Monckton on Paul Nurse's "anti-science"

Monckton submits this rebuttal argument to the piece in the New Scientist Stamp out anti-science in US politics here. He doesn’t expect his rebuttal to be published.

Background: Paul Nurse is a Nobel prizewinner and Royal Society president.

Stamp out anti-science in UK science

By Christopher Monckton

It is time to reject UK political movements that masquerade as scientific societies while turning their backs on science, says former adviser to Margaret Thatcher FRS Christopher Monckton

IF YOU respect science you will probably be disturbed by the following opinions.

On climate: true science may be found in “the consensus opinions of experts” [1], we can “say with assurance that human activities cause weather changes” [1], recent variations are not “natural, cyclical environmental trends” [1], the manmade CO2’s contribution to the annual carbon cycle is not the 3% imagined by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, but 86% [2], “anthropogenic climate change is already affecting every aspect of our lives” [3],

On freedom of information requests asking publicly-funded scientists for their data: the requests are “a tool to intimidate some scientists” [4].

On a sceptical interviewer: the force of Sir Paul’s replies had left him “tongue-tied” and had compelled him to stop the cameras on several occasions, when the interviewer had in fact told Sir Paul he suffered from hypoglycaemia and needed to take regular breaks to maintain his glucose intake [5].

On US politics: voters should not choose Republicans [1].

You would probably be even more disturbed to be told that these are the opinions expressed not by some climate scientist or politician but by Sir Paul Nurse, the geneticist who heads the world’s oldest taxpayer-funded lobby-group, the grandly-named and lavishly-grant-aided Royal Society.

It’s alarming that a country which leads the world in science – the home of Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell – might be turning its back on science. How can this be happening? What can be done?

One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate. When some scientists try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry-picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts (who, in the peer-reviewed economic literature, are near-unanimous that it is cheaper to pay for the damage arising from any global warming that may occur than to spend anything now on attempted mitigation), adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument. They can often get away with this because the media rely too much on confrontational debate in place of reasoned discussion.

It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications. Scientists also need to work harder at discussing the issues better and more fully in the public arena, clearly identifying what they know and admitting what they don’t know.

Another concern is science teaching in schools. Is it good enough to produce citizens able to cope with public discussions about science? We have to ensure that science is being taught in schools – not pseudoscience such as a one-sided belief in the more luridly fanciful claims of climate extremists. With the rise of politicized science in the UK, measures need to be put in place to safeguard science classes. This has been difficult to maintain particularly in the US.

We need to emphasise why the scientific process is such a reliable generator of knowledge – with its respect for evidence, for scepticism, for consistency of approach, for the constant testing of ideas. Everyone should know and understand why the processes that lead to astronomy are more reliable than those that lead to astrology, or the wilder conclusions of the environmental propagandists adopted as though they were science by the IPCC and naively but profitably parroted by the likes of Nurse.

Finally, scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum, not to perpetuate it. Scientists have not always been proactive about this. They need to be vigilant about what is being said in the public arena. They need to be vigilant about what scientific societies are publicising about science in their name, as four Fellows of the Royal Society did recently in forcing a complete and now largely sensible rewrite of the Society’s previously extremist statement about climate science. They take on the Paul Nurses when necessary. At elections, scientists should ensure that science is on the agenda and nonsense is exposed. If that nonsense is extreme enough – as Sir Paul’s ill-informed statements on climate science have been – then the response should be very public.

If scientists and scientific societies in the UK are anti-science and are allowed to carry the day it will ultimately hurt the British economy. The best scientists will head for the established leaders of science, such as the emerging powerhouses of China and India, whose leaders have realized that the climate scare has been more than somewhat oversold. But beyond that, the Royal Society’s present leadership will damage the UK’s standing in the world. Who will be able to take those leaders seriously? Scientists may not care, but they should.

Science is worth fighting for. It helps us understand the world and ourselves better and will benefit all humanity.

We have to hope that the people of the UK will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject – and to de-fund – political movements that pose as scientific societies while rejecting science and taking us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.

Acknowledgements

Nearly all of this article was written by Sir Paul Nurse and published in New Scientist on September 14. With remarkably few changes, the present article comes to a legitimate conclusion opposite to that of Sir Paul. The New Scientist will not print it, of course.

