New wishy-washy statement by museum defends the science, sort of
The media stories have been sensational:
- Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition: The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.”
- London Science Museum goes climate science neutral: “A new climate gallery at London’s Science Museum, sponsored byRoyal Dutch Shell will step back from pushing evidence of man-made climate change to adopt a more neutral position.”
The anti-science crowd has been trumpeting the news, and Anthony Watts even claims credit for duping the Museum into thinking most of the viewers voting on its website were skeptics.
Sadly, the story turns out to be mostly true — and the fact that the exhibit is being funded by one of the biggest oil companies — Royal Dutch Shell — puts the credibility of the entire museum and its science staff on the line.
This cautionary tale story deserves to be told in full because scientists aren’t great at communicating to the public, and the media is doing an increasingly bad job, so science museums are — or were — one of the last vestiges where unadulterated science could be delivered to an interested public.
Let’s start with the “good news.” In a statement emailed to Climate Progress in response to a series of questions, the London Science Museum director, Dr. Chris Rapley, pushes back (somewhat) against recent media stories:
Dear Joe,
Please see original press release (attached) and statement below which I hope will clarify.
Best regards,
Chris
After laying out our intentions for the new climate science gallery, the term ‘neutral’ has been adopted in some articles in the press, which is not an accurate description of our approach. The role of the Science Museum is to provide an enjoyable, informative experience which is representative of the state of the science. Our aim is to increase interest and deepen understanding. This will include the fact that majority of the climate science community has concluded that current climate change is real and mainly human-induced. There are always areas of uncertainty in any scientific topic, and climate science is no exception. We respect people’s right to disagree, and we will address the issues raised, but we always return to the fact that the weight of evidence supports the anthropogenic conclusion. The climate debate has become very polarised in recent months, and this has made even more important the need for a public space where people who agree, who are unsure, and who disagree that humans are affecting the climate system are able to explore the science and make up their own minds.
Okay, that doesn’t seem uber-lame. As we’ll see, however, there are three key scientific issues — climate change is real, it is mainly human-induced, and if we don’t take strong action, we risk serious consequences — and the museum appears to have punted on the third one, which, of course, is really the whole point of the scientific effort to understand human-caused global warming.
Now let’s run this story chronologically. As the Times Online‘s Ben Webster reported Wednesday (story #1 above):
Last October the museum launched a temporary exhibition called “Prove It! All the evidence you need to believe in climate change”. The museum said at the time that the exhibition had been designed to demonstrate “through scientific evidence that climate change is real and requires an urgent solution”.
Indeed, thanks to Anthony Watts (who freeped the poll), we actually have a screen capture of what the museum posted online:
Note the the museum said unequivocally:
The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.
In the new statement, the “urgent action” part of the sign of a message has vanished.
The current ruckus broke out because of a paragraph in the original March 22 press release announcing the new gallery (part of what Rapley sent to “clarify” where the museum stood):
Prof. Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum, said:
“The Science Museum aims to provide the answers to people’s questions about the science of climate change, becoming a trusted destination for public engagement with climate science. The scientific community has, with some exceptions, concluded that climate change is real, largely driven by humans and requires a response. Our exhibition will deliver an immersive, enjoyable and memorable experience that explains their work and results and shows how science and technology can contribute to a low-carbon future. Our objective is to minimise the shrill tone and emotion that bedevils discussion of this subject, satisfying the interests and needs of those who accept that human-induced climate change is real, those who are unsure, and those who do not.“
As CP readers know, the only way to satisfy the interests and needs of those who do not accept that human-induced climate change is real is to stop explaining the science to them, stop advancing any serious policies to reduce emissions, and pretend their disinformed worldviews is accurate.
This press release seem to be walking back what the Science Museum has said in its temporary exhibit, so is no surprise that a reporter like Webster would ask Rapley what the heck he meant. And Rapley said stuff like:
Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”
Professor Rapley, a climate scientist and former director of the British Antarctic Survey [BAS} research centre, said that the museum needed to remain neutral in order to be trusted: "The Science Museum will not state a position on whether or not climate change is real, driven by humans or threatening."
"The climate science community, by and large, has concluded that humans have intervened in the system in a way that will lead to climate change. But that is their story. It's not our story, so that can't be our conclusion. If we take sides we will alienate some of the people who want to be part of the discussion.
"Although there is an extreme faction who very much disagree, there is a much bigger contingent who are not convinced. We want to welcome them into the debate by being as neutral and fairhanded as we can be."
