Censorship or sense? Well, sense actually
Well, that was interesting. My post on the limits to debate on cimate change has generated 40-odd comments so far (modest in the grand scheme, but detailed, and most of which has been useful and instuctive: couple of interesing sites in Devil’s Kitchen and QuestionThat). There were a few personal attacks here and here (and here) and a few more on-topic responses, such as from Sans Pretence.
I’ve actually spent much of the day writing the paper that helped stimulate the blog post, assessing the influence of online on public perceptions of climate change. So to all those who have commented, and provided further links and thoughts, thanks.
And I’m going to come back and post again on this topic in the next day or so. Before I do, though, I wanted to respond and think through my own position.
I made two errors in my blog post.
1. I made the error of confusing the question:
- ‘do we have the right media regulatory framework for monitoring and assessing harm and offence done by misleading information and purposeful disinformation?’
with the broader issue of censorship of free expression.
I shouldn’t have done that, because it muddied the issue, and more importantly, my second error:
2. I don’t believe in censorship.
Some of the commenters won’t believe that statement now, after the previous post. But I don’t. At some moment I became convinced that climate change as an issue was even more important that freedom of expression (where it doesn’t cause harm). And I still think we have to look hard at the regulatory framework and the social as well as the physical sciences of the relations, of power, politics, economy and of language, around the reporting and media representation of climate change. But the blog post was a bit too off the cuff and confused two distinct issues, and I did myself no favours for that.
And that was what I was trying to get at: the purpose for the original blog came from a paper I’m writing, but also from Ofcom’s ruling on C4’s GGWS programme. They judged it did not cause harm or offence, despite agreeing that the science is proven. I was left with the thought: harm against whom? This was the question I wanted to ask: what measurement of harm was Ofcom measuring the programme against, if they are judging it against a measure where they themselves agree the science is proven (enough)?
I wasn’t meaning to suggest we impose censorship against a 90% certainty of science. But, fair enough, I did. I got that wrong–what I was thinking to invoke censorship? Wrong, and with a myriad influences, not only other writers and commentators, such as the now infamous Margo Kingston. Frustration, yes, with so little action, and probably fear. I read Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, and I see the imagined societal dissolution and a slip into barbarism (through our expense of finite natural reources, including this thin band of temperate climate we inhabit) as wholly believable (I’d read similar years before in David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas).
Pessimistic and human yes, but I’ve seen and lived in some extremely poor and disempowered (and, yes, censored states). For example, Zambia, and some Western developed states (Italy, Croatia, Bosnia) with worse censorship, all masquerading as free societies. So I should have known better. However, maybe also because I have studied the Kyoto Protocol and international negotiations closely for a few years, and have witnessed the slow death of both environmental legislation and the willingness to work together that could have implemented climate change policy and made us all richer in our own chosen ways (as said in far more auspicious titles than mine, e.g. The Economist, hardly a left-leaning greenie, clean tech will be the biggest investment opportunity of the century).
Anyway, I’ll keep asking questions, and provocative ones, if required, particularly around the news that we’re going to get a New Internet Watchdog. I still want to know the broader logic of Ofcom’s decision on how it measured harm done, and to question if the Code then stands up for what is needed in today’s, er, climate.
One final thanks to Alex Cull for the long and thoughtful email. And thanks to Alexander Solzhenitsyn for reminding me at just the right time to be ‘true to the truth’.
And I have replied to your central question…
DK
I’m sorry, but you still misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. If someone else’s viewpoint should be suppressed, why shouldn’t yours? Besides, I prefer my loonies out in the open. After all, there is, in fact, no actual evidence for AGW. Sure there’s plenty of reason to suspect, but no actual evidence.
Alex,
I really do feel the need to point out a glaring error.
You said: “And that was what I was trying to get at: the purpose for the original blog came from a paper I’m writing, but also from Ofcom’s ruling on C4’s GGWS programme. They judged it did not cause harm or offence, despite agreeing that the science is proven.”
They did NOT agree that the science was proven at all!!
