0:00:04 > 0:00:06Archive programmes chosen by experts.
0:00:06 > 0:00:09For this collection, Prof Alice Roberts has selected
0:00:09 > 0:00:13a range of programmes to celebrate Horizon's 50th anniversary.
0:00:13 > 0:00:16More Horizon programmes and other BBC Four Collections
0:00:16 > 0:00:18are available on BBC iPlayer.
0:00:25 > 0:00:27So, we're descending deep into the basement here.
0:00:27 > 0:00:29'My name is Paul Nurse.
0:00:29 > 0:00:34'I've just taken over as President of the Royal Society,
0:00:34 > 0:00:36'Britain's academy of science.'
0:00:36 > 0:00:42And, um, this is where the main archives and books are held.
0:00:42 > 0:00:44'The wonderful archives here
0:00:44 > 0:00:49'bear witness to over 350 years of scientific achievements...'
0:00:49 > 0:00:53This is Newton's great work on the laws of motion.
0:00:53 > 0:00:55'..and battles.'
0:00:55 > 0:00:59This is the great book, of course, The Origin Of Species.
0:00:59 > 0:01:01'I find this an inspiring place
0:01:01 > 0:01:04'for the challenges that science now faces.'
0:01:07 > 0:01:11'I think that today, there is a new kind of battle.'
0:01:13 > 0:01:15'It's not just a clash of ideas,
0:01:15 > 0:01:18'but whether people actually trust science.'
0:01:21 > 0:01:25'One of the most vocal arguments currently raging
0:01:25 > 0:01:26'is about climate science.'
0:01:29 > 0:01:32'Many people seem unconvinced
0:01:32 > 0:01:33'that we're warming our planet
0:01:33 > 0:01:35'through the emission of greenhouse gasses.'
0:01:35 > 0:01:38Are you saying the whole community, or a majority of the community
0:01:38 > 0:01:40of climate scientists are skewing their data?
0:01:40 > 0:01:42Is that what you're claiming?
0:01:45 > 0:01:50'And trust in other scientific theories has also been eroded,
0:01:50 > 0:01:52'such as the safety of vaccines...'
0:01:54 > 0:01:57'..or that HIV causes AIDS.'
0:01:57 > 0:01:59You wouldn't see yourself as a denialist?
0:01:59 > 0:02:01No, not at all. I mean, I don't even know what it is
0:02:01 > 0:02:03that they would say that I'm in denial of.
0:02:05 > 0:02:07'There have been angry protests
0:02:07 > 0:02:09'against the use of genetically modified foods.'
0:02:09 > 0:02:10It's time for us to say no,
0:02:10 > 0:02:13we don't want it, we don't want their new technology.
0:02:15 > 0:02:18'Science created our modern world.
0:02:18 > 0:02:22'So, I want to understand why science appears to be under such attack...'
0:02:23 > 0:02:27'..and whether we scientists are partly to blame.'
0:02:39 > 0:02:40Hello, everybody.
0:02:40 > 0:02:45'For me, becoming President of the Royal Society
0:02:45 > 0:02:46'has been the culmination of
0:02:46 > 0:02:49'a lifetime's fascination with science...'
0:02:50 > 0:02:53'..and my attempts to answer questions about the world around me.'
0:02:55 > 0:02:59I've been interested in science, really, all my life.
0:02:59 > 0:03:02It started when I was at primary school.
0:03:04 > 0:03:07I had a long walk to school and I used to look at all the plants
0:03:07 > 0:03:10and the birds and the insects, and I got interested in natural history.
0:03:10 > 0:03:12I used to wonder about things.
0:03:12 > 0:03:15I always remember, like, why, when a plant is growing in the shade,
0:03:15 > 0:03:16are the leaves bigger?
0:03:16 > 0:03:20You know, it's the sort of thing an eight or nine-year-old would ask.
0:03:20 > 0:03:24'50 years later, I'm still trying to answer questions
0:03:24 > 0:03:27'about the most basic processes of life.'
0:03:27 > 0:03:31Probably what my lab is best known for
0:03:31 > 0:03:35is discovering the control which regulates cell division,
0:03:35 > 0:03:38which will lead hopefully,
0:03:38 > 0:03:42to better understanding of diseases like cancer and, maybe, to cures.
0:03:43 > 0:03:47'Ten years ago, I shared a Nobel Prize for this work.'
0:03:47 > 0:03:48It... It's fantastic.
0:03:48 > 0:03:50I'm... I'm really privileged.
0:03:50 > 0:03:52I've been doing this for 40 years.
0:03:52 > 0:03:55I sometimes wonder why people are paying me.
0:03:55 > 0:03:57'But away from my lab,
0:03:57 > 0:04:02'I've witnessed hostilities towards some key areas of science.'
0:04:03 > 0:04:07'There is one issue that's of particular importance today...'
0:04:09 > 0:04:12'..the question of man-made climate change.'
0:04:16 > 0:04:19REPORTER 1: 'Scientists have been manipulating evidence...'
0:04:19 > 0:04:20REPORTER 2: 'Evidence is unequivocal.'
0:04:20 > 0:04:22REPORTER 3: 'There's no doubt about...'
0:04:22 > 0:04:25PAUL: 'It's a subject that polarises opinion...
0:04:25 > 0:04:28'not surprisingly, since climate science affects
0:04:28 > 0:04:29'so many elements of our lives...'
0:04:30 > 0:04:34'..from politics, to economics, to how we live.
0:04:34 > 0:04:39'With so much at stake, scientists are rightly held to account.'
0:04:40 > 0:04:44'But some of my colleagues feel not under scrutiny...'
0:04:45 > 0:04:46'..but under attack.'
0:04:46 > 0:04:52I was pretty disturbed by a letter I read a few months ago
0:04:52 > 0:04:55in the magazine Science.
0:04:55 > 0:04:58That's one of the most prestigious journals in science.
0:04:58 > 0:05:00It was from 255, if I remember rightly,
0:05:00 > 0:05:03members of the National Academy of Sciences.
0:05:03 > 0:05:06That's the academy of science in the United States.
0:05:06 > 0:05:08A very prestigious organisation.
0:05:08 > 0:05:14And these 255 members had written a letter really expressing concern
0:05:14 > 0:05:17about how climate scientists were being treated.
0:05:19 > 0:05:23'The letter was about climate change and the integrity of science.
0:05:23 > 0:05:25'Two sentences really stood out.'
0:05:27 > 0:05:30The first sentence - "We are deeply disturbed by the recent
0:05:30 > 0:05:34"escalation of political assaults on scientists in general
0:05:34 > 0:05:37"and on climate scientists in particular."
0:05:37 > 0:05:39That's pretty strong stuff.
0:05:39 > 0:05:41And then a sentence towards the end -
0:05:41 > 0:05:44"We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats
0:05:44 > 0:05:47"of criminal prosecution against our colleagues,
0:05:47 > 0:05:51"based on innuendo and guilt by association,
0:05:51 > 0:05:54"and the outright lies being spread about them."
0:05:54 > 0:05:58This is as tough as anything I've read in a magazine like Science.
0:06:00 > 0:06:04'What worries me is not just that scientists feel under attack,
0:06:04 > 0:06:07'but that many people think these attacks
0:06:07 > 0:06:09'may be intellectually justified.'
0:06:11 > 0:06:14'Recent polls suggest that nearly half of Americans
0:06:14 > 0:06:16'and more than a third of the British
0:06:16 > 0:06:19'believe climate change is being exaggerated.
0:06:19 > 0:06:22'It's this gap between scientists and the public
0:06:22 > 0:06:24'that I want to understand.'
0:06:26 > 0:06:29'Are the public right not to trust science,
0:06:29 > 0:06:31'or is there something else that's not working?'
0:06:33 > 0:06:37'As always, the best place to start is with the scientific evidence.'
0:06:37 > 0:06:40- Ah, good morning. How are you? - Good morning, good.
0:06:40 > 0:06:42I want to go to the space centre, is that OK?
0:06:42 > 0:06:44- OK. - I'll put my stuff in the boot.
0:06:47 > 0:06:49'I've come to Washington
0:06:49 > 0:06:52'to visit one of the most respected scientific organisations
0:06:52 > 0:06:55'in the world - NASA.'
0:06:55 > 0:06:59I'm really rather excited about coming to NASA.
0:06:59 > 0:07:02I've always been interested in astronomy and in space.
0:07:02 > 0:07:03The strange thing about NASA is
0:07:03 > 0:07:05not only is it looking out into outer space,
0:07:05 > 0:07:07like with the Hubble telescope,
0:07:07 > 0:07:10but it spends a lot of its time looking down at the Earth,
0:07:10 > 0:07:14cos satellites are very, very good at monitoring the changes in the Earth,
0:07:14 > 0:07:15such as climate.
0:07:15 > 0:07:18I think we sort of really don't quite fully recognise that.
0:07:18 > 0:07:22Most of what NASA's doing is looking down rather than looking up!
0:07:25 > 0:07:26DRIVER: Park here?
0:07:26 > 0:07:29Yes, if you could park here, I can get out there. That would be great.
0:07:33 > 0:07:37'NASA is a major centre for climate research.
0:07:37 > 0:07:41'It spends more than 2 billion a year studying the climate.
0:07:41 > 0:07:44'I've come to meet Dr Bob Bindschadler
0:07:44 > 0:07:47'to see where and how they get their information.'
