OPINION

Keep calm and carry on

NERC

Climate scientists are looking pretty beleaguered right now.

Alan Thorpe knows what it feels like from the inside

Alan Thorpe is head of the Natural

Environment Research Council, which
funds much of the UKs climate science.
He is a meteorologist with 30 years
research experience

WHAT is it like being a climate

scientist at the moment? Not
much fun. Its a bit like your nextdoor neighbour being accused of
a crime and everyone in the city
you live in, including yourself,
being told they are under
suspicion as well. Accusations
about lack of integrity, deceit
and bias are flying thick and fast.
To most climate scientists,
these accusations seem deeply
unfair: mistakes may have been
made, but it is wrong to condemn
the whole of climate science as
incompetent, corrupt or worse.
Do climate scientists have a
cause, or a battle to win, as some
of our critics seem to imply?
I dont think so. I am not an
24 | NewScientist | 27 February 2010

environmentalist but rather

an environmental scientist. The
distinction is crucial: science
is about the accumulation of
knowledge, not fighting causes.
Journalists often say that
scientists should go on the
offensive to win the battle on
climate change, but I disagree.
The only battle that scientists
should try to win is for airtime,
to be able to present and debate
our knowledge with society at
large. We must ensure that this
knowledge is available for others
policy-makers and the public to
decide what actions to take, but it
is not the climate scientists role
to comment on what policy
decisions should be taken.

The scientific method is

also being questioned. Some say
the funders of climate research
only support work that sets out
to prove that global warming is
caused by humans. And peer
review, as a means of quality
control for proposals and
findings, has been criticised as
merely a way of giving the nod
to those in the clique and keeping
out those who are not.
But take a look at the facts.
Competition for research
funding is fierce. For example,
my organisation, the UKs Natural
Environment Research Council
(NERC), supports less than a
quarter of proposals submitted
to it. And science by its nature is

questioning and sceptical. These

factors are reflected in the highly
critical way in which scientists
review each others research
proposals, probing and vigorously
challenging assumptions. To
minimise the potential for groupthink or bias among reviewers, we
cast the net as widely as possible.
Our decision-making panels do
not have fixed membership but
vary from year to year.
Peer review of research findings
is similarly rigorous and sceptical.
The system is not perfect, but its
the best one we have.
What of the research itself?
One way to think of climate
science is as an attempt to test
the hypothesis that the warming
we have observed over the past
50 years and more is caused mainly
by greenhouse gases dumped
into the atmosphere by humans.
This hypothesis was formulated
because is has been known since
the 19th century that certain gases
in the atmosphere warm the
climate, and that humans have
been adding more of these gases
into the atmosphere.
Climate scientists have been
trying to find evidence that would
disprove this hypothesis for the
past 40 years or more. So far they
have failed.
We still do not discount the
possibility that the hypothesis
is wrong. There are other ways in
which the climate can warm over
such a period of time. This is why
scientists are trying to assess the
significance of all the ways in
which the observed global
warming could be occurring.
I cannot stress enough that
scepticism and challenge of

Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion

this kind are fundamental aspects

of the way that climate science is
carried out.
It is incumbent on those who
claim that the science is flawed
to bring forward a body of peerreviewed evidence that shows the
hypothesis is false. So far they
have failed to do so. I dont think
that it exists.
Of course, our understanding
of climate change still has many
uncertainties in it, but were not
covering them up. Scientists have
made huge advances developing
rigorous ways to not only predict
how that climate will change, but
also to estimate the size of the
uncertainty in that prediction.
It is not easy to communicate
why the uncertainty is there and
how big it is, and we have to get
much better at that. But research
continues to reduce uncertainty,
including new NERC programmes
on glaciers, ocean circulation and
acidification, the water cycle and
the role of the biosphere.

I dont think you could

organise a conspiracy
on such a scale, even
if you wanted to
Perhaps the most astonishing
allegation we face is that climate
science is a grand conspiracy of
thousands of scientists in many
countries. I am absolutely
convinced that it is not. I dont
think you could organise one
on this scale amongst scientists,
even if you wanted to.
Like it or not, the weight of
evidence is such that we must
conclude that human activity
is almost certainly the cause
of the recent global warming.
It would be perverse to
conclude otherwise.
Climate science will go on.
No doubt mistakes will be made
along the way; scientists are
human beings with failings
like anyone else. But society is
surely able to factor this into its
assessment of climate science
without throwing the baby out
with the bath water.

One minute with

Paul Raffaele
While visiting all the species of great apes left in the wild,
Australias celebrated adventure writer had a few close shaves
You are best known for your travels in
search of cannibals. What made you turn
your attention to the great apes?
On my trips to Africa I kept seeing the effects of
logging, poaching and the charcoal trade. Forests
are becoming like deserts and the numbers of
apes are plunging. I passionately wanted to bring
their plight to the notice of people who might be
able to do something to save them. So I set myself
a quest to see all the species and subspecies
of great apes in the wild. I especially wanted to
see the Cross river gorilla, a subspecies of the
western gorilla. There are only 300 left and
no reporter had ever visited them before.
Some of the places you travelled to
are notorious trouble spots, yet you
still went. Why?
Looking at captive apes doesnt tell you much
about them. In the wild, each subspecies of ape
has its own culture and behaviour. Its the great
apes bad luck that their habitats are in some of
the most violent, corrupt places on earth. But if
you are going to report a war you have to go and
see for yourself, and if you are going to report on
great apes you have to do the same.
You were charged by a half-tonne silverback
gorilla. How did you react?
Id been told that if you stay put, drop to your
knees and put some leaves in your mouth, they
generally arent going to beat you up so I did just
that. If you run you could provoke a chase and
then they might bite a chunk out of your neck.
Forest elephants are scarier: its amazing how fast
an overweight middle-aged city-dweller can move
when threatened by an angry elephant.
Did you have any other potentially
deadly encounters?
Not with the apes. Bonobos arent violent, the
orang-utans were wonderful and the chimps
were only violent towards each other. But you are
always in danger from other humans. In the Central
African Republic we came across a camp used by
poachers the fire still warm, their sleeping mats

PROFILE
Paul Raffaele, an Australian journalist, has
visited some of the worlds most dangerous
wilds. He describes his quest to see all the great
apes in his new book Among the Great Apes

stacked in a pile. That was terrifying because we

didnt know how close they were. They have AK-47
rifles and large-bore shotguns to kill elephants,
and you never know how they will react when
you cross paths. But remember, the guys trying
to protect great apes have to face this every day.
In the end you never saw a Cross river gorilla
in the wild. Were you disappointed?
They were there I heard a male thump his chest
in warning but they didnt show themselves.
Im happy about that. Im pleased that they hate
humans and kept out of our way. That improves
their chances of survival.
Can the great apes be saved?
The only way to guarantee there will be some
left in the wild in 50 years is to have pockets of
heavily defended habitat with anti-poaching
patrols at least as well armed as the poachers.
The impetus and the funding must come from
western governments and they must ensure
that it goes where it is needed.
Interview by Stephanie Pain

27 February 2010 | NewScientist | 25