References

  1. Nurse, P, 2011, Stamp out science in US politics, New Scientist, November 14, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128302.900-stamp-out-antiscience-in-us-politics.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
  2. Booker, C, 2011, How BBC warmists abuse the science, Sunday Telegraph, January 29, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html#dsq-content.
  3. Motl, L., 2011, BBC Horizon: president of Royal Society defends AGW ideology, The Reference Frame, January 25, http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/bbc-horizon-president-of-royal-society.html
  4. Jha, A., 2011, Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, The Guardian, May 25. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/25/freedom-information-laws-harass-scientists.
  5. Delingpole, J., 2011, Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo-boo, climaterealists.com, January 30, http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7127.
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Beesaman

It’s not about the science anymore, it’a about the funding and a lot of that is political, dressed up as climate change, dressed up as environmental.

Kasuha

According to some sources, Lord Monckton was never Margaret Thatcher’s advisor. Is there any proof that he really was?
[REPLY: check here for a start. You should do your own homework first. -REP, mod]

hengistmcstone

I like this bit ” scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum, not to perpetuate it. ” It’s great to see TVMOB is back
[Reply: Welcome to WUWT, Hengist. Please be kind enough to check this. Enjoy your visit. -REP, mod]

JRR Canada

By their silence we shall remember them. The scientific method is vital to humanities survival, but the teaching institutions are due to fall from favour as they are not educating anyone but cynics.As a cynic toward govt education I have been taught that the product is far worse than I thought.Not the lesson our academics intended I assume.

Lord Monckton, thanks!
God save the Queen and you!

Lord Monckton is always so well spoken and well written; thanks for having this post here. I hope we can all learn from his example.

Who is the Advocate of science and who is the politically driven lobbyists, is it the politician or the scientist? Lord Monckton is sharp!

Nurse is a nice guy, so is Monckton. Monckton neatly turns the tables on Nurse by pointing out that he is guilty of the same failing that Nurse accuses American science of.
But there is a philosophical point here. We can wonder why Nurse and others think the science is settled, when its obvious to us that it isnt. But there are areas where WE think the science is settled
will the sun rise tomorrow ?
does the earth go round the sun?
is the earth flat?
we certainly need to get the scientists engaged, but we need the philosophers to get stuck in as well
in my humble opinion

John B

Monckton was an advisor to Thatcher, but not a science or climate advisor. Wikipedia also this on him:
“Resurrexi Pharmaceutical is stated on the UK Independence Party (UKIP) web site to be a company of which Monckton is a director. In the BBC documentary, “Meet the Sceptics” (2011),[43] Monckton, said he had cured himself of Graves’ disease an auto-immune disease thought to have been triggered either by a one-time virus or bacterial infection, and said he was researching a “broad-spectrum cure” for infectious diseases. UKIP’s CV for Monckton states that “patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex 6. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue.”
So if a guy like that is calling “anti-science”, it must be bad!

Nuke Nemesis

Why is it that after at least 12 years of education, Americans of all political perspectives don’t know the difference between faith and science, or the difference between science and morality? If we narrow our focus more to science, how is it they have no knowledge of the scientific method.

Dayday

Paul Nurse seems to prove this Quote
“To me there never has been a higher source of honour or distinction than that connected with advances in science. I have not possessed enough of the eagle in my character to make a direct flight to the loftiest altitudes in the social world; and I certainly never endeavored to reach those heights by using the creeping powers of the reptile, who in ascending, generally chooses the dirtiest path, because it is the easiest.”
Consolations in Travel, by Humphrey Davy

Al Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’ CEO, Maggie L. Fox, Cancels Climate Change Discussion
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
To Chris Monckton the refusal to debate will not be new, he’s been ‘calling-out’ Al Gore
for years. Seems that extends to his staff now as well.

Kasuha

Kasuha says:
September 17, 2011 at 11:05 am
… “[REPLY: check here for a start. You should do your own homework first. -REP, mod]”
The link you provided only confirms he was working in a function called “political advisor” in Number 10 Policy Unit while Margaret Thatcher was prime minister. I don’t think that really deserves titling him “Margaret Thatcher’s advisor” any more than anybody else working in that building deserves being called Margaret Thatcher’s doorkeeper, janitor, delivery boy or whatever else.
Of course it’s matter of opinion, too. And I guess it explains a lot of the confusion.

R. Gates

Ostensibly Monckton and Nurse are saying the same thing…the only difference being the scientists they each choose to believe…i.e. if you don’t believe “my” scientists, you are anti-science. In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?