0:07:50 > 0:07:53DR BINDSCHADLER: So, here, we can really visualise a lot of data sets,
0:07:53 > 0:07:55and this is the one I really like,
0:07:55 > 0:07:59because it shows us how scientists are getting their data.
0:07:59 > 0:08:02I mean, NASA does a lot of stuff in the cosmos,
0:08:02 > 0:08:06but we have half the satellites just looking at the Earth,
0:08:06 > 0:08:08just looking down at the Earth.
0:08:08 > 0:08:11Every 90 minutes, every one of these satellites orbits the Earth
0:08:11 > 0:08:14and collects data, sometimes in a wide swathe,
0:08:14 > 0:08:16sometimes in a narrow swathe.
0:08:16 > 0:08:19This is our bread and butter, this is where all the information comes from.
0:08:19 > 0:08:22So, how many of these satellites are there up there?
0:08:22 > 0:08:26There's about 16, 17, 18 satellites right now, just that NASA operates.
0:08:26 > 0:08:29There's at least as many from all the other space agencies -
0:08:29 > 0:08:32the European Space Agency, India operates satellites,
0:08:32 > 0:08:33Japan does, Canada does.
0:08:33 > 0:08:36So, if you put that full constellation on here,
0:08:36 > 0:08:38it would be so busy, it would just look like, uh,
0:08:38 > 0:08:40New York streets in...rush hour.
0:08:40 > 0:08:43But that's a gigantic amount of information being collected.
0:08:43 > 0:08:44It's huge.
0:08:44 > 0:08:49It's terabytes, it's petabytes of data, every day, coming down.
0:08:49 > 0:08:52'NASA is just one of many organisations
0:08:52 > 0:08:55'collecting global climate evidence.'
0:08:56 > 0:08:58'This information has helped create a view
0:08:58 > 0:09:02'of how our planet's temperature has changed in the recent past.'
0:09:03 > 0:09:06Paul, I want to show you this science on a sphere,
0:09:06 > 0:09:09- a fantastic way of looking at data. - Look at that!
0:09:09 > 0:09:10Recognise that world?
0:09:10 > 0:09:15And you can just walk around here, see the clouds moving around.
0:09:15 > 0:09:20And it's an absolutely fantastic way of looking at data.
0:09:20 > 0:09:25So, I guess what we all want to know is, is this planet warming up?
0:09:25 > 0:09:28This planet is warming up. The climate is changing.
0:09:28 > 0:09:31Just over the last 50 years, it's been about
0:09:31 > 0:09:33three quarters of a degree centigrade,
0:09:33 > 0:09:35which doesn't sound like a whole lot.
0:09:35 > 0:09:36Mm-hm.
0:09:36 > 0:09:40And we've been able to calculate that, over the next 50 years,
0:09:40 > 0:09:41it's going to warm AT LEAST
0:09:41 > 0:09:44another three quarters of a degree if we do nothing else,
0:09:44 > 0:09:49if we don't even continue to modify the climate.
0:09:51 > 0:09:53'So, temperatures are rising.'
0:09:55 > 0:09:58'But what is really at dispute is the cause of that change,
0:09:58 > 0:10:01'whether it's simply a natural temperature fluctuation.'
0:10:01 > 0:10:06There have been times when the Earth has been warmer than it is today.
0:10:06 > 0:10:09Less ice, higher sea level and colder than today,
0:10:09 > 0:10:12with much more ice and lower sea level.
0:10:12 > 0:10:15But an important thing to remember is that back in those times,
0:10:15 > 0:10:18climate changed VERY gradually,
0:10:18 > 0:10:22and now it's changing really fast, and that's a very important
0:10:22 > 0:10:25characteristic of climate change that we're living through right now -
0:10:25 > 0:10:27the pace of that change.
0:10:28 > 0:10:34'NASA's data is not the only evidence that our climate is warming rapidly
0:10:34 > 0:10:37'and that we are causing the change.
0:10:37 > 0:10:39'There's also several decades of research
0:10:39 > 0:10:42'from scientists across the globe.'
0:10:46 > 0:10:48'The extent of the data suggests
0:10:48 > 0:10:52'we should have a lot of confidence in this idea,
0:10:52 > 0:10:54'yet this evidence is clearly not convincing
0:10:54 > 0:10:56'a substantial part of the wider public.'
0:11:00 > 0:11:05'And those who are sceptical turn to other scientists.'
0:11:07 > 0:11:12There is no scientific evidence that greenhouse warming is occurring,
0:11:12 > 0:11:15or if it is, that it would lead to disaster.
0:11:18 > 0:11:21We see no evidence in the climate record
0:11:21 > 0:11:24that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is real -
0:11:24 > 0:11:29has made any appreciable difference in the climate.
0:11:29 > 0:11:31'Prof Fred Singer has a reputation
0:11:31 > 0:11:35'as one of the world's most prominent and prolific climate sceptics.
0:11:35 > 0:11:39'He's an atmospheric physicist who's been studying climate science
0:11:39 > 0:11:41'for nearly 50 years
0:11:41 > 0:11:45'and has been battling against the consensus view for over 20.'
0:11:46 > 0:11:51'Prof Singer's views influence sceptics all over the world.'
0:11:51 > 0:11:53Hey!
0:11:53 > 0:11:54- Dr Singer. - Yes.
0:11:54 > 0:11:55I'm Paul Nurse.
0:11:55 > 0:11:58- I'm delighted to meet you, finally. - Come and sit down.
0:11:58 > 0:11:59Thank you.
0:11:59 > 0:12:02Could we have...an Earl Grey tea with milk, or...?
0:12:02 > 0:12:03- With milk. - With milk.
0:12:03 > 0:12:05- Green tea? - PAUL AND DR SINGER: Earl Grey.
0:12:05 > 0:12:06- Earl Grey. Wonderful. - Great. Thank you.
0:12:08 > 0:12:09PAUL: Here's your tea.
0:12:09 > 0:12:10Thank you.
0:12:10 > 0:12:12- Thank you very much. - You're welcome.
0:12:12 > 0:12:14- Anything more you'd like? - No, I'm fine.
0:12:14 > 0:12:16Not for the moment. Thank you.
0:12:16 > 0:12:18They really don't know how to do tea in New York.
0:12:18 > 0:12:20The water, of course, is not hot enough.
0:12:20 > 0:12:22Not hot enough. God, I hate that.
0:12:22 > 0:12:25We suffer that, we suffer that.
0:12:25 > 0:12:28'The first thing I wanted to ask Prof Singer
0:12:28 > 0:12:30'was his views on global temperatures.'
0:12:30 > 0:12:34You're happy, or agree, that there has been warming in the last century?
0:12:34 > 0:12:35Some warming.
0:12:35 > 0:12:37A bit under one degree, 0.7 degrees, I think I've read?
0:12:37 > 0:12:39Something of that sort.
0:12:39 > 0:12:41Something of that sort. Whatever, yeah.
0:12:41 > 0:12:45There's been warming and there's been cooling, and maybe warming again...
0:12:45 > 0:12:48Uh, it's not a clear record.
0:12:48 > 0:12:51'But where he differs from the view of the vast majority
0:12:51 > 0:12:54'of climate scientists is the cause of this warming.
0:12:54 > 0:12:57'He doesn't believe that humans are responsible.
0:12:57 > 0:13:00'He attributes it to natural forces.'
0:13:00 > 0:13:06I'm of the opinion that the major natural effect comes from the sun
0:13:06 > 0:13:11and specifically from variations in what is called "solar activity".
0:13:11 > 0:13:14That is not the total radiation from the sun,
0:13:14 > 0:13:16but it is the emission from the sun
0:13:16 > 0:13:21we call "coronal ejections", which produce the solar wind.
0:13:22 > 0:13:25And the solar wind is a particle stream from the sun.
0:13:25 > 0:13:28It pervades the interplanetary space
0:13:28 > 0:13:31and can affect the situation near the Earth.
0:13:31 > 0:13:35'A record of this solar activity can be read from deposits in caves
0:13:35 > 0:13:39'by measuring the level of a type of carbon atom
0:13:39 > 0:13:41'formed by the sun's rays.'
0:13:41 > 0:13:46The good evidence we have comes from stalagmites in caves,
0:13:46 > 0:13:50but it's published in Nature.
0:13:50 > 0:13:52But there's a correlation,
0:13:52 > 0:13:55so if you look at these estimates of solar activity
0:13:55 > 0:14:00and the temperature of the globe, they're well correlated.
0:14:00 > 0:14:02You cannot say the globe.
0:14:02 > 0:14:07This refers to the local measurements in a cave
0:14:07 > 0:14:09on the Arabian Peninsula.
0:14:12 > 0:14:13'In our conversation,
0:14:13 > 0:14:16'Prof Singer drew on this stalagmite evidence
0:14:16 > 0:14:20'to support his conclusions about solar activity.'
0:14:24 > 0:14:27'But it's important to consider how this specific finding
0:14:27 > 0:14:31'fits into the wider body of evidence.'
0:14:34 > 0:14:39An important aspect of science is it makes sense as a whole.
0:14:39 > 0:14:43Just imagine this field of grasses and plants that we see here.
0:14:43 > 0:14:45Imagine it as a scientific field.
0:14:45 > 0:14:47Imagine that we're looking at a lot of ideas
0:14:47 > 0:14:49or a lot of facts or observations.
