Bishop Hill Professor Jones is angry
Aug 2, 2011 BBC Climate: Sceptics Steve Jones appears somewhat irked at the criticism that has flowed his way since the publication of his review of the BBC's science coverage. Referring to the demonstration by Alfred Russel Wallace of the curvature of the Earth he expounds
Wallace was described as a "pitiful dastard… a swindler and impostor, a coward and a liar" and several newspapers published virulent pieces on the supposed dishonesty of the scientific establishment and its unwillingness to allow debate on such a contentious issue.
Of course, that could never happen today and all this has nothing to do with the tsunami of criticism that greeted my suggestion last week in a report to the BBC Trust that the BBC should stop giving excessive time to those who oppose science on the basis of belief rather than evidence and should promote debate between scientists instead.
This is quite interesting. Jones says that he has recommended that the BBC should reduce airtime to "those who oppose science on the basis of belief rather than evidence". If this were the case I imagine the "tsunami of criticism" would have been a minor ripple at most. However, Jones' description of his recommendations does not match the actual wording of his report:
I recommend that the BBC takes less rigid view of “due impartiality” as it applies to science (in practice and not just in its guidelines) and takes into account the non‐contentious nature of some material and the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion.
So far from seeking to sideline non-scientific criticisms, Jones delivered recommendations that focus on non-mainstream views. According to the recommendations I have quoted, you can be as scientific as you like, but if you are "marginal", you can be ignored. Far from defending science, Jones is actually building barriers to the scientific method.
And this from a fellow medallist of the Royal Society.
Bishop Hill
There is a suggestion in the comments that Jones is not in fact an FRS, although he is referred to as such here.
Reader Comments (81)
Frosty, yes, it was a satellite instrument or what we now call a GPS receiver. Aside from providing the coordinates it would also provide the names of the satellite it was picking signals from.
We also had a radio navigation instrument, which we called DF (Direction Finder), to determine the coordinates. The DF did not have a green screen like the radar or the satellite receiver; the interface was essentially two discs with numbers on them like a compass. The idea being that the instrument will pick up radio signals from two land-based emitters and that the point the two beams intersect would be the location of the ship.
I assume this is the same technology as DECCA, because the DF was really a troublesome instrument. It was hard for it to pick up good radio signals and, when it did, it was not as accurate as a mariner would have liked. In very busy and foggy sea lanes such as the Channel one could see its usefulness but also its potential to cause chaos.
During my time as a seafarer, I never witnessed DF being used but it was kept in working order... just in case! It was only useful close to the shore anyway and, in any case, the technology was well and truly superseded by radar first and GPS later.
But then again when I was a deck-hand we didn't have radio phones either. We had a radio operator who would sit before a giant instrument that we called 'short wave radio' and he would listen to, or make noises, that went like "dat-dat-dit-dit-dit-dat-dat-dat" and...
Let me just set up my hammock here. If you get me a drink I might even tell you why we never used pendulum clocks on the ship :D
As has been pointed out, Professor Jones was awarded the Michael Faraday Medal for the popularisation of science but is not on the list of Fellows produced by the Royal Society itself.
http://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/fellows/
It may help to understand a little of the Professor's background. He is an expert in evolution and genetics (indeed, he is Professor of Genetics). In popularising his field he has met up with creationists (Christian and Muslim) and has had ample first hand experience of the problem of science versus belief. The term "deniers" is not unreasonable for many of those who deny evolution, deny a c.4.5 Ga Earth and deny much of current science.
I suspect he believes there is such a dichotomy in the field of climate science. Unfortunately, those who query the current concensus on CAGW include many of the same people who use their religious beliefs to deny evolution and much of (for example) astronomy and geology. (There are, of course, many who challenge CAGW who do not.)
Having accurately assessed the problem in one field (his own) he would appear to believe that such a problem is extant in the other. And, of course, he is right. It does exist. But as there is a spectrum of approach to CAGW, AGW, Climate Disruption, Global Climate Change, Regional-only Climate Change (etc.) in the "concensus" community there is also a spectrum of approach in the "skeptic" community.
sHx: You are referring to the Decca Nav system, which was radio based. There was a Master (black) and two Slave (Red and Green, iirc) transmitters set up in a triangle (over v long distances). The receiver would receive all three frequencies and by phase measurement based on a Master oscillator in the receiver, be able to determine where the three frequencies intercepted each other. This would give the position of the vessel/aircraft. This was later followed by Loran and Tacan, before GPS and satellites.
I blame a mis-spent youth in the RAF. ;-)
Alan Bates
Steve Jones is wrongly indulging in conflict theory when he casts CAGW sceptics as climate change deniers.
