (just like any other scientists) may be total frauds, but the whole area, and every climate scientist? The usual conspiracists fantasy.

I find discussing other peoples fantasies to be thoroughly boring. Interesting perhaps to talk about why some people prefer such fantasies to the real world...................

[rsmith7]

But it's a historical fact that maggie thatcher started the whole sorry business in order to have the eco-loonies accept her plans to build gas and nuclear plant.
I think that we might be back on track with this. .... well, nuclear at least.

You may choose to ignore the evidence that climate "science" is utterly discredited but thankfully the vast majority of people aren't so blind.

[carnyx]

STA, you really must wake up!

Have you looked into Post Normal Science?

You must be aware of who funds Climate Science .. and the use to which they put the 'science'?

Here is a Scientist-MP stating the obvious;

"There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions"

These proposals were about to be ratified at Copenhagen .. but were defeated ...and saved our collective bacon.

Cheers all round ... unless you are a communist, of course

BTW what are your thoughts on Lysenko