0:14:49 > 0:14:51You have to look at every each one of them
0:14:51 > 0:14:53and make sure they make sense together.
0:14:53 > 0:14:56It's no good cherry-picking one part of it
0:14:56 > 0:14:58and just basing your argument upon that.
0:14:58 > 0:15:00Look at this tree here.
0:15:00 > 0:15:01That attracts your attention,
0:15:01 > 0:15:04but if you just concentrate on that and ignore everything else,
0:15:04 > 0:15:06then you're not going to make progress,
0:15:06 > 0:15:08you're not going to make sense of what's going on.
0:15:13 > 0:15:16'In the climate debate, some have placed a lot of emphasis
0:15:16 > 0:15:19'on the evidence of solar activity,
0:15:19 > 0:15:23'but this data needs to be looked at in the context of all research.'
0:15:25 > 0:15:28'You cannot ignore the majority of available evidence
0:15:28 > 0:15:32'in favour of something you would PREFER to be true.'
0:15:36 > 0:15:39'Data that we are NOT warming our planet
0:15:39 > 0:15:41'needs to be placed in the context
0:15:41 > 0:15:43'of the greater body of evidence that we ARE,
0:15:43 > 0:15:45'such as that gathered by NASA.'
0:15:45 > 0:15:47But you know, when you actually look at the data,
0:15:47 > 0:15:50the sun doesn't turn out to be that important.
0:15:50 > 0:15:53On the historical scale, the paleoclimate scale,
0:15:53 > 0:15:54the sun is important.
0:15:54 > 0:15:58We know the sun is driving these long cycles.
0:15:58 > 0:16:01But if you look at the small variations in the solar radiation
0:16:01 > 0:16:04and the variations in the climate data that we have now
0:16:04 > 0:16:05with these data sets,
0:16:05 > 0:16:07they don't match up.
0:16:07 > 0:16:11So, there's just no doubt that the sun is not a primary factor
0:16:11 > 0:16:14driving the climate change that we're living through right now.
0:16:16 > 0:16:18'The scientific consensus is, of course,
0:16:18 > 0:16:20'that the changes we are seeing
0:16:20 > 0:16:23'are caused by emissions of carbon into the atmosphere.
0:16:23 > 0:16:26'But given the complexity of the climate system,
0:16:26 > 0:16:29'how can we be sure that humans are to blame for this?'
0:16:30 > 0:16:34We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground.
0:16:34 > 0:16:36We know how much we sell.
0:16:36 > 0:16:41We know how much we burn, and that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide.
0:16:41 > 0:16:44It's about seven gigatonnes per year right now.
0:16:44 > 0:16:46And is that enough to explain...? Is that enough...?
0:16:46 > 0:16:49Natural causes only can produce... Yes, there are volcanoes popping off
0:16:49 > 0:16:51and things like that, and coming out of the ocean.
0:16:51 > 0:16:53..only about one gigatonne per year.
0:16:53 > 0:16:56So, there's just no question that human activity
0:16:56 > 0:17:01is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.
0:17:01 > 0:17:02- So, seven times more? - That's right.
0:17:02 > 0:17:06I mean, why do some people say that isn't the case?
0:17:06 > 0:17:07I-I don't know.
0:17:07 > 0:17:10I think they get worried about the details of the temperature record,
0:17:10 > 0:17:13or the...carbon dioxide record.
0:17:13 > 0:17:17But again, you need to stand back and look at the big picture,
0:17:17 > 0:17:20and there really is no controversy then, if you do that.
0:17:22 > 0:17:26'In this marketplace of ideas, who do you believe?
0:17:26 > 0:17:28'If you're not a scientist, then ultimately,
0:17:28 > 0:17:30'it's a question of trust.'
0:17:31 > 0:17:34'Despite the weight of evidence in its favour,
0:17:34 > 0:17:36'the theory of man-made climate change
0:17:36 > 0:17:39'is not bringing a large section of the public with it.
0:17:39 > 0:17:42'I think some clues as to why
0:17:42 > 0:17:45'may be found at the University of East Anglia,
0:17:45 > 0:17:50'the scene of Climategate, a story that broke in November 2009.'
0:17:50 > 0:17:52REPORTER: 'The work of one of the world's leading
0:17:52 > 0:17:55'climate research units at the University of East Anglia
0:17:55 > 0:17:57'is to come under unprecedented scrutiny.'
0:18:00 > 0:18:02PAUL: 'Thousands of e-mails were taken
0:18:02 > 0:18:05'from the computer at the Climatic Research Unit,
0:18:05 > 0:18:10'also known as CRU, at the University of East Anglia and posted online.'
0:18:16 > 0:18:19'According to the headlines, the e-mails contained
0:18:19 > 0:18:22'one of the worst scientific outrages of all time.'
0:18:24 > 0:18:28Just look here - Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph.
0:18:28 > 0:18:32"This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation."
0:18:32 > 0:18:34Here, the Daily Express.
0:18:34 > 0:18:38"Now there are lies, damned lies, and global warming,"
0:18:38 > 0:18:42implying that global warming is nothing but lies and a sham.
0:18:42 > 0:18:44Here from the Spectator,
0:18:44 > 0:18:47an article by James Delingpole, "Watching the Climategate scandal" -
0:18:47 > 0:18:50here, he says in the first sentence,
0:18:50 > 0:18:52"This is the greatest scientific scandal
0:18:52 > 0:18:54"in the history of the world."
0:18:54 > 0:18:58'At the heart of the scandal was one e-mail in particular.'
0:19:00 > 0:19:03'Correspondence from the head of CRU, Dr Phil Jones,
0:19:03 > 0:19:06'talked about using "Mike's Nature trick"
0:19:06 > 0:19:08'to hide the decline.'
0:19:09 > 0:19:13'This seemed proof climate scientists were tricking the world
0:19:13 > 0:19:17'into thinking our use of fossil fuels is warming the planet.'
0:19:18 > 0:19:21'The news immediately went international.'
0:19:23 > 0:19:25'The timing couldn't have been worse.
0:19:25 > 0:19:30'It was just three weeks before the UN Climate Change Convention,
0:19:30 > 0:19:33'what many saw as the world's best hope
0:19:33 > 0:19:35'to reduce carbon emissions before it was too late.'
0:19:40 > 0:19:43'And at the centre of it all was one man...'
0:19:44 > 0:19:48'..Dr Phil Jones, head of CRU.'
0:19:50 > 0:19:53'The unit's headquarters are tiny,
0:19:53 > 0:19:58'yet Dr Jones and his colleagues have had a truly global impact.'
0:19:58 > 0:20:01These are German books. There's Japanese books.
0:20:01 > 0:20:04There's American books and there's a series of publications...
0:20:04 > 0:20:08'CRU's library holds centuries' worth of temperature data,
0:20:08 > 0:20:11'collected from instruments in every corner of the globe.'
0:20:13 > 0:20:16'To look further back in history, climate researchers have to
0:20:16 > 0:20:21'extrapolate information from the rings in ancient pieces of wood.'
0:20:22 > 0:20:26This is a measurement from a tree from the Andes in Argentina.
0:20:26 > 0:20:29This is a bog oak from Germany, which...
0:20:29 > 0:20:31A bog oak, you mean it's been preserved in the bogs?
0:20:31 > 0:20:33It's been preserved in the peat bogs.
0:20:33 > 0:20:34So, how old is that piece of wood?
0:20:34 > 0:20:36This is about 3,000 to 4,000 years old.
0:20:38 > 0:20:40'Tree rings have been shown to be a good way
0:20:40 > 0:20:42'of measuring ancient temperatures.
0:20:42 > 0:20:45'And they've mostly matched instrumental measurements
0:20:45 > 0:20:48'since the advent of thermometers.'
0:20:50 > 0:20:54'However, after about 1960, some tree-ring data
0:20:54 > 0:20:58'stopped fitting real temperatures so well.
0:20:58 > 0:21:00'The cause of this isn't known.'
0:21:03 > 0:21:07'When Dr Jones was asked by the World Meteorological Organisation
0:21:07 > 0:21:10'to prepare a graph of how temperatures had changed
0:21:10 > 0:21:12'over the last 1,000 years,
0:21:12 > 0:21:14'he had to decide how to deal with
0:21:14 > 0:21:16'this divergence between the data sets.
0:21:16 > 0:21:19'He decided to use the direct measurements of temperature change
0:21:19 > 0:21:21'from thermometers and instruments,
0:21:21 > 0:21:24'rather than indirect data from the tree rings,
0:21:24 > 0:21:27'to cover the period from 1960.
0:21:27 > 0:21:32'It was this data splicing, and his e-mail referring to it as a "trick",
0:21:32 > 0:21:35'that formed the crux of Climategate.'
0:21:38 > 0:21:39The organisation wanted
0:21:39 > 0:21:42a relatively simple diagram for their particular audience.
0:21:42 > 0:21:44What we started off doing was the three series
0:21:44 > 0:21:47with the instrumental temperatures on the end,
0:21:47 > 0:21:50clearly differentiated from the tree-ring series...
0:21:50 > 0:21:51Mm.
0:21:51 > 0:21:53..but they thought that was too complicated
0:21:53 > 0:21:54to explain to their audience.
0:21:54 > 0:21:57So... So, what we did was just to add them on
0:21:57 > 0:22:00and to bring them up to the present.
