Cuckoo in the NESTA

I mentioned NESTA and the talk by Stephen Emmott at

and started transcribing it at

but gave up because of the poor quality of the recording. It’s now available as a good quality video at

I’ve transcribed it and Alex Cull has put it up at

Emmott is a dreadful public speaker, but the talk is fascinating as an insight into the thinking of a scientist whose aim is nothing less than to revolutionise the way science is done and what science is done.

Public speaking is a talent. Some have it, some don’t, so it may seem unfair to criticise Emmott for his delivery, his grammar, and his disarming way of illustrating the recursive nature of computational thinking in his sentence structure, which defies all logical attempts to punctuate it. He may be the only public speaker in history who can tell a joke and interrupt himself in the middle to explain why he’s telling it, why it’s not funny, and how he’d be better off telling a different joke.

But seriously, he’s being paid for this for Gaia’s sake. The exact arrangements between Microsoft, Oxford University, Cambridge University, NESTA, the Royal Court Theatre, the Arts Council, the Avignon Festival, the European Union, Penguin Books, Nature, and the United Nations Environment Programme are none of my business. But they’ve all been involved in some way in pushing Emmott’s programme for a new kind of science, and all we’ve heard so far is burbling.

The title of his talk is “the Need and Nature of a New Scientific Revolution”. He covers the Need by giving: “a quick summary of what I think are the most important questions of our times, and certainly in my view the important questions for us as a society this century”. 

These he lists, starting as follows (I’ve tidied up quotes, eliminating numerous “you know”s etc.):

– How is the climate going to change and more important, what’s going to be the impact, what’s going to be the consequences? 

– How we are going to feed a global population of at least ten billion – it might be  a lot more. 

– How are we going to – sustainably  – power a planet of ten billion or more? We could easily power the planet if we just continue to use oil, coal and gas but that would almost certainly finish us off.

– Have we embarked on the sixth mass extinction of life on earth? the answer is almost certainly yes … and related to that question is the bigger question of what’s the future of life on earth for global eco-systems and ourselves, given all the other questions.

Note how he answers his fourth question at the same time as he poses it. Alex has demonstrated the flimsy nature of the grounds for his answer in his article here:

The two factors most widely cited as factors in mass extinction are man’s encroachment on the wilderness (largely for farming)  and man-made climate change – the former, together with the burning of fossil fuels, being a cause of the latter.

“The most important questions for us as a society this century” turn out to be a simple game of scissors-cut-paper-wraps-stone-sharpens-scissors rendered complex by its hidden assumptions. By answering his fourth question at the same time as he poses it, he implicitly answers the other three. If we’re causing mass extinction, it can only be because of catastrophic man-made climate change, and the encroachment on wilderness caused by our attempts to feed a growing population, whose energy demands can’t be met from fossil fuels because “that would almost certainly finish us off”. The conclusion that we’re fucked, which took a whole hour to reach at the Royal Court, is more pithily delivered before the brainier NESTA audience.

Having enumerated the key problems facing humanity in the form of four questions, answered the fourth one, and suggested that the first three are insoluble, he then lists “some other interesting questions” about pandemics, the immune system, stem cells, neuroscience, and medical research. As he points out, they’re all questions of biological science “and we’re unable to answer any of these questions, which is quite remarkable in itself. in fact in terms of biology we dont even knows how a cell works. In 2012.”

He embarks on a long complicated joke analogy about how ignorant biologists are, pointing out  that he “..could have ridiculed ecology just as much as biology, but I wanted as a biologist – I feel as though I’m at least somewhat qualified to ridicule my own discipline.”

He emphasises that ecologists and climate scientists are just as much in the dark as biologists:

“So, just to quickly underline what I mean by that, in the area of climate, after 50 years of climate modelling in places like the Hadley Centre, uncertainty in climate models is still a critical issue, the key issue in climate modelling.

“In ecology, despite  200 years of data collection in ecology we still understand very little about how species interact, about ecosystem structure and function and about extinction rates, so we’re unable to ask the question, unable to fully answer the question about whether we’ve embarked on the sixth mass extinction of life on earth and what the future of life on earth is.”

.. which is puzzling, since he’s already answered the question with an “almost certainly yes”. 

So having explained the need for a scientific revolution in terms of the problems facing humanity, and our ignorance of the basic science underlying those problems, he turns to the nature of the scientific revolution required.

“… the question is: Now what? Given the fact that we don’t even know how a cell works, and we don’t know how ecosystems function, and we dont know whether we can feed a population of ten billion, and we don’t know how we’re going to be able to power the planet, we have no way of predicting or preventing a global pandemic, what now in biological science, the natural sciences more generally?”

