JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Sir Paul Nurse, once a respected scientist, is reduced to mud-wrestling

He’s the new President of the British Science Association (I bet they are loving this media coverage) and has decided to move on from the old technique of debating scientific points on their merits. It’s too slow (especially if you don’t have… evidence). Instead he’s going with retro-science — Do you believe, sinner? It’s so retro, it’s retro-the-renaissance.

The Daily Mail UK

Politicians who do not believe in climate change should be ‘crushed and buried’, according to the new president of the British Science Association.

How much belief is enough, I wonder, to avoid the crushing? If a politician believed in the greenhouse theory but not the catastrophe, is that half crushed, or do we skip the squishing and go straight for the burying?

Sir Paul Nurse, who starts his presidency next week, pledged to ‘take on’ the ‘serial offenders’ who he accused of cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments.

In an extraordinary outburst, Sir Paul accused those who refuse to accept scientific orthodoxy on global warming of ‘distorting’ the facts.

Sir Paul singled out GWPF — as “pretending to talk about science” — and he whipped them mercilessly with ad hominem fallacies, generic infringements, petty insults, and argument by association.

He chanted the liturgical sacrament:

“‘Today we have those who mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and logical argument.”

Lo, behold, it’s a form of confessional projection.  If Sir Paul “swayed some evidence” he wouldn’t need to preach adherence to his ideology with violent threats, baseless opinions, and logical errors.
Full diatribe:  The Daily Mail UK
Time to write letters to the British Science Association.
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (113 votes cast)
Sir Paul Nurse, once a respected scientist, is reduced to mud-wrestling, 9.4 out of 10 based on 113 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kalpzmm

151 comments to Sir Paul Nurse, once a respected scientist, is reduced to mud-wrestling

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    What difference is there between this rabid adherence to a belief and ISIS?

    421

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      No difference at all.

      Sir Paul Nurse is one of the most respected minds in the new Earthian inspired drivelisation that is evolving on this planet. He should be listened to with ears and eyes wide open, sphincter tight and testicles contracted (if you have them).

      He is one of Inventive Science’s (IS) leaders. Techniques such as “data modelling” owe much to the tireless efforts of Sir Paul and his ilk.

      171

    • #

      Your comparison of lunatic rabid murdering scum to Sir Paul Nurse is disrespectful. The lunatic rabid murdering scum hold a higher moral position that Nurse ever will. They may have cretinously stupid arguments for their killing of innocents, but they have limited reach and will, in time, doubtless be dealt with. Nurse and his ilk have real influence here and are fixing his vile predmedieval ideas into public position appointments. Please stop befouling the name of lunatic rabid muredering scum by likening them to Nurse.

      221

    • #
      Jon

      His mission is clearly political and along this line?
      “The ideological view has been that an international political solution to climate change can be negotiated if driven by the engine of science. That is, if a strong enough scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change could be forged and sustained, then the compelling force of such rationality would over-ride the differences in worldviews, beliefs, values and ideologies which characterise the human world. Such a scientific consensus would bring about the needed policy solutions. This is the “If-then” logic of computer programming, the conviction that the right way to tackle climate change is through what Dan Sarewitz at Arizona State University has called “The Plan” [8]. And there are those who still believe in this project. They excoriate others who obstruct and obscure this pure guiding light of rationality—a position adopted, for example, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their recent book Merchants of Doubt [9].
      From the vantage point of 2014 we can now see that the credibility of such a narrative hinged on a set of circumstances peculiar to the late 1980s and early 1990s. These included: (i) the belief in the ‘end of history’ and the triumph of (neo-)liberal democracy; (ii) the seeming continued marginalisation of religion in public life; and (iii) the emergence of a globalised environmental science. This latter enterprise secured its first big success in 1987, when the predictive power of the newly minted Earth System science was co-opted by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It was the convergence of these circumstances in the years around 1990 that helped fashion the conventional climate change project—“The Plan”—and allowed it to surge forward with optimism.
      At the time it seemed entirely reasonable that with one of the last “enemies” of progressive Enlightenment liberalism having been swept away (i.e., communism), a new irrepressible world order would emerge. And it would be one that would now fully exploit the predictive power of fruitful globalised science. The putative threat that a burgeoning carbon-fuelled humanity—thriving, ironically, through the fruit of this very same Enlightenment—was posing to climatic stability would be defused. This project would demonstrate decisively the force of scientific rationality over the fading and divisive powers of religion and ideology. Scientific consensus would forge political consensus and political consensus would yield victory. And victory would be the Salvation of the planet”
      Short version is if we politicize science and forge and sustain a consensus then we can rule the world?

      70

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Agree Colin, I was about to ask when did ISIS take over British Science?

    Sir Paul Nurse said Politicians who do not believe in climate change should be ‘crushed and buried’, according to the new president of the British Science Association.
    I do not see much difference between that of ISIS who practice: Those who do not believe as we do must die, off with their heads.
    And to think this is the country that gave us Newton and so other many brilliant scientists.

    350

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      Sorry Jo and mods but I am going to attack the man.

      I have no idea how true this wikipedia entry is but I believe it needs telling to the world,

      Early life and education

      Nurse’s mother went from London to Norwich, Norfolk and lived with relatives while awaiting Paul’s birth in order to hide illegitimacy. His biological maternal grandmother pretended to be his mother while she was alive and his mother pretended to be his sister for her entire life too.[29] He was educated at Lyon Park school in Alperton and Harrow County Grammar School.[1] His undergraduate applications were rejected by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Sussex and York on account of the fact that he did not possess the requisite pass in a foreign language. He was also initially rejected by the University of Birmingham, however after attending an interview he was offered a place conditional on the fact that he take French classes in his first year. He received his undergraduate degree in 1970 from the University of Birmingham and his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in 1973 from the University of East Anglia for research on Candida utilis.[7]

      I am sorry Sir Paul but I trust your current bitterness and cleaving to the 97% is not influenced by your formative years which appear to me could leave a person with troubling thoughts and issues.

