Bishop Hill Nullius in the Financial Post
Feb 11, 2012 Royal Society Canada's Financial Post has picked up my GWPF report, Nullius in Verba.
When Lord Robert May — a distinguished British population biologist — told a journalist: “I am the president of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over,” he was risking the reputation of the venerable institution he headed.
Presidents of national science academies are not meant to engage in ex cathedra statements, but to promote objective research. However, according to a devastating report this week from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Royal Society — former home to Newton and Darwin — has adopted a stance of intolerant infallibility over climate science and, even less appropriately, over policy.
The report, Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change, by Andrew Montford, is important to Canada not merely because of the continued threat of climate alarmism, but because the Royal Society of Canada has twice attached its name to intensely political statements from its British counterpart.
Reader Comments (15)
Well done Bishop, the public at large is gradually becoming aware of what's been going on.
Sandy
We need the mainstream media in the UK to pick up the GWPF report. It is not enough for James Delingpole to be the lone disseminater of the truth. Hopefully Christopher Booker will pick it up this weekend, but much more widespread coverage is needed.
Yes it is true, consensus is the last redoubt of the politicised venal charlatans and mountebanks who infest the RS, RSC the AGU, and the APS for that matter.
Money corrupts, if the whole claque have fallen for it, then it's hard to dislodge and to go against the grain is nigh on impossible because; man is weak and vain and 'when money talks - then the truth walks'.
from here
Money and power and politics - do not mix it with science but when it does occur: it becomes religion.
Bish, you should get in touch with our Antipodean cousins, I've a feeling that the report will be highly promoted down under.
In a major three part series Professor Bob Carter covers the most important events which influenced the climate debate in 2011.
Just finished reading, nice report Bish. It needed laying out in black and white. There will always be the people who don't get it, who think it just great that the RS is being used as an authority to say the debate is over, and find the criticisms baffling. So that is why the report will always remain a useful litmus test of those paying lip service to the concept of science to see just how post modernist their concept of "science" is by seeing their response (or wilful ignorance) of such a clear detailed history of the last few years of the RS.
Media may not be so important.
If there is one thing the RS is conscious of, and that is history. To be a fellow has a cachet based on its place in history. In marketing speak, its brand. Brand protection is a proactive exercise. RS needs to protect its brand.
I would guess a fair proportion of the fellows of the RS will read this report. Will there be a mass that feel the brand is devalued? Not sure. Certainly 40 or so of them do.
This is an attack on the RS's brand. They will take notice, which is a good result.
What is clear from the report, is that the reason the brand is so strong is that it kept out of politics.
How many will wake up to attack on their legacy in history?
Australians including me are keen to see the RS perform properly. See past presidents
1920-1925 Sir Charles Sherrington
As well as President, he was knighted, was a Nobel Laureate and had 3 students become Laureates.
When you read his papers and books, the prose is very heavy but the philosphy behind the hypotheses is careful to meticulous. There is no hint of pleasing political or moneyed masters that I can recall.
Problem - can't work out if we were related, as his birth details were maldescribed until quite recently as he was born out of wedlock. I was not, but I lack a Presidency, a Nobel and a Knighthood.
The Royal Society is just following the trend of 'dumbing down' and becoming 'more relevant' because popularity is the only remaining yardstick of success in the UK.
This event was organised by the Royal Society in 2010: http://royalsociety.org/events/2010/age-stupid/
The page is still there.
"On 19 and 20 March, Tate and the Royal Society collaborate to bring you a screening of the film The Age of Stupid following, (sic) by a discussion and a public symposium about the social and psychological impacts of climate change."
The director of the Age of Stupid, Franny Armstrong, was the director of the 10:10 climate campaign “snuff”movie, “No Pressure”, which “blew up” dissenters. So much for the science of the 300 year old Royal Society and its friends.
O/T speaking of 10:10, their accounts have just been published at the charity commission website so we can finally find out who paid for the 'kill all deniers' no pressure film.
Bish, you should get in touch with our Antipodean cousins, I've a feeling that the report will be highly promoted down under.
In a major three part series Professor Bob Carter covers the most important events which influenced the climate debate in 2011.
Feb 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM | Lord Beaverbrook>
Many thanks to Lord Beaverbrook.
See below an extract from this, that makes a statement that all scientists and journalists should be trained in from the start of their careers:-
Former British PM Margaret Thatcher well understood that it is the nature of consensus policy-making to spawn legislative stupidities such as Australia’s carbon dioxide legislation. As she said so well:
Consensus is the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot [otherwise] get agreement on the way ahead.
Sry - zero information in those accounts. Still not clear how much of their £0.5M was taxpayer funded.
Bob Carter links to this rather good document on IPCC post-normal stuff, which I'd not seen before.
It's dated 25th Jan,
http://climatescienceinternational.org/images/pdf/post_modern_science_ipcc.pdf
May, Rees and Nurse, None as far as I'm aware, skilled in climate science, or engineering, but all three ready to advise the government that dangerous climate change is happening, and, amazingly what to do to combat it. I would say the public is under attack from the scientific establishment, maybe Nurse would like to do an Horizon programme on the disinformation being put forward by himself and Larry and Mo. Or is it Chico and Harpo? Maybe Rees will explain to us how he could support the results of an inquiry into the scientific output of an organization that selected the papers to be examined with his assent. May, I believe, is beyond the pale, his language and demeanor as a President of the Royal Society should make the Fellows ashamed.
Well done Andrew!
I think that the problem with the likes of May and Nurse is that they have taken public positions on a contraversial subject that they are totally professionally unqualified to speak about. Having dug themselves into a very deep hole, they are too arrogant, egotistical and/or narcissistic to get out of it, and instead are trying to pressure others in their spheres of influence to jump in and carry on the digging.