He answers his question “What now?” by describing two programmes which his forty-strong Cambridge Microsoft team are working on. The first, in neuroscience, I didn’t transcribe, since it’s incomprehensible without the accompanying slides. The second one involves the planet-wide modelling of biodiversity with what he calls a General Ecological Model or GEM, in order to answer the question he’s already posed (and answered) about the extinction rate.

“As I mentioned earlier, we have no idea about the rate at which we’re losing, no good idea about the rate at which we’re losing ecosystems … and that’s an important question because we are losing species. We’re not clear about how much, it could be between, it could be a rate of extinction a hundred times greater than we would expect from normal evolutionary processes, or it could be a rate of over a thousand times that we would expect from normal evolutionary processes, but we’re losing them at an alarming rate.

“Given the fact that we’re actually unable to characterise or understand how many species there are on earth, most scientists agree that the simple fact of that means that we’re losing species at a far faster rate than we currently think we are, so it’s almost certainly at least a thousand times – the rate of species extinction on earth is at least almost a thousand times greater than it should be through normal evolutionary processes.”

Think about that. Emmott, like everyone else working in the field, quotes the single source estimate of species loss as being “a hundred to a thousand times the normal rate”,  takes the higher estimate of “a thousand times”, alters that to “over a thousand times” and explains that “most scientists agree” that the fact that we don’t know how many species there are “means that we’re losing species at a far faster rate than we currently think we are”.

[I know nothing about biology, but I’ve read “Through the Looking Glass” and I know a glorious knock-down argument when I see one. This argument – that the less you know, the more likely things are to be worse than you thought – was recently put forward by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, the expert on the psychology of climate scepticism, and discussed at

These are deep waters, running from the subjective school of Bayesian statistics, via Humpty Dumpty to Hamlet’s:

“there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”]

But back to Emmott’s General Ecological Model. He describes how it works, and it’s really very interesting. Then he says:

“If we model the previous few million years, we get a remarkably faithful model of where ecosystems are now and how we think that they’re distributed. Our next step is to model what we think is going to happen to ecosystems … for the next probably 200 years, and this sort of model is enabling us to ask fundamentally new questions about what ecosystems do, ecosystems behaviour, our impact on them, and the impact of our impact on these ecosystems on our wellbeing. The interesting thing about this model is that – there was an important report  came out in 2011 which was this Living Planet report. What it showed was, if you looked at ecosystem health … that there’s been a significant ..degradation of about 30% [from 1970 to 2007]. What this model shows is that actually the problem is far worse than the policy community, policy-making conservation community and indeed the climate community think – ‘cos the climate is related to ecosystems structure and function – is far worse than we think, so the dotted line is the output from our model.”

So there you have it. A graph with two lines: a solid line, the Living Planet line, drooping 30% over 37 years, and a dotted line, the Microsoft new kind of science line, drooping even more.

Which leads Emmott to his conclusion that:

The important thing about this I think that I really want to underline .. is that none of this is going to be possible without an entirely new generation of  entirely new kinds of scientists, of scientists that have a very different way of thinking about biology and natural science, scientists who are scientifically first rate, not just in one discipline, but are genuinely interdisciplinary .. and it requires people who are computationally first rate, and I don’t mean people who know where the on button is on their Macintosh, I mean conceptually and mathematically computationally first rate. And those kinds of … computationally first rate natural scientists are only just beginning to emerge. And .. and its going to be impossible to do ecology or biology over the next decade unless you’re computationally first rate, and I don’t think the research councils or the general university system has grasped this problem yet, so the idea of  new kinds of scientists is one that I really want to hammer home fundamentally as critical to this transformation, an urgently needed transformation of science, if we’re going to solve some of these massive important and unprecedented global challenges that we face, of which science is at the centre of all of them. And that’s it. Thank you very much.

Not being computationally first-rate myself, I had a thought about that Living Planet health graph, with it’s 30% health droop in 37 years, and I thought: “If you drew a graph of my health over 37 years, you’d probably get a 30% droop”, which is normal, because I’m a living being, subject to the mysterious ways of biology about which (as Emmott says) we know so little. So if you call the planet a Living Planet, (which it’s not), perhaps somewhere you’re importing an unjustified assumption which somehow contaminates your subtle calculations and propagates itself throughout your thought processes, like one of those mutating bugs which (Emmott says) are going to overpower our unprepared immune systems and kill billions of us one day soon.

