Science Under Attack

2011, Science  -   127 Comments
Ratings: 7.07/10from 54 users.

Science Under AttackNobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.

He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.

This is a passionate defense of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.

More great documentaries

127 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Splicing graphs is not a problem? Scientists not paid to promote the political agenda are not part of the "US scientists". NASA computer sims accepted as an accepted total data collective because their sim has clouds swirling around! I found this doco disappointing.

  2. I believe two things are lacking in our early educations that would change this situation considerably, that is, economics and anthropology. Monsanto was never mentioned, as has been noted above, and politically motivated and directed scientific funding certainly could have been mentioned. Religion was mentioned, a main source of ignorance if I may be so bold to speak out...... seriously there have been thousands of gods and goddesses created by humans, as well as thousands of creation myths. And the God of the Bible is real? Myth and religion have been with us as we evolved for thousands and thousands of years as small hunting and gathering groups who used belief as a prime way to achieve solidarity and identification within each group. Has this really changed now? Our minds are too small perhaps, and the data and scientific method have become too complex for us...... the average man can't begin to understand past his never ending payments for his house and car and toys, much less the psychology of the wealthy, except that winning, being 'right' is everything......... And I don't remember hearing that the genetic changes Monsanto and others are making are reversible, and once made there's no going back.

    Nor do I expect the human species to continue forever, science I don't think has faced that challenge yet. I think evolution is the most important concept regarding life yet discovered, a 'oneness' or 'continuity', but look at all the churches and belief systems that deny it. Take a serious look around and tell me that a 'Omnipotent, omniscient 'God' created anything so ridiculous as this world..... how or why? How could such be possible? Why would such Power create humans ignorant, only to die when they finally learn something? I digress......


  3. Maybe we should call it galactic warming instead of global warming since it's getting warmer on other planets in our solar system, too. I'm pretty sure the warming on Mars isn't due to big-ass SUVs either. Does that make me a conspiracy nut? Call me anything you like. I prefer truth instead of manipulation by the global elite who just want to steal people's money while soft-killing them to decrease the population.

  4. It's under attack because it's easier to make millions by pandering to peoples paranoia than it is to explain complex science to them.

    1. To any person who a genuine scientific or engineering talent we know that globull warming is a hoax.

      The reason why people are doubting science is because liberals are politicizing science with Globull Warming and corroding public trust in science.

      As always if there is a buck to be made liberals will diddle the knothole in pursuit!

    2. "To any person who a genuine scientific or engineering talent we know that globull warming is a hoax."

      that is nothing but Sheer delusion...98% of the entire scientific body disagrees with you.

      You wouldn't know genuine science if it slapped you in the face! You don't care about science, only party policy!

      the only thing corroding public trust is the propaganda campaign the far right put out to try and confuse and misinform people about science.

      there are GRADE SCHOOLERS who can debunk most of the nonsense the far right come out with these days.

      Please note i say far right because a lot of people on the right wing don't agree with you either, because contrary to popular belief, the right wing isn't entirely populated by m* just so happens that the m*rons are the loudest ones.

  5. Global warming & controversy over GMO's are nothing. 1-in-4 Americans thinks our star rotates around us. 60% believe in life after death and a cosmology that is mutually exclusive to evolution, disease, and most physics theories.

    But really, this began in earnest in the early 2000's. A new wave of intentional conflating of issues and false equivalency with the sudden boost for, "fair and balanced" reporting, which soon became "teach the controversy".

    1. Uh sorry but 1 in 4 Americans do not even contemplate the planets and the stars and thus any talk of they "having a theory" one way or another is ludicrous and made up to pretend there is some sort of "flat earth society" conspiring against your scam science called "Globull Warming"

    2. It was a poll by the Nat'l Science Foundation. They were asked to contemplate such things, and failed.

    3. Its hilarious how you point to the liberals politicizing science but then you use the political climate denial buzz words to attack the concept. The reality is just about all of the research against global warming is complete bs.

      For example there has been more sea ice covering the earth then 50 years ago up to modern day
      --true but none of it is glacial ice at the top and bottom of the earth that reflects 90% of the solar radiation that comes in directly back out to space. The sea Ice is actually helping magnify the effects of the heating, almost like a magnifying glass

      Also that stat was gained from a poll from a professional polling sites.

  6. this movie promote rational scientific study and the scientist do need to communicate properly to the public. However, this movie does not address scientific field corruption affected by the big corporation through alter their research and finding through research funding manipulation. I am upset about this movie for its inclination to protect the GMO scientists while it does not address why there are people protesting GMO. This one sided approach is not scientific per the principle indicated in this movie.

    1. people protest GMO because of superstitious paranoia.

      In every conceivable test that GMO's have been put through they've proven time and time again to be completely harmless.

      This of course doens't matter one iota to people who protest against amount of evidence will sway their opinions.

  7. these documentaries need to be clarified.
    science isn't under attack, americans are attacking science. sure, their rampant never ending internet vomit has infected a few outsiders but otherwise it's all local.
    the rest of the world doesn't debat, question, or wonder this stuff. it's only you, america. you have become your own science project - you are a people who're actually devolving.
    totally fascinating to watch by the way....

    1. That's a handy bit of prejudicial hogwash. Skepticism does science no harm.

      What's being glossed over here is a historical use of 'science' by powerful people to influence public opinion. The problem is, the public depends on media outlets to keep us informed of scientific progress. A slight emphasis here, an omission there, often at the behest of some special interest, and it is no longer science, yet it's still reported as such. How many times have we been given 'concrete' facts, only to be told later, "Oops, we were wrong" ?

      Science should not be treated as if it were omnipotent, incapable of error. It can and has been wrong. To paraphrase an old saw: What do they call a scientist who graduates with a C average?

      (the answer is 'a scientist')

      As an American, I prefer skeptical over gullible. Can we assume that you have empirical evidence to support your claim of America's single-handed corrupting of the internet?

      Have you been to America, or are you just regurgitating tribal nonsense passed along by other narrow-minded folks?

  8. nothing but propaganda, end of story

    1. i agree...the attacks on science are nothing but propaganda.

  9. so what did those scientists discover? that grass is green, water is wet and sky is blue? That there arent aliens? that vaccines are good? We evolved from monkeys? that mobile phones arent dangerous to one's health? World is divided into religious retards who swallow everything related to their imaginary friend and science retards who dont bother to research more than their "masters" said....

    1. i suppose you have evidence for your claims

    2. While I do agree with you on the issue of "religious retards," you are wrong in your claim that humans evolved FROM monkeys, but rather evolved from a common ancestor to monkeys, simians, and humans. Think about it.

  10. Mixing of science and politics is a slippery slope. This documentary in effect promotes sliding down that slope. This guy would make much better service to science if he were to take some time to consider how to separate science from politics and big business.
    I am a bit tired of people who claim the right to be 'speaking in the name of science', while pushing a dubious agenda.

  11. the guy makes this statement for being a passive accepter of anything that the government pushes trough their paid scientists, and these same paid scientists when questioned have not even looked at the data being shown from the so called "deniers".
    I question how good a scientist this bozo really is, where is the ice core data from vostock and the milankovitch cycles?
    They have lied to you in the past and will sure do it again, keep an open eye.

    1. Well, He's good enough to be a recipient of a Nobel prize and risen to a status of President of his country's academy of science. These accomplishments, and this of thousands of government sponsored scientists from fields ranging from medicine to cosmology, are well beyond the imagination or intellectual capacity of the quintessential AMerican tea party zealot or religious zealot who would rather spend his time picketing and protesting something that is misunderstood or poorly understood. This is an affront to humanity and a threat to it's future.

