"I can easily see why Sir Paul Nurse is trying to motivate some kind of response to all the mudslinging"
MUDSLINGING?!
I suppose informing the world that the Earth has been cooling for some time while the CO2 level has gone up is mudslinging to him. I suppose exposing Jimmy Hansen corrupting data is mudslinging. I suppose exposing East Anglia for their dirty deeds is mudslinging. I suppose pointing out the flaws of the greenies' theory is mudslinging. I suppose calling for an honest debate is mudslinging. I suppose the number the greenis did to Lord Monckton is just loving and not mudslinging.
I always find that when liberals accuse someone of something, they are the ones doing just that. If they accuse true scientists of lying, then it is proven that they are lying. If they accuse true scientists of corrupting data, it is they who are corrupting data. If they accuse you of 'cherry picking' then that is what they are doing in extreme amounts.
In fact that is exactly what Sir Nurse said and exactly what he meant. This type of thinking is not solitary amongst the greenies.
Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist": "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."
We can even see the UN has the same philosophy as Sir Nurse.
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
What isn't specifically stated but clearly implied is what will happen to those who refuse to be re-oriented? They will most certainly be 'crushed and buried'.
Sir Paul, president of the UK's Royal Society, does not like Nigel Lawson, one of our previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. Lord Lawson, as he now is, founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This is a group that has views on policy not science. Nurse's statements are based more on this private feud than anything else.
Nurse, a geneticist, knows that his views on climate change are sound and he has got it into his head that Lawson is commenting on science. Lawson argues that he does not say anything about the science but does in fact know about government, finance and policy matters.
Nurse sent the GWPF a letter saying that the GWPF should listen to the scientists and named some of the Royal Society members. Lawson replied that he would welcome a debate and sent letters to the members requesting a meeting. This was not Nurse's intention but he was outwitted by a politician playing politics.
The meeting did take place. Lawson took some suitably qualified GWPF members. What was the outcome? Did the Royal Society wipe the floor with the GWPF? We will never know because the RS insisted that the meeting be held in private without any media presence.
Why would the president of the Royal Society, with a hand-picked team of RS scientists not want to publicise what happened? Presumably the scientists trashed the opposition with their "settled science"? Why not show the world how stupid these people were? An opportunity missed, I think.
Or perhaps they thought they might lose ...
The article in Mail Online is a bit slanted. (As many news reports tend to be.) Another on the same subject, also from the UK, is provided below in the Guardian article there. You'll get a "different taste" from it.
There are a number of facets and there is no "one appropriate response." Even from the point of view of scientists, there is much to consider. But political and propaganda attacks do have to be met somehow. You cannot just stand by and do nothing when people are throwing mud at you, hoping it "sticks." A response is needed. The problem is this: if you respond by throwing mud back, all you've done is got down into the mudpit with the rest and the public will definitely see that as the scientists "being no better than the deniers." That will cause the public to see science as nothing more than the spewing the same propaganda that the mudslingers themselves are guilty of spewing. And the mudslingers win for sure, then. And if scientists refuse to slum around and throw mud, all the while mud is being thrown at them, they still wind up eventually getting dirty because some of the mud does stick whether or not it should. Doing nothing at all means the mudslingers ALSO win. The power that scientists have in all this is the solid theories and evidence, all of which is 5σ or better (which is very good certainty -- science is all about uncertainties.) They have the data and they have the theories on their side. In short, they have all the facts on their side. The problem is ... climate is complex. And understanding the facts requires WORK. The problem there is that the US public barely does more than read the headlines. I don't know many people who read more than that -- especially on climate. So if the scientists stick to their strong suit -- facts in evidence and solid theory -- they lose their audience there because of the work it takes to follow carefully. And so the mudslingers STILL WIN. Because the scientists lose their audience if they stay with what they have on their side -- facts.
I can easily see why Sir Paul Nurse is trying to motivate some kind of response to all the mudslinging going on. (The mudslingers have nothing but propaganda and pushing doubt to use, but they are relentless just the same.) What kind of response is appropriate is another matter. I'm open to constructive ideas.
This Paul Nurse sounds like someone who hates the concept of democracy.
No
Sir Paul Nurse the new president of the British Science Association says climate skeptics should be 'crushed and buried.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2743255/Climate-sceptics-crushed-buried-Sir-Paul-Nurse-attacks-politicians-distort-facts-global-warming.html#ixzz3CL9kk9zs