0:22:00 > 0:22:01And, as I say,
0:22:01 > 0:22:04this was a World Meteorological Organisation statement,
0:22:04 > 0:22:08it had hardly any coverage in the media at the time,
0:22:08 > 0:22:11and had virtually no coverage for the next ten years,
0:22:11 > 0:22:14until the release of the e-mails.
0:22:14 > 0:22:17So, why do you think so much fuss was made about the e-mails
0:22:17 > 0:22:21and this graph, rather than the peer-reviewed science?
0:22:21 > 0:22:24I think it's that a number of the climate change sceptics -
0:22:24 > 0:22:26or doubters, deniers, whatever you want to call them -
0:22:26 > 0:22:30just wanted to use these e-mails for their own purposes
0:22:30 > 0:22:32to cast doubt on the basic science.
0:22:32 > 0:22:35The basic science is in the peer-reviewed literature
0:22:35 > 0:22:39and I wish more people would read THAT than read the e-mails.
0:22:39 > 0:22:40'As well as the e-mails,
0:22:40 > 0:22:46'much criticism of Dr Jones centred on his reluctance to hand over data.
0:22:46 > 0:22:49'The team at CRU had been receiving requests
0:22:49 > 0:22:51'under the Freedom of Information Act -
0:22:51 > 0:22:58'also known as FOI requests - for access to their scientific data.'
0:22:58 > 0:23:00Well, we started getting some requests in about 2007
0:23:00 > 0:23:02and we responded to those.
0:23:02 > 0:23:04These are Freedom of Information requests?
0:23:04 > 0:23:09Yes, and they were specifically for the basic station temperature data,
0:23:09 > 0:23:12and also for the locations of the stations.
0:23:12 > 0:23:14The situation got a bit worse in July 2009,
0:23:14 > 0:23:19when we got 60 requests over a weekend.
0:23:19 > 0:23:21- Over one weekend? - Over one weekend,
0:23:21 > 0:23:24where there was clearly some sort of coordination between...
0:23:24 > 0:23:26- Was that from different people? - Different people, but there was
0:23:26 > 0:23:29clearly some coordination of the requests,
0:23:29 > 0:23:33because they each asked for five countries in alphabetical order.
0:23:33 > 0:23:36I thought at the time it was just to waste our time
0:23:36 > 0:23:38in order to deal with these requests
0:23:38 > 0:23:41and maybe to get the data together.
0:23:41 > 0:23:43So, this is an interesting dilemma that we have here, really,
0:23:43 > 0:23:48because obviously science is based upon open access to data,
0:23:48 > 0:23:52but obviously, you can also be disrupted by having,
0:23:52 > 0:23:55if you like, more legalistic attempts to get data,
0:23:55 > 0:23:57or simply trying to waste people's time.
0:23:57 > 0:24:00How do you sort of balance that?
0:24:00 > 0:24:02Well, sometimes we get requests,
0:24:02 > 0:24:05and sometimes not through FOI, just from other scientists.
0:24:05 > 0:24:07We point them in the right direction
0:24:07 > 0:24:09as to where you might be able to get the data.
0:24:09 > 0:24:12But when it became more, sort of... through the FOI,
0:24:12 > 0:24:15it really then became clear that it was some sort of harassment.
0:24:16 > 0:24:22'This event raises questions about the openness of scientific research.
0:24:22 > 0:24:26'Dr Jones and his team clearly felt persecuted.
0:24:26 > 0:24:30'However, scientists do have to be open with their data.'
0:24:30 > 0:24:34It might be useful to think about the Human Genome Project,
0:24:34 > 0:24:37where similar issues came up about a decade ago
0:24:37 > 0:24:40and there was clear discussion about this
0:24:40 > 0:24:44and in the public genome sequencing laboratories,
0:24:44 > 0:24:47a real commitment, dedication to getting that data out
0:24:47 > 0:24:50into the public as soon as possible,
0:24:50 > 0:24:53and I think maybe there's something to be learnt from that
0:24:53 > 0:24:54for climate science.
0:24:56 > 0:25:00'There were at least four independent reviews of the work of CRU.
0:25:00 > 0:25:05'The reports found there was no evidence of dishonesty.
0:25:05 > 0:25:09'They said splicing the temperature data wasn't misleading...'
0:25:10 > 0:25:13'..but this technique should have been made plain.
0:25:13 > 0:25:18'They said, generally, the unit should have been more open.
0:25:18 > 0:25:20'But, crucially, they found no evidence
0:25:20 > 0:25:23'of deliberate scientific malpractice.'
0:25:26 > 0:25:28This seems to have been
0:25:28 > 0:25:32the greatest scientific scandal that never really took place.
0:25:32 > 0:25:34I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me at all
0:25:34 > 0:25:37why it got blown out of proportion.
0:25:37 > 0:25:40It makes me wonder whether us scientists
0:25:40 > 0:25:43are not perhaps well-suited for dealing with situations like this
0:25:43 > 0:25:46and we perhaps let them run out of our control.
0:25:46 > 0:25:48I mean, the world is changing,
0:25:48 > 0:25:51the digital world, with blogs, with tweets and so on.
0:25:51 > 0:25:53We're perhaps not used to dealing with that,
0:25:53 > 0:25:57not able to cope with the sort of maelstrom of media attention
0:25:57 > 0:26:01that fell upon UEA during this event.
0:26:01 > 0:26:03I think there's something to be learnt here.
0:26:03 > 0:26:06We've got to think about how we defend our science,
0:26:06 > 0:26:09how we project ourselves to the public.
0:26:12 > 0:26:16'In the end, the integrity of climate science was not faulted,
0:26:16 > 0:26:20'but somehow a leak of some ten-year-old e-mails
0:26:20 > 0:26:23'did real damage to its reputation.
0:26:23 > 0:26:27'In all the clamour, the science seems to have been left behind.'
0:26:29 > 0:26:34'I've come to meet James Delingpole, one of those who led the campaign.'
0:26:35 > 0:26:38I want to tell you a story about something extraordinary
0:26:38 > 0:26:40that happened to me late last year.
0:26:42 > 0:26:46It was an ordinary Thursday morning and I was sitting at my desk...
0:26:49 > 0:26:54..and into my lap fell the story that would change my life,
0:26:54 > 0:26:58and quite possibly, save Western civilisation
0:26:58 > 0:27:00from the greatest threat it has ever known.
0:27:04 > 0:27:06That story? Climategate.
0:27:07 > 0:27:10- Sir Paul. - Hello, you must be James.
0:27:10 > 0:27:11- I am. - I'm very pleased to meet you.
0:27:11 > 0:27:14- Pleased to meet you as well. - Do call me Paul, though.
0:27:14 > 0:27:15OK.
0:27:15 > 0:27:17'James Delingpole is an online journalist
0:27:17 > 0:27:18'for the Telegraph newspaper.
0:27:18 > 0:27:22'He picked up the leaked e-mails from a denier's website,
0:27:22 > 0:27:26'and ran with it on his Telegraph blog under the name Climategate.
0:27:26 > 0:27:32'That week, his page got an extraordinary 1.5 million hits.'
0:27:32 > 0:27:36The suggestion of the scientists in the Climategate e-mails
0:27:36 > 0:27:38was that you hide the decline
0:27:38 > 0:27:44using "Mike's Nature trick", which I think is some sort of fudge.
0:27:44 > 0:27:45This very fact
0:27:45 > 0:27:49of splicing two different sorts of data together on a graph -
0:27:49 > 0:27:51apples and oranges -
0:27:51 > 0:27:53scientists don't do that,
0:27:53 > 0:27:58they don't try to hide the decline by using "Mike's Nature trick".
0:27:58 > 0:28:03What they do is they admit to the flaws in their data
0:28:03 > 0:28:07and don't try and disguise that fact.
0:28:07 > 0:28:10'James told me the independent enquiries
0:28:10 > 0:28:14'into what happened at CRU were a whitewash.'
0:28:15 > 0:28:19'He also said scientists fall too easily into a consensus
0:28:19 > 0:28:23'and fail to be critical enough of the data.'
0:28:23 > 0:28:25I've been following this Climategate story
0:28:25 > 0:28:27very, very closely for the last year,
0:28:27 > 0:28:33and I think that what is being done in the name of science,
0:28:33 > 0:28:34the consensus,
0:28:34 > 0:28:40is essentially advancing a political agenda,
0:28:40 > 0:28:43and that political agenda has much more to do with...
0:28:43 > 0:28:49with control, with governments intruding further into our lives.
0:28:49 > 0:28:52"Consensus" can be used like a dirty word.
0:28:52 > 0:28:56Consensus is actually the position of the experts at the time
0:28:56 > 0:29:00and if it's working well - but it doesn't always work well -
0:29:00 > 0:29:03but if it's working well, they evaluate the evidence...
0:29:03 > 0:29:07You make your reputation in science by actually overturning that,
0:29:07 > 0:29:09so there's a lot of pressure to do it.
0:29:09 > 0:29:13But if, over the years, the consensus doesn't move, you have to wonder,
0:29:13 > 0:29:16is the argument, is the evidence against the consensus good enough?
0:29:16 > 0:29:19Science has NEVER been about consensus
0:29:19 > 0:29:21and this is, I think, one of the most despicable things
0:29:21 > 0:29:24about Al Gore's so-called consensus...
0:29:24 > 0:29:26Consensus is not science.