  12. great documentary.

  13. It is crazy to argue that our world doesn't go through normal cycles of warming and cooling. It's a fact. However it is even crazier to defend our systematical abuse and destruction of our environment and rescources.
    We have poisened our oceans and waters, deforrested and raped the lands, and polluted our skies. This is not the clean world our ancestors lived and flourished in. It will continue to get worse if we do not make an effort to stop it.
    Regardless of whether the global warming is caused or increased by us, I see no reason to debate the fact that we are like a parasites attacking our earth. What we have done to this beautiful planet is a shame.
    We cannot and will not ever kill this planet, but when we have damaged and destroyed it enough, it will turn on us, and kill us.
    Then, it will recover in it's own time, to it's former glory, without our help.
    I for one, would be willing to help in any way that I could, to do away with harmful practices.
    But then being poor with no monetary incentives to lose, it is much easier for me to accept what needs to be done, than the money hungry individuals that care not what damage they cause, as long as it turns a profit.
    Science and physics hold answers that are not appealing to our corporate and world leaders, or the banks who control them.
    Watch out, the planet will eventually take it's little yellow rock (gold) back from your dead cold fingers.

    1. We just forgot a tensy weensy little detail, in the west , our spirit; And by that i mean spiritual inspiration. Altered states. Meditation, dancing for three days, Sensory deprivation, sweat lodges, Mushrooms-- they all lead to the same place. Just drink Ro-Di water and eat right-- you will at least have your dreams. It's not like the link was easy to sever, it took the worst democide in history with over 30 million deaths during the middle ages to accomplish it. You can believe this inspiration is all in your head. It makes no difference as long as you get the message. If you got the message you wont act insane.

  14. We are the problem. We as individuals. We may only advance through scientific knowledge of our selves as part of one system. We are individually accountable. But perhaps it's not possible - or even desirable - to advance alone. I agree with A.C. Grayling that the scientific method is the greatest human advance, and yet science alone cannot make good society. Good society may be one with arts that express the science of human connection. Perhaps this will be an ethical society.

  15. I think the real problem is a sense of entitlement and 'fairness' in the general public that facilitates a) a mind set of being entitled to strong opinions on everything, and b) the fallacy that all sides of an argument ought to be weighted equally.

  16. Actually there are gaps and holes in evolutionary theory, the reason it is used is because there is not better competing theory, or we have not yet discovered the gaps and holes in the evolutionary theory.
    This is not to say we throw it out, it is to say that we need to learn more to make it better. At one point Lamarkian evolution appeared to make perfect sense, and we used it because we did not have a better theory, then Darwinian evolution arrived and we changed because it was better, since then we have adapted Darwinian evolution as we learnt more from genetics and fossils.

    Many theories are incomplete and require adjustments at extremes. This is an indication that the theory is not accurate, but we do not have better and since what we have works then we use it.

    A poor scientist believes we have discovered everything about a subject.

    1. No, darwinian evolution is fact it has been proven again and again and is the driving force behind the diversity of life. also lamarkian evolution is actually being proven somewhat true as well in epigenetics which says that what effects someone in there life may have an effect on the next generation, even before they are born.
      darwins theory really hasn't been adapted in fact genetics has proven that what he said was incredibly intuitive and correct.

      Of course we don't know everything about the mechanism of all genes but we are getting closer and everything related to evolution has totally validated darwin.

    2. As a student of the sciences you hit it dead on and the guy below just hasn't learned enough about the subject to have the ethos to comment. Not that what he said is not true about "evidence," but his attack on you was a complete fallacy and with the proper education and "evidence" he would not attack you, but rather agree with you. He argues you did not use "theory" as in "scientific theory," but your definition above is a perfect definition and is a paraphrase of the textbook definition in my Physical Anthropology text I am currently reading.

      That flag needs to be removed!

  17. Since when has real science needed defending, the truth will stand on its own. If it faulters with criticism, great! You evolutionist should rejoice. Real science can replicate a coffie pot. Science based on theory (perhaps, maybe, possiblely, etc.) and a pile of bones seperated by million of years, with yearly revisions, should be attacked for what is is. Goto a used book store and lookup old encylopedia's ... the story keeps changing ... yet you cry when people fail to believe the next line of crap.

    1. You have simply no idea what you are talking about.

      You wrote:
      "Science based on theory (perhaps, maybe, possiblely, etc.) and a pile of bones seperated by million of years, with yearly revisions, should be attacked for what is is. "

      A) "Theory"

      Evolution by natural selection is not a theory in the sense you are using it. It is a scientific theory. It is based on logic reasoning from the beginning to the end and this reasoning was tested both logically and in the real world (on whose observation it was build in the first place). And guess what: There is such an immense amount of evidence and no single exception. If their were an exception then there would immediately be the need for a new theory despite the fact that all of modern biology and genetics is based on Darwin's theory.

      B) The evidence

      Not only are their "bones seperated by million[s] of years". Even your comment on fossil record is wrong. It already is big evidence for evolution because every fossil found in an earlier time is an evolutionary predecessor of fossils in a more recent geological formation. There has never been found any exception (like mammals in the Cambrian or birds that are older than dinosaurs etc.) And only one exception such exception would be enough to DISproof Darwin. So the fossil record is a huge(!) evidence FOR evolution.

      And of course there are a lot of other kinds of evidence like DNA analysis (which for all the species proofs evolution by natural selection without any exception), the distribution of animals on (isolated) islands, you can watch evolution by ARTIFICIAL selection in human life time (like fox breeding in Russia or dog breeding) and you can also watch NATURAL selection on living beings were evolution works fast enough (e.g. bacteria and some kinds of fish). I'm not even a biologist and know so much evidence that you simply can't deny evolution is true.

      Now go search the web and books and museums for the evidence. It's all there, you just have to open your eyes.

    2. I have a theory based on the substance of your post that you are a narrow minded religious zealot. I also theorize, in a speculative sense, that based upon the grammatical and spelling errors in your post, that you perhaps did not progress very far in your formal education. That being said, science, as a progressive discipline, is based on theory where "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

      So science is based on the best evidence of the time until, or unless, another theory based on empirical or observational evidence, comes along and topples it. There are many theories that you have heard of that I am sure that you do not have a problem with, the theory of gravity, for example, or germ theory. I am sure, however, that based on religious dogma, you have issues with the theory of evolution, in spite of the fact that there is now over 150 years of peer reviewed evidence from the fossil record to molecular biology that Darwin and Wallace were right.

    3. @perfectarc: I have a theory based upon the substance of your post that:
      1) you are bored and looking for entertainment if you attack someone regarding something they posted over two years ago.
      2) You are narrow minded if you believe someone is a religious zealot simply for their ability to question the validity of the latest scientific claims.
      P.S: Carrying a FOX news logo for your handle does not inspire confidence intellectually in anything that may follow. (the stupidity of FOX news and its punditry is already legendary worldwide, except in the U.S where its propaganda is a mainstream diet)

    4. Well I hope that after two years that you understand the difference between a scientific theory and conjecture. If you look carefully you will see some detail in the Fox logo that you overlooked.....

