Friday
Mar252011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Intolerant correspondence
Mar 25, 2011 Bureaucrats Climate: Sceptics There has been some correspondence in Nature, picking up on Sir John Beddington's earlier comments about being intolerant of people who dare to question scientists. Two letters were published together with Beddinton's response. Here's an excerpt from one of the letters, from Brian Wynne...
And here is Beddington's response.
Reader Comments (63)
Hmm, Brownedoff ... I don't think it's that bad. But it's interesting to see how the rhetoric is moving from "saving the planet" to protecting our "energy security".
Reliance on renewables seems likely to mean a secure supply of ... very little.
(PS: note spelling of my name.)
O'Geary
You rightly say
Unfortunately, we have a few of those here. Predictably, they don't see themselves as a devastating credibility problem for the rest of us.
Returning to my theme about politicians reluctance to speak out because unfortunate repercussions in the media might embarrass their Party, there's another example here today. It's an excellent, if depressing, piece by Liam Halligan about the reality of the financial crisis facing Britain. What caught my eye was his comment that Osbourne and the government aren't explaining the catastrophic reality of our position. Why (he says) "aren't such stark facts thrown back into the face of those who claim that the Tories' retrenchment plans are "driven by ideology rather than necessity"?"
And the answer? "Fear and a lack of respect. Fear that the British public would be critical of such candour. And a lack of respect for their intelligence."
IMO exactly the same applies to CAGW. Our politicians must surely wake up soon ... before it's too late.
Maybe Beddington means the consensus that closed ranks around Mann, Jones, and The Team as they told their lies in the hockey stick. They continue to lie about that hockey stick today. I guess that means the consensus still exists. Is that the consensus you have in mind, Beddington?
With regard to to whether CO2 mysticism will or will not become as detremental to an aspiring politician's career prospects as it undoubtedly should be, I suspect that the inevitable outcome of skyrocketting energy costs and rolling blackouts will see the electorate adopt an unconfortably straightforward view of those in power.
For the UK establishment and its unscrupulous, pseudoscience tenure-gimps, ridicule and scorn are surely in the post.
I sometimes wonder about this country, watching the great unwashed and various thugs in Oxford Street, today, some marching side by side with Mrs Angry of Surrey and Brother Thomas of Unison, and mad Max of UKuncut.
Why aren't people marching, demonstrating about the impending black outs, being foisted upon us by the madmen in Brussels?
Because, when they happen, it will be winter too, not only will it black-out Ant and Dec, it will be a killer too, now that's something to raise the 'temperature' - really!
Maybe then................. ?
A lot of unfocused anger, ill-directed, a mystery today ........ although not such a mystery..... .
The BBC is [sometimes in my deepest darkest thoughts] driving and setting the political agenda in this country [are we really that dumb?]:
Pro EU, left of Karl Marx, pro AGW, at every turn..."the Cuts!!!!!" - [wot cuts?], PC.... I could go on but need a lie down - in a very dark and quiet room, before I explode.
I have to say It is so encouraging to see such high quality blog comment yet again on another Beddington thread.
For historical archiving purposes, for the benefit of those to whom it may concern researching these pages in the future, this thread has been preceded in the last two months by at least three posts debating Sir John Beddington's pronouncements, which have attracted outstanding commentary from a number of regular and celebrity contributors and prompted further leading blog commentary internationally.
Feb 14 Beddington on warpath
Feb 21 Will Sir John condemn 'hide the decline'?
Feb 23 The Beddington challenge
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible” - Bertrand Russell
Dreadnought
That used to be my local. I worked directly opposite and spent many a naughty afternoon at a 'client meeting' in the upstairs snooker room!
To Jack Maloney and Chris,
The Galileo trial is much misunderstood. Galileo was not put on trial for stating the theory of heliocentrism. Copernicus, who was minor clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, predated Galileo and espoused heliocentrism as well. Yet he encountered no difficulties.
Rather, Galileo was place on trial because he had agreed to not state the truth of heliocentrism until his theory had been proved. I.e, Galileo believed in heliocentrism but could not prove it through observation or inference. Yet he attempted to state that it was true. After taking heat for his statement of scientific truth, even though he could not yot prove his theory, he made a pledge to the pope, Urban VIII, with whom he was friends, to discuss the theory only as a theory. He subsequently publicly insulted the pope and began proclaiming the theory as true without any more evidence. This tremendously simplifies the complex politics of the day but is in essence what occurred.
It was the Vatican Observatory which, if memory serves me, some 12 years later announced that they had proved the theory of heliocentrism. Yes, the Vatican does, and did, have an observatory with quite competent scientists. For example, In modern days, it was a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître who, reading Einstein, first predicted the big bang.
It seems that what is really needed is the revival of the Inquisition to try the scientists who now state, without proof, that the theory of global warming has been proved beyond any doubt. There is now no authority which can overcome the purely political forces which. through lies and character assassination, have brought this theory to its current ascendancy.
I find it odd whenever I read someone castigating the Church for the Galileo affair and then, without pause, castigating the global warming advocates for doing precisely what was done by Galileo.
If you wish to read more about Galileo controverys the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article which is quite good. (http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp)
May God Have Mercy on Us All
Mar 26, 2011 at 6:30 PM Robin Guenier
Sorry about that faux pas. - I typed your name rather than copy n' paste and an accidental 'r' intruded which went un-noticed. Sorry.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that I saw the exchange live on Thursday morning (I know, I know), so the Hansard prose does not reflect, in my opinion, what actually happened.
This may have coloured my choice of adjectives.
If possible, please watch the exchange on iPlayer (BBC Parliament, 24 March 2011 at 10:30) from 56m:45s, just before Peter Lilley is called.
--------------------------------.
Mar 26, 2011 at 8:39 PM | Athelstan
Exactly.
Well, Brownedoff, I had a look at the HoC exchange (thanks for the reference) - but I'm afraid that (much as I sympathise with Peter Lilley) I still I don't think it's that bad. It certainly doesn't compare with the arrogant and authoritarian attitude displayed by John Beddington. Of course, that doesn't mean Chris Huhne wouldn't display the same attitude given the opportunity. There is a difference however: Huhne doesn't claim to be a scientist.
Mar 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM Robin Guenier
"There is a difference however: Huhne doesn't claim to be a scientist."
No, he is a Twitterer:
"Turn off your lights for #earthhour tonight
@ 8.30pm. Chris Huhne's message of
support @ http://tinyurl.com/5u4eu63
about 17 hours ago via web
Retweeted by 27 people.
DECCgovuk"
OK. Over and out.
We are the only two left on this thread.