Stamp out anti-science – Expose the bunkum

It is time to reject political movements that masquerade as scientific societies while turning their backs on science.

So says Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, in a brilliant rebuttal to an article in New Scientist by Paul Nurse.

In that article, Nurse, who heads “the grandly-named and lavishly-grant-aided Royal Society,” makes fun of the statement that climate change: variations are “natural, cyclical environmental trends.” (Which is correct.)

Then Nurse makes fun of the statement that “we can’t say with assurance that human activities cause weather changes”. (Which is also correct.)

Thankfully, there are people like Christopher Moncton who see through Mr. Nurse’s reprehensible non-scientific words.

Here are excerpts from Lord Moncton’s rebuttal

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 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.

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.

Scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum, not to perpetuate it.

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.

See entire Moncton response:

Thanks to Ron de Haan for this link


7 thoughts on “Stamp out anti-science – Expose the bunkum

  1. It is people like Monckton who are the real advocates of returning the efforts of science to SCIENTISTS, and ending the influence of POLITICIANS who distort science to fit their political agenda.

  2. Gore’s and msm main role is to divert humankind from the preparation for the next ice age. For the moment, unfortunately, they succeed, the same as VULNERABLE plowers Mayans, Aztecs,Incas ‘succeeded’ COLLAPSING cannibalizing, by devastating volcanic winters…

  3. “Science” has become a media marketing tool. the pharmas may be the clearest comparator.
    cherry pick, and selectively gather, and carefully word the reults to seem believable (until you stop and really think about it) or you suffer harm from the side effects inc death..
    People WILL die from the results of Gore Hansen , the HAD Cru misleads,and the IPCC.
    most likely of cold or thirst and starvation.

    cant cut trees, store water, or use power from coal or uranium or gas.burning off to stop massive wildfires, is a no no.

    some people Have committed suicide because the hype and doom promoters, scared them witless.

    Australia is going to have some Huge and horrific fires this year, due to land locked up due to kyoto and other ultragreen Gorons mandates. our Idiotic PM still believes that she has the ONLY science-the best available- she often states..May “the Lodge” be snowed in…soon.

  4. Yesterday, 17th September, here in southern England, the temperature dropped to 12C and it is the same temperature today.

    Just thought you’d like to know that the US isn’t the only country with colder than average temperatures at the moment.

  5. Robert,

    Physics and science is broken beyond repairing or adjusting.
    It is 100 times more complex than what simple generalized theories would have us believe. These theories were a consensus of scientists in a time when all sorts of technology was being created. But by then the “experts” were established with many theoretical laws and many individual areas of study of these theories using proxies and bad techniques that did NOT include ALL parameters in the experimental portion of research.
    Current science are based on this planet as being a cylinder and NOT an orb that has different speeds of rotation from the equator to poles in a 24 hour period. A single calculation cannot compensate for distance differences to the ORB sun which also has different energy outputs as it is also smaller going to the poles.

    The Achilles heel of the start of physics is that the planet is in inertia. There is many areas that show that this is incorrect and the sun’s rotational interaction helps boost the planets rotation. This then effects all theories pertaining to relativity, gravity and density.

    But current protection of theories and “experts” carriers are in jeopardy when confronted with physical evidence. So, they just quote published references rather than looking at the evidence.

  6. Paul Nurse is a fool. He claims cyclical climate change is not real. That makes him a fake scientist. He is ignoring all the ice core and fossil records that undeniably prove he is wrong. If it wasn’t for the huge grants this guy gets, he would probably be flat broke selling pencils on a street corner while wearing a sign reading, “The End Is Near! Go Green Before It’s Too Late!”.

Comments are closed.