I quote from their summary (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114):
“It is not within Ofcom’s remit or ability in this case as the regulator of the ‘communications industry’ to establish or seek to adjudicate on ‘facts’ such as whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon, nor is Ofcom able to reach conclusions about the validity of any particular scientific theories. In dealing with an issue such as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is the subject of scientific controversy, those involved in the debate will - by definition - disagree over the factual accuracy of each others’ claims.”
DK: Thanks, am going to have a read
Quentin: this is from Ofcom “the rules in the Code must balance the right to freedom of expression against the need to apply restrictions. These restrictions include such statutory duties as the requirement to apply “generally accepted standards” to the content of television programmes so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material.”
Nick, thanks, yes, I’ll reword. Ofcom were in agreement that “Ofcom also had regard to the fact that, both domestically and on a worldwide level, the political debate had largely moved on from questioning the causes of climate change to attempting to find solutions to deal with it. Therefore, in the political arena at least, there was a very broad consensus of opinion which accepted the scientific theory of man-made global warming. In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast ( 8 March 2007 ). This view of human activity as the major cause of global warming does not appear to be challenged by any of the established political parties or other significant domestic or international institutions. Therefore, in this case, Ofcom considers that the subject matter of Parts One to Four of the programme (i.e. the scientific theory of man-made global warming) was not a matter political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy.”
Nick, this also from Ofcom: “it was in Ofcom’s opinion impractical and inappropriate for it to examine in detail all of the multifarious alleged examples of factual inaccuracy set out in the complaints.”
And this also from Ofcom: “whilst Ofcom is required by the 2003 Act to set standards to ensure that news programmes are reported with “due accuracy” there is no such requirement for other types of programming, including factual programmes of this type.”
Hence my question.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/
Your answer to Quentin just raises more questions. Why is there a need to apply restrictions? Who decides what are “generally accepted standards” and why is there a requirement to apply them? Isn’t this a case of tyranny of the majority, i.e. of those who hold the generally accepted standards against those who do not? Why is it necessary not to offend? What constitutes harm? I like my free speech like my whisky (or whiskey), neat. Which is why I am happy for Channel 4 to show An Inconvenient Truth despite all its gross distortions and untruths. Al Gore can say what he wants, and others can argue against it. (the issue of it being presented as incontrovertible fact in schools is a clearly a separate matter)
[...] August, 2008 by landedunderclass Alex Lockwood, mentioned earlier, has put up another post. In this he classifies my earlier posting, about his demands for suppression of free speech in [...]
Its quite simple, Science is an opened ended dialectic process, you put your theory up and if it cannot be shoot down it stands. Science progresses best in an open society for obvious reasons.
I can sit thru GGWS and falsify it, I can sit thru IcT and falsify it. I can read the 2001 IPCC report and see that the predictions within it have been falsified, that kind of tells me there is something up here.
I see what your problem is.
You are proceeding from the view that the science is proven, or 90% proven, and that a major disaster will befall humanity if we do not act now. Taking your view it is reasonable to lose a little liberty if the survival of the species is at stake.
Those of us who have examined the science critically are horrified by this interpretation. We can see where the science has been perverted to come to the conclusions that are published, and believe that this whole episode shows that humans who believe in a ’cause’ will happily lie and cheat to further it. And we are being prevented from putting this point of view forward.
The history of humanity is littered with people who knew they were right and proceeded to commit appalling mistakes on that basis. The Pol Pot regime and Mao T’se Tung’s Great Leap Forward were not examples of evil haters of mankind - they genuinely believed that they were following a path that would lead to the betterment of humanity. I believe that the only protection there is against this pit that humans are so prone to fall into is the dispassionate examination of evidence in a scientific manner, and the maintenance of everyone’s freedom to say, and publish, what they will without oppression. How else can we be sure that the best and most accurate case is made for any course of action?
ALL sides of an argument must be able to be presented, without fear or favour. We should be prepared to defend, for instance, the right of arguments in favour of Nazism, pedophilia or terrorism to be heard. If these things are fundamentally wrong then arguments for them should fail. Any less means throwing away all of human progress since the Renaissance.
could have implemented climate change policy and made us all richer in our own chosen ways
As an intelligent adult you know that if climate change mitigation was going to make us rich then someone would have already invested in it.