      373

      • #
        NoFixedAddress

        And further to that I would like to ask Sir Paul how could you send in a ‘stream’ of applications such that

        His undergraduate applications were rejected by the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Sussex and York on account of the fact that he did not possess the requisite pass in a foreign language.

        Did you not read the applicable application criteria?

        And then it says

        He was also initially rejected by the University of Birmingham, however after attending an interview he was offered a place conditional on the fact that he take French classes in his first year. He received his undergraduate degree in 1970 from the University of Birmingham and his Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in 1973 from the University of East Anglia for research on Candida utilis.

        So now we complete the circle back to the University of East Anglia!

        And what research did you do at East Anglia to gain your PhD?

        Why it was this The spatial and temporal organisation of amino acid pools in candida utilis. – See more at: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.467339#sthash.enybeZwa.dpuf for which no abstract is available.

        By the way, who was your supervisor?

        222

      • #
        Manfred

        Am I correct in thinking that qualification in climate science is a prerequisite to be able to speak on the subject? Not being a trained climate scientist, but a “climate scientist” Sir Paul proves the point nicely in his tabloid bilious bombast.

        100

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        An earlier Pres of R S was Sir Charles Scott Sherrington who hid his birth details in similar manner. I’ve not gone thu the list to see if there were more.
        Perhaps the early fear of stigma is motivational.

        70

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Sorry, NFA, no green thumb from me for your revelation of Nurse’s alleged childhood circumstances.
        You are showing a distinct lack of class.

        54

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Ok LG let’s just step back and put this into context, I do agree that personal muckraking can be seen as a ‘lack of class’ shown by the perpetrator in most cases however when anyone places themselves in the public domain they automatically will be judged by their actions right or wrong, this includes actors, politicians, sports stars, royalty, activists and people at any level in any society.

          Now take into account if someone doesn’t like what your saying or doing they will usually try to construct a counter argument and collect evidence to support it, and as the bigger the stage the bigger audience there will be bigger consequences for bigger arguments.

          Do you find President Vladimir Putin’s actions offensive at the moment? and would you object to someone analyzing his childhood in search of possible answers for his current behavior?
          Many people find the public behavior of people like Sir Paul Nurse to be of equal offense and taking into account he has willfully engaged in such behavior he should be prepared to attract attention and make enemies.

          From the moment I made my first comment on the internet I was fully aware of the possibility of personal attack even with a pseudonym which I use to protect others, I can only imagine some of the muck thrown at Jo and David who have shown courage beyond many including myself.

          70

          • #
            LevelGaze

            My point is singular and simple: Nurse’s illegitimacy is none of our affair, and to “believe it needs telling to the world”, as NFA insists, is an irrelevant and extremely crass adhominem.

            I wouldn’t use this particular line of attack on anyone (I hope). Any one of us, through no fault of our own, might have been borne into similar circumstances.

            45

      • #
        Streetcred

        There’s that bloody UEA again … the University of Easy Access!

        50

      • #
        Glen Michel

        One of the Midwich Cuckoos ?

        20

    • #
      Ian

      Unfortunately it also gave us the Daily Mail which, despite it’s championing the sceptics cause, is really not a paper you’d want to turn to for a balanced view.

      70

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        I’m not the greatest fan of the “Daily Mail” (to judge from the millions of people who read it a lot more frequently than I do), but why should any newspaper give a “balanced view”? If people want opposite viewpoints, that’s what the other newspapers are for. If nobody wants to read them, that’s hardly the fault of the Daily Mail. What kind of “balanced view” would you consider appropriate about isis? Should we meet them halfway: only half of your infidel head cut off? The Mail’s reporting (not the same thing as its editorial standpoint) is much more accurate than what you get from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, ABC, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, because all of those routinely suppress news stories. Please explain how their approach supplies “balance”.

        160

        • #
          Ian

          Owen Morgan to answer your”please explain” request. Why is IS acting as it is? What problems has the Iraq government created with respect to the Sunnis and Shiites?

          What is the difference between the views of Sunnis and Shiites? Why is Hamas firing rockets into Israel when it knows retribution will follow as surely as night follows day? Looking at both sides of the problem is a balanced view not thinking one side is right and the other wrong. So. I read Jo Nova and Skeptical Science and Real Climate and WUWT and Climate Audit and Open Mind and The times and The Guardian and The Australian and the SMH. I realise that each paper/website catersd for a particular audience that may or may not wish to consider different views that are often in opposition to their own views. Looking only at media that is concordant with your personal view is easy, it is looking at media that is coming from an entirely different stance that is challenging. So, Owen Morgan, my own preference is to read as widely as I can to get a “balanced view” which I don’t think I will get from relying on the Daily Mail as my sole source of information. Yes sure the Daily Mail caters for a particular audience, I happen not to be an aficionado of their particular hype nor of that evinced by the Guardian but I know enough toknow that reading only material that supports your personal views detracts from one’s appreciation of the entire picture

          20

    • #
      ian hilliar

      That is exactly what I have been thinking, and saying, for the last week or so, except that ISIS now calls themselves IS. You have to understand that Paul Nurse is a political appointee in a country that is rapidly heading backwards , just like IS. For years , the biggest coal fired power plant in the UK, DRAX, burned 34,000 tons of coal per day. ‘Twas often besieged by protesters. After spending a couple of million [or billion- its not their money ] the UK government has converted it to burning wood to produce electricity. So now it burns 70,000 tons of wood per day. So where does the UK buy the wood from? From the USA, where the forests are chopped down, trucked to Chesapeake bay, and pelletised at a purpose built facility. From there it is shipped by diesel powered vessels to be used as firewood for the Poms. Why? Because CO2 from burning wood is seen as renewable, hence natural, and does not count as carbon emissions. Thank god for green science, and for Vogons like Paul Nurse.