    5. @perfectarc: If you take note, I wasn't the one you had responded to originally, and yes, I do understand the difference.
      I do like your small print, that is after I was able to pull it up, and look with a magnifying glass just to read it. Perhaps you may want to bold the letters, so others are do not misconstrue the nature of your brand recognition as I did. (that is why it is called a logo - hey, how about McDonalds, it might go with your name) Take care, and best wishes!

    6. fair enough

  18. Crackpot scientist and education community have been ripping taxpeyers off with this BS global warming for years and it is time it stops. It is a scheme to create these fictional end-of-the-world issues to scare the public.

    1. Timothy Hooker is yet another example of how science deniers & religious zealots speak with such arrogance about issues they literally know nothing about! The problem is they are fed all this BS on Talk Radio & FOX "News" they really do think they know what they are talking about which is sad in way but I do not feel any pity for them as their utter ignorance & gullibility is destroying the planet & destroying our politics.

    2. kind of like the second coming of jesus? where only good god fearing christians are take into heaven.... wait no there is no evidence for that. Yet there is clear evidence for global climate change.

  19. When science conflicts with social or political ideology, attack in inevitable. Inducing doubt in the ignornat or lazy on science, an ajenda can be succesful.

  20. Bad science doesn't work. If you alter a calculation, your space ship blows up. If you argue that evolution doesn't happen then you can't adjust your vaccines for growing viral immunity. If you must attack science, then attack the way it is used, that is the place for error.

    As for this video, I agree the the majority of it. I have some issues with the genetic engineering section, not because of some idiotic paranoia about its safety but because they fail to mention that under the current system these super crops are patented and tightly controlled. Those with super crops will inevitable drive those without them (i.e. independent farmers) out off business (excepting those who enter into the "organic food" niche) and have total monopoly of agriculture.

    1. The problem with this is super crops are an invasive species and patent or not it will spread and cannot be "tightly controlled." The organic foods are vulnerable to extinction because of the invasive nature of GMO's

  21. Science has lost it's way, because it is no longer driven by a wish or a dream to benefit humanity, or the earth. Science has served to Ostracize the freedoms of people to a state which resembles something more akin to a world in Logans Run, creating anger and bitterment, as well as paranoia, things which are consequences of technological advancement which is not for the benefit of mankind, but a means to control, and like a caged animal, there are repercussions in trying to exercise such control over a species which fundamentally require freedom.

    Unfortunately Science today is also under the very same controls it helped to create, scientists also need to be free, some even think they are.

  22. I have a feeling that about climate change specifically, people are more likely to believe what takes the responsibility off of them. as long as they can keep driving their suv's and cranking the air conditioning they won't believe that their behavior is causing the climate to change.

    1. I may be a bit older than you (I'm 70) but I can't remember a time when the climate wasn't changing. Yes it's true the oceans are rising but then they've been doing that since the end of the last ice age (and will probably continue to rise till the beginning of the next one). As for the planet dying off due to higher temperatures, it was hotter during the Medieval Warm Period and we got through that just fine (we flourished then as matter of fact).

      Everyone is so concerned that corporations might be funding climate change denial. I often wonder why no one is worried that the government is funding big government enthusiasts who argue for a carbon tax (potentially the biggest tax in history).

    2. so... you're proving my point?
      how easy it is to just brush it off that 'the climate is changing all the time' as long as you're not inconvenienced or take no blame. too bad creationists aren't so blase about transitional fossils, and that we're evolving all the time - we could cut a lot of bs out if that were the case.

      yes, good for you, the climate is always in a state of flux. we live on an unstable world, tilted on a little axis, and vulnerable to all sorts of stimuli that change around us. however, under normal pressures animals and plants have some time to adapt (though some don't survive), and the cycles are what 10000 - 20000 years? we've raised the temp quicker in the last 80-100 years than probably any other time in history, just short of the Siberian Traps erupting. Cute that you forget that there weren't enough peasants farting in the medieval warm period to keep the climate increasing, seeing as though they weren't driving cars, flying in planes, or burning metric tons of natural gas and coal.

      Yeah, let's make it warmer, wait a few years... it's coming.

      Regardless of age we should have the responsibility of leaving a better world for the people that come next. If you think we can continue to cr@p in our own nest without feeling the results you're delusional.

      oooh you must be a teabagger! omg, the biggest tax in HISTORY? who told you that, glen beck?
      boo hoo, a tax. if you don't like tax, go live in Somalia. see how far that gets you.

      If you're more worried about a tax than you are about the planet's future, there's nothing I can do for you.

  23. Why even waste time on trying to understand why people attack science? Put some money and effort into doing something about the problems instead, and try to promote education.

    1. Throwing money at a problem is not a solution in any way shape or form. It takes wisdom and a complete emendation of the status quo. You can only promote as much education you are able to share before the powers oppress what does not fit their agenda.

  24. The problem today with science is that it has been more and more privatized out of the hands of the common good. Most financing or fundings come from corporation and private owned banks. This creates a conflict of interest between profit making and the people, the common good. It has become more and more obvious that this causes serious problems of interest. More and more scientist become like politicians prostituting themselves to get financing. This financing will come with a string attached. Worse that politics perpetuates the current economical model which does not favor the common good. As economist Manfred Max-Neef states so clear "The people serve the economy, not the economy the people." Science is the most powerful discovery by humanity to understand reality. Unfortunately scientist are unable to understand the reality and consequence of financial interests.

  25. Intelligent design is not science. There is not controversy. Evolution science has been put to the test time and time again for the last 150 years and has still survived, while "ID" is trying to find (without success) scientific proof. Lets see how long it survives the test of time.

  26. i would say not to be gullible or cynical of science...pose questions answers...bad science is causing alot of people to die too, eg. the tobacco conspiracy, vaccine contraversy, misuse of antibiotics, cell phones, use of drugs that cause cancer to avoid pregnancy or treat skin problems

  27. I have seen many posts that try to differentiate the terms of denial and skeptical, which is true. But there is also a difference between being skeptical and being cynical. Skepticism requires that you are open to the possibility of the theory being true, not just a distrust of science in general.

    I think this was the basic point that this documentary was trying to make. It's not that we shouldn't be skeptical of science, in fact it requires us to be skeptical. But we shouldn't be cynical of it.

  28. I am a fan of science. This however seemed more like propaganda.

    The way forward is simple. Governments institute non profit making scientific programs. A GM crop is produced that provides crop benefits? Marvelous. Give the farmers those seeds. Cancer / HiV cured - produce the Meds - marvelous.

    I`m all in favour of making these scientists celebrities / heroes and indeed VERY very rich but the reality is these scientists are unsung heroes. Corporations are making Billions upon billions instead. And ransoming the populace.

    Simple solution? Honest politics. Real laws. Corporate /Banking dissolution, stop all illegal wars.

    1. Propaganda? This documentary is just trying to illustrate the fact that propaganda, political and socio-economical issues skew science in the media, the main source of science for the general public. Honest politics seems pretty idealist, the way forward put simply is in the responsibility of scientists to back up and argue for their scientific research, we need to go back to the empirical data and not allow political and economic agenda to intrude on science today.

    2. Empirical data now includes the current science with all it's corruption. Oh did you hear according to the US Supreme Court, "The tomato is a vegetable?"

    3. yeah, that was back in the 1890s when the tomato, in common parlance, was referred to as a vegetable.

    4. The governments are owned and administered by the corporations with their own agenda to maintain and gain as much control and power as they can. When you have everything in the world, what more is to gain other then the freedom of others? Yes the scientists are being knocked down by these governments and corporations. The ones getting rich are the ones willing to sell their souls and be dishonest for the $. If you do not meet their agenda you simply will not make it that far unless you are ignorant enough to "wake up" after already knee deep in sewage.