0:29:26 > 0:29:30I want to give an analogy, which, in a different situation...
0:29:30 > 0:29:32Em... Say you had cancer...
0:29:32 > 0:29:33Yes.
0:29:33 > 0:29:36..and you went to be treated,
0:29:36 > 0:29:39there would be a consensual position on your treatment
0:29:39 > 0:29:42and it is very likely that you would follow that consensual treatment
0:29:42 > 0:29:45because you would trust the clinical scientists there.
0:29:45 > 0:29:46Yeah.
0:29:46 > 0:29:48Now, the analogy is that you could say,
0:29:48 > 0:29:49"Well, I've done my research into it
0:29:49 > 0:29:52"and I disagree with that consensual position,"
0:29:52 > 0:29:55but that would be a very unusual position for you to take.
0:29:55 > 0:30:00And I think sometimes the consensual position can be criticised,
0:30:00 > 0:30:04when in fact, it is mostly likely to be the correct position.
0:30:04 > 0:30:06Yeah. Um...
0:30:09 > 0:30:11Shall we talk about Climategate?
0:30:11 > 0:30:13HE STUTTERS
0:30:13 > 0:30:16I don't accept your analogy, really.
0:30:16 > 0:30:17I think it's...
0:30:19 > 0:30:21I think it's very easy to caricature
0:30:21 > 0:30:25the position of climate change sceptics
0:30:25 > 0:30:27as the sort of people
0:30:27 > 0:30:29who don't look left and right when crossing the road,
0:30:29 > 0:30:31or who think that quack...
0:30:31 > 0:30:34You know, the quack cure that they've invented for cancer
0:30:34 > 0:30:37is just as valid as the one chosen by the medical establishment.
0:30:37 > 0:30:38Mm.
0:30:38 > 0:30:40I think it is something altogether different
0:30:40 > 0:30:43and I do slightly resent the way that you're bringing in that analogy.
0:30:45 > 0:30:48'For many, the Climategate debacle
0:30:48 > 0:30:51'is the embodiment of our current relationship with science.'
0:30:53 > 0:30:56'The anger it generated reveals the tensions,
0:30:56 > 0:31:00'and the widely divergent views, that exist on both sides of the debate.'
0:31:03 > 0:31:05'And through all this noise,
0:31:05 > 0:31:08'people are left to try and make sense of it all.'
0:31:08 > 0:31:11Good morning. Could I have... a Times and an Independent, please?
0:31:11 > 0:31:12Yeah.
0:31:14 > 0:31:17- That's £3.10, please, my man. - There you go.
0:31:19 > 0:31:22I think the public have got every right to sometimes feel confused
0:31:22 > 0:31:25about the reporting of science in the media.
0:31:25 > 0:31:29Let me just show you some reports of different scientific issues.
0:31:29 > 0:31:31Starting with Climategate,
0:31:31 > 0:31:38the Daily Mail, reporting this issue, concludes in its headline,
0:31:38 > 0:31:39"Secretive and unhelpful.
0:31:39 > 0:31:43"But scientist in Climategate storm STILL gets his job back."
0:31:43 > 0:31:48Completely different tone about this news item in the Guardian.
0:31:48 > 0:31:50"Climategate scientists cleared
0:31:50 > 0:31:52"of manipulating data on global warming."
0:31:52 > 0:31:55It's difficult to imagine it's reporting the same thing.
0:31:55 > 0:31:58But it's not just reporting news events to do with science,
0:31:58 > 0:32:00but the science itself.
0:32:00 > 0:32:05Let's look at what the Daily Express is saying here, for example,
0:32:05 > 0:32:08about the effect of the sun on global warming.
0:32:08 > 0:32:12They have their provocative headline, "What a climate con!"
0:32:12 > 0:32:16but, specifically, they say here, that the sun is the major cause
0:32:16 > 0:32:20of temperature variation, and sunspots in particular.
0:32:20 > 0:32:25If we now look at the Independent, almost the same day, we have,
0:32:25 > 0:32:29"Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists."
0:32:29 > 0:32:30I mean, what is going on here?
0:32:30 > 0:32:35This is just reporting science coming to completely different conclusions.
0:32:35 > 0:32:38It's not surprising that the public are confused
0:32:38 > 0:32:39reading all of this different stuff.
0:32:39 > 0:32:42There's these lurid headlines,
0:32:42 > 0:32:46and there's political opinions, I think, filtering through,
0:32:46 > 0:32:50which probably reflects editorial policy within the newspapers.
0:32:50 > 0:32:53And we get an unholy mix of the media and the politics
0:32:53 > 0:32:56and it's distorting the proper reporting of science,
0:32:56 > 0:32:57and that's a real danger for us
0:32:57 > 0:33:01if science is to have its proper impact on society.
0:33:07 > 0:33:11'Somehow, science has got to get through all these competing agendas.'
0:33:16 > 0:33:19'I wonder if part of the problem
0:33:19 > 0:33:22'lies with communicating the complexities of science.'
0:33:24 > 0:33:28'What it is we understand and what it is we don't understand.'
0:33:33 > 0:33:37'We're mainly taught science at school
0:33:37 > 0:33:39'as if it's made up of immutable facts.
0:33:39 > 0:33:42'Such as Einstein's theory of relativity...'
0:33:44 > 0:33:47'..or Newton's laws of motion.'
0:33:47 > 0:33:48Hi, how are you doing?
0:33:48 > 0:33:53'And it was seeing these theories being translated into the real world
0:33:53 > 0:33:55'that first got me hooked as a child.'
0:33:55 > 0:34:00One of the most exciting things was seeing Sputnik 2, 1957-'58.
0:34:00 > 0:34:02It was going across the streets of London.
0:34:02 > 0:34:05I got so excited, I was in my pyjamas,
0:34:05 > 0:34:09and I ran out and saw this satellite going across the sky.
0:34:09 > 0:34:11Everybody thought I was crazy, of course.
0:34:11 > 0:34:15But that was the beginning of the space age and I was there.
0:34:16 > 0:34:21'I want to enthuse a new generation with the optimistic belief
0:34:21 > 0:34:24'that science is a force for progress.
0:34:24 > 0:34:28'However at the cutting edge of science, where I work,
0:34:28 > 0:34:30'the truth is not always so obvious.'
0:34:30 > 0:34:34We often have to deal with uncertainty in science, but I think
0:34:34 > 0:34:39it helps to think of uncertainty in two different sorts of ways.
0:34:39 > 0:34:42There's uncertainty that often happens
0:34:42 > 0:34:44at the beginning of a research project
0:34:44 > 0:34:45when we don't know what's going on
0:34:45 > 0:34:49and by testing and doing experiments, things get more and more certain.
0:34:49 > 0:34:51Knowledge becomes less and less tentative.
0:34:52 > 0:34:54And there's another sort of uncertainty
0:34:54 > 0:34:56which is more probabilistic.
0:34:56 > 0:34:59Like, for example, if we treat somebody for a certain disease,
0:34:59 > 0:35:02we don't know whether that individual will be cured or not,
0:35:02 > 0:35:06though we do know probabilistically, over 100 individuals,
0:35:06 > 0:35:08that 20 will and 80 won't, for example.
0:35:08 > 0:35:11And that uncertainty never goes away.
0:35:18 > 0:35:22'Thanks to decades of research and experimentation,
0:35:22 > 0:35:25'our knowledge about the fundamentals of climate science
0:35:25 > 0:35:27'has become less tentative.'
0:35:31 > 0:35:34'But there are uncertainties that won't go away,
0:35:34 > 0:35:37'especially in our ability to predict the future,
0:35:37 > 0:35:40'where scientists can only talk in terms of probabilities.'
0:35:41 > 0:35:45'Does this uncertainty mean that the science is flawed?'
0:35:48 > 0:35:52'Some of the biological problems I study are complicated...'
0:35:54 > 0:35:56'..and so is climate science.'
0:36:02 > 0:36:06'Clouds, ice, chemicals in the air, plants and the sun
0:36:06 > 0:36:10'all interact with one another to affect our climate.'
0:36:13 > 0:36:16'Clouds are one of the most significant of these,
0:36:16 > 0:36:18'yet also one of the most complex.'
0:36:20 > 0:36:23'Depending on their height and their make-up,
0:36:23 > 0:36:26'they can either warm or cool the planet.'
0:36:28 > 0:36:32'So, it's difficult to represent them correctly in the climate models.
0:36:32 > 0:36:35'But if the scientists don't get them right,
0:36:35 > 0:36:38'then quantifying what the temperatures might be in the future
0:36:38 > 0:36:39'is very hard.'
0:36:43 > 0:36:47'However, through enormous amounts of data collection and research,
0:36:47 > 0:36:51'climate scientists are reducing the uncertainties in our climate system
0:36:51 > 0:36:53'all the time.
0:36:53 > 0:36:55'Back at NASA,
0:36:55 > 0:36:59'Bob Bindschadler showed me just how much progress has been made.'
0:36:59 > 0:37:02Just to emphasise how good these models are,
0:37:02 > 0:37:03side-by-side comparison.
0:37:03 > 0:37:06Here is data, actual observations.
0:37:06 > 0:37:07Mm-hm.
0:37:07 > 0:37:09And this is what the computer is generating,
0:37:09 > 0:37:11predicting what should be happening.
