A Place to Stand

  Last week I wrote of how Sir Paul Nurse had, by sleight of hand, reversed his position from being a supporter of catastrophic global warming, having previously compared it to terminal cancer. \He now supports the traditional sceptical or "denier" position that any warming that may be happening shows no signs of being catastrophic or even outwith historic experience.

    This got covered by both James Delingpole and Professor John Brignell, (the latter described Nurse's slither in as a sign of light in the darkness) for which I thank them.

   The sleight of hand involved claiming that this position was a moderate midway between the "extremes" of believing in catastrophic global warming and of denying that any warming had ever happened. He also claimed that the "scientific consensus" agreed with him that there was no catastrophic warming rather than what the royal Society he leads had previously claimed was the "scientific consensus" that there is. No evidence of any great scientific debate, at least, outwith the sceptic's arena, was produced to explain the reversal of the "consensus" for the obvious reason that, outside sceptical blogs and discussions, there hasn't been any. This, apparently is how "science" is done according to the Royal Society now, which suggests that, as an organisation, they have no commitment to real scientific principles whatsoever.

   I said at the time I was writing to the Royal Society and sir Paul and would give them time to reply. Here it was: 

Dear Sir Paul Nurse,


In fairness I would like to give you the opportunity to comment on your recent assertion that those who promote catastrophic global warming and those who assert there definitely hasn't been any warming are equally wrongheaded "extremists".
You and your predecessor & the Royal Society have long been pushing the "catastrophic" scare story. I am not sure what "deniers" you are referring to who have denied any warming over the last 2 centuries but obviously, assuming you are honest, you will be able to name several.
Since you are acknowledging that what you have been promoting for years is an "extremist" lie it clearly follows that you must, in honour, resign your position and allow the Royal Society to become, again, a scientific body rather than an arm of the state propaganda organisation.

  Sir Paul has not replied.

   If Sir Paul is not a wholly completely and totally corrupt lying Fascist parasite he obviously must be able to name some members of the group of "deniers" who, he alleges, deny that any warming has taken place over the 2 centuries since the "little ice age". He has proven that he cannot and therefore is.

   Later, in the same speech where he says there is no catastrophic warming he says that we should act to stop climate change. 

Today the world faces major problems. Some uppermost in my mind are food security, climate change, global health and making economies sustainable

   The change since the little ice age has unquestionably been beneficial to most of humanity, indeed to most of the biosphere. Increased CO2 is equally unquestionably beneficial to crop growth, the vegetable part of the biosphere which requires CO2 to survive and the animal part which survives on the vegetable part. Of course if he accepts that little warming is taking place the question of whether stopping doing the things that are having so little effect will have any efect is, at best, moot.

  If warming is not catastrophic, indeed at least largely beneficial, there can be no scientific argument that we need to stop it. Anybody arguing that we should stop it is therefore, engaged in fact free, ecofascist  political ideology. As he is. We will see it the Royal Society makes any attempt to reestablish itself as a scientific body rather than merely yet another government funded (above £45 million now) group of propagandists for a more totalitarian state.

      This will be sent to them to see if they intend to take any action to reduce their role as totalitarian propagandist parasites. or dispute any facts here.