      200

      • #
        ian hilliar

        Forgot to mention the obvious. There are no longer any protesters at DRAX.

        70

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          What?
          Not over the INCREASE in CO2 emissions?

          I forgot, these are politically correct CO2 molecules, not like those nasty old ones.

          60

          • #

            Read this article, and this is from this morning’s Daily Mail. Note where it says this

            Drax concedes that ‘when biomass is burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere’. Its defence is that trees – unlike coal or gas – are renewable because they can grow again, and that when they do, they will neutralise the carbon in the atmosphere by ‘breathing’ it in – or in technical parlance, ‘sequestering’ it.

            So Drax claims that burning wood ‘significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared with coal-fired generation’ – by as much, Burdett says, as 80 per cent.

            If I may be allowed to place my tongue firmly into the side of me cheek, Drax has proved conclusively at enormous cost that the CO2 emissions from the burning of the wood pellets at their plant travel back across the Atlantic to be soaked up by the new trees planted in the North Carolina forests being replanted to replace the wood sawn down for this plant ….. but only those CO2 molecules emitted by the units burning this wood. Evidently, these special CO2 molecules instinctively just know their way back home.

            Tony.

            70

            • #
              the Griss

              And the REAL SILLY part about all this, is that if they used local coal instead,….

              …. the local UK trees would get all that extra dose of tree food and be able to grow much better.

              They could grow trees in the UK rather than the US. ;-)

              And they wouldn’t have to chop down those poor trees in the USA and force them to emigrate. :-(

              100

              • #
                . markx

                Correct Griss.
                They’d be far better to calculate the cost of cutting, chipping, loading, rail freighting, loading, shipping, unloading, loading, rail freighting, then burning low energy density wood chips, and simply burn local coal and send a prportion of the money to the US for them to grow an appropriate number of ‘offsetting’ trees.

                It would be cheaper, and far less resource costly, and easier on rhe environment.

                40

  • #
    Mikky

    The BBC editorial politburo is in the process of elevating Sir Paul to the status of National Treasure, his working class lad made good and climate change statements ticks a lot of the right boxes for them. In fact they seem to be doing this for scientists in general, helping to convey the subliminal message that scientists are super heroes and we should take heed of what they say.

    120

    • #
      Bulldust

      And he is setting himself up for a juicy debate challenge from Chris Monckton, I bet. Wonder if he’d take it, if it were offered. I am guessing not, but here’s hoping.

      140

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        His rage is apparent before they ever get into a debate. I doubt Nurse would be able to contain himself.

        80

      • #
        tom0mason

        Bulldust

        Interesting idea Christopher W. Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, against Sir Paul Nurse.
        How would the class addled Brits, and their ‘news’ media, take that?

        31

        • #
          Jon

          The object is to forge and sustain a (politicized) scientific consensus. So they will for that reason never debate?

          20

  • #
    Steve Fox

    He doesn’t even seem to know the meaning of quite simple words. After ‘pretend to talk about science’, he goes on ‘but instead masquerade as pressure groups’. He clearly means they ARE pressure groups, but manages to say the opposite.
    But the real besetting sin here is his pompous inability to accept disagreement as a part of life, and his indignation that as an authority figure he is unable to simply silence sceptics. Oh sorry, denialists…

    180

  • #

    Sir Paul Nurse, ….. pledged to ‘take on’ the ‘serial offenders’ who he accused of cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments.

    Maybe I can help Sir Paul. One of the worst serial offenders of misinformation on climate science is the inappropriately named skepticalscience.com. They launched “The Consensus Project” website last year. Every comment appears to misrepresent scientific understanding – whether the traditional variety or the UNIPCC “consensus” distortion. For instance, they claim that, without policy it will warm by 8F (4.4C) by 2100. No range whatsoever.
    Even worse the total costs by 2100 will be $20 trillion, but the global policy costs about $3 trillion. One of the sources they quote says without policy the damage costs will be four times that in 2100 alone.

    Or maybe Sir Paul only has a very subjective standard of misinformation?

    190

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    “confessional projection” – classic concept.

    60

  • #
    Richard

    Is this the same guy who said on a BBC programme that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were 7 times greater thzn natural CO2 emissions? (even though we know natural emissions are 27 times greater).

    170

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘ (even though we know natural emissions are 27 times greater).’ and how do we know that?

      Are humans emitting seven parts of co2 against nature’s one?

      ‘(PN) How can we be sure that humans are to blame for this…{we know how much fossil fuel we take out the ground…we know how much we burn…a huge amount of co2, it’s about 7GT per year…volcanoes popping off, etc just about 1GT, so there is no question that human activity is producing a massively proportion of co2}…so seven times more…{that’s right…there is no controversy}.’

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czu87LViqyk

      BA. anonymous quotes of people on youtubes saying “there is no controversy” are a waste of time. You appear to know very little yourself, but just repeat quotes with matching keywords to dilute the conversation? – Jo

      09

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘anonymous quotes of people on youtubes’ oh, you mean

        Robert Bindschadler

        Dr. Robert Bindschadler is a senior fellow at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and has been an active field researcher in the Antarctic for over 25 years.[1] He is a past president of the International Glaciological Society, chairs the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, is an editor for the Journal of Glaciology and has led 14 expeditions to Antarctica and has participated in numerous other expeditions around the world including Greenland.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bindschadler

        But you could have found that out with a coup[e clicks of the mouse, such a nobody eh? You should have realised by now you’re batting for the wrong side!

        —-Congrats BA. You got half the hint. It would only have taken you a couple of clicks of the mouse to add that to your comment. Now all you have to do is start understanding the science you cut and paste… – Jo

        05

  • #

    I am embarrassed by my fellow countryman.

    We need more of the likes of Hubert Lamb and Gordon Manley but education in the UK has been so severely compromised for decades that I don’t think we will be able to produce them.