0:37:11 > 0:37:13And you look at one, you look at the other,
0:37:13 > 0:37:16these major systems, it's there.
0:37:16 > 0:37:19These cumulus clouds popping up in the tropics.
0:37:19 > 0:37:21And this is all happening in the same timescale,
0:37:21 > 0:37:24but one is just built on observation,
0:37:24 > 0:37:25what we actually see,
0:37:25 > 0:37:29and below that is data and the modelling that that produces.
0:37:29 > 0:37:32Exactly, so we're just testing a model here.
0:37:32 > 0:37:35We've got data, we've got a model.
0:37:35 > 0:37:37How good do the model predictions match the data?
0:37:37 > 0:37:39And your eye will just tell you the answer.
0:37:39 > 0:37:42You see these great things swirling here, and then they swirl up there,
0:37:42 > 0:37:44then little puffs there, and little puffs there.
0:37:44 > 0:37:47So, even that kind of detail about clouds,
0:37:47 > 0:37:50models are getting it right now.
0:37:50 > 0:37:53And, you know, visually, I think this is just so stunning
0:37:53 > 0:37:54because seeing is believing.
0:37:54 > 0:37:57Climate science is sort of moving from more tentative knowledge
0:37:57 > 0:37:59to more certain knowledge.
0:37:59 > 0:38:03It still has uncertainties, but they're getting less as time goes on.
0:38:03 > 0:38:05There will always be a little bit of uncertainty,
0:38:05 > 0:38:09because there are some processes that we don't fully understand.
0:38:09 > 0:38:12But we measure scientific progress in our ability
0:38:12 > 0:38:14to reduce the uncertainties
0:38:14 > 0:38:18and by that measure, we're making extraordinary progress.
0:38:21 > 0:38:26'All the information we have today helps us predict our future climate,
0:38:26 > 0:38:30'but the more we learn, the more complex the climate system becomes.
0:38:30 > 0:38:35'This doesn't mean the science is flawed or that we shouldn't act,
0:38:35 > 0:38:38'but there may be a problem in the way those uncertainties
0:38:38 > 0:38:40'are communicated to the public.'
0:38:42 > 0:38:46'Scientists may not be willing enough to publically discuss
0:38:46 > 0:38:48'the uncertainties in their science
0:38:48 > 0:38:51'or to fully engage with those that disagree with them,
0:38:51 > 0:38:54'and this has helped polarise the debate.'
0:39:00 > 0:39:03'Making this film has made me think about the place of science
0:39:03 > 0:39:07'in the modern world and whether we scientists are keeping pace.'
0:39:09 > 0:39:10'Free and open access to information
0:39:10 > 0:39:15'means our voices are no longer the only ones people hear.'
0:39:16 > 0:39:20What I think is changing in the way that we're talking about
0:39:20 > 0:39:26science in the public sphere, is the fact that now almost anybody
0:39:26 > 0:39:28can say whatever they like on the blogosphere
0:39:28 > 0:39:30and this is getting read,
0:39:30 > 0:39:34and I'm really used in my science -
0:39:34 > 0:39:36which I've done for 30 or 40 years -
0:39:36 > 0:39:39for a sort of much more cooler approach.
0:39:39 > 0:39:43When I read these blogs, I mean, they're full of righteousness,
0:39:43 > 0:39:45full of zealousness
0:39:45 > 0:39:48and they're clearly trying to persuade you very, very strongly
0:39:48 > 0:39:49of their point of view.
0:39:49 > 0:39:51They cherry-pick data.
0:39:51 > 0:39:55They don't seem to be always completely consistent.
0:39:55 > 0:39:58And what I get the sense of
0:39:58 > 0:40:02is that they don't actually try and put a reasoned argument here.
0:40:02 > 0:40:05There's a case here on the left, there's a case here on the right.
0:40:05 > 0:40:07It's always very strongly on one side.
0:40:10 > 0:40:13'Searches on the internet do not differentiate between
0:40:13 > 0:40:18'thoroughly researched evidence and unsourced uncorroborated assertion.
0:40:18 > 0:40:21'Conspiracy theories compete on level terms
0:40:21 > 0:40:24'with peer-reviewed science.'
0:40:25 > 0:40:28'In this new world of information overload,
0:40:28 > 0:40:31'we look to people we trust to find those answers.
0:40:31 > 0:40:35'And these days, it's not necessarily the scientists.'
0:40:35 > 0:40:38One question I would ask
0:40:38 > 0:40:41as somebody who has done quite a lot of scientific publishing,
0:40:41 > 0:40:44is are you looking mainly at peer-reviewed material
0:40:44 > 0:40:45or non peer-reviewed material?
0:40:45 > 0:40:49Peer-reviewed being material that in principle, and flawed as it is,
0:40:49 > 0:40:51- cos I know it can be flawed... - Yeah.
0:40:51 > 0:40:54..has been looked at by other scientists and the case said,
0:40:54 > 0:40:56"Well, there is an argument here worth publishing."
0:40:56 > 0:41:00One of the main things to have emerged from the Climategate e-mails,
0:41:00 > 0:41:05was that the peer-review process has been perhaps irredeemably corrupted.
0:41:07 > 0:41:08What I believe in now,
0:41:08 > 0:41:13and I think we are seeing a shift in the way science is conducted
0:41:13 > 0:41:17and, or at least transmitted to the outside...to the wider world,
0:41:17 > 0:41:20is a process called "peer-to-peer review".
0:41:20 > 0:41:22The internet is changing everything.
0:41:22 > 0:41:27What it means is that... ideas which were previously
0:41:27 > 0:41:32only able to be circulated in the seats of academia, in private,
0:41:32 > 0:41:34in papers, read by a few people,
0:41:34 > 0:41:38can now be instantly read on the internet
0:41:38 > 0:41:42and assessed by thousands and thousands of other scientists
0:41:42 > 0:41:45and people with scientific backgrounds,
0:41:45 > 0:41:47and people like me who haven't got scientific backgrounds,
0:41:47 > 0:41:49but, you know, are interested.
0:41:49 > 0:41:52Just back to the evidence again, though, because... So, you...
0:41:52 > 0:41:56We get... Obviously, there's a source of evidence through the internet.
0:41:56 > 0:41:59Books, primary publications probably is not your thing?
0:41:59 > 0:42:03It is not my job to sit down
0:42:03 > 0:42:08and read...peer-reviewed papers
0:42:08 > 0:42:10because I simply haven't got the time,
0:42:10 > 0:42:12I haven't got the scientific expertise.
0:42:12 > 0:42:18What I rely on is people who have got the time and the expertise to do it
0:42:18 > 0:42:21and write about it and interpret it, you know.
0:42:21 > 0:42:25I am an interpreter of interpretations.
0:42:26 > 0:42:28'As a working scientist,
0:42:28 > 0:42:33'I've learnt that peer review is very important to make science credible.
0:42:33 > 0:42:39'The authority science can claim comes from evidence and experiment
0:42:39 > 0:42:43'and an attitude of mind that seeks to test its theories to destruction.'
0:42:45 > 0:42:48Scepticism is really important.
0:42:48 > 0:42:49We are often plagued with self-doubt.
0:42:49 > 0:42:52I always tell my students and postdoctoral workers -
0:42:52 > 0:42:58"Be the worst enemy of your own idea. Always challenge it, always test it."
0:42:58 > 0:43:00I think things are a little different
0:43:00 > 0:43:03when you have a denialist or an extreme sceptic.
0:43:03 > 0:43:06They're convinced that they know what's going on
0:43:06 > 0:43:09and they only look for data that supports that position.
0:43:09 > 0:43:13And they're not really engaging in the scientific process.
0:43:17 > 0:43:21'There is a fine line between healthy scepticism -
0:43:21 > 0:43:25'which is a fundamental part of the scientific process - and denial,
0:43:25 > 0:43:27'which can stop the science moving on.'
0:43:28 > 0:43:31'But the difference is crucial.'
0:43:33 > 0:43:37'Denial is not just a feature of the debate over climate change.
0:43:37 > 0:43:41'People deny the evidence in favour of many things,
0:43:41 > 0:43:43'like certain vaccines,
0:43:43 > 0:43:45'or that HIV causes AIDS.
0:43:45 > 0:43:49'I want to understand better how people reach this state of mind.'
0:43:49 > 0:43:51- Paul? - Hi, are you Tony?
0:43:51 > 0:43:53- I am! - I'm really pleased to meet you.
0:43:53 > 0:43:55How do you do? Pleasure to meet you as well.
0:43:55 > 0:43:58I was taking a routine physical and my doctor said,
0:43:58 > 0:44:01"I've got some bad news for you, you're HIV positive."
0:44:03 > 0:44:05SERVING ASSISTANT: Hey, what's going on, you guys?
0:44:05 > 0:44:06TONY: How are you?
0:44:06 > 0:44:08My name is Sparkles. Have you been here before?
0:44:08 > 0:44:09- Yes. - You want to try something new?
0:44:09 > 0:44:10It's my first time, though.
0:44:10 > 0:44:14TONY: My doctor said,
0:44:14 > 0:44:15"Look, if you don't take these drugs,
0:44:15 > 0:44:17"you're going to be dead in two years."
0:44:17 > 0:44:19So, he handed me the prescriptions,
0:44:19 > 0:44:23I walked out the door, and on the way to the car I passed by a trash can,
0:44:23 > 0:44:27ripped them up, threw them in, and never went back.
