Science Museum "Prove It" poll rethink

[marchesarosa]

Chris Rapley goes all fair and balanced


He used to great effect as part of the campaign to scare us all into believing in global warming.

He now runs the Science Museum in London and seems to have altered his views somewhat:

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

What is more, he has come over all reticent about his own views on global warming, refusing to offer an opinion one way or the other.

The times they are a-changing.

------

Courtesy of Bishop Hill here bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/24/chris-rapley-goes-all-fair-and-balanced.html

[marchesarosa]

Times on Line
March 24, 2010

Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition


The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.


Last October the museum launched a temporary exhibition called “Prove It! All the evidence you need to believe in climate change”. The museum said at the time that the exhibition had been designed to demonstrate “through scientific evidence that climate change is real and requires an urgent solution”.

Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

Professor Rapley, a climate scientist and former director of the British Antarctic Survey research centre, said that the museum needed to remain neutral in order to be trusted: “The Science Museum will not state a position on whether or not climate change is real, driven by humans or threatening.”


www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7073272.ece

[aubrey]

Has the new wave of scepticism been caused by a few emails? It does look like that.

(The new wave, not the stuff that was around before.)

[marchesarosa]

In the context of the continuing denial by the Establishment that anything untoward has happened within "climatology", Aubrey, on the face of it this apparent turnaround looks extraordinary. One is tempted to say Bravo. On the other hand one is deeply sceptical of the whole IPCC/climatology "industry" and one wonders just what is happening below the surface that has produced this result.


I sent a strongly worded letter to to Chris Rapley last year. It must have been my intervention that swung it!

I was trying to find the "Prove It" thread that I opened last year so I could add this new development to that then realised it must have been on the old board that we "lost".

It would be lovely to be able to crow over this development and it certainly is a step in the right direction but when one sees the Establishment closing ranks with the appointment of Lord Oxburgh to head the Royal Society panel investigating the "science" practised at the CRU one knows there is nothing to crow about at all, Aubrey.

[marchesarosa]

[marchesarosa]

The final score was 7532 agreeing with AGW and 8987 sceptical

[aubrey]

Come on, they've had an enquiry about it - that's hardly ignoring it.

It still somes down the Sarah Palin vs Naomi Klein, doesn't it?

And would you walk over a wobbly bridge if most scientists said it wouldn't support your weight, or go with the few who say it will (all of them knowing that they don't have to walk on it).

(That last borrowed from Charlie Booker.)

[marchesarosa]

I trust ENGINEERS, aubrey. I don't trust IPCC climate "science".

[aubrey]

Ok, if most engineers said, etc etc.

I get figures sent to me from my monthly blood tests. Creatine (I don't even know how to spell it) 5.1 etc. I hardly ever look at them because it doesn't mean anything to me - it's just a load of numbers. I know that Haemoglobin is high at 15, and low at 11, and that 11 my epo needs to be increased. But 15 and 11 whats? I have no idea; I trust the nurses to tell me when I need more epo, and I trusted the Dr when he said it was time to start dialysis. If I'd taken notice of someone on Youtube I wouldn't have started at all, as he says it's not necessary. He's from something called The University of Common Sense, so it sounds as if he's giving you the real dope: "Stop dialysis, take this instead - you'll be fine!"

What would you do?

[marchesarosa]

What would you do?

I would use my native nous, aubrey. Sounds as if you have. That's what I do re the so-called "science" of AGW. There are times when you heed the advice of experts and there are times when you query whether they are experts at all.

[aubrey]

But which is this? The common sense bloke says he knows that the the drs are wrong. That's pretty convincing. And his university is called Common Sense. That proves it, doesn't it? Doesn't Sarah Palin go on about Common Sense?

This is still about who you trust.

G Monbiot had a thing about what it would take for sceptics to change their minds. I think he said that nothing would, in the end.

[marchesarosa]

Aubrey I go with the science. You seem bemused by the politicians.

I know you don't think I am able to judge the science but I can.

I do not query your voluminous knowledge of pornography. I accept that you know what you are talking about. I have read of lot of climate stuff, too, so please extend to me the courtesy of accepting the fact that I do know what I'm talking about and am not some nutter..

Party politics in the USA or here leaves me cold. I'm not one bit interested in it.

[marchesarosa]

I would change my mind, by the way, if the evidence or a particular argument warranted it. I have already changed my mind from luke-warm assent to AGW to questioning it.
This happened three years ago.

I am not dogmatic or rigid. I can be persuaded but the evidence has to warrant it. It's the "science" ( so-called ) that I follow. And the MANY criticisms of the IPCC line are compelling as far as I'm concerned.

But...

[aubrey]

The thing is, I don't know a lot about porn. I can recognise some performers, and I know the names of some directors, but that's it. I'm on a message board where people publish online catalogues of the output of some 70s German 8mm company. People will put up a grainy vid cap of a performer and ask who it is, and someone else will give a real name, plus several performing names, a filmography, dates of birth, working period, and death (if applicable) and links to various threads on the site. If it is someone I recognise, then the question would never arise as everyone there will already know.

But, I know more about it than you do, so I seem to know a lot. You know more about climate change than I do, but do you really know a lot, in comparison with what there is to know? I doubt that anyone does, really.

[marchesarosa]

You know more about climate change than I do, but do you really know a lot, in comparison with what there is to know? I doubt that anyone does, really.

I guess it boils down to being able to spot scoundrels, and quacks, aubrey.

I think I can.