    330

    • #
      Another Ian

      Stephen,

      According to this it happened at least once in the past (not climate though)

      “Rolls took up the challenge and came up with a splendid engine, called at first the F and, later, the Kestrel. Its designer was Arthur Rowledge, one of those rare men who have been able to make themselves into world-class designers despite the deficiencies of British technical education”

      From Herschel Smith’s “A history of aeronautical piston engines”

      So maybe?

      50

  • #
    David S

    I love the hypocracy of the left. The greens tell us not to call people who behead innocent civilians terrorists but a climate sceptic who legitimately questions dodgy climate science should be crushed and buried . That sounds fair !!?

    440

  • #
    NielsZoo

    Just… hmmm… Wow!

    What else can you say. He appears to be the ideal candidate to run a prestigious institution that promotes all things scientific… and can also spend his weekends doing color commentary ringside as a fight announcer for the World Wrestling Federation.

    60

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    In my view, Sir Paul is going mad because the apparent Trotskyite conspiracy, deliberate replacement of science with a pseudoscience equivalent to a combination of a new Lysenkoism and a new Phlogiston, is collapsing. Good riddance.

    160

    • #
      Jon

      It’s progressive enlightenment liberalism politicizing science to forge and sustain scientific consensus that is needed to rule the World?

      10

  • #
    pattoh

    Perhaps the 3% of surviving sceptics in the British MSM should facilitate a timely response/debate with LCM. If nothing else it will sell copy & advertising.

    70

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘Sir Paul singled out GWPF — as “pretending to talk about science”’
    for good reason!

    ‘The use of factually inaccurate material without a legitimate basis in science is an abuse of the foundation’s [GWPF] charitable status, which is all the more reprehensible because the public is more trusting of pronouncements made by charities’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html

    116

    • #

      And who is being deceptive? The rest of the quote BA leaves out, shows it was merely the say-so of Bob Ward in a complaint.

      180

      • #
        the Griss

        The foundation IPCC, BOM, CSIRO, CRU, POTSDAM, GISS, HadCrut, etc etc (too many to list) arrogantly ignore any challenges to the accuracy of the information they spread, and have not been held to account for misleading the public. As has been have discovered on numerous occasions, when they are notified of inaccuracies, they simply refuse to admit it is wrong or to apologise.

        120

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘it was merely the say-so of Bob Ward in a complaint’ and what has that got to do with the price of fish? Because they have been found guilty as charged!

        Nigel Lawson’s Climate Charity Forced To Split For ‘Lacking Balance’

        A charity founded by a former chancellor that voices scepticism in the climate change debate has been forced to re-brand and re-organise after complaints it was pushing a political agenda beyond its “educational” remit.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/16/nigel-lawson-climate-change-rebrand_n_5590780.html

        And elsewhere!

        17

        • #

          Found guilty by who? No one.

          What was the headline on your first link…
          “Lord Lawson’s climate-change think tank risks being dismantled after complaint ”

          Golly, so was the complaint upheld and the GWPF dismantled? That’ll be “No”.

          70

        • #
          the Griss

          The GWPF is actually expanding its operations.

          They now have 2 branches, just like Greenpeace and Amnesty and many other so-called charities.

          And for the same reasons. ;-)

          Get used to it, BA4, and suck it up !! :-)

          30

    • #
      sillyfilly

      News direct from the GWPF

      “Five years after its inauguration in 2009, the Global Warming Policy Foundation is pleased to announce that today sees the launch of its new campaigning arm, the Global Warming Policy Forum.

      The new organisation will be able to conduct campaigns and activities which do not fall squarely within the Foundation’s remit as an educational charity.”

      So they have now divorced their anti-science policy arm from their “educational charity” arm. An explicit admission of guilt following Bob Ward’s complaint and a miserable and pathetic attempt to escape proper scientific scrutiny. Let’s shut these bastardised psuedo charities down

      No doubt a few resident DODOs will probably express more feeble and inane excuses!

      022

      • #
        Streetcred

        We can do the same with WWF, FoE, etc. far more bastardry there to poke a stick at. So silly.

        160

      • #
        the Griss

        “Let’s shut these bastardised psuedo charities down”

        Yep, Greenpeace, WWF, etc etc should have been shut down as charities ages ago.

        Political propaganda wings. (which one are you from, munted mule?)

        Good to see you are finally waking up to what they are really about.

        170

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Had to confront some Geekpeace Eco- droogs soliciting donations in the local plaza.Told the dreadlocked kids that red back spiders were making a home in there somewhere and could effect some problems later on in life………… Oh well I was a dopey idealist in my youth I guess.

          60

      • #
        the Griss

        Let me fix that for you, munted one.

        “An explicit admission of expansion of the fight against the AGW F***D following Bob Ward’s miserable and pathetic complaint.”

        There, I’m sure that is more like what you meant to write. :-)

        50

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Oh!!! the adulterated outrage from a complete ass (no relation) duly supported by asinine commentary. The extinction event of the anti AGW propagandists continues. Think like a dodo, end up like a dodo!

          119

          • #
            pattoh

            “Think like a dodo, end up like a dodo!”

            You mean like the Darwin Prize which could have been collectively awarded to the passengers on the Russian Ice breaker?

            That is 2 now SF. Keep it up!

            130

            • #
              sillyfilly

              At least they had some scientists on the ship who are aware that increasing Antarctic sera ice is a incidence of statistics but a product of massive decreases in Antarctic ice mass.
              BTW what is’2′?

              018

            • #
              Bulldust

              Doesn’t that have to be awarded posthumously?

              10

          • #
            the Griss

            No outrage here, blustering burro..

            Just laughing at your continued ineptitude and your lack of anything to support the AGW meme.. :-)

            Do mules and donkeys get foot-in-mouth disease, because you surely have.

            110

          • #
            the Griss

            “Think like a dodo, end up like a dodo”

            You do, and your brain has.