  29. I found it somewhat surprising how Sir Paul Nurse kept underlining the importance of a holistic look at the data but seems to forget this when discussing GM Foods.

    OK, so you might be able to ward off a fungal infection by arming the plants with the antidote, temporarily. But you won't wipe out the infection by doing this, on the contrary, you're bound to have it come back bigger and badder.

    I can't help but worry about possible parallels with antiobiotics. Penicillin overuse by humans and "pre-emptive" dosages for animals we eat (or used to ;) have stimulated nature's struggle for life and spawned these super-resistant bacteria.
    I don't see the point in accelerating the pace in which nature fights back.

    And antibiotics at least have an immense upside: they have cured people of terrible diseases for decades now.
    What does GM Food have to offer and in whose interest?

    It seems to me to be little more than an ardent battle between corporations to patent and monopolize what we eat.

    But if you have a valid argument in favor of GM foods, I'll be glad to hear it.

  30. @robyn - wise and constructive!

    Nevertheless knowing the cause might very well help to address the problem more properly.
    Some scientists claim that there's not enough (or significant) data to draw a conclusion. i don't want to ignore the problem, i just understand that over the centuries climate has changed a lot, and keeps changing in cycles.

    Regardless of the conclusion we reach in the future, we surely shouldn't be plundering the planet as we do, but in my understanding that's a whole different subject!

  31. @robyn


  32. My problem with the climate warming debate is not ‘what’ is causing it, but it is in fact happening; and those people who have the authority and influence to address it, are instead engaged in a debate of whether it is man-made or not. It is a crisis-in-the-making that requires mankind to alter its collective view of how we have lived on this planet and how we use its resources.

    No matter who or what caused global warming, the damaging effects are potentially devastating. The spruce bark beetle is raising havoc with the white spruce tree in Alaska with its two year life cycle reduced to one year in the southern part of the state because of the warmer temperatures, resulting in the devastation of more than 3 million acres of white spruce trees in ten years. The loss of Arctic ice sheets that the polar bear uses for hunting seals will drive the bears southward, into more populated areas; and NASA computer models predict the lost ice sheets will negatively impact winter wheat production in Kansas by raising the temperatures by 4 degrees in the winter and summer wheat production will suffer from soil moisture loss.

    If we truly are intelligent, and intelligence is an evolutionary asset, we, the inhabitants of Earth, need to stop this unproductive senseless debate and start addressing problems instead of accusations.

    GM food in and of itself may not be such a bad thing; in the hands of corporations like Monsanto, it may not be a good thing either: Watch the doc. ‘Patent for a pig’.

    Whether HIV causes AIDS is another useless debate. If the Science shows it is…put the resources in that direction. People are always going to defend their lifestyle; it is part of who we are. The U.S. defends its high resource consumption, the Chinese defend their growing economy, and Third World Countries like Africa will defend their lifestyle as well. I view the planet Earth as a living organism and pandemics like AIDS are a sign it is being stressed by overpopulation. Instead of over harvesting the Oceans, and raising fish for consumption in non-draining ponds which become saturated with PCB’s and other contaminants, to feed an ever increasing population, address the overpopulation problem.

    As far as Science being under attack, personally I think it is well deserved; it has gone from a discipline of observation, experimentation and repetition to gather knowledge and useful facts for others to build upon, to a business of profiteering by unscrupulous corporations and a platform for opposing theory generation. Savvy marketing executives have misused and misrepresented scientific findings to further their profits through advertising campaigns to the point that the general public doesn’t know what to believe anymore. I think we have become so sophisticated in our technologies and ability to manipulate Human behavior that we need to separate some disciplines of Science into distinct parts; fact finding and Theory generation. In the long run I think this will bring some lost credibility back and put the brakes on the manipulation of and over theorizing the ‘facts’.

  33. and BTW NASA should launch a thermo-meter into moon so that we could see some temperature data near earth but at the same time outside the earth's athmosphere too..

  34. Seems like this doc is mostly about global warming issue.. My opinion is that the scientist should look more at other planets changes too. I mean the ice-caps on Mars are shrinking too since the 1970s, windspeeds and clouds have changed on other planets and their moons, indicating that there's changes on temporatures too.. So it must be the sun, but then there's the thing that everything doesn't add up, even if we look at only sun's activity.. Well how much do we know about the magnetic fields in space and about the dark matter itself? Weird that those NASA guys almost never talk about it. Now that's what I think is thinkin INSIDE the box. In many issues sciense just don't reach the people because they show some graphs and numbers that doesen't mean anything for a common people.. Like if I tried to explain evolution-theory to somebody, I don't show them some DNA-strucktures and shit.. Myself, I understood that evolution is a fact, when I looked a document about some cave animals when I was a teenager and I was wondering that why those species, living in a cave, still had like "holes" in places where the eyes should be. Think about it.. Nature wouldn't make those holes in their skulls for no reason.

    1. try not to conflate so many issues. How are the ice caps on Mars related to climate change and anthropogenic shift in climate on Earth. And, from an atmospheric physics analysis, solar cycles only account for small variations in insolation, 0.12 watts per M sq, if fact. So, it is definitely NOT the Sun.

  35. Scientific research can never be done objectively because the people backing the research are only interested in political and monetary gain. As soon as any evidence surfaces that could cause the financial backers of the research to lose money or political leverage the funding is pulled, the scientists loose their jobs and, in a lot of cases, they have their reputations ruined. Science has become a tool used by 1% of the world population to control the other 99%.

    The other tool the rich use to control the poor is religion. We live in society where people are either are expected to believe that they will be punished eternally or that they are contributing to the end of the human race if they don't follow along with what they being told. Pick your poison; The common theme is that fear is a very effective way of controlling people.

  36. We can't trust politician to be unbaised.
    We don't expect religious leaders to be unbaised.
    We expect a point of view from philosphers.
    We don't get fair reporting from our press.
    We are indoctrinated in our universities.

    I always considered science to be above all that. The one place where only facts and method would produce unbaised truth. I no longer think that to be the case.
    Science has degenerated into dogma.

  37. 1. The essential questioning of scientific inquiry is often difficult for the layman to accept. When a scientist says "We don't know" s/he usually forgets to add: "yet". That is not easy for a non-scientist to accept.

    2. Too often scientists have made serious mistakes upon which were based a theory or treatment program, only to discover later how badly they erred. Examples: Thalidomide, the so-called "Scientific" era in educational theories and the drying up of the Huleh Valley in Israel to combat Malaria, for instance.

    3. Genetically enhanced food products appear today to be a great discovery - in this case the potato to fight a specific bight. How many years will it take to discover that perhaps it has other, detrimental side effects on the human body? Not all of us are so unaware as to think that foods don't have genes!

  38. Whoops, I meant "agree" with you more..

  39. @ Epicurus

    I could not garee with you more brother, good post.

  40. Beginning at 15:15 we hear from a NASA scientist. I like that he says that people are worried that the details of the temperature record and the details of the carbon dioxide record don't match up and to look at the big picture. Science is all about the details providing the evidence of an occurance. If the details don't fit, the conclusions don't fit either.

  41. It could would should may or might = it does not.
    unless it's a liberal/commie/religious issue then,
    It could would should may or might = it does.
    funny how that works.

