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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Delingpole, J., 2011, Sir Paul Nurse’s big boo-boo, climaterealists.com, January 30, http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7127.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
>>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
.
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.
>>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.
.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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…
>>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’?
.
“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
.
>>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.
.