            90

          • #
            the Griss

            “the adulterated outrage from a complete ass”

            Are you yelling in front of the mirror again?

            You don’t need to tell us what you are doing, its very obvious.

            Sorry, but your little tanty will only get you laughed at even more. :-)

            100

      • #
        the Griss

        Lets contine from the GWPF..

        “This arrangement reflects those used by other organisations with dual structures, such as Amnesty International UK and Greenpeace UK.”

        “The Foundation will continue to advance its charitable objects by commissioning and publishing reports and papers and by organising lectures and debates on key matters relating to climate science and policy.”

        So not shutting down anything.

        Branching out and EXPANDING !! :-)

        Thanks for the GREAT NEWS !!!

        120

        • #
          sillyfilly

          The Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Galileo Movement. the Heartland Institute, the various incantations of Carter’s Climate Science Coalitions (incl. the more recent NIPCC) are all akin to the former Australian Vaccination Network whose name gives the impression of a neutral resource for vaccination information, but scratching the surface of its slick-looking website quickly reveals an anti-vaccine agenda.

          113

          • #

            So reasoning by vague inferred slurs is all you have left eh? Desperate last days of the dying creed…

            It’s obvious you can’t find some actual holes in their science.

            140

            • #
              sillyfilly

              I find it hard to find holes in science, unless they are disputable. Can you dispute what I have reasoned, after all it is correct? I await your considered reply.
              Are you game to debate, or is Jennifer M right in her blog that you are very loose with the scientific proof. I’ve obviously hit a nerve that you find excruciatingly painful. Hope you allow free speech, unlike others who proselytise free speech but censor anything that disagrees with their numnut hypothesises!

              09

              • #
                the Griss

                “I find it hard to find holes in science”

                That’s because of the massive hole in your scientific understanding.

                But that’s for you to fix, not us. :-)

                ————————-

                “but censor anything that disagrees with their numnut hypothesises”

                Ah, so you have seen SkS, Stoat, the ABC, Conversation etc etc, as well.

                And realised just how censorial they are.

                Well done. There may be hope for you yet.

                Enlightenment beckons, just release your brain-washed little mind. !:-)

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                And you haven’t presented any “reasoned” anything.

                You never have, and you never will.

                But true, I can’t dispute the emptymess of your posts.

                30

      • #
        Angry

        STUPID HORSE, OFF TO THE KNACKERY WITH YOU !!!!!!!!!!!

        70

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Don’t need a knackery, I’m glued on to science. Mind you we haven’t yet found a repository for your scientific ignorance. Hopefully you’ll find a hungry tribe, but even they would throw up the delivered tripe!

          07

  • #
    Alan McIntire

    Even if one accepts that the climate will change with the addition of human produced CO2,
    there’s nothing in the scientific method stating we have to do anything about it. Science is AMORAL- it doesn’t say whether or not, or how, a Hydrogen Bomb should be used once produced, or whether we should cut back our living standards to “fight” CAGW.

    As others have pointed out, Sir Paul has more in common with religious fanatics than fellow memberts of “Scientific” associations.

    140

  • #
    Bill Johnston

    At the end of the day, the truth whatever it is, is best discovered, by looking at the source data, and continuing, 1 by 1 to pull the reasoning apart. It is clear from Australia’s temperature record, and indeed, our sea level measurements. that catastrophe-claims are legless.

    For Australia, It is easy to join the dots behind all the AGW-scare campaigns and claims and link then into our institutions; the critical ones, like CSIRO, BoM and University Institutes, and of course politicians. It is serpentine, mushroom-large organisation; very well funded, well focused and extremely strategic.

    Start with WWF, the Wentworth Group, Purves Environment Fund,; look in its reports and see whose faces are where in which science hierarchy; in which lobby or climate-action ‘group’ and faux-institute.

    See who became a Vice Chancellor, a professor somewhere; or was parachuted into the cream at the top of the political barrell; what the Copenhagen Climate Council was; what they did and who was involved; and where the many faces turned up in various ‘independent’ boards, commissions etc. that drive climate ‘policy’.

    See who is married to who – AYCC’s Anna Rose and GetUp!’s Simon Sheik for instance. See see who pop’s up and speaks at Purves’s 4-degree conference; see who the Climate Commissioners were, and so-on.

    Easy really; well worth a blog.

    Cheers,

    Bill

    180

    • #
      Streetcred

      Bill, I see that Sheik is getting cosy with Hewson setting up an “Ethical Superannuation Fund” … I can see a real conflict of interest developing there. I wonder how large their “ethical” director’s fees will be? And, those “ethical” salaries for their families and friends. I wonder!

      50

      • #
        ExWarmist

        They belong to this irredeemable personality type.

        40

        • #
          diogenese2

          great link ex, very instructive but I think it is wrong to label pure greed and selfishness as psycopathy. Particularly on the CAGW issue. remember that a prime characteristic of psychopaths is their detachment and lack of emotion. I’m glad I followed the link – but I wish I hadn’t done the test……….

          40

  • #
    PeterS

    Many AGW alarmists and ISIS have a lot in common. Both are extremists groups wanting to control and change the world in a dictatorial way, much like the Nazis tried. When are people going to wake up and realize AGW alarmists, including many scientists are nothing more than armchair fanatics, anarchists, extremists, terrorists, call it what you like? As such they should be treated as any other fanatic, anarchist, terrorist, extremists; before it’s too late and they achieve a level where they go too far. In other words, they should be arrested and charged for disturbing the peace and causing unnecessary alarm and instability to our society. We are not dealing with some minor act here perpetrated by some small time street talker yelling absurdities on a soap box in a small town. We are talking about people with authority and/or high stature in society who are taken seriously by too many people who do not care or legitimately can not find the time to research the truth. Such AGW alarmists are dangerous and evil. Given half a chance they would love to shut down industries, increases the cost of living and carry out much more destructive activities that would please Hitler. If nothing is done, just as the case with ISIS, we will regret the day we were born.