Read this, it will open your mind to the bogus arguements put forward by Jones and Nurse.
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Numbers/Numbers_Lecture.pdf
There are six people called "Prof. Jones" who are Fellows of the Royal Society; Steve Jones is not one of them. (And neither am I; the Prof. Jonathan Jones who is an FRS is a biologist/biochemist who works on GM plants.)
For what it's worth I think Alan Bates is pretty accurate in his assessment of why Steve Jones is falling into error. Doesn't make it right, but does make it a little more understandable.
Reflecting further on this affair, the cynic in me has concluded that by asking a biologist to review the BBC's "science" coverage (climate change being the only current controversy), the Establishment could be pretty well-assured of getting the answer they wanted.
Jones was stitched up!
Job done.
Steve Jones' opinions in regard to the 'marginal', if not delusional AGW sceptics is indicative, I believe, of the attitude prevailing in Westminster Village.
This attitude, more or less developed, has been expressed blatantly by a certain Mr G. Brown, who called a lady of a certain age 'bigot' (behind her back, naturally) when she dared to ask a pertinent question.
Steve Jones, Paul Nurse, politicians from Cameron by way of Clegg to Huhne, as well as the other lot with their red ties, regard all of us as bigots.
Thus they can brush our opinions aside, be it in science or in politics. And obviously they need not engage with us, except to tell us things from a great height, never mind if they get facts wrong: we're too stupid to notice. If we do notice, well, who needs to believe what bigots say.
If I do sound exasperated, it is because I am.
Jonathan Jones
I think your FRS namesake was the one who appeared in the Paul Nurse Horizon programme. The one who had to keep his GM plants in a cage to protect them from saboteurs.
Snotrocket, we must be talking about the same radio navigation system but it seems the aviators had more sophisticated receivers. It must be much easier to pick up radio signals in the air than on the surface.
For seafarers, two points of reference on the surface (fixed objects, light beacon, radar beacon, etc) are sufficient to determine location provided that the angle between the two points is not too wide or too narrow.
The only time a seafarer would need three or more points of reference is while ascertaining location by celestial objects.
Misspent youth, indeed! I am tempted to go back to it sometimes so that I can spend whatever youth left in me better this time round. :)
Pull up a bollard, and swing that lamp ;)
I remember having red, green, and purple dials, in theory you only needed two, the accuracy was never the best, and even with 3 readings you could end up somewhere within a mile sized triangle sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_Navigator_System
A quote from Sir Alan Rudge FRS
“One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labelled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
Consensus
I must not mispell Consensus.
I must not mispell Consensus.
I must not mispell Consensus.
I must not mispell Consensus.
I must not mispell Consensus.
Ecclesiastical Uncle writes:
"Would they not be better advised to ask one or more people who take part in blogs like this? Clearly, there are contributors here who know at least something about quite a lot, care enough to blog without promise of tangible reward and have demonstrable patience (as with ZBD) in sufficient measure to give then the required aura of eminence."
Why not hire Svensmark? Doesn't he meet the gold-standard for science, even though his physical hypotheses about cloud formation are not mainstream Warmista? Or someone like Svensmark? There are eminent people who cannot be criticized as having a bias against mainstream climate science and who are more than competent to evaluate it. The BBC is promoting the pro/anti game and that is a very dangerous practice.
@Dreadnought
Thank you, I'd concluded that Jones reproduced (pasted) several errors from an online geology course material (e.g. Richer's home town was Paris, it wasn't a ship's pendulum clock). Either that - or he made up his own details, in a rather geologically-coincidental way.
Some of our youngsters are very busy "respond[ing] to debates in the life of their communities about scientific and technological issues ..." though more on the basis of what they have been brain-washed into believing rather than " using skills of critical evaluation", I fear.
They are also getting very close to the point of being asked to report their parents for wrong-thinking if they don't fall in with the global warming religion.
'...Belief rather than evidence...'
Er.... Pot; kettle; black....
ShX
While you are right that two position lines are sufficient to give you a fix, the prudent navigator prefers three. The size of the resultant 'cocked hat' on the chart will show up any inaccurate bearings.
Talking of prudent navigators, I once made a night crossing of the Thames estuary in a small yacht. Having consulted the chart I said "Group flashing 2 every ten seconds, that's the no.2 buoy" The skipper steered close to it and shone a torch. "You're right" he said "I can see the number."
I rather like goggling instead of googling - it sounds more apposite. Prof Jones used some inflammatory language originally, so it is no use him sounding all hurt and surprised because people took exception. But the whole exercise is misconceived. The BBC should not act as censor of what information is made available. It truly - and arrogantly - believes that its world view is one of unanswerable reason. This from the mouthpiece of the Labour Party.