Please read The Fallacy of the Broken Window. Any investment made in climate change solutions is a cost. We cannot say we will make money unless we take into account the lost opportunity.
[...] Alex also seems to think that I was harsh, accusing me of personal abuse: [...]
Alex,
Why suppress debate? Especially upon the subject of Anthropogenic climate change. The ’science’ is a long way from being ’settled’, and anyone who suggests it is has only a very slight grasp of what constitutes the scientific method.
Please note the lack of ’stopped’ gulf stream and out of control global temperature rises. Note thriving Polar Bear population, increased Arctic ice pack 2007/8. In any case, CO2 is good for the environment. Trees and other plants wouldn’t thrive on it if it wasn’t.
Alex, since we now all agree that censorship is wrong, why don’t you go over hear and tell these guys, it might be better coming from a believer in global warming alarmism?
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008132.html
Consider, the correct and only response to misleading information and purposeful disinformation is the right of reply. You’ll note this figured prominently in the Ofcom judgement.
The Ofcom ruling was based partly on the fact that the programme didn’t hide that this was a minority view, highly controversial, and contradicted by the scientific Establishment (which everyone is well aware of through other coverage, thank you). Because it was giving voice to a minority of scientists who disagreed, rather than presenting itself as the authoritative broadcasting-Establishment-endorsed voice of ex cathedra truth, it was judged as acting in a free speech role rather than one of public information. In such matters, it is not the role of a broadcaster to decide which side of any given controversy is right and allow only that side to be presented. Their role is to facilitate the debate at the heart of culture, not to be a partisan in it. The general public are trusted to be able to make their own minds up.
More generally, a large part of the problem is the decline in scientific education, as society moves towards the Appeal to Authority being regarded as the essence of rationality, rather than a logical fallacy as it once was. People are no longer mentally equipped to decide based on the arguments, and instead substitute such nostrums as peer review and officialness and moral standing. (The ad hominem has made a comeback too.)
While they can keep politically incorrect ideas out of the media, this has served their purposes. But now that Swindle has dropped memes from the more Darwinian internet into this quiet cultural pool of broadcast TV, the result is like letting domestic cats loose on a tropical island full of exotic flightless birds of paradise. You had best teach the general public how to fly, fast, or your carbon action campaign is cat-food.
Considering this is supposedly the most important issue in the history of civilisation, I am constantly amazed by the number of Green enthusiasts who don’t understand even the basic science of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work - relying instead on incorrect primary-school children’s story versions. (Many don’t even know how greenhouses actually work, although that’s been known since Professor Wood’s experiment in 1909.) It’s important enough to turn the world upside down, but not important enough for them to make an effort and learn some science.
I suggest the correct response ought to be a vastly improved science education. That doesn’t mean Appeal-to-Authority indoctrination, as happens in schools at present, but a thorough grounding in science basics. If you think there’s incontrovertible evidence for AGW, make sure everybody knows what it actually is.
With regard to your point on harm, Alex. Presumably you would ban people from saying that the push towards biofuels as a means of preventing global warming is harming the world’s poorest people and also those who argue that banning or restricting the use of DDT for indoor spraying is killing a million people per year.
AGW sceptics don’t believe there is any harm because they believe that any AGW related to fossil fuels is insignificant. They don’t believe it is harmful but want people to fry or drown, they actually believe that the cure is far far more harmful than the disease. So who gets to determine what constitutes harm when even the existence of harm is up for debate?