0:44:27 > 0:44:29APPLAUSE That was... That was 13 years ago.
0:44:29 > 0:44:33That was the last time I went to a doctor for anything HIV-related.
0:44:33 > 0:44:35You pick a size, then you pick a flavour,
0:44:35 > 0:44:38but I usually go with the original,
0:44:38 > 0:44:41but you can get different flavours. And then you pick tops...
0:44:41 > 0:44:44'Tony Lance does not believe a virus causes AIDS.
0:44:44 > 0:44:46'And rather than take anti-retrovirals,
0:44:46 > 0:44:50'he treats himself using probiotics...like yoghurt.'
0:44:50 > 0:44:53Now, this is not a vanilla flavour, it's more like a tartness.
0:44:53 > 0:44:55- Hey. - There's a little bit of...
0:44:55 > 0:44:58There's actually active culture in this, right,
0:44:58 > 0:44:59so it's got a little bit of...
0:44:59 > 0:45:00Hey, it's good.
0:45:00 > 0:45:04'There is such an overwhelming body of evidence that HIV causes AIDS,
0:45:04 > 0:45:09'I really want to understand how Tony has reached his opinion.'
0:45:10 > 0:45:13I came to the conclusion that much of what is called AIDS -
0:45:13 > 0:45:15at least as it appears in gay men -
0:45:15 > 0:45:21is the result of severe dysregulation of intestinal microflora
0:45:21 > 0:45:24and the causes of that being...
0:45:24 > 0:45:26That's all the microbes growing in the gut?
0:45:26 > 0:45:27Yes, exactly.
0:45:27 > 0:45:32I mean, we have in our gut, a very complex and rich ecosystem.
0:45:32 > 0:45:35These microbes live in a symbiotic relationship with us.
0:45:35 > 0:45:37They directly affect our immune system.
0:45:37 > 0:45:40They directly affect our uptake of nutrients.
0:45:40 > 0:45:43And it occurred to me after many, many years of reading
0:45:43 > 0:45:46and self-analysis and observing the gay community
0:45:46 > 0:45:50that there really are some very good reasons why certain subsets
0:45:50 > 0:45:56of gay men would have intestinal microflora that are, um, abnormal.
0:45:56 > 0:45:59- To get right down to brass tacks... - Yeah.
0:45:59 > 0:46:00..I think HIV is a marker
0:46:00 > 0:46:04for immune dysfunction as opposed to being a cause.
0:46:04 > 0:46:09I think immune dysfunction actually precedes HIV positivity
0:46:09 > 0:46:11and makes it possible.
0:46:11 > 0:46:16'Holding these views puts Tony in a very small minority.'
0:46:16 > 0:46:18So, what is it like, psychologically,
0:46:18 > 0:46:20for you and for people who think like you
0:46:20 > 0:46:23to be on the outside?
0:46:23 > 0:46:24Um... It's isolating.
0:46:24 > 0:46:28One of the labels that gets tossed at me and others like me
0:46:28 > 0:46:30- is a denialist... - Yeah.
0:46:30 > 0:46:33..and that's actually kind of hurtful, to tell you the truth.
0:46:33 > 0:46:36You don't like... You wouldn't see yourself as a denialist?
0:46:36 > 0:46:37No, not at all.
0:46:37 > 0:46:39I mean, I don't even know what it is that they would say
0:46:39 > 0:46:41- that I'm in denial of. - Yeah.
0:46:41 > 0:46:46I mean, you know, I've lost many scores of friends to AIDS,
0:46:46 > 0:46:49so, I'm certainly not in denial of the actual illness,
0:46:49 > 0:46:52I just... I just view the cause and effect differently.
0:47:01 > 0:47:05I found that discussion with Tony really interesting.
0:47:05 > 0:47:09I mean, I'm completely mainstream about HIV, AIDS.
0:47:09 > 0:47:14AIDS is caused by the HIV retrovirus, no question about that.
0:47:14 > 0:47:16He doubts that.
0:47:16 > 0:47:19He's sceptical about whether it's causal,
0:47:19 > 0:47:22you could say he denies that it's causal.
0:47:22 > 0:47:25But he's at the end of the spectrum
0:47:25 > 0:47:28where you can have a conversation with him.
0:47:28 > 0:47:33'As a scientist, I find Tony's views hard to understand.'
0:47:37 > 0:47:41'However, I think there may be a link between how he approaches
0:47:41 > 0:47:43'the evidence for the causes of AIDS
0:47:43 > 0:47:47'and how some climate sceptics may look at the causes
0:47:47 > 0:47:48'of global warming.
0:47:48 > 0:47:52'Problems arise when you're studying complex data
0:47:52 > 0:47:55'and trying to distinguish cause from effect.'
0:47:57 > 0:48:00Understanding what causes what in complex systems
0:48:00 > 0:48:05like biology, that I study, or climate, can be really difficult.
0:48:05 > 0:48:07Let me sort of illustrate that here.
0:48:07 > 0:48:11Imagine that each of these poles are different events -
0:48:11 > 0:48:12events A, B and C -
0:48:12 > 0:48:15and we have time running up here on the floor.
0:48:15 > 0:48:18Event A causes event B.
0:48:19 > 0:48:23Event A also causes event C.
0:48:23 > 0:48:26But if you're a scientist and you don't know anything about event A
0:48:26 > 0:48:30and you're simply studying B and C,
0:48:30 > 0:48:33then what you'll see is that after a certain period of time
0:48:33 > 0:48:35you will see B, and always or nearly always,
0:48:35 > 0:48:37you will see C a certain time afterwards,
0:48:37 > 0:48:42it would be a natural consequence to think that B might cause C
0:48:42 > 0:48:44when that is absolutely not the case.
0:48:44 > 0:48:47I'll think of a concrete example, for example,
0:48:47 > 0:48:49smoking and lung cancer.
0:48:49 > 0:48:51Let's imagine event A, here, is smoking.
0:48:51 > 0:48:54Let's imagine event B is yellow teeth
0:48:54 > 0:48:56that occurs after a certain amount of time.
0:48:56 > 0:48:59And let's imagine event C is lung cancer.
0:48:59 > 0:49:03You could perhaps imagine, as a scientist,
0:49:03 > 0:49:05that you observe yellow teeth and then you observe lung cancer
0:49:05 > 0:49:07and maybe yellow teeth causes lung cancer,
0:49:07 > 0:49:10and that's obviously nonsense, but if you didn't know about smoking,
0:49:10 > 0:49:15then you could perhaps be led into that erroneous conclusion.
0:49:15 > 0:49:16So, that's the problem with complexity,
0:49:16 > 0:49:19that's the problem with working out what causes what.
0:49:29 > 0:49:32'There's an overwhelming body of evidence that says
0:49:32 > 0:49:34'we are warming our planet,
0:49:34 > 0:49:36'but complexity allows for confusion
0:49:36 > 0:49:38'and for alternative theories to develop.'
0:49:41 > 0:49:44'The only solution is to look at all the evidence as a whole.'
0:49:46 > 0:49:50'I think some extreme sceptics decide what to think first,
0:49:50 > 0:49:54'and then cherry-pick the data to support their case.
0:49:54 > 0:49:59'We scientists have to acknowledge we now operate in a world
0:49:59 > 0:50:03'where point of view - not peer review - holds sway.'
0:50:05 > 0:50:08'I think part of the problem may be past controversies,
0:50:08 > 0:50:12'where mainstream science has failed to win over the public.'
0:50:23 > 0:50:26'There is one such subject where the research has to be carried out
0:50:26 > 0:50:31'under strict security because feelings are still running high.'
0:50:39 > 0:50:43'Isolated in a remote corner of the country,
0:50:43 > 0:50:47'a highly contentious scientific trial is being conducted.'
0:50:50 > 0:50:52We're not protecting the public from them.
0:50:52 > 0:50:55We're protecting THEM from the anti-GM activists
0:50:55 > 0:50:59who have been very keen to disrupt GM trials.
0:51:01 > 0:51:04'This field is home to a large experiment
0:51:04 > 0:51:07'in genetically modified food.
0:51:07 > 0:51:11'Prof Jonathan Jones is working to create a new kind of potato
0:51:11 > 0:51:15'that would be resistant to a mould called late blight.
0:51:15 > 0:51:17'Alongside standard potatoes,
0:51:17 > 0:51:22'he also planted two GM varieties and waited to see what would happen.'
0:51:22 > 0:51:25This is perfect blight weather, actually. This is just...
0:51:25 > 0:51:29If you're a late blight pathogen you would be very, very happy today.
0:51:31 > 0:51:35Potato blight is a disease that caused the Irish Potato Famine.
0:51:37 > 0:51:41It causes £3.5 billion a year
0:51:41 > 0:51:45of losses in potatoes and tomatoes.
0:51:45 > 0:51:47Um... It's a fungus-like organism,
0:51:47 > 0:51:50but it makes spores that can blow around.
0:51:50 > 0:51:53We didn't inoculate this, it blew in from somebody else's field probably,
0:51:53 > 0:51:55you know, 20 to 30 miles away.
0:51:55 > 0:51:59And it can rip through a crop in a week.
0:51:59 > 0:52:04'The trial is at an early stage, but the GM varieties seem to be
0:52:04 > 0:52:08'standing up to the blight much better than the standard ones.'
