Thursday
Sep152011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Nursing times
Sep 15, 2011 Royal Society Having recently announced that he wants to use the Royal Society as a tool to influence political debate, Paul Nurse has now decided that he's going to use his position as Royal Society president to try to influence elections more directly, taking a direct shot at the US Republican party.
Is it just me that finds the spectacle of the president of the Royal Society wallowing around in the mud just a little unedifying?
Reader Comments (35)
I find it a bit unedifying that Nurse uses Richard Feynman's name to support his case
It's quite an amazing article. I find it incredible that he thinks he or New Scientists can "stamp out" anything in US politics... oh he doesn't propose any action whatsoever, it's just an affirmation of his faith.
His choice of anti-science targets is interesting. I'm sure others will remark on the odd lumping together of climate skepticism with anti-evolution and anti-stem cell research. Each of these is about different underlying issue, respectively scientific doubt, scientific rejection, and a disagreement about when to place the start of human life (this last one being much more of a philosophical issue rather than a scientific one). Of course there's are all issues on which there is a left-wing consensus.
It's funny however he doesn't mention the scientific issues on which there is no left-wing consensus, and attack the anti-scientists mixed up with those. You know the issues: vaccination, GM crops, nuclear power, the idea that wind turbines can be an effective power supply..
Is the RS going to affiliate with a political party? I have not read its constitution but would assume that the RS is to do with science and scientific method not politics.
AGW/climate change is nothing but politics.
Astonishing that a Nobel winner for physiology or medicine sides with Al Gore.
Maybe someone should introduce Prof. Nurse to these guys...
http://www.omrlp.com/
...as they seem to have much in common :-)
It's a trait of narcissists that they feel they have the ability and the right to interfere wherever they please.
So Nurse's actions may be unedifying, but they are also unsurprising.
I'm afraid to say that I am starting to think that this is one example of the corruption of society. The role of government is not to raise tax in order to buy influence for it's own policy. The previous tv ads campaign was the start of the process this is a more subtle aproach.
This is not even a political issue, it's a basic societal issue, it doesn't matter what party leads the government. Democracy is being undermined by the very machine that is supposed to be underpinning it.
What is to be done to prevent it I don't know but the very fact that organisations, including charities, that benefit from the public purse can influence political decisions affecting that public purse is in a word corruption, and the worst part of it is that the same influential organisations are either oblivious to the fact or are party to it is an indication of the growing moral vacuum.
"If those who are anti-science in the US are allowed to carry the day it will ultimately hurt the American economy."
I suppose he is entitled to an opinion but does it not seem strange that, given the huge problems the U.K. has, that he should try to meddle in U.S. politics? It still amazes me, even taking into account his scientific discipline, that someone of his intelligence can be taken in by AGW.
Yes, Lord B. I hope you are reading Dr Richard North at EUReferendum - http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
The GOP are probably seen as a fairly major threat to the climate gravy train so it is understandable that he wants to protect his "patch"
The more people like Nurse push the RS to get 'involved' the more the people will come to regard its views as suspect on everything. In the mid to long term the RS may came to regret being headed by Nurse.
Note to Paul Nurse...
Scientology is already trade marked...
You are going to have to come up with a different moniker...
Obviously something catchy that has Science in it. So you can pimp of the reputations of people like these, whilst forging your new creed in society.
Will you just transpose Fellow into Thetan, or come up with something original?
Paul Nurse does not seem to have learnt anything from the experience of Richard Dawkins and other self-important "intellectuals" who tried to influence the results of an earlier election in the US by condescendingly explaining to the average American voter, who obviously is far less intelligent than they are, who he/she should vote for.
Sadly the members of The Royal Society get the president they deserve.
The members silence is enlightening
Nasty little SWP toe-rag, FRS.
Although it pained me a lot, I did check out the source article for Nurse's comments in the New Scientist. He is clearly going beyond his remit as the President of the RS.
On a more positive note - I also found this .........................................
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128285.600-cameron-neylon-time-for-total-scientific-openness.html
"Finally, scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the scientific bunkum". And he believes in AGW!
"We have to hope that the people of the US will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject political movements that reject science and take us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future." - Nurse
We hope that the people of the UK will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by the Royal Society. It is time to reject political movements that corrupt science and take us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.
Nurse should very careful on this one if he wishes to wade into politics then he should resign and stand for election not attempt a coup and subvert the R.S. into his own political block !
But his ego would never allow himself to be put to a democratic test !
Not content with interfering in US politics, he's shown his British political colours by taking a sly swipe at the coalition: suggesting that free schools might somehow be worse at teaching science than local authority ones.
"We have to hope that the people of the US will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject political movements that reject science and take us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future." - Nurse
Is this the deffinition of self mortification?
Most Americans know better than to get all their 'news' from left-wing talking points rags like the NY Times or CNN. A good scientist evaluates the quality of his data. When his data from certain sources is regularly corrupted, he stops using data from that source. Perhaps Nurse can find someone who knows something about science to explain all this to him.