Mister Jones: thanks for the comment. You’re right, stopping debate where the debate is rational and fair would be the wrong thing to do; stopping it where it gets irrational is also the wrong thing to do; stopping it when it incites violence against individuals or groups, yes, I probably think it’s the right thing to do, although I’m not saying it is. In re: to AGW, I’m with David Demeritt on this, and Schneider, and the IPCC, in that the science is settled ‘enough’ to act now, in careful ways. If we plan those actions carefully enough then they should produce benefits: look back at Lord Browne and BP’s internal ‘Kyoto-lite’ exercise, where they cut 10% of emissions and generate £650m extra revenue at the same time. This from one of the world’s biggest oil companies. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=7012385
DocBud. Now, I’m hardly going to tell another blogger how to manage the comments on his site, am I? Also, no, I wouldn’t want to censor debate on biofuels. Nor do the other ‘moonbats’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels. The question you’re asking is also the one I wanted to explore, before getting into the complexities of talking about censorship. Essentially, it is the governments we vote in, democratically, who decide on what is harm or not–I think that’s how the democracy is meant to work. They take advice from scientists, but science is not the bottom line: it’s societal values. The US has decided that its values were not in line with, for example, the Kyoto Protocol. Scotland has decided it will invest in renewables and cut emissions by 80%. Norway by 90%. It is these different values, in relation to what is presented in the media, that I wanted to explore. The values related to climate change science also relate to media values in the portrayal of climate change.
What qualifies you to decide that ‘the science is settled enough’? Look at the qualifications of many of those endorsing the Manhattan Declaration:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1
A number of the IPCC reviewers fall in the sceptic camp. Furthermore, the climate is not playing ball with the IPCC’s and Hansen’s predictions, with the earth having not warmed since 1998.
Schemes like BP’s Kyoto-lite are in essence efficiency drives, which is good business practice. BP wouldn’t make cuts that harmed the business.
My point with the debates and harm is that you say that free speech should be restricted where it leads to harm. The perception of many AGW believers was that biofuels were a solution to AGW, so surely those sceptics who argued against biofuels would cause harm and so should have been suppressed, when in fact we now know that it is the proponents of biofuels who caused the harm, not those opposed to them. The same is true of the DDT debate, those in favour of DDT may have been suppressed for supposedly causing harm when it is those opposed to the use of DDT to prevent malaria who have caused the harm.
I am horrified that you should think governments would decide what constituted harm, and therefore decide what limits were to be placed on free speech. Even democratically elected governments do not have good records on issues such as free speech. It would be illegal to criticise the police as this undermines public confidence in the police, it would be illegal to question the quality of exams, politicians, etc, etc. People need their rights protected from being arbitarily taken away by governments who increasing rule as political parties rather than elected public servants, i.e. harm is not what is against the public good but the party’s good. It is far simpler to make free speech subject to no restrictions, then society can truly decide where it stands. If someone incites a crime, they will be prosecuted for inciting the crime, it is not a free speech issue.
Alex,
Your are intelligent enough to be dangerous.
Dangerous, because you believe yourself when you make statements like -
“2. I don’t believe in censorship.” whereas, you blatantly do believe in censorship.
Let me try to convince you by use of an example.
There exists between the whole numbers 0 and 1 an infinity of fractions, it is a small infinity, but an infinity none the less - only one zero and only one ‘1′ but an infinity of fractions. Alternatively, consider it as only one black and only one white but and infinity of shades of grey between them.
“I don’t believe in censorship” is like zero or White, it’s an absolute.
You then went on to say “…as an issue was even more important that freedom of expression (where it doesn’t cause harm”.
Oops…
Can you not see that you have moved into the grey area of if, buts and maybes. You have left the pure white of “I don’t believe in censorship” and moved into the grey of –
“I believe in censorship necessary to prevent harm”.
And you are now in the trap of having to decide how dark is your ‘grey’ - what level of ‘harm’ are you prepared to employ censorship to try to prevent it?
No matter how much you try to delude yourself into thinking you are a ‘nice person’ because you “Do not believe in censorship’, it is just a lie - you are not a nice person - you do believe in censorship and worse still - you lie to yourself in order to feel good about it.
It takes real strength to stand in the white place and truly ‘Not believe in censorship’, and I don’t think you even want to try to go there.
Do you??
DerekSmith
Here in the U.S., the promotion of ethanol as an alternative fuel has led to more corn being diverted away from food production. This has caused prices to rise and the result is that millions of poor people in Mexico now have to pay twice as much for tortillas.
In other words, our efforts to “go green” have caused hardship on the world’s poorest. This is provable, demonstrable harm. Alex, according to the standards you’re proposing, should we be able to prosecute all those in government, agribusiness, and the green advocacy groups who continue to push for greater ethanol use?