  42. You probably don't remember the seed depository in Iceland. Stocked with as many different seeds from around the world. Do you think those seeds are for us? We are being fed the GM foods for some reason that we may only know when it is too late.

    Regarding climate change, carbon dioxide levels have been shown in the past to raise AFTER the temperature has risen due to the release of that gas from a warmer ocean but this takes some 300 years to occure. We shouldn't have to worry about our carbon output since oil souces are now on the decline world wide. Plant life should be able to absorb the current levels and reoxygenate the planet if we stop polluting the water supplies and seriously begin reforesting.

    Even as late at WWII, hemp rope and other hemp products were used everywhere. This is a fast growing plant with little need to fertilize or spray pesticides on and can be used for so many things. The problem is patents. Dow chemical holds the exclusive rights to the chemicals used to make paper and by changing the chemical slightly can continue to hold those patents forever. Hemp paper is cheaper, stronger and non-polluting but also unpatentable so no single company could profit directly by its use.

    This holds true for Monsanto. As long as they hold the patents on their seed and that seed can contaminate any farm in the world, they can and are trying to control all plant growth worldwide. I would hazard a guess that the major stock holders also own part or all of the world bank.

  43. part of the reason we have so much nonsense about is nicely encapsulated in the the episode wherein the hack-writer (the fellow, you may recall, taking credit for saving western civilization) lecturing a nobel prize winner & sitting president of the royal academy of science on the proper methodolgy of science.

    he quite clearly fails to realize that he, like many of his kind, is a presumptuous, negligent, malignant, ignorant, clamoring ass.

    he derides consensus, then bristles when dr. nurse shows the phoniness of the criticism.

    i know one of the people who was involved in the leaked e-mails. he's a drop-out from a philosophy graduate program. he's a very bright & clever pretender to knowledge regarding climate science.

    dr nurse got onto the root of the problem. there is no weighting of information by quality (expert peer-review - there is no substitute, no short-cut) on the internets, in the medias.

    we have the technology now -mainly- to lie faster and broader; to opine based upon, in large part, our previous opine-ions, to organize our biases into pre-positioned blog ghettos, to get our news safely filtered ahead of time, according to our preference, which has little to do with the facts of the matter, as also clearly demonstrated.

    roger bacon r.i.p. (just kidding - science will survive, because it works, and the truth will out, on matters of science at least)

  44. Decent documentary but the end was a little half staff.
    I was disappointed about how he brushed off the dangers of GMOs, he then says people don't want genes in their food, like they don't know anything about genes...
    I mean come on, he just used the craziest idea to make it look like only fools are afraid of GMOs. The real problem with GMOs are the risk of unintended consequences like cross contamination of genetic materials through pollination that carry a seed terminator gene to prevent spread of a patented genotype or multi-generational side effects . Monsanto has lawyers ready to take your farm if they find that you kept seed with their roundup ready genetics. We must continue and accelerate research into GMOs but it is imperative we move forward with the utmost of caution. The plant genetics we have around the world are our living treasures we cant risk losing them because someone can make more money from GMOs. We also need a backup plan for plant species genetics that has multiple redundancies to keep a bank of our current world genetics. I guess it could be summed up lets learn to crawl before we try to walk, and I cant imagine the risk of trying to run... Moore's law is increasing our extensional risk every day, we must be responsible as our technology grows more powerful.

  45. Interestingly, he doesn't go into the issue that HIV might not cause aids trhough close scrutiny of the evidence. Because what that dude says is true, HIV does not cause aids, please watch the documentary HIV = AIDS? which is also on this website. That documentary thoroughly arguments that HIV could not be the cause of AIDS because of different simple scientific principles of viral infection which is not characteristic of AIDS, so aids could not be an viral infection, period. Anyway, just watch the documentary

  46. I do not indict Science for the abuses of knowledge that have always degraded it.As in "Frankenstein" and Godzilla,we learned that science is to be feared and mistrusted.Powers rightfully tha providence of God,wreak terrible cosequenses when Man presumes to wield them.It is Evil incarnate.
    Silly as that is,we often still see this inherent mistrust manipulated by corporate might and politicians to achieve their agenda.Genetic food technology is not Satan,but the total monopolization of a global food supply is terrifying.
    Medical research and climatic research are noble,but the profit potential and political control they exert through inciting fear,panic,and desperation of misinformed propagandized ,mass- media-saturated society is souless and heinous....I am reminded of Oppenheimer's terrible remorse,
    "I am become Death..The Destroyer of Worlds"

  47. you people all entirely missed the point.

    the climate change data is undeniable regardless of any political input. the data shows that humans have a strong impact on the speed of our climate shift. of course there will be political groups with interest in this that try and use the data to support their ideals.

    the point here is to show the DATA.

    of course monsanto is doing some very bad things with their genetically modified seeds and the trademarking of them. however the benefit of GMO is very real. all politics aside it is a beneficial field to look at in order to feed people living in places where food doesnt grow abundantly. genetically modified food has saved more than a billion lives. the political groups that have attached to this science is certainly an issue but that is not what Sir Paul Nurse was showing in this doc. just like with global warming. the facts are what matters.

    you can cry about government taxing your carbon and try and make an excuse that the science is fraudulent.....prove it. that is the great thing about science.

    one important part of this documentary was when he was explaining to the climate change skeptic that the goal for many scientists is to overturn the prevalent view. that is how you get the most recognition. to think scientists are all just agreeing with political interest to get money shows you really dont know how much scientists get paid lol. they would get A LOT more funding if they could prove the majority wrong.

    you guys can keep arguing about the political interests, but maybe you should just coldly asses the data.

    you are all the reason this documentary had to be made and are all a perfect example of why people are so afraid of science. it interferes with their ideals and interests.

  48. The more I think about this film the more empty it seems. It failed or refused to do the one thing it was saying it should be doing: Informing the people as to the evidence about anthropogenic global warming.

    Instead it tried to sell us on the inherent trustworthiness of Scientists. Instead of facts we got pretty pictures and cool visual models. As if to say those clever enough to produce such, are surely cleaver and worthy of our trust. Becoming dewy eyed while holding the Pricipia and a signed copy of The O of S have no bearing a person’s veracity.

    As well Sir Paul Nurse is presumably a biologist of some kind, not a climate scientist. Being a scientist does not make him, de facto, expert enough to judge the rightness or wrongness on a subject outside of his own discipline. He like we need to look at the details.

    At heart this is a propaganda tool as it is merely a long example of the argument from authority.

  49. oh wait there is one corporation i can think of. Thats GE who is working with the US government having laws put in place to help them out while they produce these energy effecient products which is fine but not when you get the government to place laws that say you will be fined if you do not own this product or one exactly like it. GM owned by US government same thing. There is even a GAS GUZZLER tax, I saw it on the sticker of a FORD GT 500, but GM makes the CHEVY CAMARO that has 426 hp. Government has no business being in the private sector especially when they profit of the products they sell and still charge a tax on that product.

  50. first of all it isnt the corporations doing the study on climate change its the government paying for it. Not one scientist has any evidence of it being completely man made. yes we have an effect on it but it is so miniscule, on top of what the earths enviroment was like before man and that it actually is a cycle. The only evidence we have theorized on was the abundance of the clouds causing it. Its the same story with steroids, all of theses doctors say its bad and the government makes them illegal but none have anything to show for it. watch bigger stronger faster.

