224
H. von Storch, J. S ¨
undermann, and L. Magaard
review system works well and there should be no centralization. I am not much in
favor of these centralized projects. I’ve been for many years chairman of NORPAX.
It was really not that centralized, but nonetheless funding was in some way restricted
to the program.
A new term I like to bring in is “political science”. When politicians use science it gets hairy. There is a story being told in recent months that a government
scientist and a government official were talking with each other and the government
scientist said, “oh, my data show this” and the government official said, “why don’t
you change the data?” That is “political science”. And that’s what scientists should
avoid.
Is this a real problem in the United States now, or worldwide?
It is a real problem for all countries, if politicians want to tell their population something that is contrary to scientific evidence. In industry, this situation has existed for
a long time, but it becomes dangerous to scientific freedom if such situations would
happen.
What is the influence of media and the impact of media attention that certain people
receive?
Media attention is good for science but media attention very often confuses the issues,
because they might very well get practical and political aspects into it.
Another problem is “truth in science”. In this case you have to differentiate
between science and scientists. Science per se eventually converges on the truth. We
learn things and they become knowledge. Scientists are not necessarily very objective
when it comes to make propaganda for a cause, like the blown-up predictions that
are now being made of weather and climate, of El Ni˜ no in particular. We are hearing
predictions that are being blown-up by the press and of scientists making statements,
which they cannot defend in the long run. This is dangerous for science.
Why do they make these statements?
Because they are human. They want to show off. If you stand before a TV camera,
you give a big talk, you say El Ni˜ no is coming. . . .
What do you think about present-day forecasts of El Ni˜ no and La Ni˜ na? How good
are they, for how long are they good?
Scientists like to make forecasts. Forecasts are made about the weather and we
know reasonably well what the limitations are. Forecasts of climate are a lot more
uncertain and in particular El Ni˜ no forecasts. There are several models on El Ni˜ no.
If seven forecasters are making an El Ni˜ no forecast, then four may be correct, three
may be not correct. The four who are correct claim in front of the TV camera that it
was a success, the three who were incorrect are being quiet until the next time. Most
forecasters—I could show you examples—are saying after the fact that they made a
valid forecast.
H. von Storch, J. S ¨
undermann, and L. Magaard
review system works well and there should be no centralization. I am not much in
favor of these centralized projects. I’ve been for many years chairman of NORPAX.
It was really not that centralized, but nonetheless funding was in some way restricted
to the program.
A new term I like to bring in is “political science”. When politicians use science it gets hairy. There is a story being told in recent months that a government
scientist and a government official were talking with each other and the government
scientist said, “oh, my data show this” and the government official said, “why don’t
you change the data?” That is “political science”. And that’s what scientists should
avoid.
Is this a real problem in the United States now, or worldwide?
It is a real problem for all countries, if politicians want to tell their population something that is contrary to scientific evidence. In industry, this situation has existed for
a long time, but it becomes dangerous to scientific freedom if such situations would
happen.
What is the influence of media and the impact of media attention that certain people
receive?
Media attention is good for science but media attention very often confuses the issues,
because they might very well get practical and political aspects into it.
Another problem is “truth in science”. In this case you have to differentiate
between science and scientists. Science per se eventually converges on the truth. We
learn things and they become knowledge. Scientists are not necessarily very objective
when it comes to make propaganda for a cause, like the blown-up predictions that
are now being made of weather and climate, of El Ni˜ no in particular. We are hearing
predictions that are being blown-up by the press and of scientists making statements,
which they cannot defend in the long run. This is dangerous for science.
Why do they make these statements?
Because they are human. They want to show off. If you stand before a TV camera,
you give a big talk, you say El Ni˜ no is coming. . . .
What do you think about present-day forecasts of El Ni˜ no and La Ni˜ na? How good
are they, for how long are they good?
Scientists like to make forecasts. Forecasts are made about the weather and we
know reasonably well what the limitations are. Forecasts of climate are a lot more
uncertain and in particular El Ni˜ no forecasts. There are several models on El Ni˜ no.
If seven forecasters are making an El Ni˜ no forecast, then four may be correct, three
may be not correct. The four who are correct claim in front of the TV camera that it
was a success, the three who were incorrect are being quiet until the next time. Most
forecasters—I could show you examples—are saying after the fact that they made a
valid forecast.