“In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?”
You don’t think they are already here?

Nuke Nemesis says:
“Why is it that after at least 12 years of education, Americans of all political perspectives don’t know the difference between faith and science, or the difference between science and morality? If we narrow our focus more to science, how is it they have no knowledge of the scientific method.”
For the same reason that science has been corrupted: government control of education. Science and the scientific method are taught less and less in government schools, and are replaced with global warming propaganda and environmentalism.
Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is shown incessantly to impressionable students with almost never a balanced, skeptical rebuttal. For balance, adults have WUWT. But the poor kids are spoon-fed alarmist scare stories. Child abuse, no?

Mark S

Peter Hadfield was a correspondent for New Scientist. Watch his 5 part YouTube series on Christopher Monckton. Monckton is ripped to bits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA

I look forward to Potholer54’s video on Watts Up With That?.
Oh yes. 😉

Ralph

For those of you who did not see it, Paul Nurse was the producer and presenter of one of the BBC’s worst propaganda programs ever produced. It was intended to debunk and lampoon climate scepticism, but it turned into the most one-sided and unscientific comedy shows I have ever seen. Any perpetrator of such nonsense, even Paul Nurse himself, should have their degrees revoked.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p2X6Oc3kc8&feature=related

.

Ralph

>>Kasuha says: September 17, 2011 at 12:27 pm
>>confirms he was working in a function called “political advisor” in
>>Number 10 Policy Unit while Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.
>>I don’t think that really deserves titling him “Margaret Thatcher’s advisor”
So a political advisor to Mrs Thatcher, is not really a political advisor. That’s a magnificent distortion of the known facts. Tell me, do you analyse tree rings as well?
.

sailboarder

Kasuha says “I don’t think that really deserves titling him”
I see a classic troll tactic of attacking the person, not the substance of the topic.

Mark S

Ralph, Christopher Monckton clearly said he advised Margaret Thatcher on the subject of climate change. Just one of his many fabrications.

roger

R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm
In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?
Well said that man! Now about that melting ice……………..

Pat Frank

In the US, the idea that Republicans are anti-science was popularized by Chris Mooney. There is some truth to the charge, but their anti-science is selective and religion-oriented – primarily directed against abortion, evolutionary theory, and birth control.
The irony is that AGW partisanship is heavily supported among Democrats, and promoted by party leaders and office-holders. Their partisan activity has been blatantly anti-science in that it has suppressed dissent, distorted the granting process, negatively affected careers, encouraged and even protected dishonest scientists, and actively sought to pervert the necessary dispassion of scientific inquiry.
In all this, the Democrats have been very successful in subverting science. AGW partisanship is an active war against science by the Democratic Party and by democrats that has been far more noxious, more widespread, more destructive, and far more successful than anything the Republicans ever achieved.
Speaking personally, after the Religious Right took over the Republican Party I found myself unable to ever vote for Republican candidates, even when they were personally worthy, because I knew that to get anything done they’d have to compromise with vile party ideologues. Since AGW partisanship became prominent, I can no longer vote for Democratic candidates either. Their party agenda is to actively pervert science in the name of AGW and even worthy democratic legislators would have to compromise with vile party ideologues. I’m almost certainly not alone in this quandary.
I was at a Humanist conference a year ago in LA, where Chris Mooney spoke. It’s a deep irony that, having accused Republicans of being anti-science, he’s as anti-science as the worst of them and as self-righteously blind about it. He’s got no cognizance and no concept, at all, of his failing. In Mr. Mooney’s defense, one isn’t a hypocrite if one is sincerely dishonest.

Bill Illis

New paper by Manabe (the father of the climate model and early promoter of global warming – at 2.0C per doubling only to be pushed aside by Hansen’s 4.5C per doubling) showing the tropical troposphere is responding much differently than the climate models project.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf
New paper by Ben Santer (of climategate fame and wide error margins) talking about how far off the troposphere is responding versus the climate models. We need 17 years to be able to assess whether they are wrong. Manabe above uses 30 years and says “way, way off Ben.”
http://muenchow.cms.udel.edu/classes/MAST811/Santer2011.pdf
So Paul Nurse is only partly correct. We cannot trust the early climate model projections but the scientists themselves are now coming around.