  51. WHY,in a documentary about our climate and global warming is there not ONE mention of all the aerosol spraying being done by 1000's of aircraft everyday?
    These aircraft are having a DRAMATIC effect on our climate---they are creating massive amounts of haze which is BRINGING DOWN THE TEMPERATURES!!
    Now,are these scientists that insist on global warming oblivious to these aerosol operations?? Is NASA?? I find that impossible to believe. And until these scientists and NASA come forward and admit this is being done,they will NEVER be able to convince people of global warming,because temperatures are going down now,not up!!And the reason they are going down is because of all of these planes and their non stop cloud creation.
    As long as this isnt dealt with,These scientists who are trying to convince people that global warming is happening(And it is)will remain in the impossible situation of trying to tell people that the earth is getting warmer,while at the same time temperatures are going dOWN as a result of the aerosol spraying. Its ludicrous.
    And I'm sorry,all of you folks that think aerosol spraying isnt happening,you need to LOOK UP---and you'll see that it is.You'll also see that the results of this spraying are hazy skies and LOWER TEMPERATURES.
    And for those of you who know the "Aerosol spraying" is taking place and yet doubt global warming is taking place,ask yourself this---if there is no global warming,why would these planes be making all these clouds???
    Wow,no WONDER people are confused,and no wonder so many people think global warming is bullshit.

  52. well, for the most part I agree with Sir Paul Nurse. But there are too many cross issues that conflict with the standard scientific view. But first, I am completely with Sir Paul on climate change. However, on the issue of GMO's: First, I am not convinced that eating GMO food is bad, so eating this food hasn't yet proven to be a problem, the issue is this: ARE GMO FOODS GOOD for the health of the soil? and good for the health of the crop species? The issues are far too complex to be addressed in a simple little documentary. There is that old adage: "if it's not broke, don't fix it." The reason the GMO products are "fixed" is not to end hunger, but to decrease the cost of commodities on the market. The more commodities available the less the farmer makes in profit and that means more money for the Monsantos of the world. This concept of PROFIT MOTIVE has proven to be far more powerful than the SCIENCE. This is a real problem. Take a look at the big picture...The GMO products are promoted by the company selling the seed, so the data we get from said company could be altered in order to increase profits. Yes, the company has the potential to lie in the process of increasing profits and this puts the whole issue up in the air. Now chances are no one will get killed by eating GMO foods, but the topsoil may be depleted and devastated. If such happens then a big corp like Monsanto would just go the next set of farmers and exploit them. For farmers this isn't about arguing the science, it is THE SOCIAL SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS that is the problem.

  53. The problem with global warming and such like, is that science isn't a useful indicator.

    The reason in my simple estimation is that any models you create to analyse data are always going to contain some sort of bias.

    For instance if I wanted to make a simple equation that gave me an indication of how long it would take for human population growth to outstrip available arable land for food production.

    The I would factor in only such variables that made my equation work. And I could then say look! we only have x amount of time left! and paint a very scary picture.

    But then someone else might say but you haven't factored in realistic death rates or the potential increase in yield from gm crops or the increase in energy production from renewables nuclear/ whatever...

    and so the debate goes on, mountains of data which can be interpreted in whatever way you want and Politicians and the media pick whatever theory suits their particular bias.

    Meanwhile the public are left in a state of perpetual bemusement / disinterest scepticism or total fear and even radicalisation.

    Our problem as I see it is that the media Politicians and big business have all gotten into bed with one another.

    Which is great for them no doubt, but I sense an almighty **** storm is brewing...

  54. @Cabaret
    to mention JFK in the same sentence as reptiles & hollow earth shows how ignorant of the facts (not as a person!) you are & how you lack common sense in being able to discern events as they unfold before your very eyes. This ignorance is typical of those who are in denial of what is taking place right before them. In 100 years people will look back in time & will laugh at how blind you & your like were, though I am laughing at you all now. So open your eyes & take a look around you, it's no longer conspiracy that there is a grab for global power, it's admitted openly & the fruits of their labour is there for all to see as the global economy implodes by design under the direction of the IMF, World Bank, Wall Street & to a lesser degree the UN.

    Try doing a bit of true research yourself instead of just blindly accepting the mainstream view point, educate yourself & broaden your horizons then come back here with an informed opinion rather than your regurgitated biased waffle.

  55. @Cabaret

    You know I think it should be a requirement that if someone drops the conspiracy theory line at least drop it where its relevant. No one has mentioned a cabal of organised climatologist's.


    For anyone who doesn't have the patience of throwing water on Similar ostriches, I offer you a counter term, it will save you thinking time just like the term conspiracy theory does.

    "life is a conspiracy."

    deal with it.

    And for a genuine conspiracy theory lets just say :

    "This is clearly a bat shit insane crock of hotch potch."

    And to close, a succinct one liner from wiki:

    Conspiracy theory was originally a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy.

    N.B Even the Milk man could conspire against you! How many times have you conspired against someone else?

  56. I hated how non-specialists in a particular field have zero knowledge of the matter, and attempt to judge the validity of the body of knowledge reached by the community of specialist all in the name of "free" and "open". These people are no different than cracks.

  57. I'm surprised conspiracy theorists haven't yet connected this with alien reptiles, hollow earth, JFK, the moon landing hoax, and the ever-so-popular Illuminati.

    A cabal of highly-organized climate scientists from all around the world out to purposely deceive the public in a vast conspiracy... please, there's a word for that, it's called being delusional, and it leads to paranoia about all sorts of things that don't necessarily add up. You can make all sorts of guilt by association connections, but it doesn't make it true. Six Degrees of Bacon.

    And peer-review journals are important. It's how the Scientific Method gets played out -- as a non-scientist, at least I even know that.

    It's like people who post on astronomy websites about their "version" of string theory or how black holes "actually" work when they don't know anything beyond long division. (watch how good I'm at cutting and pasting "facts" from non-scientific blogs!)

    BTW, the Ozone Layer was fabricated by NASA scientists so they could take away my CFC aerosol canisters I used to like huffing so much.

  58. "i am an interpreter of interpretations"..

    Have you all ever heard of a childhood game called "grapevine"? i remember a teacher who had us play in the fourth grade almost forty years ago. We had a few lines of 5 students, and she would whisper a sentence in the first child's ear, and it got passed along in whispers to every child in line until the last; the last child had to repeat what they were told out loud. She then would tell us the original sentence, and it never had any resemblance to what it turned into by the end of the line. Interpreter of interpretations that is credibility:)
    When you question what is going on right in front of us: depletion of resources, desertification of previously fertile land, topsoil depletion, fresh water depletion and toxification; how the hell can you doubt that our climate is changing? What the scientists do wrong is behave far too politely. i suppose people would be much more likely to believe the science if they focused on scaring the shit out of us all.

  59. why use a scientist to investigate something that opposes science?!
    way to go bbc - youre showing your true colors now!

    and yet they claim to be unbiased!! its abhorrent....

  60. Good doc, and Although he does bang his climate change hammer, I think he is perfectly entitled to.

  61. It is the bible-freaks that have the agenda to disprove global warming because they believe that "God" gave all the plants and animals to man to do as he wishes. So if it hurts the planet, that goes against "God's word".

  62. @Phillip

    lol you honestly think that big corporations have no influence on scientific research?


  63. Youce got to be kidding, Mr Nasa here with his 'ohw, fossil fuel produces a stagering 8 gigatons of dioxide" yeah, correct, but 1 gigaton for vulcanos doesnt say anything, decaying plant matter all around the world produces around 200(!!!!!!) gigatonnes per year, so this guy is either drinking the kool-aid or batshit crazy...

