Source: BBC World Service, Newshour
URL: N/A
Date: 25/03/2014
Event: Should there be "any limits on what can be said about climate change?"
Attribution: BBC World Service
People:
Tim Franks: Within the week, we may all get some very sobering news. Top scientists from around the world have, as of today, begun meeting in Japan to go over what we know and what we can expect from climate change. It's part of a huge review on the data, under the auspices of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the first such review in seven years. In a moment, we'll consider the implications of a landmark legal case in the United States over the climate change debate. But first, let's hear a bit more about what conclusions the panel of international scientists might draw. The BBC's Matt McGrath is in Yokohama, and he's seen a leaked draft of the IPCC's report.
Matt McGrath: Last September, the IPCC said they were 95% certain that climate change was real and that humans were the dominant cause. Now, here in Japan they will outline how warming will impact all living things over the next 100 years. A leaked draft of the report, seen by the BBC, points to a range of negative effects that will, in some instances, be irreversible. Millions of people living in coastal areas in Asia will be affected by flooding. Crop yields around the world will decline by 2% per decade for the rest of the century. The oceans will become more acidic.
But some researchers disagree. They say many aspects of the projected impacts, such as the effects of climate on conflict and migration, are alarmist. One author is so unhappy he has asked for his name to be removed from the draft. Another researcher, Professor Nigel Arnell from the University of Reading in the UK, said the report would be "complicated and nuanced" and not simply "doom and gloom".
Nigel Arnell: We may expect, in - big impacts on floods, big impacts on droughts, big impacts on energy demand, big impacts on health, and so on, in a particular place. But not all at the same time. Yeah, if you've got big impacts on floods, there may be lesser impact on droughts, so by, sort of, looking at the worst case, there is a risk of overestimating the consequences of climate change.
Matt McGrath: The scientists and government officials will go through the report line by line, over the coming days, with the agreed summary due to be released next Monday.
Tim Franks: Matt McGrath, in Yokohama. If the weight of scientific opinion turns out to be so strong and so gloomy about climate change, how far should there be limits on denying its existence? In the United States, a case is trundling towards the courts, which pits the columnist Mark Steyn and three co-defendants against the climate scientist Michael Mann. Dr. Mann is suing them for disparaging his work on climate change, describing that work as fraudulent. In his quest for recourse, Dr. Mann has some powerful allies.
Al Gore: We have to put a price on carbon in the marketplace, and we have to put a price on denial in the political system.
Tim Franks: That's former US Vice President Al Gore talking, some would say ominously, about potential penalties for those who criticise climate change. What do two climate scientists - who both themselves subscribe to the reality of climate change - make of this? Professor Judith Curry is Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech in the US. Bob Ward is Policy Director with the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London. First, Professor Curry - should there be any limits on what can be said about climate change?
Judith Curry: Absolutely not. On a complex political and scientific subject like climate change that's hotly debated, of course the rhetoric will get heated. And trying to restrict free speech in a situation like this I think is potentially very damaging, not only to the public policy process, but also to the science itself.
Tim Franks: Bob Ward?
Bob Ward: Now if somebody is attacked personally, and their professional reputation is called into question, for instance, by calling him a fraud, in the UK that would be subject to the laws of the land here, and I think that in this case, Michael Mann is perfectly entitled to use the law to protect his professional reputation, because there is no media regulation in the US that would do that for him.
Tim Franks: But I want to broaden it out, from the issue of libel, or potential libel, against a particular person, into the broader debate, as to whether - do you think that the climate change is of such a pressing, immediate issue to people, that actually what you would consider to be irresponsible claims, irresponsible denials of that should not be allowed to be made freely?
Bob Ward: I think that arguments between experts, for instance people who are publishing academic papers, then it's perfectly legitimate to have those arguments and disagreements aired. I think, however, in this particular case, where you've got essentially a political actor attacking a climate scientist and calling into question their professional credibility, that's not quite the same, and I think that in this particular case, the claims were, in my view, inaccurate - in this particular case, that individual being really had committed fraud, there would have been action taken against them.
Tim Franks: Judith Curry, what do you say to that point? That actually there is a sort of defence of public interest here, and if the weight of science is on one side of that division of opinion, the media should respect that.
Judith Curry: Well, I think where the public interest lies, in this whole debate, is very uncertain. We do need to have an open, public debate on these issues, and trying to censor or limit certain people's access to the media, or trying to control what political commentators have to say, I think is a very, very dangerous path.
Bob Ward: But Judy, do you think that the media has any responsibility to ensure accuracy in things that they publish or broadcast?
Judith Curry: Yes they do, but in terms of the issue of whether Michael Mann molested and tortured data, well, that's open to debate. So, for somebody to criticise that data analysis, I don't think is out of line at all.
Bob Ward: I think they went slightly further than just criticise, they called him a fraud - that implies that he has deliberately misrepresented the evidence. When people are, for political reasons, trying to confuse the public about the science, I think that the media has a responsibility to call those out, and if possible warn the public.
Tim Franks: But is that a legal responsibility?
Bob Ward: Well, in the UK it clearly is.
Tim Franks: It is when it comes to libel, but not when it necessarily comes to the issue itself.
Bob Ward: Yes, it is. The BBC in the UK is governed by its own Royal Charter, which specifies it has to be accurate, and it's also covered by the Broadcasting Act, so it is required -
Tim Franks: Indeed accurate, but -
Bob Ward: Accuracy is the name of the game.
Tim Franks: Indeed, but is there not then room for dissenting views?
Bob Ward: Deliberately misleading the public with inaccurate and misleading information is not the same thing. And I think those who often plead that this is all about just having different voices in the debate are usually trying to excuse an attempt to confuse the public.
Tim Franks: Judith Curry, would you agree that there are limits to free speech? I mean, more broadly, not just in scientific issues, but generally, that there are some things which do not belong on air.
Judith Curry: No.
Tim Franks: Right -
Judith Curry: I'm in favour of open communication about controversial issues.
Bob Ward: So Judy, if you were accused of being a fraud, in the media, and then you asked for a retraction and that person refused, you would not use legal means to try and get a correction.
Judith Curry: I am frequently attacked in the media. And in fact the most egregious attacks on my scientific reputation have come from Michael Mann himself. He has referred to my recent Congressional Testimony as "anti-science" and called me a "serial climate disinformer". Am I suing? Heck, no! As an American, I'm pretty attached to the right to free speech.
Tim Franks: Do you think, either of you, that if this case reaches trial - and the signs are that it could do - that actually it could be not just a very interesting - possibly very entertaining - legal case, but it could even be a landmark legal case? Because the science will be tested, not just by scientists but also by lawyers. It will have to go through a particularly, sort of, fine sieve, in order then to be, sort of, filtered and we see what comes out the other side.
Bob Ward: Well, I think that if this case succeeds, it will mean that people will have to be more careful about personal attacks on each other, because it's clear that the law can and will be used.
Tim Franks: Judith Curry, do you think that this trial, if it reaches the courtroom, that it could be useful?
Judith Curry: Um, absolutely. There's a great danger in consensus science surrounding a very complex subject. Making sound public policy doesn't require that there be a consensus, and trying to enforce consensus, like there is "the facts" surrounding climate change, there are fairly few genuine facts surrounding climate change, there's a lot that's open to debate, and there's a lot of "unknown unknowns", even. I think this has the potential to be a very important landmark case, with regards to not just the media and what the media can do but how we treat public communication of science through the media.
Tim Franks: That was Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, and you also heard from Bob Ward from the LSE.