Inane stuff. In the statement he sent me, Rapley walked back some of it, but he has so far not answered my questions as to whether these quotes were accurate in the first place and if so, he is repudiating them all. The story continues:
Professor Rapley said that the gallery, which is to open in November before the climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, would refrain from scaring visitors with apocalyptic predictions of rising sea levels and would be honest about the conflicting views on the scale of possible changes to the climate.
"You can argue about how much effect the carbon in the atmosphere will have on the system and what we should do about it," he said. "The role of the museum should be to lay out honestly and fairly what the climate science community has found out about the science.
"There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not."
Yeah, well, as I have discussed many times, most of the uncertainty on the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is on the high side. That is, the uncertainty is over whether doubling CO2 concentrations would be bad or catastrophic, which may in any case be moot since we are headed towards tripling or quadrupling CO2, whose likely impact is somewhere between catastrophic and unimaginable.
What is especially disappointing to me is that Rapley is a leading authority on the Antarctic, not just through the BAS but as President of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (until 2010). Indeed, in a 2006 paper that I cited in my book, "The Antarctic ice sheets and Sea Level Rise," Rapley explains that scientists had come to the view that "the possibility of a substantial sea level rise due to instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) was consider to be very unlikely during the 21st century." But then he explains that "a variety of evidence suggest that the issue of the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet" should be revisited. He said back then
Only five years ago, Antarctica was characterised as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I would argue that this is now an awakened giant and we should take notice.
Shrill alarmist!
And that was 2006. I think it's safe to say that Antarctica is a giant on the move today:
- "Q: How much can West Antarctica plausibly contribute to sea level rise by 2100?" [A: 3 to 5 feet].
- Large Antarctic glacier thinning 4 times faster than it was 10 years ago: “Nothing in the natural world is lost at an accelerating exponential rate like this glacier.”
- Satellite data stunner: “Our data suggest that EAST Antarctica is losing mass”¦. Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise.”
- Nature: “Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized”
- Major Antarctic glacier is ‘past its tipping point’ [New Scientist]
Indeed, back in 2009 when Rapley was President, SCAR “” a perfect acronymn if ever there was one “” explained in their news release here:
Loss of ice from the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely to contribute some tens of centimetres to global sea level by 2100. This will contribute to a projected total sea level rise of up to 1.4 metres (and possibly higher) by 2100.
Shrill alarmists!
I wonder what all those people who don’t believe in human-induced climate change would say if the London Science Museum actually presented all of the latest science on Antarctica and sea level rise (see “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100“). They’d probably want their money back.
Perhaps Royal Dutch Shell would want its money back, too. And that’s the other big problem with the new wishy-washy statements by Rapley and the museum.
Talking about the reality of climate change and the fact that it is mainly human caused, well, that’s not going to upset anybody too much — if you dumb down the part about how the scientific “evidence” makes clear that climate change “requires urgent action” or you dumb down the part about the scientific evidence that we are risking catastrophic sea-level rise, science that Rapley himself contributed to.
For the London Science Museum to backtrack on the “requires urgent action” message while taking money from a Big Oil company that stands to lose revenue if we actually did take urgent action — well, that creates an appearance of the museum and its scientists having compromised their integrity for money. As Left Foot Forward notes, Shell is “one of the biggest oil companies in the world and one of the most controversial multinationals in large part due to its climate wrecking practises and disinformation campaigns about climate science”:
In the United States, Shell is part of the American Petroleum Institute, the organisation leading the campaign to peddle anti-science propaganda, and to orchestrate “astroturfing” “fake grassroots” campaigns against Obama’s clean energy reforms and the regulation of greenhouse gases.
In Canada, Shell is producing tar sands – the dirtiest oil there is, whilst here it is pulling out of renewable schemes. You have to ask: Is the Science Museum really representing the real scientific community, or pandering to the wishes of their corporate sponsors?
Dr. Rapley and the Museum should give Shell back its money so as not to taint this exhibit at all. And they need to issue a much stronger statement, one that reaffirms what they had initially put on their website:
The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.
Related Posts:
- Shell shocker: Once ‘green’ oil company guts renewables effort
- Investors warn Shell and BP over tar sands greenwashing
- Shell spanked for greenwashing ad
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
This is a clear issue of intrest with the oil sponsor here.
I stopped takeing this museum seriously, when i read about the oil sponsor.
Very lame to lighten the message and cast doubt, confusion and a debate with it.
The science needs to be presented accurate and voice the warning message.
The last 3-4 month there has nothing changed. Only the media war from the typical bought sides, who try to undermine the case of human induced climate change.
This concerted campaign had it’s height with copenhagen and now all those bits are discussed and sorted out.
