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.
Hugh Pepper says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm
“This article is almost verbatim lifted from Sir Paul Nurses’s (sic) 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.”
Another Peppery comment…. but a Hugh (or more correctly ‘Huge’) mistake! Did you not bother to read the acknowledgements or the references that followed? Is a false allegation ‘normally considered unethical’? DOH! Here they are again, for your belated edification……
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
First of all “Bravo Lord Monckton.”
As for peak oil, it is not a meaningful concept. It is merely a theoretical construct with no particular relavance to the real world. Firstly there are a number of sources of hydrocarbons which we have barely begun to tap, unconventional sources if you will. Secondly there is this miraculous thing in economics called “substitution.” Long before oil is exhausted substitutes shall be taking its place… we can not be certain about the fuel mix in 2050 (arbitrary year), so worrying about what role oil will play at that stage is a fairly meaningless question.
Got to love them peak oilies though… they do provide much entertainment.
Albert D. Kallal said on September 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm:
The battle with the unions happened many years before any mention of global warming by Thatcher. In fact, at the time the lefties had a campaign to encourage people to turn on as many lightbulbs as possible, so as to deplete fossil fuel stocks and thus force the government to make a deal with the coal miners. Few realised at the time how futile this was, since Thatcher had stockpiled masses of coal in advance.
The current battle over the AGW-proponents’ efforts to shut down, effectively, all economic activity can (pace “scientific” arguments) only reasonably be seen as a continuation of this Marxist strategy. Some people scoffed back in the day, when the unions (and the Labour Party) in Britain were accused of receiving Soviet funding and support, but now we know this to have been the case. These days, some people (not too many) laugh when folks talk about the agenda of AGW-proponents, so I can only imagine the noble Lord feels a sense of déjà vu.
Ralph says:
September 17, 2011 at 3:09 pm
>>Przemysław Pawełczyk says: September 17, 2011 at 2:45 pm
>>Does the “peak” (oil) mean that we will stop consumption on the peak level
>>as new revolutionary energy resources will emerge or that we will not be
>>able to extract it (due to what constraints?)?
> What new energy sources? Every time anyone mentions nuclear, it gets trodden on (witness Germany).
Why? Oil industry? Do they know what we do not? (On proven oil resources for example). Search for the moment they will start to invest in nuclear technology (or whatever), that’d be your real “peak”.
> Anyway, any new discoveries of oil do not alter the undeniable fact that oil is a limited resource – and so its production MUST peak at sometime. That may be 50 years, or that may be 500 years, but it WILL peak.
Yep, but time matters. 50 or 500 years is 1000% difference! You preach doomsday scenario.
> My guess, based upon recent oil finds getting smaller and harder to extract by the decade, is that we shall peak in less than 30 years. That’s only a guess, and others may have a different opinion – but the production of oil WILL peak at some time. I bet you ten million dollars it will. Bet?? … 😉
Nope (see the first part of my answer). The U.S. gov spend trillions on unnecessary and unlawful wars in the last years. What we could get in technology advancements and achievements for the money instead?! I’m sure that “something wonderful” (Copyright Bowman from 2010: The Year We Make Contact).
My doubts expressed also:
1. Andrew Parker says:
September 17, 2011 at 3:49 pm
2. kwik says:
September 17, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Regards
Pat Frank says:
September 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm
The obsession of the Democratic Party with environmental extremism, most stridently and destructively AGW, is a kind of mirror image ideological imposition.
==================================================================
Mirror image may be correct. Enviro-whackos propose many destructive ideas, such as living without carbon based fuels. They also embrace the thoughts of Malthus: Believing that we’ve too many people and we need to reduce our population…….. leaving it to your imagination as to how we’d accomplish such atrocious goals. And, they’ve proposed and to an extent have been effective in keeping some 3rd world nations impoverished.
In retrospect, they’re nothing alike and you do a great disservice to your nation and its people by making such comparisons.
Christopher says/quotes:
True science may be found in “the consensus opinions of experts”
———-
So instead we are supposed to believe that true science resides in the opinions of eccentric political activists like Christopher Monckton?
Sorry guys ain’t gonna happen.
A summary of what Potholer 54 found out about Monckton’s “scientific truth”.
For more detail watch the videos.
Monckton said he advised Margret Hatcher on climate change – HE DIDN’T.
He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – HE DIDN’T.
He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.
He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.
He said there has been no systematic ice loss in the artic – THERE HAS.
He says there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – YES, THERE IS.
He says a pre-Cambrian ice planet shows that CO2 has no effect on the climate – SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.
He says there has been no change in Himalayan glaciers for 200 years – THERE HAS.