    110

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Interesting – how do you plan to bell this particular cat?

      30

      • #
        PeterS

        Not one individual can bell the cat. It needs a collective of much of the honest scientists who know the AGW alarmist story is a hoax. It’s their duty in the name of their profession to shut down the extremists amongst them. If they don’t they risk being tainted with the same dishonesty, placing a black mark against their profession for a long time to come. Perhaps that is exactly what is going to happen. If so then much of the blame rests with them, not the politicians and not the AGW hoaxes who are only doing what comes naturally to them. It’s not natural for the vast majority of real scientists to remain silent. It’s about time they stood up and be counted as a collective, in the name of real science, or at least what’s left of it.

        60

  • #
    Peter C

    While Sir Paul has been busy lambasting deniers and skeptics, he has failed to notice that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been going up, but temperatures have not.

    These observations, taken together are fatal to the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory, the very foundation or bedrock on which the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is based.

    Of course to join the dots requires objectivity and deductive reasoning, vital qualities for a scientist, but apparently lacking in Sir Paul.

    180

  • #
    pat

    from the other side of the Atlantic:

    5 Sept: WUWT: Anthony Watts: Is John Kerry mentally ill? ‘Scriptures Commands America To Protect Muslims From Global Warming ‘
    At first, I thought this had to be a joke in the style of “The Onion”. Sadly, no. I have video of this dolt saying this on C-Span. I don’t know who’s more dangerous to humanity, Kerry or ISIS…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/05/is-john-kerry-mentally-ill-scriptures-commands-america-to-protect-muslims-from-global-warming/

    90

  • #
    pat

    MSM’s CAGW story of the day:

    6 Sept: Australian: AAP: Scientists close in on eco-friendly sheep
    SCIENTISTS have moved a step closer to developing a breed of sheep that belches less methane as part of a quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, New Zealand researchers say.
    A STUDY by scientists from New Zealand’s AgResearch institute and the US Department of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute, published in the journal Genome Research, discovered microbial differences in sheep that have high or low methane emissions…
    The release of methane gas from New Zealand’s 30 million sheep, as well as emissions from cattle, account for almost one third of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/scientists-close-in-on-eco-friendly-sheep/story-fn3dxix6-1227049701060?nk=df90a0a293b5c57af17c26eece98d012

    40

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    All this CAGW nonsense raises a much larger question. For a longer time and in more research centres than we would like to imagine – has this foolishness among professional scientists and academics been far more common than anyone realised until the climatic grabfest shone a bright light on it. It’s as though we thought everyone was literate, but when they began to ask what those long series of squiggly shapes in front of the dots and the dot with the tail are for, we suddenly realised they’re only reading the punctuation marks. It’s really weird. It’s really scary.

    130

    • #
      PeterS

      Good question and I often asked myself why do people think scientists always know all the answers and can be trusted. History is full of fraudsters in any line of business, and the scientific community has them too. The kicker too is that the scientific view on almost anything keeps changing making past viewpoints false. For example, it was a common belief that the Universe is in a steady state, now the Big Bang theory is more popular. Actually, there are a number of Big Bang theories, each contradicting each other. Goes to show science not only doesn’t know all the answers, what it does know at any given time can easily be wrong. But more to the point, there have been many scandalous and corrupt scientists in the past and no doubt in existence today. I consider the AGW ones are in that group. Rather than using the traditional and correct approach of remaining skeptical about AGW while seeking the truth through appropriate research and studies, they make it sound it must be true despite the evidence. That’s not science. As far as I am concerned, AGW alarmist scientists are scam artists at best, and should be treated accordingly.

      70

    • #
      john robertson

      BINGO
      What will come to pass following the period of poverty induced by this mob hysteria amongst our elites, is a brutal reassessment of government.
      Civilization is falling, to an attack from those entrusted with maintaining our civic institutions.

      Due to the spotlight coming to bear on these parasites, lean times are ahead.
      Everything cycles and we are living the excess of the kleptocrats.
      Who else would consider the UN a clever idea?
      CAGW , created, promoted and still protected from scrutiny by our bureaucracies.

      As most of the bureaus, came into existence in the name of public safety and preventing future excesses due to mass hysteria.. it follows that they are useless.
      The experiment has run.
      Those high priced “Watchdogs” have bitten us on the butt, chewed up our good boots and peed in the coffee.
      Some of them are showing all the symptoms of rabies.

      60

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “Sir Paul Nurse, who starts his presidency next week, pledged to ‘take on’ the ‘serial offenders’ who he accused of cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments”

    Once again confirming that there are agreed points in “the science” that provide evidence of AGW theory being utter bunkum, if people just have the temerity to notice them.

    160

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I see what you’re saying.
      Us: This piece is broken, and this piece doesn’t fit.

      Them: Oh No, You’re cherry picking. When you take the whole and homogenize the data those errors are fixed. So it is in fact all perfect.

      150

    • #
      DeltaCharlie

      “Once again confirming that there are agreed points in “the science” that provide evidence of AGW theory being utter bunkum, if people just have the temerity to notice them.”

      Safetyguy66 – Agreed.. Born out by Sir Paul Nurse’s statement about “serial offenders cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments”. Bit of an own goal by Sir Paul really – he admitted that we “serial offenders” use facts to counter warmists mere arguments. How frustrating for them.

      90

      • #
        Peter C

        Highlighting the awkward facts that contradict the argument is not cherry picking! For instance when Ken Stewart identifies Amberly and Rutherglen as spectacular examples of the BOM homogenisation method getting a wrong result. Highlighting means that we have to focus on those awkward facts to understand the problems in the method or conclusion.

        Cherry picking is choosing inappropriate data points in a time series to produce a result which is different to the result obtained over a longer time period. Inappropriate sampling if you like. It is usually fairly obvious who is doing the cherry picking.

