The Foundation for Science and Technology is a charity that allegedly promotes science and technology and aims to bring about "the greater efficiency of the industry of the United Kingdom".
A brief glance at some of its council members might suggest a different view, however.
- Lord Rees
- Lord May
- Lord Oxburgh
- Lord Browne (head of BP)
Hmm....
The other day, they had dinner and a discussion meeting. The presentations were by three more-or-less familiar names:
- Lord Oxburgh
- Sir John Beddington
- Lord Jay (head of GLOBE)
The presentations can be seen here. THere is also a summary of the evening's events written by another familiar name, that of Sir Crispin Tickell. This is a good place to start. Here's some excerpts.
[LORD JAY said] There was a need, brought out by the recent (albeit largely irrelevant) fuss at the University of East Anglia, for a clear framework in which science could operate in the future. Scepticism was part of science but did not mean denial.
THE LORD OXBURGH began by quoting the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in Verba - Scepticism deserved respect. Those who questioned the current broad political consensus on climate change often complained of oversimplification, manipulation of data, doubtful evidence, and misinterpretation of climate history. Two particular complaints were an alleged failure to take proper account of unquantified negative feedbacks (particularly over the role of clouds), and of inaccurate modelling (for example over the so-called hockey stick graph which showed a steep rise in recent average global temperature).
TICKELL's summary is the remarkable one though. It says:
Some people, including politicians, remained sceptical about the need for action on climate change. Trust in the science must be restored. This had been damaged by occasional shortcomings in the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and events at the University of East Anglia (here Lord Oxburgh’s enquiry had fully established the integrity of all concerned). Science could not give absolute certainties but could describe degrees of risk. These were now clearer than ever, and had been appreciated, particularly within the business community.