This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today


New Royal Society president explores Climategate in documentary

Climate researcher Phil Jones (left) discussing Climategate with Sir Paul Nurse

By James Dacey

At the end of November last year, the presidency of the UK’s Royal Society passed from cosmologist Martin Rees into the hands of the Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse. Heading the world’s oldest scientific academy brings a responsibility to uphold the organization’s grand aim “to expand the frontiers of knowledge by championing the development and use of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine for the benefit of humanity and the good of the planet.”

And Nurse, it seems, is wasting no time in grabbing his presidency by the reigns. Last night he appeared on UK television presenting an episode of the long-standing documentary series Horizon, entitled “Science under attack”. The hour-long show explored the public’s relationship with science, as influenced by the media, and it focused primarily on climate science and the rise of public scepticism.

Towards the beginning of the show, Nurse cited a recent poll that found nearly half of people in the US, and more than a third of Britons, believe that manmade climate change is being exaggerated. “It’s this gap between scientists and the public that I want to understand,” proclaimed Nurse, teeing up the show.

For the next 50 minutes or so, Nurse then visited a selection of players on either side of the debate. It was framed within the narrative of a personal journey: an eminently reasonable scientist who knows lots about the process of science but not the specifics of climate science. And to his credit, Nurse played his part exceptionally well, showing that science involves personalities and conflicts just like any other human activity.

Naturally, the show came to focus on “Climategate”, the controversy that erupted in November when internal e-mails between members of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK were leaked to the public. The main controversy blew up around an e-mail sent by the then CRU director Phil Jones to a colleague in which he referred to “Mike’s Nature trick”, describing the splicing of temperature data from direct and indirect sources.

“The [World Meteorological Organization] wanted a relatively simple diagram for their particular audience,” Jones explained to Nurse. When asked why he thought there had been such a huge reaction to the leaks, Jones is obviously still perplexed. “A number of the climate change sceptics or doubters or deniers, whatever you want to call them, just wanted to use these e-mails for their own purposes, to cast doubt on the basic science.”

Following his visit to UEA, Jones then paid a visit to a person firmly on the other side of the debate, James Delingpole, the online journalist who broke the “Climategate” story on his Telegraph blog. This led to the most captivating scene of the documentary when Nurse puts it to Delingpole that denying climate change is like ignoring the consensus medical view when choosing how to treat cancer.

Asking Nurse to change the topic, Delingpole retorts, “I think it’s very easy to caricature the position of climate change sceptics as the sort of people who don’t look left and right when crossing the road.” Adding that he “slightly resented” the way the analogy had been brought in.

UK viewers can watch the documentary at this link.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile


  1. Pedr ap Gwilym

    I saw Sir Paul’s mostly excellent programme. However, his apological approach to the climate scientists prognostications seemed to me to be just a trifle naive; at no time did I detect the mentioning of the funding situation where the sceptical climatologists (and they’re keeping their heads down to avoid the inevitable ‘denier’ scorn) get no funding to pursue their research. Also, the pointing out of row upon row of books of climate records goes no way to mitigate the East Anglian e-mail scandal. Just try and get hold of some data and see how easy it isn’t!
    That bloke in the US who had enough money to present a 3-D globe purporting to illustrate global warming just shows where funding is going. There are those in power who are determined to bring in Carbon Taxation, that should be enough to pay for this kind of gimmicky science.

  2. Geckko

    A very poor blog on this program.
    From the blind monkey treatment of the “hide the decline” issue [the undisclosed truncation of proxy data in temperature reconstruction] to that ludicrous straw man hypothetical about cancer (and you lampoon Delingpole for “changing the subject”) it was anti-science at its worst.
    Oh, by the way. The correct response to that puerile and patronising hypothetical “would you rather be treated by consensus medicine or medicine practiced by the quack fringe?” is:
    “I would prefer to have the treatment with proven eficacy. Whether that is “consensus” or not is immaterial to me. Why, what would you prefer?”
    Just think. Paul Nurse might have suffered sever medical complications of an ulcer even a couple of decades ago. A true sceptic (a climate sceptic) might have been an early adopter of the “quack”, but no accepted proper treatment.


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text