8 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. “Britain’s most senior scientist has launched a fierce attack on influential figures who distort scientific evidence to support their own political, religious or ideological agendas.

    The president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, said scientists must challenge serial offenders from all spheres of life who continually misused science to support their preconceived beliefs.”

    More irony than an ironmonger’s ironing.

    How is that catastrophic manmade global warming coming along, Nursie?

  2. The Royal Society, eh? Aren’t they that bunch of nutters who think that CAGW is undisputable scientifically proven truth, and that anyone who dares to mildly question the revealed truth, such as suggesting that a bit more warmth and a bit more CO2 can have benefits as well as costs, is a wicked denier in the pay of Big Oil?

    I should have thought Ehrlich would feel right at home with that mob.

  3. bloke in france – great minds… 🙂

    They’re purging Ehrlich after decades of his extreme batshit insanity because he’s become an embarrassment to the slightly less easily falsifiable batshit insanity the Royal Society wishes to promote.

  4. Britain’s most senior scientist has launched a fierce attack on influential figures who distort scientific evidence to support their own political, religious or ideological agendas.

    Unfortunately this is ultimately true for nearly every scientist, most of them err on the green left side of politics therefore their solution to CAGW is enforced cooperation, bans, restrictions and caps, and they quite often distort or exaggerate the science to support that view, or to discount others.

    This is where scientists are making political, social and economic decisions for which they are not qualified, a point considered by Bjorn Lomborg (who ironically I saw speak at the Royal Society). Even if CAGW is scientific fact, it goes beyond science to determine what to do about it.

    The green option, i.e. stopping all carbon emissions and developing alternatives at any cost, and the lefty option, i.e. making people cut back on carbon emissions at any cost, are not necessarily the best options, either for people or for the environment. The Maoist style ones implemented so far have a track record of not only impoverishing people but probably increasing carbon (biofuels, CFL bulbs, etc).

    The Royal Society needs to concentrate on science and the facts, and the education and understanding of those facts, which is precisely their area of expertise, and provide the other experts, those in economics and politics, the information for them to make decisions.

    For Sir Paul Nurse, this isn’t just about sacking scientists who distort the science, it should be about stopping scientists from going beyond their remit in the first place, he can start with his own good self.

  5. Quite so, Runcible.
    I suppose it’s what the French call “dĂ©formation professionelle”, that is if you are an expert on entomology or something you see that your neighbours don’t have a clue, so you think you’re an expert on fucking everything, which leads to lash-ups like the IPCC and the RS.

    Meanwhile Nurse thinks he’s the Mikado and he’s got a little list.

  6. This is of course the basis of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, that even if the scientists are right on the climate, that does not confer on them any expertise in designing appropriate policy…

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.