  64. @Arkeron

    You are a joke. Real science is a process done in peer reviewed journals. It is not a bogus consensus. What the doc show is that that scientific journalists don 't know what they are talking about, and reply on second hand interpreter, which mostly like don't know how to read the journal articles.

  65. "1perspective 31
    and who funds these government officials campaign`s?"


    The national science foundation.

  66. @Phillip

    and who funds these government officials campaign`s?

  67. Kai Vogt Westling said "This is a nice try with many important points. I agree on the issue that we are facing a general problem about thrust. Our society is as well developing and getting more and more complex. The most common belief is that money is the governing factor. This trend have been confirmed by media all along the process of modernisation. Since science as well is dependent on money we the peoples are rightfully sceptic when it comes to the integrity of its work. It seems that science is under a significant press from different interests like political, economical and traditional etc. Hopefully science can recover and build new integrity for the service of humankind…. Regards/KaiVW"

    Much of science is funded by the government. The science with large amount of private fund comes from the medical industry. That industry does not represent all of science.

  68. RB01 said "On climate change and solar winds. NASA could monitor the temperature change on Mars and compare that to increase on Earth. That should show if that theory is right or wrong.
    On this documentary, it is very ironic. He keeps calling for objectivity and trusting only the tested data. And yet the whole time he is presenting his biased propoganda. How can anyone do a report on GM foods without mentioning Monsanto?
    On CRU and FOI requests, what a cop out. Hey ever heard of Internet, just post all your data online problem solved. Then we can all see how many hockey sticks you made up for your benefactors."


    The question is not about "if there is global warming". The dispute is about "what is the cause for the global warming!" The "data" itself will not reveal anything.

  69. ?

  70. This is a nice try with many important points. I agree on the issue that we are facing a general problem about thrust. Our society is as well developing and getting more and more complex. The most common belief is that money is the governing factor. This trend have been confirmed by media all along the process of modernisation. Since science as well is dependent on money we the peoples are rightfully sceptic when it comes to the integrity of its work. It seems that science is under a significant press from different interests like political, economical and traditional etc. Hopefully science can recover and build new integrity for the service of humankind.... Regards/KaiVW

  71. On climate change and solar winds. NASA could monitor the temperature change on Mars and compare that to increase on Earth. That should show if that theory is right or wrong.

    On this documentary, it is very ironic. He keeps calling for objectivity and trusting only the tested data. And yet the whole time he is presenting his biased propoganda. How can anyone do a report on GM foods without mentioning Monsanto?

    On CRU and FOI requests, what a cop out. Hey ever heard of Internet, just post all your data online problem solved. Then we can all see how many hockey sticks you made up for your benefactors.

  72. "ff1 8
    I have to agree with James. Sir Paul Nurse should of called out the fossil fuel companies on thier misinformation campaign."

    The missed the entire point! The deeper problem is very nature of scientific reporting, moron. Notice that scientific reporters don 't know how to read from journals? As one guy said, "I am an interpreter of interpretation".

  73. He wonders why????
    ....When getting funding has become the prime directive, not seeking the truth.
    He wonders why???
    ....When politics plays a bigger role than pragmatism.
    He wonders why???
    ....When science is taking the mantel of religion.
    He wonders why???
    ....When science mocks the common man.
    Well wonder no more sir, it's not rocket science.

  74. This Doc is 'not bad' for a START. Bringing it to Top Docs for review is an excellent idea; now I hope the producers pay careful attention to what is being said. Asking the Q "Why are Scientists under attack, where is the loss of trust coming from, etc" is valuable, however much was missed in this doc. The debacle over Climate Change was a good example: the point made about the BIG difference between 'peer-reviewed' evidence, and ideas/theory/campaigns that are have either NOT been presented for peer review by the scientific community, or, did not meet the rigour required, turned out to be wrong, etc. is a point that has not been driven home clearly or loudly enough. And, the presenter himself made the worst of strategic errors, when he talked about it, 'as if' there are Two Sides. (That gives an impression that two sides are equal in credibility and in numbers) and that is not true - of the many debaters 'against' climate science and the 'evidence' most have a secret agenda (corporate & govt. profits from continued use of fossil fuels being the most obvious), the need to look at WHO benefits if there is no change must be shouted from the rooftops, how many (give a number) peer respected scientists have looked at the evidence, and agree we are in trouble, and how many (also peer respected) are not satisfied with the evidence. (Now we have some meaningful 'facts' to mull over). Then, note very clearly, how much (in $$'s) climate change scientists have for publishing and sharing that info - and- sharply compare that to the estimates of how much (in $$$$$$$$'s) the Oil Industry, for example has spent in marketing campaigns to 'deny' and 'discredit' the evidence. Dr Paul gets it right when he says the Science community has to be prepared to lay it all out there and both better present the data and be rigourously honest about it. (Another example: when I tell almost anyone the planet has warmed by almost 1 degree in 20 years, the look I get is who cares; when I add that the last great Ice Age had a global temperature difference of only 10 degrees, and that this 'new' warming effect is speeding up - then - most are much more interested in listening). You don't need your own marketing team (that would be worse), but you do need some non-academic people who understand human nature to help with presenting the "evidence". As for Genetically modifies SEED; I think you missed the boat almost entirely. Making a hardier plant has huge respect with farmers, gardeners, etc.; it is taking a perennial plant (makes it's own seed) and turning it into an annual (no seed) and giving ownership of that new seed to one company that has created a huge backlash. Connected to that, scientists who work for those corporations, whose ONLY goal is their own profit, and not the potential side effects of reducing the 'seed pool' for humans and birds and other wild life, for example, are rightly going to lose the respect and trust of the public... Enough said for now...:)

  75. Science under attack! Obviously this is a video response to latest science scandal with regards to global warming issues.

    ---a simple frown from the scientific community to the wrong doers would've been sufficient but a whole video to justify it is just ridiculous.

    ---it's like we caught a few scientist with their pants down and instead of distancing ourselves from them this video suggest they had a good reason for it.

  76. I remember those pencil necked geeks from high school. They are the most socially inept specimens I have ever met. I will never take seriously anything anyone of them has to say and I'll be damned if I'll allow them to genetically engineer some type of Godzilla to rampage the streets of my idyllic home town. Sir Paul Nurse indeed. Dr Strangelove if you ask me.

  77. Danny

    Regarding climate change. Ask yourself is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Consider that in 1950 they're were 2.5 billion people and now we are pushing 7 billion. Ask how much are we producing. How much the earth is getting rid off is anyone's guess. The climate models are hopeless because the scientist can't possibly account for all the variables.

  78. Scientists run on emotions like greed ambition and envy like everyone else.
    If this were only a matter of pure science then things might not be so problematic. The problem as I see it is when politics and money become involved. That's when science gets twisted to meet some businessman's ends. Think of the terminator gene and Monsanto. Monsanto controls 90 percent of the GM seed supply. What a perfect weapon to bring a country to it's knees if they're crops failed because of this gene which although not presently allowed could easily be inserted at any time. Monsanto controls the department of agriculture and the departments on scientists have been muzzled.