Read about Paul Nurse’s attempt to ‘curb overpopulation’:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece
(if this is not creepily politically motivated, I don’t know what is)
Paul Nurse was the president of Rockefeller University, and the Rockefeller foundation are enthusiastic eugenics supporters.

Doug in Seattle

R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?”

An excellent point. I can only say to you that my skepticism of AGW is a product of my scientific training. While my political views tend to be libertarian rather than liberal, I try hard to look at science from a position of political neutrality. In other words I look to the facts (all of them) and let my conclusions be derived from them.

Mark S says:
“Ralph, Christopher Monckton clearly said he advised Margaret Thatcher on the subject of climate change. Just one of his many fabrications.”
And how would you know if that is a “fabrication” or not? Do you presume to have ESP, or maybe a teleconnection to what was discussed between them? The alarmist contingent has such an abysmal reputation because of off the wall, unsupportable and unverifiable statements like that.

Darkinbad the Brightdayler

It all sounds very ad hom.
Not a very edifying debate whichever side of the divide you are observing from.
It shows a lack of confidence in the science they are espousing when the protagonists tout their honours and reputations in front of the cameras.

R. Gates says: September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Kary Mullis has a wonderful video on TED and starts off talking about the intersection of politics and science and the founding of the Royal Society in the 17th century. It’s worth a view.
http://www.ted.com/talks/kary_mullis_on_what_scientists_do.html

Ralph

>>roger says September 17, 2011 at 12:48 pm
>>Well said that man! Now about that melting ice……………..
What melting ice??
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/antarctic-sea-ice-since-1979.jpg
.

Hugh Pepper

This article is almost verbatim lifted from Sir Paul Nurses’s piece already published. It is legitimate to quote from the work of others, but using almost their entire work without quotation marks, or direct attribution, is normally considered unethical.

MarkS
Monckton Bio.
“In 1986 he was the first to advise the Prime Minister that “global warming” caused by CO2 should be investigated. Two years later she set up the Hadley Center”
http://www.mitef.org.uk/efuk/pages/mitef_bio_lord_monckton.php
tip – I wouldn’t call Monckton a liar if I were you.

Ralph

>>ZT says: September 17, 2011 at 1:10 pm
>>Read about Paul Nurse’s attempt to ‘curb overpopulation’:
Leave overpopulation out of this – it has nothing to do with Global Warming, and people from both sides of the debate support a curb in population. In fact, no civilisation can call itself civilised, until it can control its population – or are we to act like lemmings and leap off cliffs when we run out of resources (esp: food and water)?
The surprising thing here, is that Greenpeace will not debate population levels. The exponential rate of human population is the GREATEST threat to the environment, and yet Green peace said in an email to myself, that: “Greenpeace had never and would never, campaign on population levels”.
So there you have it, the environmental lobby group who will not debate the greatest threat to the environment, but will debate ‘cuddly’ seals, whales and polar bears.
.

Nuke Nemesis

R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Ostensibly Monckton and Nurse are saying the same thing…the only difference being the scientists they each choose to believe…i.e. if you don’t believe “my” scientists, you are anti-science. In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?

No, the questions about using embryonic stem cells is not about science. It’s a question of values.
I agree that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is a statement of belief.
One problem is we don’t teach the difference between science and belief in our schools. Intelligent Design could be used to compare the differences between science and belief. But if you really start teaching science, you’ll have to teach things such as the scientific method, how a scientific theory must be falsifiable and how experimentation and real-world observations are used to support or invalidate theories.
Our schools are dumbed-down for a reason. How are you going to turn our kids into little community activists if they are taught to ask questions?

Bruce Cobb

Hugh Pepper says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm
This article is almost verbatim lifted from Sir Paul Nurses’s piece already published. It is legitimate to quote from the work of others, but using almost their entire work without quotation marks, or direct attribution, is normally considered unethical.
Nurse’s argument is laughable, and chock-full of mistakes in logic. Monckton simply uses Nurse’s own flawed, ideologically-based logic against him. It is satire, and there is nothing whatsoever about it that’s unethical. It is quite brilliant, actually.

R. Gates

joseph says:
September 17, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?”
You don’t think they are already here?
_____
Not quite…close, but not quite. Once we see the first scientist sent to prison (or worse) for his/her beliefs, we’ll know they’ve started in earnest.
And as a tangential note, during Europe’s dark ages, of course China was in full bloom in advancement of science and technology. Interesting how history repeats…I will be willing to bet China will place the first humans on Mars.