He says only one Himalayan glacier is retreating – NO, LOTS OF THEM ARE.
He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.
He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
He says a leading climate researcher found a loss of cloud cover is responsible for recent warming – SHE SAYS IT SHOWS NO SUCH THING.
He misquotes scientists to mislead his audience.
He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.
He gets information in peer-reviewed science papers wrong.
He says some planets are warming because of the Sun – NO THEY’RE NOT
He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.
Bulldust – best of luck growing the global economy with unconventional carbon energy.
Ashes to ashes – bulldust to bulldust
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
You have it back to front. The supporters of Global Warming are pushing it not because it causes overpopulation but because the actions they propose to combat it will have the effect of significantly reducing population. For the eugenicists and Malthusians CAGW is a new opportunity to suppress people, reduce their standard of living and options and thereby their freedom and livespan. Anticlimactic said it above
This winter thousands will die of hypothermia as they can not afford to pay the subsidies for wind and solar power.
If left to their own devices, this screw will just continue to tighten on people.
The real irony is that they have it back to front too. What is truly incontrovertible is that the higher people’s standard of living go the lower their birthrate. This has happened over and over and over. It just seems, though, that some people cannot abide the thought of other populations rising to their own standard of living. CAGW has been called the greatest scam in history (which is it) but, as some of its proponents know all to well, it is also the greatest hypocricy.
To see how government education has dumbed down the entire population, see an 1895 school exam here. Over 90% of the population would fail it.
Here’s a current test by WUWT commentator A. Fucalaro [posted 1/10/2011] that he gives his class to work on over Christmas holiday, so maybe all is not lost [however, he teaches in Canada]:
.
The central problem in government-funded education [even most private schools receive government funding] is the same as in government-funded climate science: way too much tax money. Money corrupts. A little is necessary. But when the federal government shovels ≈$7 billion into “climate studies” every year, grabbing that money by hook or by crook becomes priority #1.
Thus, Climategate; endless jaunts to holiday hotspots for unnecessary conferences and meetings; falsely inflating cronies’ CV’s; using underhanded, unethical tactics to keep everyone out of the peer review process and journals who could possibly jeopardize that income stream; attacking and demonizing skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist]; and universities repeatedly whitewashing flagrant scientific misconduct when any of their Elmer Gantry-style rainmakers are threatened.
The $billions in the climate grant trough also starves much more deserving science and scientists of needed funds. Recently a rather large asteroid passed between the earth and the moon – which wasn’t noticed until after it had passed by. Yet funds to track dangerous asteroids and comets amount to only a few million per year. It is past time to end the financing of the corrupt climate alarmist industry, and concentrate on real threats.
Andres Valencia says:
September 17, 2011 at 11:37 am
Lord Monckton, thanks!
God save the Queen and you!
God save the bloody QUEEN? The Queen – like all the other Royals – is firmly on the Climate Alarmist side. The Queen also happily disregards her duty as enforcer of our constitution (the Bill Of Rights) and has willingly signed away our sovereignty at every opportunity. Again, like all the Royals she is totally pro-EU. So God Save Britannia from the Queen.
Iren – take a detailed trip on google earth and don’t miss the coastline of China – for one.
Kasuha says
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 see what you mean: a polical advisor amoungst many vs the personal day to day political advisor.
I think Maggies biography would give some clue to that question. I get the impression that christopher’s role was down played in that book. Worth checking as Christopher has a habit if big noting himself.
If I recall correctly Maggie was a trained chemist and put in substantial climate change policies as has the current conservative government. A case of conservative government actually being conservative.
The current crop of republicans in the us seem to have gone right wing radical and have become obsessed with the left wing. Any thing that they can categorise as left wing seems to be gut reaction rejected.
I reckon if Obama claimed that the world was a sphere and the sky was a thin film of gas surrounding that sphere, the republicans would immediately claim the world was flat and the sky was a huge blue tent.
Ralph says….
“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. ”
Yawn!
The concept of peak oil has no useful purpose. It exists to be used as a club to advance a political agenda.
As I said recently on a thread at Climate etc., I don’t rule out human inventiveness. Especially in combination with the profit motive.
One winter, on the equinox, my brother and friends balanced eggs on the table. Later that year, he was talking about it and my immediate response, after trying to think of a reason why this would happen, was to tell him I think that’s wrong. He told me, “no we did it in Earth Science class back in high school” (He’s 35 years old). I simply asked him, “have you ever tried to balance an egg on another day of the year?”, he said “no” and then I retrieved a half dozen eggs from the fridge and balanced them all in front of him.