Hi there. What I wanted to look at were questions about the media regulatory framework we have already (Ofcom, the PCC, and the forthcoming Internet Watchdog) and how it’s shaping up to deal with such issues. I think it’s an important question to ask: does the media have an impact on policy decision-making and on public perception about really important issues such as these; if so, what are the ways in which we encourage responsible debate? I am absolutely not talking about issues of prosecution. Thanks.
I read Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, and I see the imagined societal dissolution and a slip into barbarism (through our expense of finite natural reources, including this thin band of temperate climate we inhabit) as wholly believable
The idea that freedom of speech and other individual rights are disposable in the face of some “common good”, is a barbarism.
The Economist, hardly a left-leaning greenie, clean tech will be the biggest investment opportunity of the century)
And yet John Barrett, who IS a left-leaning greenie, claims otherwise: “We are constantly battling against increases of wealth… There’s a very fundamental problem here that no one really wants to talk about.”
The fact remains that the #1 mass killer in history is the denial of individual rights: over 100 million dead under communism *alone*, and multiple millions more when the tally includes all socialist/fascist variants. (All of which elevate the “collective good” over the individual good as a fundamental principle, by the way.)
Alex,
First of all, thank you for being civil. I’m sure it’s in your nature, but, as you are no doubt aware, many in your field have a far more caustic attitude toward dissent.
I confess I am still puzzled by your insistence that regulation of speech is different from censorship. In the US, prior restraint by government of individuals has to meet rather strict standards. Restraint of speech is one of those things over which we parted from George III, and there are still a number of Americans attached to the concept.
At least one other responder has pointed out the Orwellian nature of your labelling this “a balancing of freedoms”. Does this really need exposition? Or can I simply remind you: “Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery”?
I believe you are trapped in a paradigm that is in itself a danger to society. Your comments indicate you believe that sinister corporations (”Northern economic interests”) are behind AGW denial. (Geez, I wish! Somehow I have not been getting the deposits sent to the right bank account.) In any case, the notion that demonic corporations are the root of evil in the modern world equips you to write screenplays for Oliver Stone, but not to understand what’s really going on with respect to the AGW discussion.
I am a scientist, although I have not published in the area of climate research. But I am fascinated by the AGW discussion because it involves two of my specialties: computational physics and statistical analysis. And so far I have found precious little in the way of ironclad evidence for the wilder claims of the AGW prophets, from a technical standpoint.
On the contrary, I find a lot of hot air from journalists like yourself, who are anxious to claim that you are “90%” certain that AGW is happening. This makes me suspect that (A) you don’t understand probability, and (B) you don’t understand global warming.
So technically competent folks like myself get a bit hot under the collar when journalists like you propose that you are so certain of yourselves that you are willing to slap legal penalties on people like me to prevent us from criticizing current research. “We admire you your certainty but do not envy you your folly,” as the Melians were told in “The Peloponnesian War”.
To me, the most important thing to remember regarding these politically charged scientific issues is: the method. Are we allowing the scientific method to proceed?
My complaint about the creationists has always been that they are trying to circumvent the scientific method by legislating their “Truth” into science textbooks. It is not the facts or observations set forth on one side or the other of the creationism dispute that interest me. Darwinism could go on the ash-heap tomorrow and I would be happy, provided the progress was provided by scientists pursuing the science, and not legislators pursuing votes. However, I follow the AGW story pretty closely.
Similarly, the contrarian in me gets annoyed by scientific gatekeepers who presume to label dissenting views on controversial topics with big red warning labels. Or throw us in jail.
Oh, and since when is “90%” considered “beyond reasonable doubt”? Is that really the standard in the UK?
BBB
Science should *relish* skepticism and challenge - that’s the entire premise of the scientific principle: rigorous questioning of everything.
A ’science’ that can’t handle opposing viewpoints, demands for evidence, skepticism, doubt, nay sayers, etc, is not science at all, but a dogmatic religion of the worst sort.
Saying “It’s established science, oops, can’t question it now!” is anathema to the scientific revolution, which is one of the many (and perhaps greatest) gifts western civilization has given to the world. We wouldn’t be where we are today if we weren’t allowed to question ‘accepted science’.
