Today (1 December 2009) Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL said:
“More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. Public organisations, like the Science Museum, have a responsibility to lay out the evidence and open up public discussion.”
He added:
“Over the past month the Science Museum has provided a channel for people to engage with the scientific evidence for climate change through a temporary exhibit and accompanying website called ‘Prove It!’. There is currently plenty of debate around climate change research and I believe it is important for the Science Museum to provide a means for people to engage with the issues. Prove It! has created a space for visitors, to the Museum and website, to consider the scientific evidence, come to their own conclusions and express their opinion. The indications from Prove It! are consistent with a recent Pew Centre survey and a 2007 Ipsos Mori poll: a large proportion of people do not believe in the reality of man-made climate change.
Furthermore, Professor Rapley said:
“The Science Museum is uniquely placed to engage with people about climate change, facilitating discussion and decision making based on evidence. I look forward to launching a new dedicated climate change gallery next June as the culmination of our Centenary year.”
The statement was made to coincide with the revealing of the results of a poll carried out by the Science Museum to tie in with the Prove It! project. The poll suggested that a significant number of people are not convinced by the evidence for man-made climate change so do not support strong action by the UK government at the forthcoming Copenhagen conference.
Prove It! remains open until January 2010 and is free to visit.
For further information please contact Andrew Marcus, Science Museum Press Office, on 020 7942 4357 / andrew.marcus@sciencemuseum.org.uk
While the “Prove it!” poll was comendable, Prof Rapley is not opening up public discussion – he wants to do “more work to convince people of the reality of human induced climate change” – (Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.) Why doesn’t he give the people credit for some intelligence and say – hey wait a minute, maybe they have a point?
Where is the scientific proof of the reality of human-induced climate change Professor Rapley?
All I want is the Facts, Prof, just the plain simple, ordinary mortal, Facts!
I am not holding my breath…………
Britain’s Tories Backing Out of “Hair Shirt” Environmental Policies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-hit-by-tory-backlash-on-environment-1832208.html
Cameron hit by Tory backlash on environment
David Davis condemns flagship green policies as senior Tory MPs question climate change consensus
“David Cameron is facing a growing challenge to his authority from senior members of his own party who say they have doubts about the Conservatives’ stance on global warming. Leading figures including Peter Lilley, the former cabinet minister, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe are openly questioning the political consensus on climate change.
“And today David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, warns in The Independent that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, is “destined to collapse”. He criticises “the fixation of the green movement with setting ever tougher targets, in the face of failure to meet earlier promises”. He adds: “The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”…
“…Mr Cameron has described the Copenhagen summit as “so important”, saying: ” What we need to see emerge from those discussions is an effective, binding and fair deal to cut carbon emissions that includes all major economies.”
“But Peter Lilley, who is tipped for a return to government if the Tories win power, told The Independent that while he believed the climate was changing the effects were being overstated. “There is an irrefutable scientific process [on global warming]. I just think its effects tend to be exaggerated.” He added: “It is unrealistic to expect a satisfactory deal in Copenhagen. It is just not going to happen. The interests of the industrialising countries [such as China and India] differ so greatly from the already-industrialised countries.”
“Some Tory frontbenchers are also said to have private doubts about climate change. John Maples, the deputy Tory chairman, told the Commons last year that he no longer accepted the consensus on the issue. “I do not believe that the science is anything like as settled as the proponents of the [Climate Change] Bill are making out,” he said. He declined to comment yesterday.
“Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: “I would like to see some proper cost-benefit analysis [at Copenhagen] on the impact on the economy, rather than this charge towards trying to be trendy and to please the environmental lobby. Everyone has gone completely mad on this. It has taken on the hallmarks of a religion rather than a policy issue. Anyone who says ‘hang on a minute’ is completely decried and treated like a Holocaust denier,” he said.
“Graham Brady, Tory MP for Altringham and Sale West, said: “There is some room for debate about why the climate is changing and the best ways of tackling it. It is a good idea to reduce carbon emissions, but I would not want to see the whole economy destroyed in the process. There is a balance to be struck.”…
“…In the European Parliament last week, two Tory MEPs, Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer, voted against a motion calling for the Copenhagen talks to agree an 80% cut in emissions by 2050 – the official Tory policy. They were among 18 members of the breakaway European Conservatives and Reformists Group, including its Polish leader Michal Kaminski, to oppose such a deal.
“Last month Mr Helmer accused the Church of England of having “abandoned religious faith entirely and taken up the new religion of climate change alarmism instead”.”
PROVE IT! proves nothing; it is propaganda and bullying advocacy. The web feature contains no evidence whatsoever, nothing but pages of turgid text full of claims and projections and unproven relationships. What a tradgedy that a reputable institution can seek to corrupt young minds in this way.
My complaints to the Science Museum have elicited only a fatuous response so far.
MG
“More work needs to be done to convince people”…
Is this the Science Museum or the Scientology Museum?
John, if you are not a troll, you are comparing 4000 brainwashed elementary students marched through the exhibit by their teachers during school hours to the rest of the voters who chose to come to the website on their own.
This must be the song of the AGW camp:
“One wheel on my wagon, And I’m still rolling along Them Cherokees after me I’m all in flames, at the reins But I’m singing a happy song…”
The good Professor Chris Rapley CBE will just need to adopt the same principle as the EU, keep having polls until he gets the result he wants, because those of an opposing view get fed up!