Ralph says: September 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm (Edit)
Actually, Ralph, the issue of population has a great deal to do with the debate and alarmists like Ehrlich and Holdren have had a great deal to say about that linkage. They have been yammering about the “population crisis” since the sixties and have latched on to CAGW as a vehicle for promoting their neo-malthusian nonsense. Over-population is NOT the greatest problem facing the world: developed, industrialized countries enter periods of population decline. The U.S., Western Europe and Japan have all reached the point where their birth rates have fallen below the population replacement rate. The U.S. population continues to expand because of immigration. The other consideration is that the population in those countries is aging… the median age in the United States is about 38, for Germany it is 40 and the percent of people over age 65 will reach 25% of the population within the next 15 or so years. It is most definitely relevant.

R. Gates

Doug in Seattle says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm
R. Gates says:
September 17, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“In an age where science can be used to move the political football one direction or another for your team, can a new dark ages be far behind?”
An excellent point. I can only say to you that my skepticism of AGW is a product of my scientific training.
_____
And I can only say to you that my belief in AGW is a product of my scientific training. But please note, never once have I been a C-AGW proponent, and so, while I think it more likely than not that humans are affecting the climate, and have for quite some time, I am not a believer that this will necessarily be catastrophic in outcome. Furthermore, I am currently quite opposed to economic and technical (i.e. geoengineering) fixes for this situation…especially geoengineering I would oppose as the cure could be far worse than the disease . I think our resources are far better spent to find ways to improve the lives of the billions of humans living in poverty and hunger around the world. To the extent that the efforts to help these fellow humans intersects with the efforts to ameliorate the effects of climate change, it becomes a win/win situation…but the focus should be first and foremost to eliminate poverty, hunger, access to clean water, and lack of education.

ben

I was pleasantly surprised to read “in the peer-reviewed economic literature, are near-unanimous that it is cheaper to pay for the damage arising from any global warming that may occur than to spend anything now on attempted mitigation” – any pointers to some of this literature? I am sorry to say other than the Stern review bunkum I was not aware other more serious attempts at cost-benefit had been made.

It would seem a little know the story of Margaret Thatcher conservative government was very much opposed by the very large and powerful coal unions of the time. More importantly these unions were funding the labor party and also funding much opposition to a the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher in general.
A way to reduce the viability and influence of coal unions was to embark on a large nuclear program and close down as many coal mines as possible. The result would be the elimination of a very significant and vocal group of coal Miners who were supporting and funding the labor party.
It is ironic twist of fate that a conservative government of Margaret Thatcher pushed the idea of carbon dioxide as being bad as a way to break the coal unions and shut down coal mining and increase use of nuclear power.
Lord Monckton was obviously an adviser to the Thatcher government and no doubt issues of climate came up. Monckton never claimed he was a climate advisor but there is little doubt that climate was a topic since the Margaret Thatcher government is very much responsible for jump starting a lot of the lets tax co2 and co2 is bad for mankind movement.
As a few pointed out here, the lame attempt to discredit Monckton here by the fools who are really bankrupt in any intellectual debate shows much why the likes of Al Gore ONLY accept interviews when the questions to be asked are given to Al Gore BEFORE the interview.

Nuke Nemesis

If you can, find today’s Wall Street Journal and read Daniel Yergin’s essay “There will be Oil” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html, which exposes the origins of the Peak Oil concept and why it’s nonsense.
Peak Oil was promulgated by Marion King Hubbert, who was a technocrat. Technocracy “promoted the idea that democracy was a sham and that scientists and engineers should take over the reins of government and impose rationality on the economy” and “envisioned a no-growth society and the elimination of the price system, to be replaced by the wise administration of the Technocrats.”
Sound familiar to anyone?