And perhaps taking thousands of models with petabytes of data and smashing them together in the Microsoft equivalent of a Large Hadron Collider, (which is Emmott’s description of his new kind of science) is a handy way of disguising the fact that calling the planet a living thing is nothing but a metaphor, and that after 37 years, a living planet, like a living human, is bound to feel a bit creaky at the joints when the weather takes a turn for the worst , and that it’s quite normal, as it’s quite normal that scientists should be a bit loose in their language sometimes, so that “hundreds or thousands” become “thousands or more”, and questions of how to feed ten billion people in a hundred years’ time morph into questions about how the human race can survive.

*       *       *

The same General Ecological Model is discussed in more detail in an article in Nature at

which is available free at

of which Emmott is one of the seven authors. Five of them work for Microsoft at Cambridge, and five at the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, a charity also based at Cambridge.

They say:

“There are huge challenges to building GEMs — not least, obtaining the appropriate types of data to validate the models’ predictions. But the difficulties are not insurmountable… Over the past two years, we at Microsoft Research and at UNEP-WCMC have built a prototype GEM for terrestrial and marine ecosystems. .. We have hit all sorts of computational and technical hurdles, and are expecting more as we develop the model. Yet the project demonstrates that building GEMs is possible.” 

So it’s a prototype. There’s nothing about “getting a remarkably faithful model of where ecosystems are now” or “showing that actually the problem is far worse than the policy policy-making conservation community and indeed the climate community think”. In fact it’s all couched in the conditional:

“We think that .. GEMs could radically improve understanding of the biosphere and inform policy decisions about biodiversity and conservation … GEMs could provide a way to base conservation policy on an understanding of how ecosystems actually work … Such models could capture the broad-scale structure and function of any ecosystem in the world …  Ecologists could apply a GEM to African savannas, for instance …  All of the organisms would be grouped not by species, but according to a few key traits … By encoding processes such as migration and predation into simple mathematical and computational forms, ecologists could model what happens to the various groups over time … Metrics such as the diversity of animal types inhabiting the grasslands could be used … Ecologists could explore how these attributes might change in response to, say, climate change … the GEM could equally be applied to forests, lakes or the remotest parts of the ocean…, 

“Building a GEM will require different types of data … certain computational techniques have been developed, mainly in marine ecology, that could allow researchers to model entire ecosystems …The biggest stumbling block to constructing GEMs (after convincing ecologists that they can and should be built!) is obtaining the data to parameterize and validate them… almost no data have been collected on the properties of whole ecosystems… Using automated cameras and image recognition, it should be possible to sample thousands of animals and determine their approximate size and what broad group they belong to … data collection could even be crowd-sourced.. 

“Naturally, a major new data-gathering programme would be costly. But … gathering the data needed to develop and evaluate GEMs could pay dividends …”

Not if we’re fucked, it won’t. Maybe Emmott should get his message straight for the launch of his book in May.

And maybe Shakespeare should change Hamlet’s line to:

“there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking can’t make it worse.”

About Geoff Chambers

Retired illustrator (children's magazines, religious education textbooks, an Encyclopaedia of Christianity, gay contact and female fitness magazines, pornographic strip cartoons etc.) Retired lecturer in English and History of Art in a French University; ardent blogger on climate hysteria, banned five times from the Guardian and twice from the Conversation. Now blogging at
This entry was posted in Stephen Emmott and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Cuckoo in the NESTA

  1. I doff my cap to you, Geoff, for having the perseverance not only to stay with that speech but even to transcribe and analyse it. I also bend the knee.

  2. hro001 says:

    Maybe Emmott should get his message straight for the launch of his book in May.

    Yes, but Geoff … his past performances strongly suggest that if he was capable of “get[ting] his message straight”, he wouldn’t be Emmott – he’d be someone completely different (albeit probably an equally mediocre public speaker).

    But your transcription of his transgressions definitely above and beyond the call of duty!

  3. hro001 says:

    Oh, my kingdom for an edit function in the WordPress comment feature 😦

  4. TonyN says:

    An interesting and worthwhile post!

    It seems that this remarkable ambassador for 21st Century science is concerned that humans are causing mass species extinction on a cataclysmic scale, and at the same time he thinks that humans will bring about their own extinction through uncontrollable pandemic aggravated by overpopulation. As the latter problem would, presumably, solve the first problem conclusively, I’m not sure what he’s worried about.

    The call for a new breed of ‘conceptually and mathematically and computationally first rate’ ecologists and biologists is much more disturbing given that this plea seems to be made in the context of modelling. Is Emmott really suggesting that such talent should be used to produce predictions of future threats so that science can focus on solving problems that only exist in the binary miasma on hard disks? Just in the way that at present, when there has been no empirical evidence of AGW for seventeen years, radical public policy is determined by outdated models, based on a very limited understanding of the climate, that predict what could happen in 20, 40, 60, or 80 years time.