        60

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Its interesting that you don’t see scientists or sceptics cherry picking the data for say gravity or the density of water, for those awkward moments when things fall upwards and ducks sink.

        Could be something to do with the strength of the theories, or could just be scientists and sceptics are going easy on those topics… I don’t know.

        30

  • #
    TdeF

    Sir Paul’s quoted comment was
    “Today we have those who mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and logical argument”

    Was he talking about himself and his new position as a politician?

    190

  • #
    John Of Cloverdale WA

    “Sir Paul accused those who refuse to accept scientific orthodoxy on global warming of ‘distorting’ the facts.”
    LOL! Seems to me he is talking about his mates.

    140

  • #
    Tim

    “Sir Paul…has long been an outspoken critic of what he sees as the politicisation of science.”

    (Would that include Obama?)

    90

  • #
    scaper...

    Just another mad scientist exposing himself.

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Bob Tisdale looks at the increase in climate porn from the delusional eco-loons. You couldn’t be more maths challenged than these fools if you tried.
    Also their level of simple comprehension hasn’t even reached the level of a five year old.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/05/just-when-you-thought-it-couldnt-possibly-get-any-sleazier-the-return-of-climate-porn-wmo-style/

    The graph from the BP stats review of world energy tells the full story about co2 emissions since 1975. The developed world has increased co2 emissions by 251 million tonnes a decade while the developing world ( China, India etc) has increased emissions by 4,084 M Ts per decade , or about 16.3 times as much. over that 39 year period. Unbelievable.

    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/co2-emissions-developed-v-developing.png

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Could this by chance be the same Sir Paul Nurse who was chosen for his honesty and scientific integrity to preside over the whitewash of the CRU scandal a few short years ago?

    Their true colors always manage to show up eventually. :-(

    110

  • #
    Neville

    Steve McIntyre explains how Mann is still telling porkies. Will this drongo ever wake up?

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/04/manns-new-memorandum/

    50

  • #
    Neville

    Jean S continues to smash Mann’s hockey stick. He refers to part of this con as a fairy tale. Jean S was the blogger that wrecked the Karoly and Gergis SH hockey stick. It took him and Steve just one thread to send this very expensive study to the rubbish tip.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/03/rule-n-revisited/#comments

    60

  • #
    RoHa

    Crushed by a water powered trip hammer, of course, and buried deep to keep the carbon of the body safely sequestered.

    40

  • #
    MadJak

    I find myself agreeing with Sir Paul Nurse when he stated:

    “Today we have those who mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and logical argument.”

    Buit to me, it appears the politicisation and Ideologicalisation of the Science has been perpetrated by the catastrafarians. I seem to remember a previous former Vice President of the United States making a whole “documentary” on the ideology. You know the one – man bear pig – the VP who got beaten by George W Bush in an election campaign.

    It continues to bemuse and appall me the hypocrosy of team catastrafaria.

    80

    • #
      The Backslider

      the VP who got beaten by George W Bush in an election campaign

      That must have been SO embarrassing…..

      50

  • #
    the Griss

    By crikey, the alarmistas are getting desperate. :-)

    60

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    WE need a cultural artifact that memorialises the folly of CAGW. Something that leaves an entertaining reminder of the silliness that lasts for centuries into the future. Many nursery rhymes hold political and social messages from the past. Goosey Goosey Gander is from a time of religious persecution. Mary Mary Quite Contrary is Queen Mary I, aka Bloody Mary the executioner.
    http://mentalfloss.com/article/55035/dark-origins-11-classic-nursery-rhymes

    I reckon an adaption of the Snakes & Ladders board game could be suitable to memorialise CAGW with all its ups and downs. Or maybe someone can think up a variation on Monopoly – can you win the monopoly of ideas (oops, that should be singular – idea).

    30

  • #
    sillyfilly

    I suggest that Sir Paul visit this site, he would have no trouble proving the absolute accuracy of his statement:

    “Today we have those who like to mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and adherence to logical argument.”

    But if that approach failed, Nurse urged researchers to call offenders out in the media and challenge them in the strongest way possible. “When they are serial offenders they should be crushed and buried,” Nurse said.

    Let the scientific crusade continue against those who are no more than scientific terrorists.

    020

    • #
      The Backslider

      I suggest that Sir Paul visit this site

      You for got to add the link, here, fixed it for you: visit this site

      80

    • #
      The Backslider

      Let the scientific crusade continue against those who are no more than scientific terrorists.

      You mean like scientific terrorists who threaten like this:

      they should be crushed and buried

      110

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Preferably they’d be “dead buried and cremated” because “mankind makes a difference”.

        “Scientists must challenge serial offenders from all spheres of life who continually misused science to support their preconceived beliefs”

        Sorry gotta go for the Swans expected triumph over Freo’.

        112

    • #
      the Griss

      “Today we have those who like to mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and adherence to logical argument.”

      Yep, he would be more than ample proof of this.

      He really should look stop looking in the mirror as he makes these pronouncements.

      80

    • #
      the Griss

      “Let the scientific crusade continue against those who are no more than scientific terrorists.”

      Oh look, the munted mule has finally joined the battle against the hoax/f***d that is AGW/climate-change/scary-whatever, and the totalitarian socialist agenda.

      Well done !

      80

    • #
      Glen Michel

      You are such a silly filly.I wish ( and others) you would say something a little bit sensible sometime.Are you in fact doing a high school project for year 10?

      90

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Excellent – hopefully he will bring the “evidence” that man made global warming exists (and can be discretely measured/quantified and independently verified) and that it will lead to a measurable, defined, Catastrophe (to be defined…)

      80

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Jo provided the evidence in her last post (just in case you missed it). Better ask Art Robinson about ‘catastrophic’, he invented that term in the Oregon Petition, along with an attached invented scientific paper.