Przemysław Pawełczyk

I haven’t read Sir Paul Nurses’s piece. Let me guess then which part of the post comes from His text.
Quote – “We have to hope that the people of the UK will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject – and to de-fund – political movements that pose as scientific societies while rejecting science and taking us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.”
1. “by vocal minorities” – well, decidedly “WUWT Society” – sort of minority of petty “deniers”. 😉
2. “time to reject – and to de-fund – ” >>and gun down or execute<< is pressing into my mind. Clearly CAGW language.
3. "rejecting science" – only CAGW use such expressions.
So, the paragraph was written by Sir Paul Nurses. Am I right? 😉
Regards

R. Gates says: September 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm
I will be willing to bet China will place the first humans on Mars.
Agreed. I’ve been saying for years that the first starship will probably be named Tien Shan rather than Enterprise.

anticlimactic

Although Christopher Monckton, and many others, can be very cogent in their opposition to AGW their audience can be very limited as the media is not likely to communicate their ideas.
I think the main problem is that ‘environmental correspondents’ will usually be from the Green Movement, either as members or with strong affiliations. To be objective with regards to the science which contradicts AGW risks alienating them from friends, and even a whole lifestyle, should they be ostrasized.
I do not know if environmental correspondents are ‘gullible idiots’ who simply believe what they are told to believe, or more knowledgeable people who simply want to push propaganda ‘for the good of the cause’. It would take someone brave to be objective as the consequences on their personal lives could be far reaching.
The same must also be true of climate scientists who, if they were too objective, could lose friends, research grants, their job, any future career, etc.
This winter thousands will die of hypothermia as they can not afford to pay the subsidies for wind and solar power. This is the responsibility of these environmental correspondents, scientists and activists who have clung on to AGW far beyond the time that it made any sense. Plus of course those getting rich on the proceeds [there is some overlap here!]. Do they have ANY conscience about this?

G. Karst

Monckton is a sharp spearhead constantly poking warmist in the arse. No one is better at it, and I thank him for his efforts. Some of the comments and video have crossed the line from ad hominem to libelous. This reveals more of the commenter than Lord Monckton. GK

R. Gates

Nuke Nemesis says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“Our schools are dumbed-down for a reason. How are you going to turn our kids into little community activists if they are taught to ask questions?”
___
Not to pick specifically on you, but this is perfect example of the extreme divide in thinking in our society. Schools (both public and private) across the U.S. are always looking for most qualified science and math teachers they can find. If you’re a qualifed math or science teacher, especially at the High School level, you’re in great demand. There is no conspiracy to “dumb down” our schools, at least on the public school level…quite the opposite. I would give you an example from close my own community, with the opening of public school Institute for Science and Technology:
http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/article_35b30ac8-8b40-55ef-8306-64fe7870e0cc.html
This is hardly an attempt to “dumb down” students…but rather to help them compete in a world increasingly dependent on scientists and engineers for economic growth…

Ralph

>>Robert E. Phelan says: September 17, 2011 at 2:02 pm
>>Actually, Ralph, the issue of population has a great deal to do with the debate
So in what way does overpopulation cause Global Warming? Please do tell me? Stop comparing apples and oranges. I do not believe in AGW – but I do think that overpopulation is a threat to the environment (and to world political stability).
.
>>Over-population is NOT the greatest problem facing the world:
>>developed, industrialized countries enter periods of population decline.
…. while developing and religious nations breed exponentially. We are being called upon to look at the effects that Global Warming is having with starvation in East Africa, while the fact that the population had trebled in 30 years is totally overlooked. We are told that water shortages are Global Warming induced, when the majority of shortages are caused by population pressures.
And likewise, you are ignoring the greatest threat to the environment, which is the industrialisation of the Third World. When the rest of the world catches up with US consumption, the threat to resources and the environment will be inescapable. Or is the Third World not allowed to play ‘economic catch-up’?
.

kramer

Background: Paul Nurse is a Nobel prizewinner and Royal Society president.
and…
“he sold Socialist Worker” + “Despite the grand achievement, Nurse’s undergraduate socialist spirit is still alive and well:”
http://www.newstatesman.com/print/201106090038
He has socialist ties as does Carol Browner, Joseph Stiglitz, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Jeffery Sachs, and Howard ‘yeeeaaww’ Dean.

anticlimactic says: September 17, 2011 at 2:14 pm
If you are interested, you can start by looking at the website for the Society of Environmental Journalists here:
http://www.sej.org/?device=desktop

Ralph

.
>>Nuke Nemesis says: September 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm
>Today’s Wall Street Journal and read Daniel Yergin’s essay “There will be
>>Oil”, which exposes the origins of the Peak Oil concept and why it’s nonsense.
Utter nonsense.
Peak oil is an undeniable fact – written in stone. Oil is a limited natural resource, and so it WILL peak in its production at some point in time. It has to, by the laws of supply and demand. The only variable (and unknown) here, is the estimation of WHEN it will peak in its production.
.