James Delingpole: The Royal Society jumps the shark (again)

Posted: February 15, 2013 by tallbloke in alarmism, humour, Incompetence

Dellers is on good form in the Telegraph:

nulliusThe Royal Society – founded 1660; former motto “Nullius In Verba” – this week strapped on a giant pair of waterskis and leapt over an enormous shark swimming in the pond in nearby St James’s Park. The shark, whose name is Ed Davey, is believed to have been lured over from Westminster aquarium to perform bizarre tricks for the amusement and delight of the Royal Society’s membership.

Explained the speed boat’s driver, Sir Paul Nurse, who thought up the idea:

“All that scientific method stuff: it’s so old hat. I mean like, Newton and Wren and Pepys – what kind of name is that, anyway? – they wore these stupid long grey wigs and came up with these complicated theories and did boring experiments, probably, well some of them did and not one of them ever once sold the Socialist Worker or took money from the Rockefeller Foundation either which just shows how right-wing and socially unengaged they were. So what we’re going to do now I’m running the show is ditch the Latin motto, which is so, like, waf waf, Eton crap, and we’re going to cut way back on all that factually-based, empiricist bollocks and just generally make the Royal Society more groovy and relevant to the modern age. Our performance by Ed Davey, the talking shark is just the start of it.”

At his talk yesterday, Mr Davey delighted his specially invited audience by announcing that “Climate change deniers smell not just of wee wee but poo as well,” that they’re “probably responsible for spreading TB rather than those innocent badgers that evil Owen Paterson wants to kill” and that he absolutely refused to accept rumours he’d heard that morning that his junior energy minister John Hayes donned a black cape at night and went round sucking out baby kittens’ brains with a straw. And that “global warming is definitely true, all the experts say so, so there.”

Mr Davey’s talk is the first of many events planned at People’s Soc – as the Royal Society will soon be renamed.

Read the rest here

  1. oldbrew says:

    The fact that the UK’s climate minister appears to have no idea that global temperatures have been static for well over a decade strongly suggests he is either being badly advised or is in denial of the truth. Either way he just looks incompetent.

  2. tallbloke says:

    The natural variability deniers are in full on wise monkey mode.

  3. tallbloke says:

    Maybe they should see how even polls run by alarmists are giving adverse results. Sceptical scientists now a big majority

    The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

    The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

    Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

    The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

    The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

    Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

    One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

    Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

    People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus

  4. oldbrew says:

    Time for another whistleblower 😉

  5. AlecM says:

    Davey was allegedly brainwashed at Oxford by Porritt who apparently represents the new Eugenics’- based fascism, like the 1930s.

    The way it’s being done is the get capital to the elite and herd the serfs into mass dwellings in cities to be starved to death. Think of Soylent Green.

    Also look at the optimum population Trust and David Attenborough’s role, also that Nurse was past President of the Galton Institute, until 1989 the Eugenics’ Society.

    This is fascism pure and simple.

  6. oldbrew says:

    While Ed Davey waffles about his ‘climate change deniers’ Britain is about to go into energy deficit.


  7. Brian H says:

    JD seems to have stomped on a nerve. He has over 1400 comments.

  8. Svanhildur says:

    AlecM has retracted his false assertion that Paul Nurse was President of the Galton Institute, on James Delingpole’s Telegraph blog for 7 Nov 2013 (in a comment made on 11 Nov).

    The erroneous claim was first made here, in the comment above. On 19 Feb, it was repeated in a comment thread on the Spectator, by AlecM and then by Latimer Alder.

    AlecM made the assertion again on Bishop Hill on 19 Feb, and on 27 April, 13 May, 11 Aug, and most recently 19 Oct. He has also made the claim several times on Delingpole’s blog, the final example before his retraction being on 10 November.