Is this museum in his “debate” also pointing out the right-wing think tanks work?
Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-take-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html
In the meantime since the start of 2010 we witness record breaking weather anomalys. Looks like some need another 2003 killer heatwave or a kathrina 2.0 to transport the message of importance.
IPCC underestimated a lot of factors and tipping points and now with the growing threat of methane release we heading for total diffrent planet.
Thank you so much dirty oil for your main contribution in destroying the future of our children!
If the science museum is going to water down or diminish the science, the reality of the problem, or etc. at all, it should be ashamed of itself and it should — sadly but appropriately — lose its credibility (which is a kinda important thing in science, don’t ya think?).
Wonder if they’re giving equal time in their space exhibit to people who think Hollywood faked the moon landings on a back lot someplace.
What a disgrace!
How frustrating! I wonder if the opinion of general public reading about this story in the news or visiting the museum will be affected by the museum’s ties to Shell.
The quotes from the museum’s director move beyond frustrating to be infuriating!
re: Prokaryote # 1
It is not only the fossil fuel industry that is to blame for “destroying the future of our children”. They are simply reinforcing our human tendency to exploit the natural world for our own immediate benefit and gratification without paying much attention to the consequences. The truth is, as Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us”. It is hard to ask folks to sacrifice, especially for some very distant goal. But we have done it very effectively, at times, when the issue concerned highly moral values, i.e. sacrifices during WWII.
Perhaps we need to frame climate change/global warming as a moral issue. Live simply and modestly for the sake of humanity.
As long as we only fault fossil fuel providers and big businesses that damage the environment, we are really not yet dealing with the underlying problem.
I watched pictures of the Japanese in the sushi bars last night eating up the last remaining bluefin tuna and protesting that Americans should not be so sanctimonious about “imposing their cultural values on ours” by proposing a ban. It is very sad to see us so blind to the consequences of our own actions.
You know, it wasn’t really just big tobacco that kept us smoking for so long. They were the catalyst for our intense need to keep on taking in nicotine.
Simplicity and restraint are really moral issues. Many people respond positively to them. Maybe we liberals have been so turned off by some of the destructive values expressed in the past as “moral” values that we have lost sight of the possibilities inherent in positive, humantarian ones.
Fred Teal:”Perhaps we need to frame climate change/global warming as a moral issue. Live simply and modestly for the sake of humanity.”
Actualy we can have enough clean energy and sustainability without living simply and modesty. Imagine an electric car, powered by renewables – waste which becomes recycled. Airplanes driven by biofuels with carbon negative prints, energy efficiency everywhere …
Even though, oil is still needed for all the products we use. But they still just burn it and spent money on denial or lobbying. But there is no need. They could easyly build modern bio-energy – carbon neutral/negative facilities. Or start to invest in renewable energy generation.
I understand your point of view and your are partly right, but this is absolutly no execuse to manipulate the public opinion on climate change. This attitude of greed and habits is leading to destruction. Why is shell investing into a science museum? Only to manipulate the image of their company and to obscure the science.
I wouldn’t care much if it wasn’t so importent to the survival of the species – to exchange old habits and technologies with up-to-date.
And yes it’s also a moral – patriotic issue. Customers would change the technology long ago, wouldn’t the industrie – again manipulate this. Like chevron did with patents on NIMH batteries or GM with the EV1 during the 90′s.
The time for fossil/coal is over, yet those blind CEO’s do everything to slow this process. They had this long enough – there are no execuses anymore not to change the dead horse. Climate change is a national security threat and we need to tackle this with every possible solution there is.
People love electric cars and they love clean energy – now let them have it already!
Ticket sales. “If we take sides we will alienate some of the people who want to be part of the discussion.”
If they stick to the facts they’ll get half the population. If they back off they could also get “those who do not.“
This is a GREAT exhibit. It is just wrongly titled.
This a fine example of carbon propaganda opinion manipulation.
I usually love your posts, but this time I have to disagree. If we keep this militant attitude and don’t bring big cos to the table, they will never change. Progress begins somewhere.
Follow the money.
Obama’s right. We need to make renewable energy the PROFITABLE kind. Take a way the federal tax incentives for fossil fuel production, now!
Profits prevail.
I don’t know if this isn’t making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing to suggest the contents of the exhibition will be affected by the title of the exhibition. And having worked in areas where ‘name’ means everything, I can sympathise with the dilemma of naming the exhibition such that it attracts the maximum number of people.
Climate Science is a strong term of itself, and suggests authority.