Ominously Club of Rome like.
There will be a lot of Royal Society Fellows who will not like this.
It's a good thing that he makes it clear that The Royal Society is a political propaganda organization and not a scientific one.
Nurse is doing the very thing he is critical of. Take this for example: lampooning religious people and their supposed belief that 'climate problems in Texas are best solved through "days of prayer for rain".'
Whether you have any religion or none, you will surely see the nonsense and affront of this. Calling for prayer is not science, but has never been claimed to be science. It's never been claimed to be a scientific response. And science has got absolutely nothing to say about prayer.
Nurse is simply trying to lampoon Rick Perry, who is a candidate for the Republican nomination. Nurse is completely out of order here. And, moreover, he's misrepresenting the issue. Perry's call is not about climate but weather (the particularly bad weather Texas has been having this year). Perry does not represent this as a 'climate problem' but as a weather problem:
"the state of Texas is in the midst of an exceptional drought, with some parts of the state receiving no significant rainfall for almost three months...a combination of higher than normal temperatures, low precipitation and low relative humidity has caused an extreme fire danger over most of the State..."
It's all very well for Nurse to criticize Perry, but if he were governor of Texas what scientific response do you think he could offer to avert a bout of bad weather? Absolutely nothing.
So Nurse misrepresents the position, the person and the people to make a cheap point. Is that what science is all about, Paul Nurse, FRS - misrepresentation, rhetoric and lies?
Nurse is demonstrating in hi fidelity that having PhD in front of your name doesn't equal higher intelligence. Hi meddling is if anything, worse than his predecessors. This puts the RS at great risk. It surly cannot have escaped his notice that the entire edifice of the Western democratic way of life is in, if not its death throes, at the start of a transformation.
Those that have colluded to create the likes of the EU and the great corporates, and have colluded to regulate and rule without recourse to the wishes of those over who they rule are about to have their day of reckoning. We have as a society given them more than enough rope and they have used it. They have almost universally failed us and the money is all gone, and they have taken us to the point of collapse, despite being warned.
All the greenery, all the wasteful nice to have schemes will quickly disappear as the west slips into survival mode. People like Paul Nurse are going to have to adapt very quickly or get back to work. I suspect he will continue in his current vein until even the BBC stops listening to him. By then the RS will be but a laughing stock.
Out of this mess there are a handful of Politicians that get it. They may not be taken so seriously at present, but they will be the ones that lead us out of the mess. The only question is are we ready or do we want more punishment before coming to our senses.
In time, and probably not much -- just one more winter, Doctor Paul Nurse will pass out of the anus of history.
I have seen it too many times in the past for not see that coming. The problem, of course, is the damage he does until the RS membership takes the purgative they will. For as NurseWard noted:
There will be a lot of Royal Society Fellows who will not like this.
Is Nurse a member of Common Purpose?
If over 100 tory MP's are already expressing some sceptism about the EU, perhaps there will be a growth ni support of defunding climatology, which will leave Paul Nurse as the man that destroyed the RS by his own ignorance of what science actually involves.
I ave no reason to doubt his own integrity, in his own field.
Setting aside the question of the wisdom of the President of The Royal Society seemingly trying to interfere in the domestic politics of the USA, Sir Paul Nurse produces a most muddled piece. Nobody could disagree with him that the scientific process is a reliable generator of knowledge and that it shows respect for evidence and scepticism, but then he uses a word which slips badly from the lips of any scientist: consensus. He tells us that nonsense should be exposed, but fails to say what should happen when the consensus itself is nonsense.
It seems to me that he knows little about those who vote Republican and he therefore might have difficulty in accepting that many are scientifically educated, earning their living through science, so are in a strong position to challenge consensus when they believe it to be wrong. So whilst they might legitimately point out inconsistencies, Sir Paul would probably accuse them of cherry-picking data, presumably because they are on the wrong side of the political fence.
funny...lately i've been viewing CAGW alarmism as "unintelligent design". dogma.
David Jones
See my discussion thread:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1598019
I wonder nwhat would would happen if you actively canvassed the opimion of all the members of the RS on the to[pic opf CAGW.....would Nurse notice that he was being shafted royally?
Copner wrote: "Of course there's are all issues on which there is a left-wing consensus [against climate skepticism, anti-evolution, state funded stem-cell research]. It's funny however he doesn't mention the scientific issues on which there is no left-wing consensus [because embraced by key Leftists], and attack the anti-scientists mixed up with those. You know the issues: vaccination, GM crops, nuclear power, the idea that wind turbines can be an effective power supply."
From across the pond, we have another explanation Nurse's egregious exceptionalism: inside every Leftist is a Fascist struggling to get out and Tell You What To Believe and Do. (I think this falls under "Friedrich von Hayek for Dummies.")
Hello..
I found your post very interesting and the comments written on your post are also very knowledgeable.. I am glad I visited here and come to know about it.. I will share it out with my friends..
LPN online training