  79. The problem where climate change is concerned is simply this:
    The argument FOR climate change says: "We have mountains of data showing that we're right, we have thousands of terrabytes of data proving this is true, we have done scientific studies that show we are right."
    The argument AGAINST climate change is: "We have mountains of data showing that we're right, we have thousands of terrabytes of data proving this is true, we have done scientific studies that show we are right."
    NOBODY is explaining to us:
    -What this information is.
    -How to read it ourselves.
    -What it shows.
    -How it was obtained.
    -How anyone can verify this objectively.
    It's all a mess, i honestly cannot say if i believe one or the other, because NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO ME. Simply saying "We're up to our @!#? in data!" Is not an argument, present that data to the public in a way they can understand, if at all!
    This documentary is not remotely objective, they have not set out to find truth, they have set out to discredit those who have a different opinion, which is not scientific at all.
    Infact, all i hear in this documentary are the buzz words and slogans that the media and scientific community use to persuade stupid people with fancy-sounding words, lets have some !#@?ing EVIDENCE.

  80. This places ‘Science’ in an apolitical and even a-ecoomic space.

    Pharma production which is deeply embedded in both, and is the source of a good deal of scepticism.

  81. the word "science" basically means knowledge.
    knowledge is not so much an object as a process.
    when politics and money enter the picture
    that process can get very distorted.
    charles ranalli

  82. For all this there is almost no real info about climate change here. This is an apology without content.

  83. I think most people distrust science because they do not understand it. They expect concrete never changing conclusions, and science doesn't offer that. When you tell them that they fail to see value in a system that never produces absolutes. The truth is that science produces usable data and conclusions everyday, thats how we build computers, robots, amazing telescopes, etc. and the fact that the case is never closed and any theory can be questioned and improved upon means we will build even better ones in the future. Still it fails to create the concrete safe world that other philosophy does, and this is a need of mankind; to have a safe concrete and therefore predictable enough world model to be able to feel less anxious or scared. Religion fits this bill perfectly, and once you throw in the fact that humans have always portrayed those that possess faith, even faith in something other than god, in a very positive light...

    Think about the movie Rudy, were the underdog kid gets to play for Notre Dame. What is one of the most endearing qualities of his character, his never dying faith in the impossible. What did they tell all us kids in America growing up, "If you just believe you can do it, you can." Or the little train that thought he could, all about the positive power of faith. Well science doesn't offer us such a rosy outlook, its about empirical evidence and cold hard facts. There's is another clue, see the negative phrase around the word "facts" as in, "cold hard facts". It just goes to show that humans have always saw the ideas and concepts that make science what it is in a somewhat negative light. While we have saw the concepts and ideas behind religion or spiritualism as positive and healing.

  84. A scientist? Him? Sounds more like propaganda to me. Glad to see the bbc also tending to the needs of certain parties by making such documentaries.

  85. @James

    Glad to see some people are not so easily takin in by the, lets put them in their place doc.

    Modern scientists have long been the handmaidens of corporations.

    Obviously that relationship is inevitable, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

  86. I also agree with James. We live in a system where you are expected to do everything that you do solely for profit. People are acting like cave men everyday to make money, disregarding empathy and common sense. You shouldn't trust anyone. Why would scientist's be an exception?

    It is a great idea to be more open to the public about what you're actually working on, and why.

  87. @ff1 and James
    Your so-called fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign is a scape goat, it is used by pro-AGW pundits to discredit any source of information that runs contrary to pro-AGW views. There are many very credibile experts & dozens of scientists that disagree with the AGW theory who have absolutely no connection to the fossil fuel industry whatsoever, to label all anti-AGW protaganists as such is just absurd & ignorant. Even the IPCC scientists did not reach consensus with many of them requesting their names be removed from the papers findings. They weren't even a panel of scientists, some of them were elected politicians! Just the climate-gate papers alone showed that the science was being falsified to meet the objectives of the IPPC, they were caught red handed! But I don't see you make any reference to this do I? No!

    This is just one example of the deceipt employed by those in global power who want to tax citizens of soveriegn nations in order to expand their power base & assert more & more control over soveriegn governments & their tax paying citizens.

    The fact is that you nor I know definitively if AGW is real. My concern is that even if AGW is a reality then we are not going to fix the problem by allowing unelected global politicians to tax us into oblivion while they continue to live individual lifestyles that consume the same amount of energy as 10 average western families!! They are lying hypocrites & are not to be trusted, the UN is a corrupt abomination filled with corporate & political crminals & the UN plays the tune of those who pull it's strings.

    I am all for reducing pollution, that can only be a good thing, but these carbon taxes are an absolute scam that are not going to make the slightest bit of difference because the money will go into the globalists coffers for general consumption. If you really think these UN, IMF & WTO criminals have the planets interests at heart you are blind idiot & you deserve whats coming if they get away with this.

  88. it does boil down to trust and people see scientists as a branch of government - something considered very untrustworthy.

  89. This is Propaganda.

    “If someone’s been advised they have cancer and are denying it, I’m not going to argue with them.

    Time will tell one way or the other. If their denial turns out to work as a strategy to make the cancer go away, great!

    In the meantime, my house insurance bill has just gone up by 40% in one year. Do the insurance companies know something the climate change deniers don’t?
    I shall make the assumption that you are not intentionally trying to be rude. You do realise that every time you use the word denier, you are associating people who do not kowtow to the IPCC with people who deny the Holocaust happened…

    A more appropriate term would be AGW skeptics or something along those lines.

    I find it hard to believe that rational Australians have now been reduced to name-calling, tribal cliques, but this appears to be a side effect of the issue becoming politicised.

    As to your poor example… in the case of AGW the “doctor” has run a computer model that barely represents a fraction of your body’s biochemistry, and has forecast that you may have cancer in 50 years. You can prevent this cancer, however, by tithing 10% of your income to the “doctor”… there I fixed your analogy.”

    How come a Nobel recipient look at Phil Jones explaining how he used 2 data set to make one graph… And smile in beatitude by such rigorous scientific achievement.

    How come he claim that many scientists don’t agree on AWG and claim to the bogus consensus.

    The word deniers is repeated very often to describe AWG skeptics.

  90. I have to agree with James. Sir Paul Nurse should of called out the fossil fuel companies on thier misinformation campaign.

  91. i have been working on solving global warning for years and stoping climate i am seeing chemtrails from jets and H.a.a.r.p systems all around the world that may be causing sanomies,earth quakes,huricains,drouts,fires,and now birds,fish,seals,squids,whales droping dead and what is causing the rings over austrailia right now with all the flooding.see Dr.Hildegarde Staningers tv interview on chemtrails and Morgellous syndrome and see whats in that cotton candy like material being droped from these many puppets knew about this and went along with it.what happened to peoples souls.

  92. @Spaghetti and Meatballs
    First of all I don't understand why you find it an insult to real scientist...and second of all seeing is believing in many cases...Scientists at NASA where trying to make the mathematical model as accurately as possible...and putting those models side by side they where just trying to show that there getting there!

  93. This documentary is disgusting and an insult to any real scientist. This narrator is a very poor excuse for a scientist, and he's in the wrong profession, should be a used car salesman or propagandist.

    Laughable, and simple psychobable that any intelligent individual will see through.

    The funnist part is when the NASA scientist says 'seeing is believing ',.. huh ? Ever been to a magic show jackball !

  94. Leave science to scientist.

  95. Great Doc! Thanks Vlatko.

    It's good to see more scientists on the front line, even if it does take them off research for a little while. The last thing we need is another flawed media report on the perils of GM food or global warming.

  96. I approved how Sir Paul Nurse stumped the reporter about science.