Science is not the same as an opinion, Martin van Kranendonk says on Q&A

A prominent astrobiologist and geologist warned of the dangers of listening to non-scientists.

Professor Martin Van Kranendonk appears on Q&A.

A prominent professor of astrobiology and geology has warned of the dangers of listening to non-scientists critique science and targeted media personalities including Alan Jones in saying that “science is not the same as opinion”.

Martin Van Kranendonk, the University of New South Wales professor who is also the director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology and the Big Questions Institute, made the comments on a special science episode of ABC’s Q&A last night.

The panel also featured British particle physicist and TV presenter Brian Cox, marine ecologist and TV host Emma Johnston, the CSIRO’s David Karoly and astrophysicist and science communicator Kirsten Banks.

The episode explored the topics of climate change, science in the media, space exploration, and reconciling science and belief in a god.

Several questioners asked for direct explanations of scientific phenomena such as stars and the Milky Way as well as the issue of plastic in oceans.

SCIENCE IN THE MEDIA

The appearance of radio host Alan Jones on Q&A several weeks ago, in which he made comments that played down climate change, was referenced throughout this week’s episode.

Alan Jones quotes figures that imply human CO2 can’t cause climate change because it’s so small. Is he correct? #QandA pic.twitter.com/0cG5qnJGnz

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 17, 2019

Professor Karoly said: “Not everything he (Jones) says is factually accurate.

“I am a climate scientist and Alan Jones is wrong.

“We know that, yes, the greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere … is 400 parts per million. And this was the one thing he (Jones) was reasonably accurate on, that that corresponds to about .04 per cent of the whole of the atmosphere is made up of carbon dioxide.

“All of his other numbers were wrong,” Professor Karoly said.

He said that facts showed carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had increased by 40 per cent in the last 100 years.

“That 40 per cent increase is due to human activity. We know that for absolute certain.”

Is there a blurry zone where scientists become seen as advocates, accused of a vested interest in the outcomes of research? #QandA pic.twitter.com/VptD2boXcn

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 17, 2019

He also pointed out that Australia makes up .3 per cent of the global population but contributes 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions.

“Is it fair that .3 per cent of the global population has contributed 1.5 per cent? We’ve contributed much more than our fair share,” he said.

Professor Van Kranendonk also criticised Jones.

“If your car wasn’t doing well would you take it to a butcher? No you’d take it to an auto mechanic.

“For the source of data on scientific matters I personally wouldn’t go to an Alan Jones.

“I’d look for the best known sources for that material and people I trust.

“I think It would be true for everyone if it was about the health of your son or daughter or your grandparents, you would go to the best specialist around. And I think there’s something in society we really need to question in terms of our accepting science into our home.

“The fact that the scientific community across such an enormous range of different disciplines, so climate specialists but also biologists, lake specialist scientists, marine scientists, botanists … they’ve all come to the same agreement through endless hours, thousands of hours being in the field, measuring, observing. It’s not just models its actual physical work and observing the natural world.

“Science is not the same as opinion.

“We have seen an enormous rise of opinion in the news media and in society in general and it’s given almost equal footing as news reporting or science. And they really are not the same thing,” he said.

GLOBAL WARMING

Professor Johnston said despite Australia’s population size and worldwide contribution, minimising emissions is a “global responsibility”.

“At our current rate because we are still increasing our emissions globally … if they continue we hit that 1.5 degrees (the limit set by the Paris climate agreement) in fifteen years. We don’t have time to faff around and say it’s someone else’s fault or responsibility … everybody has to chip in and we have to chip in now.

“I’ve heard people argue in certain places, it could be parliament, that actually we’re just a small emitter and in fact our coal is cleaner.

“Well, I cannot imagine being in a court of law and saying to the judge ‘yes I stabbed him your honour I stabbed him to death but it was a clean knife and if I hadn’t stabbed him to death the other fellow would with a rusty knife’.”

Professor Johnston called for Australia to adopt the emissions target set by Westminster of 0 per cent by 2050, or risk losing the Great Barrier Reef.

Brian Cox discusses the complex nature of climate science #QandA pic.twitter.com/EJfikQzZdJ

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 17, 2019

Professor Cox said: “I think one of the primary misconceptions is that people think that … the climate is simple and therefore you can just use common sense. The argument that it’s a very small amount of gas therefore we can’t have much effect, and that seems to make some sort of sense.

“But actually the climate is extremely complicated. You can’t just figure it out in your head because it’s a very complex system,” he said.

SPACE EXPLORATION AND MARS

Asked about the role Australia should play in space, Professor Cox said it was “already a multi-billion dollar industry” and that “it’s economically sensible to be involved in that”.

“If we are to go somewhere else at some point beyond the mood then Mars is the place to go. Venus is too hot … other planets are gas giants.

What role can Australia play to explore and establish a permanent settlement on Mars? #QandA pic.twitter.com/BOpFzw7P4t

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 17, 2019

“What we know about Mars is that 4 billion years ago Mars was a very earthly world, it had oceans, it had rivers.

“That means that today it has many of the things we need if we want to begin to build a colony on Mars.

“The history of mars tells us that if we wanted to we could go there.

“There’s that romantic goal, at some point in the future it appeals to me.

“(But) No one is suggesting that we can make a mess of this planet and then move to another one,” he said.

Professor Van Kranendonk disagreed, saying: “There’s a lot of things that aren’t there on Mars.

“If you think about the resources you need to establish a viable human colony there. It’s a big problem still, it’s a huge problem.

“Mars is not a warm and welcoming place. … There’s just insurmountable problems.

“From my point of view any realistic establishment (of a colony) is just science fiction,” he said.

GOD AND SCIENCE

Asked if a scientist could believe in a god, Professor Cox said: “I don’t believe in a god, however I don’t like the antagonism that occurs or is produced by this question.”

“If you’re a cosmologist what you should say is that we know that the universe was very hot and dense 13.8 billion years ago. We don’t know how it got hot and dense. We don’t even know if the universe had a beginning of time.

Is there a place for God in science? #QandA pic.twitter.com/f2XVrMXiWb

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 17, 2019

“I think we’re overstepping the mark. I do not believe there is evidence for a creator, however there certainly isn’t no evidence.

“We’re stepping into an area where we don’t really need to be.

“The last thing we should do is close off that possibility of being a scientist because someone (believes in a god).” he said.

Professor Karoly said he would “much rather base policy decisions on well founded evidence than faith”.

Professor Van Kranendonk said: “The literal translation of the Bible that the earth was created in 7 days and all the rest of that. Certainly from the scientific perspective that would be hard to adopt.”

“I think we have to be a little bit open minded about what god is to people and what it can be,” he said.