Alan Bates is probably right that Steve Jones has had to deal with the dispute between evolution and ID/creationists, a topic he knows something about, and assumes incorrectly that the AGW and sceptic debate is similar - a topic he seems to know very little about.
But Alan Bates is probably wrong to misspell misspell!
When it comes to the Royal Society and Darwin you guys should try to check out Ian McCalman's book called "Darwin's Armada". There are some superb examples of the peer system and it includes the politics of the time involved in the R.S. and other journals. To cut it short.....Nothing much has changed when it comes down to peer review and the likes of the "Jones cult" and others! There is some excellent stuff in it about Darwin's voyages and also the people that followed him on further voyages though I cannot recall a mention of any pendulum clock.
If I am allowed Bish, I did buy it in Singapore so I am a little confused if the numbers apply but its Penguin Group book published first in the Antipodean area and the number is 3579108642 (Australia 2009).
They now owe you a free copy! I will now go away and wrap my bleeding wrists from the scratches my daughter got me with when I dragged the book off her! Its mine now....I tell you! Its MINE!
quote
They are also getting very close to the point of being asked to report their parents for wrong-thinking if they don't fall in with the global warming religion.
unquote
i wonder if they're getting confused though. At Beale Park this weekend there was a playlet about damage to the environment, and one of the loud and clear messages was 'don't buy products that use palm oil -- it involves clearing rain-forests and destroys ecosystems'. It seems like only yesterday when the message was 'burn vegetable oils like palm oil, not that nasty mineral stuff'.
JF
To suggest that "avoid giving undue attention to" is the same as "ignore" is just dishonest.
The sub-title to Jones' s piece either indicates hubris on his part, or a nice bit of subversion on the part of a sub-editor...
"When faced with empirical evidence, true believers often become unpleasant"
Dreadnaught
it all depends whether the land is visible to the naked eye. A prudent navigator ought not be satisfied even with ten lines of position while the land is not visible to the naked eye.
When the land is within the radar range even a single line is sufficient because the radar gives the direction as well as the distance. But relying on a single line would truly be imprudent, so even with radar at least two readings should be taken.
While in the middle of the Pacific, our chief mate would always take down 4 stars, 5 if he had time. And, yes, the intersecting lines on the chart did indeed look like a 'cocked hat' :)
BTW, going back to those radio direction devices, I goggled (he he!) for the images of the particular radio direction finding device I was talking about. Here is one and here is a different one. Unloved now, but not forgotten.
Aug 3, 2011 at 6:10 PM | PaulM
Oh dear! Can't even get it right when I do penance.
Aug 3, 2011 at 6:10 PM | PaulM
Oh dear! Can't even get it right when I do penance.
Not much support for Jones from the readers, I notice. Some good recent comments, too.
Predictably, Fiona Fox, Director of the Science Media Centre, has a new posting supporting Jones's review but thinking it still too lenient.
http://fionafox.blogspot.com/
For her the BBC should become an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
Hard to get less of nothing.
RW
The original Bedford Levels experiment had nothing whatsoever to do with belief . It was in fact an empirical experiment with a predictable and repeatable outcome . But much more than that it is highly dangerous heresy , as far as mainstream science is concerned , they are running scared with very good reason .18th and 19th century engineers built canals , and railways to true level , making no allowance for the curvature of the earth , and these guys were very smart practical men . We can see the banks are flat and level just like the water they retain , and often over long distances . if curvature is real , and the engineers of the industrial revolutions did not factor it into their calculations , then their amazing engineering feats , like the Leeds and Liverpool canal , would have been impossible and no industrial revolution would have happened . Canals prove beyond doubt that the earth's curve which is calculated as 8" to the mile X distance in miles squared , ( a 3 mile stretch would have a curve of 8' X 3 X 3 + 72" ). If that was correct and you dug a 3 mile perfectly level stretch of canal , you would have a gig problem , the variation in depth alone would be an engineering nightmare . But that's what they did they dug level canals with consistently equal depth . and we can observe that with our own eyes , the water is flat and level over whatever distance . The spirit level does not lie . As for Wallace , what did he ever do , that had any practical value ? He must have faked his experiment which concluded that the lack of curvature was a mirage or whatever .And this is what happens today , a scientist says so ,so it must be true , doesn't matter what we see with our own eyes . Maybe he had an agenda ! Canals prove beyond doubt that curvature is non-existent , because they have man-made flat level banks . If a one mile stretch curved 8' , there'd would be no need for a debate , in fact there is no need for a debate . We don't need to call a meeting of the globe earth society to realize that !