        112

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Oh – based on computer models? – That’s not evidence – that’s scenario generation that assumes that the hypothesis is correct.

          Do you have anything that relies on empirical evidence?

          40

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Further…

          I have a hypothesis that all cats are black, I build a computer model to generate “Cat” scenarios. I discover that each run of the model produces results that affirm that all cats are black.

          Is my hypothesis correct?

          Have I actually done any science?

          How is this structurally different from building computer models on the assumption that Human CO2 emissions will cause measurable warming into the future, and then calling the runs of those models evidence?

          CAGW is a farce.

          40

          • #
            the Griss

            The munted mule does NOT understand basic science or what it entails.

            Its pointless trying to teach or explain the basic principles to her…

            .. because she doesn’t want to know.

            30

    • #
      Angry

      “sillyfilly” IS S GLOBAL WARMING NUTJOB THAT WAS BANNED FROM ANDREW BOLT’S BLOGS.

      NOTHING BUT AN EXCESS CARBON UNIT !!!

      120

      • #
        the Griss

        Gees, don’t tell her she’s a “carbon unit”.. she might try to decarbonise herself.

        We wouldn’t want that now, would we. ! :-)

        30

  • #
    realist

    Poor chap, either off his medication or given the wrong script. He’s obviously lost his way to Hyde Park with his soapbox to deliver his weekly political “Rant by the Fountain”, and ended up at the BSA instead, who as it happened, were looking for a dumb mug with a super-sized ego volunteer to take on the Presidency. Seemed like a good idea at the time and at least the brickbats thrown there don’t stain the suit like tomatoes thrown at the Park. Pity he didn’t have enough light bulbs on in his head to realise a suit can be dry cleaned but the stains resulting from a tarnished reputation and ignominy are somewhat permanent.

    50

  • #
    the Griss

    “Scientists must challenge serial offenders from all spheres of life who continually misused science to support their preconceived beliefs””

    Thanks for agreeing with everyone else on the forum. You seem to be finally realising the truth about the AGW hoax. Well done :-)

    It really is more than past time that real scientists came out and put the non-science of anthropogenic global warming in the bin where it belongs.

    80

  • #
    ExWarmist

    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”

    Said by Albert Einstein – who has nailed Paul Nurses method.

    101

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Perverting the thoughts of a great scientist to promote and justify an anti science position. Alan Jones would be so proud! The rest of us just shudder!

      015

      • #
        the Griss

        “Perverting the thoughts of a great scientist to promote and justify an anti science position.”

        Which of the almarista priests is it you are citing this time?

        Gees those guys are so irresponsible !

        70

      • #
        Angry

        “sillyfilly”, YOU are the expert on PERVERTING !!!

        60

      • #
        ExWarmist

        So “Unthinking respect for authority is – not – the greatest enemy of truth”?

        50

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Yeah good one this one. So who are we to believe? Lindzen trying to prove David Evans hotspot correct “it’s all about the tropics”, rejected at science by the USNAS and others. Bob Carter, met him locally (along with a bunch of idiots from some concerned citizens’ association) and he tried to prove ENNSO did it and failed, something about sea levels not rising (which was equally bizarre) .Ian Plimer said it was down to volcanos and failed. Tisdale and others said it was all the sun and failed (so totally disproven by one of his mates, John McLean). And we even had evidence from heaven (G Pell) that Nitrogen was a greenhouse gas. But here it’s all “natural” (the Griss)?

          09

          • #
            ExWarmist

            You believe the data and the reasoning, provided the providence of the data can be assured and independently audited, and the reasoning is open, transparent and available for independent verification.

            Authority belief went out with the Renaissance.

            Although there is no shortage of people happy to bend their minds with their knees when they kneel before the altar of authority.

            50

            • #
              ExWarmist

              I.e.

              Develop the power to reason for yourself – and be independent of mind.

              Or be a thought slave to the dictates of those pale shadows of humanity who hunger for authority.

              The choice is yours.

              50

          • #
            the Griss

            No failures, just your prejudice against real science and reality, and brain-washed belief in a mythical CO2 warming.

            Superstition is sooooo last millennium, its time to get with reality, little miss !!

            The only failure is your mind, which has “failed to proceed”, “got stuck in neutral”.

            30

          • #
            the Griss

            And please, petulant pony, do tell us what is happening with climate that is outside the bounds of “natural” climate variability.

            I can tell you the answer to that.. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!!

            30

  • #
    sophocles

    Pot, meet Kettle.
    Kettle, this is Pot.

    50

  • #
    bleD

    When Nurse is proved wrong can he be unsirred?

    60

  • #
    Tom D

    “… who do not believe … should be ‘crushed and buried’”

    Perhaps a name change is in order – “The British Science Inquisition” would do nicely.

    40

  • #

    Re ‘Crush the politicians who distort science’, I can’t do better than quote David Archibald, who reminds us in his Twilight of Abundance [Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2014], “Nothing less is expected of them. Similarly, individual scientists selling their miserable souls for thirty pieces of silver is also completely understandable, and nothing new. What has been extremely disappointing is the learned societies, professional societies, and other scientific institutions accepting the global warming hoax without question, even though a moment’s consideration would have shown that the premise is laughable…. The Royal Society in the UK also had pushbacks from its members, which resulted in the society changing its official position on global warming.”

    ““Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.”

    60

  • #
    Eddie

    That would be Sir Paul the Knight Nurse . Take before bedtime for a good knight’s sleep.

    30

  • #
    Peta

    Dr Nurse needs a refresher course in the scientific method.
    This would be a good place to start.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/3/salby-in-blighty.html

    Maybe then he would avoid dumb statements on skepticism.

    40

  • #
    Anton

    Paul Nurse has a Nobel Prize in genetics, which qualifies him to talk about atmospheric physics a lot less than my doctorate in ionised gas physics.

    30

  • #
    yonason

    A few of Nurse’s “serial deniers.”

    What a sad little man.

    00