{"id":474770,"date":"2010-03-25T18:22:45","date_gmt":"2010-03-25T22:22:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/climateprogress.org\/?p=21862"},"modified":"2010-03-25T18:22:45","modified_gmt":"2010-03-25T22:22:45","slug":"can-big-oil-buy-a-watered-down-climate-exhibit-at-the-london-science-museum-new-wishy-washy-statement-by-museum-defends-the-science-sort-of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/474770","title":{"rendered":"Can Big Oil buy a watered-down climate exhibit at the London Science Museum? – New wishy-washy statement by museum defends the science, sort of"},"content":{"rendered":"

The media stories have been sensational:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Public scepticism prompts Science Museum to rename climate exhibition<\/a>:\u00a0 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.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. London Science Museum goes climate science neutral<\/a>:\u00a0 “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.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \"Shell-Oil.jpg\"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.<\/p>\n

      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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      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<\/a>, so science museums are — or were — one of the last vestiges where unadulterated science could be delivered to an interested public.<\/p>\n

      Let’s start with the “good news.”\u00a0 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:<\/p>\n

      <\/span><\/p>\n

      \n

      Dear Joe,<\/p>\n

      Please see original press release (attached<\/a>) and statement below which I hope will clarify.<\/p>\n

      Best regards,<\/p>\n

      Chris<\/p>\n

      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<\/strong>. The role of the Science Museum is to provide an enjoyable, informative experience which is representative of the state of the science<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>.\u00a0 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<\/strong>.\u00a0 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Okay, that doesn’t seem <\/em>uber-lame.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

      Now let’s run this story chronologically.\u00a0 As the Times Online<\/em>’s Ben Webster reported Wednesday (story #1 above<\/a>):<\/p>\n

      \n

      Last October the museum launched a temporary exhibition called \u201cProve It! All the evidence you need to believe in climate change\u201d. The museum said at the time that the exhibition had been designed to demonstrate \u201cthrough scientific evidence that climate change is real and <\/strong>requires an urgent solution\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Indeed, thanks to Anthony Watts (who freeped the poll<\/a>), we actually have a screen capture of what the museum posted online:<\/p>\n

      \"London<\/a><\/p>\n

      Note the the museum said unequivocally:<\/p>\n

      \n

      The Science Museum has examined the evidence.\u00a0 We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      In the new statement, the “urgent action” part of the sign of a message has vanished.<\/p>\n

      The current ruckus broke out because of a paragraph in the original March 22 press release<\/a> announcing the new gallery (part of what Rapley sent to “clarify” where the museum stood):<\/p>\n

      \n

      Prof. Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the Science Museum, said:<\/p>\n

      “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.<\/strong>“<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      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.<\/p>\n

      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.\u00a0 And Rapley said stuff like:<\/p>\n

      \n

      Chris Rapley, the museum\u2019s director, told The Times<\/em> 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: \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

      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: \u201cThe Science Museum will not state a position on whether or not climate change is real, driven by humans or threatening<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

      \u201cThe 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\u2019s not our story, so that can\u2019t be our conclusion. If we take sides we will alienate some of the people who want to be part of the discussion.<\/p>\n

      \u201cAlthough 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<\/strong> and fairhanded as we can be.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Inane stuff.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The story continues:<\/p>\n

      \n

      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 <\/strong>and would be honest about the conflicting views on the scale of possible changes to the climate.<\/p>\n

      \u201cYou can argue about how much effect the carbon in the atmosphere will have on the system and what we should do about it,\u201d he said. \u201cThe role of the museum should be to lay out honestly and fairly what the climate science community has found out about the science.<\/p>\n

      \u201cThere 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.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Yeah, well, as I have discussed many times<\/a>, most of the uncertainty on the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is on the high side.\u00a0 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      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<\/a> (until 2010).\u00a0 Indeed, in a 2006 paper that I cited in my book, “The Antarctic ice sheets and Sea Level Rise<\/a>,” 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.”\u00a0 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<\/p>\n

      \n

      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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Shrill alarmist!<\/p>\n

      And that was 2006.\u00a0 I think it’s safe to say that Antarctica is a giant on the move today:<\/p>\n