@John
“Interesting to see those who took the poll in the museum are overwhelmingly in support of the statement but those who took it online were not.”
Presumably because children were allowed to vote?
BBC Radio 4’s ‘The Moral Maze’ is discussing science and morality tonight, with reference to the CRU debacle. Nice (and surprising) to find the Beeb giving airtime to scepticism on the subject, but I suppose we’ d better wait to see who they talk to!
“More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution…..”
More work needs to be done to convince the people that keep trying to convince ‘people of the reality of human-induced climate change’ that they have to stop trying to convince ‘people of the reality of human-induced climate change’.
“Prove It.” What a misleading and unscientific survey title. Since when have consensus numbers “proved” anything?
The Professor must surely be aware that science advances by a process of testing and falsification, a sceptical process of replacing weaker explanatory theories by theories that better fit the facts. When can we ever say we know it all, it’s proven.”The science is settled.”
Kate 02:03:11
I sent this email to David Cameron 2 years ago. Not a word back!
I have sent others since to no effect but then with Zac Goldsmith as his advisor I should not expect any correspondence.
“Dear Mr Cameron,
I question why you are sticking to the “Green” ticket when
there is not one shred of evidence that CO2 is
the “Devil’s Gas”.
Of Mankind’s 3% CO2 the UK provides barely 1.6%. CO2 is 0.036% of our atmosphere. Water vapour is more active and a much bigger component.
Even if my Maths are
1000% inaccurate it won’t change our contribution very much will it?
Is that really going to make any difference to anything? All your
Green pals have agendas that have more to do with
comfortable incomes than saving the Planet [which does not need
saving anyway]
If you want to get voters attention, set up a debate/conference
for some accredited Scientists both for and against
and you will realise that the truth is not inconvenient [Al Gore
Propaganda] and the money wasted on ‘saving’ the Planet
could be invested in fighting crime, lowering taxes, improving health
etc.
All Global Warming predictions are based on totally inaccurate
Computer Models.
Warming predictions via Computer Models are as useful and on the same
level as Fools Gold and Witchcraft.
A lot of Conservatives have similar thoughts to my own. Don’t
count on my or their votes if you will not allow an even
playing field to debate Global Warming/Climate Change.”
Rather than assume people are selfish and stupid, perhaps our elite scientists should take a look at the wisdom of crowds:
http://www.scivee.tv/tag/wisdom_crowds_phenomenon
There is a lot more on this subject and it is worth a five-minute search.
I hope thay had a mechanism in place that prevented people voting in the gallery going home and voting again on-line.
I suspect I know the answer!
Which means that there could have been considerable double voting based on the 5:1 proportions of the gallery.
All in the best traditions of balance, just like the statement about convincing people of the “reality” of global warming.
Did anyone think to ask Prof. Rapely if they turned the raw data over to CRU for “correction” yet?
I’m “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum and Professor of Climate Science at UCL.
Ben Santer – the gift that keeps on giving!!
This is not at all surprising, Professor Chris Rapley has a long track record as a “warmist”.
Back in 1997/8 (when I was working there on secondment) he took over as Director of British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and completely redefined their mission- to one aimed at “proving” climate change.
All those scientists who didn’t follow this agenda, or were working in areas unlikely to support it were removed.
This poll was Pharyngulatd by PZ Myers the other day, so it will be interesting to see if the trend has changed. PZ commonly links to polls about religion and intelligent design, so that the hoards of Phryngula readers can upset the theists by overwhelming the poll. The comments on his blog in regards to this are interesting, though I think the formidable PZ knows more about evolution than he does about the current state of play in climate science.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/a_poll_to_advocate_a_strong_re_php
Well Adam Gallon,
Some people prefer to get their “science” pre-packaged and ready to eat handed to them conveniently by “those who know best,” whereas others prefer to go out and seek their own science the traditional way – searching for papers, reading articles and comparing results.
I guess the latter are those whom the good prof reckon are denying the “reality” of man made climate change.
I actually searched that site for convincing evidence for man’s CO2 contribution driving temperatures and all I found was them pointing to a higher authority (IPCC).
They really need to do better than that.
I love how they spun the results by including a seperate sample of the idiots who actually turned up at the museum. Well ya obviously those that actually went to their global warming soiree would believe it wouldnt they?
More dishonest behaviour from the agw freaks.
“Prove It! remains open until January 2010 and is free to visit.”
They can’t even give it away for free…..
Can sombody explain why a plastic bag of coffee which doesn’t bio dergade is better than a glass bottle which can be recycled? Advertisers jumping on the climate change band wagon maybe. Could it be Kenco can not make decent coffee so have changed to trying to appeal to peoples conscience. If the coffee was in a paoer bag there might be something in it.
I do however agree that packaging is a problem and the best way to help is avoid supermarkets.
I have already Emailed and asked the Science Musuem if they can quantify the number of children – particularly in school parties – and adults who may have voted in the skewed internal poll result? Or if they have any other rational explanation?
It’s been clear for several years that schoolkids in the UK, and across the EU, are being brainwashed about AGW – there’s a huge amount of ‘free’ course material available to schools and everything I have seen looks more like propaganda than science.