This is just one example of the stuff placed in your head in high school by teachers who are just self deluded and also lack critical thinking skills. I think that is the largest failure of schools today. I’ve learned more out of school than in school by reading and applying critical thinking; especially re-examining things I heard while in school. History has been eliminated and replaced with “Social Studies class”. What will happen to science?
What has happened in the AGW, or CAGW debate is astounding to me. By connecting general warming to man, they have reduced the debate to the point where people think that if one year is warmer than the last, man made global warming is true and they don’t have the critical thinking skills to realize what the argument is even about.
Here we find ourselves in the odd position of hoping for cooling, continents to freeze over and also trying to “pet” one of the most deadly predators on earth.
Ancient man used to pray to the gods for the glaciers to recede, now we cheer for their arrival.
Smokey says:
September 17, 2011 at 4:40 pm
To see how government education has dumbed down the entire population, see an 1895 school exam here. Over 90% of the population would fail it.
——————————
Anytime I keep see in recurrent themes, especially in mass emails, I check them out. This has gone through many forms and is not accurate.
http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp
New Scientist sometimes surprises me. They printed my response to a green sided article on Rainforest management, a response which I never expected to see in print – a month late, but they still printed it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427290.500-human-versus-forest.html
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?
———-
Er no.
Its really about the balance of evidence. If there is a whole lot more evidence favoring one position than another then it is likely that the position with more and better quality evidence is correct. A consensus in science is firstly about a consensus of evidence and a consensus of professional judgement about what the evidence means and how reliable are the conclusions from that evidence.
Monckton is claiming that any evidence that contradicts his position is entirely wrong without making any honest effort to assess the reliability of that evidence. He starts from the proposition that it must be wrong, so he must find a way to discredit it.
He is trapped in a circular logic loop. He does not like the idea of social change, therefore he does not like climate change mitigation policies, therefore climate change can’t happen, therefore the scientists must be lying, therefore all if the evidence supporting climate change they produce must be bogus, therefore the scientists are lying, around and around in circles.
SethP,
Read the comments below the article and get enlightenment. Snopes doesn’t say it’s a hoax. In fact, it’s hard to know exactly what Snopes is saying, as several commenters pointed out.
Anyway, feel free to believe the test was a hoax, if that belief is important to you. But how did you do on A. Fulcalaro’s test? And how would the average American do on it? Be honest.
And while you’re at it, try to defend the incredible, non-productive waste in government education. The level of waste in government climate science funding is even more egregious.
Smokey says:
September 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm
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.
—————
Well good point. So pick up a mirror and ask yourself have you ever made unsupported claims about the motivations of climate scientists along the lines of “they are making stuff up to get fame and fortune”.
Monckton: “One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate” There follows a laying out of a modus operandi that is actually Monckton’s,not his target’s. If Monckton thinks this is a problem,then perhaps he should not do it…
“ben says:
September 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm
re cost benefit.”
See Bjorn Lomborg:
“The problem is that the cure may be worse than the disease.”
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1945639,00.html
@smokey
You’re right, it’s not a “hoax” per se, but it reminds me of “Are you smarter than a 5th grader?”. You probably won’t remember the middle name of the 7th president of the US, but a kid who just heard it a couple of days ago probably will.
I am in no way defending the current education system, quite the opposite. I didn’t mean to give that impression. And if you can answer question 1 off the top of your head I would be surprised.
Lazy T says:
“Its really about the balance of evidence.”
Err, no.
Because there is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, directly connecting the rise in CO2 with the current temperature rise. That may be the case… or not. But direct evidence is missing. That accounts for all the peripheral arm-waving, and for their vile censorship of alternate points of view.
Furthermore, the alarmist contingent hides out from debate, and refuses to disclose their methodology, data, metadata and codes. They treat any other scientist who simply requests data, code, and information on how they arrived at their conclusions as their mortal enemy. They connive to endlessly delay, or even to keep skeptical climate papers entirely out of journals, while their pals get fast-tracked in one day. In short, they act like any charlatan committing scientific misconduct would act.
Ben questions
——-
– any pointers to some of this literature?
I recollect some graphs about this few years back. So I know they are out there.
However some of this might originate with right wing think tanks and I tend to view their output, depending on which one, with attitudes ranging from skepticism to utter contempt.
LT says:
“And how would you know if that is a ‘fabrication’ or not? …pick up a mirror and ask yourself have you ever made unsupported claims about the motivations of climate scientists along the lines of ‘they are making stuff up to get fame and fortune’.”
I know it’s a fabrication because it was stated by the inventor himself. When he was fabricating 13 years of missing temperature data, Harry the programmer wrote: “I can just make it up as I go along. So I have.”
•••
SethP says:
“…if you can answer question 1 off the top of your head I would be surprised.”
I can’t. I’m in that 90%.☹