    Some years ago, redundant modellers from NASA – who would undoubtedly be classed as ‘conceptually and mathematically and computationally first rate’ – were hired to produce models of the property marked which no one else could understand. The result was the subprime mortgage catastrophe.

    Any idea what kind of annual budget Emmott is playing with in Oxford?

  5. Brian
    I really enjoy transcribing. As I’ve said (I think) it’s like psychoanalysing someone in slow motion, and you end up liking people you bitterly disagree with. Messing up your syntax is not the worst of sins, after all.
    I wonder about my own motivations. There’s an obvious pleasure in being rude about important people, but I honestly hope my criticisms are taken seriously, and that I’m contributing something to a proper study, not just of the weak arguments of the global warming proponents, but of the behaviour of a whole range of people caught up in a particular socio-historical movement. It’s putting Vivienne Westwood and Stephen Emmmott side by side that renders both of them more interesting.
    I can edit your comments, though you can’t, which seems wrong. Just tell me what you want to change. (Come to think of it, I could write my own comments and sign them George Monbiot or Phil Jones. No-one could prove a thing).
    It’s Emmott’s remark about smashig petabytes of data together in the equivalent of a Large Hadron Collider which gives the game away. The “new kind of science” proposed by the Microsoft Professor of Computational Science is the kind that will require the purchase of an awful lot of Microsoft products.
    Someone at Microsoft should maybe have a word with him about not being so obvious. He gets in a sly dig at “scientists who know how to press the ON button on their Macintosh”, just as he had a go in “Ten Billion” about the cost of doing a Google search. He had a dig at “that bloody Brian Cox” in “Ten Billion”, and now he wants a Large Hadron Collider of his own.
    On the question of his budget, the Microsoft set-up is at Cambridge (though Emmott is still a professor at Oxford, I think) with 40 scientists working together. Several of his co-authors work both in his team and for the United Nations Environmental Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre which is a registered charity, also at Cambridge. His play at the Royal Court was sponsored by the European Union, which I find baffling.
    I can easily believe that Emmott is a brilliant scientist hired by Microsoft in a genuine desire to push forward the boundaries of knowledge. So far, he and his team (in association with a London Art School) have produced a phone app for tracing endangered species and this model prototype. No-one asked them to, and the Nature article rather suggests that they’ve had a cool reception from the ecology community. The phone app got some publicity on green websites in France, Canada and Argentina. The only reference to the Nature /UNEP article that I could find was at
    It’s in Romanian, but if you read it aloud, pretending it’s Spanish, you get the idea.
    They obviously need some help with their PR. Perhaps I should offer my services.

  6. Mooloo says:

    A specialist in computing thinks the way to solve biology is … wait for it, … wait for it … computing! Who could have guessed?

    But not just a bit of computing but lots and lots of computing. As it happens, the sort of computing he does! Well, fancy that!

    And to do the sort of computing he does you have to be first rate. Like him, presumably, and not like all those current crappy no-nothing biologists.

    It’s almost beyond parody.

  7. alexjc38 says:

    “Emmott, like everyone else working in the field, quotes the single source estimate of species loss as being “a hundred to a thousand times the normal rate”, takes the higher estimate of “a thousand times”, alters that to “over a thousand times” and…”

    This puts me in mind of researcher Lynn Dicks’s admission that “I also see that lies and exaggeration on both sides are a necessary part of the democratic process to trigger rapid policy change”, as quoted in Ben’s latest post at Climate Resistance. One document I turned up while preparing January’s item about extinction was a report by the National Science Foundation of the U.S. from 1989 called “Loss of Biological Diversity: A Global Crisis Requiring International Solutions”, which asserts that the “extinction event that we are witnessing is the most catastrophic loss of species in the last 65 million years” but whose evidence, more or less, boils down to a quote, in a book by Norman Myers, about some scientists hazarding a guess at a conference in 1974.

    Much of the latter half of the document is an ambitious plea to establish “an authorized expanded international biodiversity mandate” for the NSF, with which it could go on to “provide funding leadership”, worldwide.

  8. alexjc38 says:

    Thinking about it, the “on both sides” bit doesn’t ring true, does it; Dicks is trying to justify the unjustifiable, it seems to me.

  9. Talking about “lies on both sides” is a way of postioning yourself as occupying the “sensible middle ground” – a handy way of defending your position without having to argue it. Sir Paul Nurse did this in the Melbourne speech in which he defended the climate scientists against “the outliers”- catastrophists on the one hand, and deniers on the other. Unfortunately he went on to characterise the position of one of the “outliers”, Lord Lawson, in terms which Lawson has just described as a lie. So apparently there are lies that lie between the outliers.

  10. Pingback: A Tale of Two Steves | Geoffchambers's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s