The unfortunate thing is that the deniers have picked up on the name change to insinuate that it means a softening of the view of the science. This is not so, based on the statement of the Director.
Provided the contents of the exhibition are true to the science then it could even be a good thing that it’s sponsored by Shell. Apart from the fact that it presumably gives them ample funds to put on a decent show, it demonstrates that the severity of climate change is real, and not ‘softened’ to please any perceptions of bias of the sponsors.
I’d rather wait and see what is in the exhibition (though I doubt I’ll get to see it unless it travels here to Australia). I hope it gives no credence to denialist arguments nor even gives them a place. To do so would give them a semblance of credibility. Even if they are refuted they stick in people’s minds.
I may be proved wrong, but will await the exhibition. If it can show people the changes that have happened already and that are still to come, it will be a good thing.
I agree with Sou that although the renaming of the exhibition, the connection with Shell and some of Rapley’s comments are indeed worrying we should ultimately judge the exhibition on the content. I live in London so will try to get along to see it when I get a chance.
Perhaps knowing more than most, the oil industry must have full knowledge of the seriousness of the environmental crisis — this is the nature of the science underlying its business — and, is playing Russian roulette with the future of civilization and the future of the industry itself.
It is difficult to understand why.
The oil industry’s best long-term strategies should be to use its deep resources and technologies to dramatically innovate and reinvent itself to assist humanity as it bands together to address the rapidly accelerating environmental crisis.
Is the oil industry that unreal? Or, simply that short-sighted?
Is it that suicidal?
Is the brutal self-destructive corporate culture of this industry driving it into oblivion?
12. fj2 (continued)
Perhaps, these are questions we must continually ask to overcome the inertia and subversive behavior of those industries — in particular, finance, insurance, and oil — that feel that they must try to maintain at all costs their entrenched interests in the status quo.
Just found the stats below on the Deltoid blog, which are supposed to be the actual vote count.
Assuming they’re correct it’s notable that the people who actually visited the exhibition were more about 85% in favour of Climate action – and thereby we assume the exhibition as was – while the orchestrated web echo-chamber would appear to have been what actually drove the Museum’s reversal.
So it actually becomes more difficult to defend the logic of it – ignore your actual customers in favour of a group that I’d wager won’t bother to attend anyway (since we know the exhibition still contains information they just don’t want to hear).
Or perhaps we believe the web statistics are somehow ‘real’, and the exhibition is so persuasive that upon actually attending the 75% of the population that are militant agnostics or former-skeptics were largely won over? Seem likely to you?
If you’re a Science Museuum, that’s what you do – I assume they’re not going to put on a Darwin exhibition that caters to sensibilities of Creationists?
12. fj2 (continued)
These are some of world’s most highly capitalized industries capable of funding and manifestly participating in the transition into a world of extraordinary prosperity and personal gain yet seem dead set in their ways attempting to perpetuate the sale and marketing of what essentially is “Soylent Green”; and, not much more than the detritus of ancient life and the old way of doing things.
Perhaps not to everybody’s taste, but this cartoon takes the trend to it’s illogical conclusion
http://throbgoblins.blogspot.com/2010/03/museum-piece.html
Rapley:
“The climate science community, by and large, has concluded that humans have intervened in the system in a way that will lead to climate change. But that is their story. It’s not our story, so that can’t be our conclusion…”
So, Rapley has just stuck his head up his arse and found AWatts.
Beggars, or should it be ‘buggers’ belief!
Wow.
I can see how some preposterous quotes can get some media hype and how that’s a good thing for the museum.
But the quotes about not taking “sides” and about how science is just “the scientists’ story,” whereas a science museum needs to be respectful of anti-science, too (and so can’t take “sides”), are so preposterous as to make you really wonder about Rapley’s fitness for a job where he’s specifically tasked with being “the public face of the museum.”
The museum needs real grace under media fire, not some Benny Hill buffoon version of it.
If the quotes are made up, the museum needs to protect its brand by holding the media accountable. If the quotes are real, Rapley’s previously stated goal, to make his museum “the most admired museum in the world,” must have faded away altogether.
Excellent piece, Joe, thank you.
I thought Shell was part of the AGW concensus?
13. fj2 (continued)
For one blue sky imagining, rather than burning the stuff, carbon-rich oil — even air and water — might serve as the raw material for massive reinvention and terrifically broad greening of the built environment based on a new highly commercial molecular strength material science of carbon nanotubes and graphene 100 to 200 times stronger than steel per weight.
Trivial I’m sure but how does shell ‘produce’ oil? That would have to be the trick of the week as far as petroleum is concerned; that has to be extracted or collected.