Essentially, you want to drag us back to barbarism, where not only is the rigorous questioning and sober skepticism of science removed, but the freedom of speech trampled upon. You want to stand with the crowd silencing Galileo for airing views that run contrary to ‘conventional wisdom’ that ‘upset’ people and ’cause harm’.
I am honestly aghast at this prospect, and am now more than ever firmly convinced that man made global warming is a hoax and a myth.
NO ONE without a very great deal to hide that can’t stand up to scrutiny would make such a suggestion.
That shows me that what we are dealing with in the global warming issue isn’t science, but merely paranoia and alarmism masquerading as science, desperate to outlaw criticism because of the indefensible and insupportable nature of its propositions.
“I believe in freedom of expression where it does not incite violence or hatred or economic inequity against those who have less freedom to act or respond”
This is chilling. You don’t believe in freedom of expression at all, but have deluded yourself into thinking you do. You badly need to become more self aware.
Essentially you believe in freedom of expression as long as that expression is things you agree in. Bully for you. Who doesn’t?
Your exceptions are ridiculous. “Incitement to economic inequality”? What kind of exception is that? Don’t you realize that virtually *anything* could fall under those ‘minor exceptions’ you list?
There’s a very good reason the limits on free speech are very clear - a direct incitement to violence - and it’s because if it is at all vague or subjective (as your limits are) then the powers that be can simply label any speech they dislike as ‘inciting hatred’ or some such nonsense. And then the freedom of speech is DEAD, at least where it counts.
We see this already with islamist radicals. They try to ban criticism of Islam as ‘inciting hatred against Islam’. This is of course a steaming pile, but it’s just breathtaking that you echo the same barbaric and oppressive rhetoric that they do.
What you don’t seem to realize is that the freedom of speech is ONLY IMPORTANT when protecting speech is considered hateful, bigoted, wrong, intolerant, etc etc by many people. That’s the very kind of speech the idea of freedom of speech was designed to protect - controversial viewpoints held by the minority that offends most people that they would like to ban.
There’s no point or need to guarantee freedom of expression for ‘nice talk’ that everyone agrees on, and if that is all the expression that is provided, we don’t have freedom of speech at all, but live in an Orwellian totalitarian state.
Alex, you’ve really gone off the rails here. I’ve read your original post and your follow-on post and all of the comments. When you can persuasively answer DerekSmith’s excellent post (on 8/6/08, 12:52pm), I will begin to take you seriously. Meanwhile, your continued defense of censorship (for that is, despite your protestations, what you’re suggesting) is an affront against all (classically) liberal people and should be utter anathema to a journalist.
And in the Dark Ages, we all knew that disease and famine were caused by witches … and any one who said otherwise was burned at the stake (or subjected to some equivalent “censorship”) for being in league with the witches.
Why is it that those with the poorest grasp of science are the strongest believers in AGW theory?
I must return to this subject to make one more point concerning an error which I feel your original paper and many of the commentators are falling into.
As far as I can see, you do not understand that scientific ‘knowledge’ is of a different kind to knowledge gained in the ’softer’ subjects such as, for instance, sociology, politics or literature.
In these ’softer’ subjects knowledge is created and transmitted by advocacy. A great literary critic can impart insights into an author’s work by pursuading his readers to consider a particular viewpoint. This kind of knowledge is strongly influenced by such concepts as concensus and publicity. And it has often been seen as appropriate to censor or suppress this kind of knowledge - the churches ban books, video games are restricted, we are actually fairly happy with the idea that some control should exist in this area.
Science, on the other hand, is NOT about advocacy. Of course, if you want to pursuade your colleagues that you are a superb scientist and deserving of a Nobel Prize, then advocacy, politics and concensus are all important to you. But pure scientific knowledge is nothing to do with these things. It is an insight which is gained by experimentation, essentially personal, and MUST operate in a skeptical and completely uncoerced manner. The gaining of knowledge in this manner cannot operate with any degree of censorship. All avenues MUST be explored, and ALL posibilities questioned. This is why several persons have queried the value of ‘peer review’ for climate change papers - a proper science does not need peer review; it needs opposing papers.