0:52:08 > 0:52:12Farmers actually spend about £500 a hectare controlling this disease,
0:52:12 > 0:52:13so if you had 100 hectares of potatoes
0:52:13 > 0:52:17that's £50,000 out the door for spraying 15 times a year
0:52:17 > 0:52:19to control the disease.
0:52:19 > 0:52:22So, what we're trying to do here is to get genes into these potatoes
0:52:22 > 0:52:25that would mitigate the need for all those spraying.
0:52:27 > 0:52:31'But it's this manipulation of genes that's the source of contention.
0:52:33 > 0:52:36'Critics have objected on several grounds,
0:52:36 > 0:52:38'from safety issues to environmental concerns.'
0:52:38 > 0:52:40It's time for us to say no, we don't want it.
0:52:40 > 0:52:41We don't want their new technology.
0:52:41 > 0:52:43It doesn't benefit us, it doesn't benefit the environment,
0:52:43 > 0:52:45in fact, it threatens us and the environment.
0:52:48 > 0:52:53'The GM debate once again raises the question of public trust in science.'
0:52:54 > 0:52:58'There's a gap between the fears of some sections of the public,
0:52:58 > 0:53:01'and the opinion of scientists that what they are doing
0:53:01 > 0:53:04'is both useful and safe.'
0:53:04 > 0:53:06I think my primary emotion is bemusement.
0:53:06 > 0:53:08Where are they coming from?
0:53:08 > 0:53:12What is going on in their heads that they feel SO strongly
0:53:12 > 0:53:14that this must be campaigned against?
0:53:17 > 0:53:20They often assert that this is a failed technology.
0:53:22 > 0:53:24If it's failed, why do 14 million farmers
0:53:24 > 0:53:27plant 134 million hectares of it?
0:53:27 > 0:53:31You know, they do so because it works, farmers are not stupid.
0:53:32 > 0:53:34'There seems to be a mutual misunderstanding
0:53:34 > 0:53:37'from both the scientists and the public.'
0:53:39 > 0:53:41'The controversy surrounding GM
0:53:41 > 0:53:44'was something I really wanted to understand.'
0:53:44 > 0:53:46I went and talked to members of the public
0:53:46 > 0:53:49to find out why they were so against it,
0:53:49 > 0:53:51and one thing that came up very often
0:53:51 > 0:53:55was that they were against eating food with genes in it.
0:53:55 > 0:53:58And that's something that would never occur to a scientist
0:53:58 > 0:54:01because a scientist obviously knows that all food has genes in it.
0:54:01 > 0:54:04But, I mean, why should a member of the public know that?
0:54:04 > 0:54:08What had happened here, is that we scientists hadn't gone out there
0:54:08 > 0:54:11and asked what bothered the public.
0:54:11 > 0:54:13We hadn't talked to them about the issue.
0:54:13 > 0:54:15We'd not had dialogue with them.
0:54:15 > 0:54:20'Scientists had forgotten that we don't operate in an isolated bubble.
0:54:20 > 0:54:23'We cannot take the public for granted.
0:54:23 > 0:54:27'We have to talk to them, we have to communicate the issues.
0:54:27 > 0:54:29'We have to earn their trust
0:54:29 > 0:54:32'if science really IS going to benefit society.'
0:54:39 > 0:54:43'Over the next few years, every country on the globe
0:54:43 > 0:54:47'faces tough decisions over what to do about climate change.'
0:54:48 > 0:54:51'I've been thinking how scientists can win back the confidence
0:54:51 > 0:54:55'we're going to need if we're going to make those choices wisely.'
0:54:58 > 0:55:00Quite a grand door.
0:55:00 > 0:55:03It is, to a rather workman-like area, we're going down to the basement...
0:55:03 > 0:55:08'Before I started my presidency of the Royal Society,
0:55:08 > 0:55:11'Keith Moore, the head librarian,
0:55:11 > 0:55:13'wanted to take me on a tour of the archives
0:55:13 > 0:55:16'to give me a glimpse of some of the jewels they contain.'
0:55:19 > 0:55:22So, here we hold some of the genuinely rare materials
0:55:22 > 0:55:24from the book stock.
0:55:24 > 0:55:28'Being surrounded by the products of so many brilliant minds
0:55:28 > 0:55:31'is quite a humbling experience.'
0:55:31 > 0:55:33These are the minutes of meetings.
0:55:33 > 0:55:36Is this all the notes of the Society's...!
0:55:36 > 0:55:38That's right, yes, so this goes right back
0:55:38 > 0:55:40to the very, very first meeting of the Royal Society.
0:55:40 > 0:55:43- What, really? What year is this? - Yeah. Yeah, yeah.
0:55:43 > 0:55:45- So this is 1660. - 60? 60!
0:55:45 > 0:55:49So here we have the memorandum, done on 28 November, 1660.
0:55:49 > 0:55:52"These persons following met at Gresham College."
0:55:52 > 0:55:54So, this is the first meeting of the organisation.
0:55:54 > 0:55:55Look at that.
0:55:55 > 0:55:57It's not even called the Royal Society at this point.
0:55:57 > 0:55:58At that point, no.
0:55:58 > 0:56:01And here's what they thought they were doing -
0:56:01 > 0:56:03"Founding a college for the promoting of
0:56:03 > 0:56:05physico-mathematical experimental learning."
0:56:05 > 0:56:07Is that Wren? Is that Christopher Wren?
0:56:07 > 0:56:09That's Christopher Wren, yeah. mm.
0:56:09 > 0:56:12Robert Boyle, here. Yeah, they're all present.
0:56:14 > 0:56:16You know, this has...
0:56:16 > 0:56:18This has made me feel a bit starstruck here,
0:56:18 > 0:56:19I have to say.
0:56:20 > 0:56:22I'm here in the Royal Society,
0:56:22 > 0:56:28350 years of an endeavour which is built on respect for observation,
0:56:28 > 0:56:32respect for data, respect for experiment.
0:56:32 > 0:56:37Trust no-one, trust only what the experiments and the data tell you.
0:56:37 > 0:56:40We have to continue to use that approach
0:56:40 > 0:56:43if we are to solve problems such as climate change.
0:56:52 > 0:56:54'It's become clear to me
0:56:54 > 0:56:58'that if we hold to these ideals of trust in evidence
0:56:58 > 0:57:02'then we have a responsibility to publicly argue our case.'
0:57:04 > 0:57:07'Because in this conflicted and volatile debate,
0:57:07 > 0:57:11'scientists are not the only voices that are listened to.'
0:57:16 > 0:57:20When a scientific issue has important outcomes for society,
0:57:20 > 0:57:24then the politics becomes increasingly more important.
0:57:24 > 0:57:27So, if we look at this issue of climate change,
0:57:27 > 0:57:29that is particularly significant
0:57:29 > 0:57:32because that has effects on how we manage our economy
0:57:32 > 0:57:33and manage our politics.
0:57:33 > 0:57:37And so, this has become a crucially political matter
0:57:37 > 0:57:39and we can see that by the way that
0:57:39 > 0:57:42the forces are being lined up on both sides.
0:57:42 > 0:57:46What really is required here is a focus on the science,
0:57:46 > 0:57:50keeping the politics and keeping the ideologies out of the way.
0:57:52 > 0:57:55One of the things you can't get away without seeing
0:57:55 > 0:57:58is Sir Isaac Newton, of course.
0:57:58 > 0:57:59Is this Principia?
0:57:59 > 0:58:04Indeed, this is the manuscript version of Principia Mathematica,
0:58:04 > 0:58:06so this is Newton's great work on the laws of motion.
0:58:06 > 0:58:11Of course, this was the book that laid the foundation for gravity...
0:58:11 > 0:58:12That's right.
0:58:12 > 0:58:16So, this was a standard text for scientists for like 200 years.
0:58:16 > 0:58:20It was really not until Einstein came along
0:58:20 > 0:58:22that people began to seriously re-evaluate
0:58:22 > 0:58:24the way the universe worked.
0:58:24 > 0:58:26- I need to touch it! - Yes, do.
0:58:26 > 0:58:28THEY LAUGH
0:58:29 > 0:58:31Maybe just finally...
0:58:31 > 0:58:35This is the great book of course, The Origin of Species.
0:58:35 > 0:58:38This was the one that Darwin presented to the Royal Society.
0:58:38 > 0:58:40Always nice to have a presentation copy.
0:58:40 > 0:58:42Oh, did he? Did he... Is he...
0:58:42 > 0:58:45- It just says, "From the author." - Oh, look at it. "From the author."
0:58:45 > 0:58:49- Rather overwhelmed by the... - By nasty '80s biro!
0:58:49 > 0:58:51Yes! THEY LAUGH
0:58:51 > 0:58:56'Earning trust requires more than just focusing on the science,
0:58:56 > 0:58:58'we have to communicate it effectively, too.'
0:58:58 > 0:59:01Scientists have got to get out there.
0:59:01 > 0:59:04They have to be open about everything that they do.
0:59:04 > 0:59:08They do have to talk to the media, even if it does sometimes put their
0:59:08 > 0:59:12reputation at doubt, because if we do not do that,
0:59:12 > 0:59:15it will be filled by others who don't understand the science,
0:59:15 > 0:59:19and who may be driven by politics or ideology.
0:59:19 > 0:59:22This is far too important to be left to the polemicists and commentators
0:59:22 > 0:59:25in the media, scientists have to be there, too.