Prof. John Beddington, absolute authority on climate science, the scientific method, and disinterested scholarship.“Uh oh. Just how evil must I be? Not only it seems are we ‘climate sceptics’ the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and paedophiles, but also of gay-bashers and racists….
We have this from no less an authority than the Government’s chief beardie-weardie science advisor Professor John Beddington. Earlier this month, Prof Beddington told a meeting of 300 science civil servants in London:
“We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality… We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method.”
“One way is to be completely intolerant of this nonsense,” he said. “That we don’t kind of shrug it off. We don’t say: ‘oh, it’s the media’ or ‘oh they would say that wouldn’t they?’ I think we really need, as a scientific community—and this is a very important scientific community—to think about how we do it.”
The solution, according to this man, whose generous salary and ring-fenced pension is kindly provided by the British taxpayer, is less tolerance:
“I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant,” he said. “We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.”
Beddington also had harsh words for journalists who treat the opinions of non-scientist commentators as being equivalent to the opinions of what he called “properly trained, properly assessed” scientists. “The media see the discussions about really important scientific events as if it’s a bloody football match. It is ridiculous.”
In closing, Beddington said: “I’d urge you—and this is a kind of strange message to go out—but go out and be much more intolerant.” He asked his audience to forgive him for what appear to have been unscripted remarks, adding: “But it is a thing that has been very much at the forefront of my mind over the last few months and I think we need to do it.”
Well, I agree with Prof Beddington on one thing – as I’m sure do all of us evil, paedophilic, homophobic, Holocaust-denying, racist climate sceptics. If there’s one thing we absolutely can’t stand its scientists who “cherry-pick facts”, who fail to use “scientific evidence” and who fail to use “scientific method.” That’s why we got so worked up over the Climategate emails, which very clearly revealed those “climate scientists” whose expertise Prof Beddington so reveres committing the very crimes he so deplores.
So doesn’t that mean that by effectively endorsing the Climategate scientists disgraceful behaviour and by actively promulgating their shoddy, mendacious work, Prof Beddington is the moral equivalent of a double-double-extra racist, and a paedophile, and a Holocaust denier and homophobe too? Just asking.”
[“Climate scepticism: not just the new paedophilia, but the new racism and homophobia too!” by James Delingpole, The Telegraph, February 14th, 2011.]
Even though the MSM and of course the lib scientists they have on a leash paint a picture of all scientists being behind climategate, there are plenty of scientists who don't buy into it.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting case in point- About a decade ago, I had the opportunity to see a seminar at my local university by Kary Mullis, a nobel prize winner (the guy who invented PCR, an elegantly simple but downright revolutionary technique which has led to major forensic and medical breakthroughs).
The essence of his seminar was that, these things we are observing now in weather really aren't that dramatic in the grand scheme of things, looking at a big picture of the world. How do we know that its really true that we are causing this? How do we know that this isn't just a natural process? It is a bit of hubris to assume that it is us.
He supported his case with logic and facts. At the time I didn't know it was shaping up to be a liberal thing, but an ultra feminist manager at the biotech company I worked for apparently did as she was quite worked up by it. In general, most people there seemed to applaud and were genuinely interested in his discussion.
Fastfoward about 5 years or so, and a keynote speaker at a conference I attended in grad school was a scientist who had systematically studied the climate data and concluded alot was bunk. Among other things, he showed how the data was "cherry picked"by looking at narrow windows of temperature change. He also showed examples of how it was fraudulently doctored - one thing I distinctly remember was a picture of arctic glaciation had been manually doctored (by whiting over large areas to give a completely diffrerent image). In general the audience seemed interested and accepting of him in discussions, though of course there was a moderate contingent of disaffected liberals as well.
I think over the years, it has increasingly become a liberal vs right wing issue- so many academians, even if they don't believe it, are expected to put on airs of publicly supporting global warming science or risk offending the political sensibilities of people higher up the totem pole.
Academia is a strange world where the old boys network has a vastly bigger impact than in private industry from what I have personally witnessed (which has also been acknowledged to have been witnessed by others I know at other Universities). When a professor commits misconduct or fraud, his actions are reviewed by a committee of his peers at the University, many of whom have been his friends in the same department for decades and who have and continue to have intermingled research commitments and teaching responsibilities with him. Not surprisingly, they close rank around the offender and are focused much more around trying to generate plausible excuses for his behavior than they are on actually trying to impartially try the case.
I think the public would be better served, and things could be drastically improved, by opening up the university and its professors to external reviews.