You seem to be applying principles which are possible in the artistic world to the scientific one.
Dodgy Geezer, clearly you are not a scientist, as you misunderstand the function of peer review. A peer reviewer does not ever ask an author to change things based on a difference of opinion. A peer reviewer’s role is to spot things such as statistical errors or to point out when something is unambiguously and indisputably factually inaccurate. A peer reviewer cannot ask for something to be changed simply because of a difference of opinion - and any author asked to make a change of that type would refuse to do so, and the editor of the journal would always back the author, not the reviewer, in that scenario.
The role of a peer reviewer is analogous to that of a proof-reader, but at a far higher level of complexity than simply proof-reading.
Dave
JD, you seem to be confusing genuine sceptical discourse, which is constantly taking place in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and attempts by lobbyists to deceive the public in order to promote an agenda. The Great Global Warming Swindle fell firmly in the latter category, yet it was billed as a science documentary.
The Press Complaints Commission (which regulates newspapers) and The BBC Trust have a requirement that fact-based programming should be fact-based, as did Ofcom’s predecessor, the ITC - but uniquely, Ofcom has decided that UK broadcasters other than the BBC have no such requirement and that their fact-based programmes can be as fraudulent as they wish, except in news programmes, or where specific harm can be demonstrated. That’s the issue, not censorship of opinions, but maintenance of journalistic standards. What is a standards regulator for if a minimum level of fact-checking in fact-based programmes is not a requirement?
Dave
Nick, you’re misunderstanding what Alex meant re. Ofcom’s ruling. Alex should have used the word “settled” rather than “proven”, but what he was referring to was the following statement in the ruling, which was the basis of Ofcom’s decision not to consider the film under rules 5.4 to 5.10 of the Broadcasting Code:
“In this respect it could be said that the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast … For example, while the link between HIV and AIDS was once questioned and could have been considered a matter of political controversy or relating to current public policy, the link is now generally accepted and in most circles is no longer a matter of debate that could be regarded as a matter of political or industrial controversy. In Ofcom’s view the link between human activity and global warming also became similarly settled before March 2007 … Therefore, in this case, Ofcom considers that the subject matter of Parts One to Four of the programme (i.e. the scientific theory of man-made global warming) was not a matter political or industrial controversy or a matter relating to current public policy.”
Ofcom ruling, pages 20-21
Dave
Re. the issue of journalistic standards and the difference between proper peer reviewed scientific debate and the irresponsible misrepresentation of facts in the media that often passes for media “debate” a good example that has nothing to do with climate change is covered at http://tinyurl.com/6xmn3g.
Hundreds of children are likely to die of measles as an indirect result of a media “debate” that was not based on facts but was agenda driven.
Dave
Sorry you have to strip the full stop from the previous link - or use this one: http://tinyurl.com/6xmn3g
Dave Rado,
you seem to be good at pointing out the “confusion” of others. Perhaos you can offer your own views??
incidentally, I have no idea if Dodgy Geezer is a scientist or not (and indeed you are right about peer review, sorry DG) but I get infuriated whenever I read “you’re clearly not a scientist” used as an ad hominem dismissal of somebody else’s point of view. I AM a scientist (PhD-level in a physical science) and to my shame have used that argument, even recently, but regret it. It devalues your point to use that approach. Many, competent, intelligent individuals can make a valuable contribution to this debate (and yes, it is still a debate) without formal scientific qualifications. If the science is wrong, point it out, correct it - play the ball not the man (/woman).
DMS
“The science is settled” is a truism only for two groups - (1) those, such as politicians who see AGW as a wonderful source of tax and control and those, such as mr Gore and rather a lot of less-than-ethical “scientists” who have a lot to gain from “the sky is falling” and (2) scientifically illiterate journalists who don’t understand the real science behind the subject.
For many “real” scientists, such as myself, the science is far from setled. The simple fact that the real world isn’t behaving as the models suggest that it should, might be a slight clue… Not one that would be followed up by a clueless journalist of course.
Pogo. PhD., BSc., LLB.