The Royal Society meeting seems to have been very interesting, with some interesting feedback from Richard Drake, Doug Keenan and Josh.
I'm intrigued by some of the things we have learned about Paul Nurse - that he thought he had been critical of CRU for not being open with their data, that the Horizon programme was fair and balanced and that he was stung by criticism of it.
The only basis for him saying that he was critical of CRU in the show was a statement that the data should have been open. It is a bit of a stretch to describe this as criticism in my opinion. I wonder if he examined the transcript whether he would be able to repeat the suggestion that he had been balanced with a straight face. I think not. I'm not sure either that he can expect anything other than criticism when he has grouped those who question the AGW consensus - including some of his own fellows - with AIDS deniers. This struck me as a gratuitously provocative step on his part and he can hardly complain about people being rude about him in return.
That said, I share Doug Keenan's view that his position in honestly held. He just needs to get out a bit more and meet people with views outside the consensus. And to work on making clear criticisms where they are due.
On the subject of Prof Nurse, there is an in-depth interview with the great man in New Statesman. There's little of direct relevance to the interests of this blog, but an interesting picture emerges of Nurse the activist who used to sell Socialist Worker:
Nurse's undergraduate socialist spirit is still alive and well: he wouldn't be against scientists getting involved in activism. "We are citizens, and citizens should be involved in politics, and I think those that have a strong view should be involved in party politics," he says. "I'm happy to see fellows of the Royal Society politically engaged, if that's what they see as right."