Bishop Hill May on Bob Ward
Feb 12, 2012 Climate: Ward Royal Society When the embargoed copies of the Nullius report went out, there was a bit of a kerfuffle on Twitter, with Bob Ward claiming I was trying to smear him by mentioning his departure from the Royal Society and the rumours that he had been sacked. I thought this was a bit unfair, as I had gone on to point out that Rees had praised Ward's work after he had left, and observed that this suggested official approval of his campaign against Exxon.
I'm grateful to Alex Cull for this excerpt of an interview with Lord May which confirms this impression.
That was an example of aggressive engagement to be useful to government that not everybody had a clear conscience about, but I think was useful, and not everybody was happy with the sometimes quite in-your-face comments that the Royal Society or its president made, particularly helped by the head of the press office Bob Ward, whom I found immensely valuable. He had the knack of being able to capture my voice so he could write things that I got the credit for and didn't have to do the work, and I think the kinds of things we did were entirely appropriate.
This does seem to confirm what I said in the report and it therefore appears unlikely that Ward was sacked.
What can we say about the Royal Society - a body that is mainly tax-funded - engaging in a campaign against a private company. Is this a proper use of taxpayer's money?
Reader Comments (53)
Mike Jackson (Feb 13, 2012 at 9:56 AM)
Agree fervently with parts of your rant (eg Dennis Skinner) and disagree equally fervently with others. The on-topic question to which neither of us has the answer is: what leads Old Labour types like Nurse and Rees to give unquestioning support to a scientific theory which is (a) poorly supported and (b) disastrous for their political position (closure of steel mills, etc)? Surely the first thing you’d do whe your scientific beliefs clash with your political aims is to look hard at the science? Nurse has got his Nobel and his knighthood. There’s nothing in it for him in terms of prestige in making cheap propaganda films for the BBC. His Grace asked the same question of May; any adequate answer must explain why so many intelligent people of differing political persuasions are subject to the same illusions. “Watermelon” and “follow the money” are clearly inadequate explanations.
I’ll certainly have a look at the Retreat from Reason. Thanks.
Rees is a classical elitist, Shrewsbury and all that, so is allied to the aristocratic eugenicists who want to exterminate the serfs whilst living off their backs by the oligopoly of wind power on the aristocratic lands.
Nurse is a very norty boy, a narrow specialist, a technician put into his position for his SWP past politics.
The Science Nobel Prize Committee is being examined for its recent habit of biasing its selections for political reasons.
mdgnn
I thought it was the Peace Prize Committee that was being investigated.
geoffchambers
I wouldn't have expected 100% agreement; that might have upset the balance of the earth! Delingpole's watermelons are part of the equation and I used to think that Nurse's problem (and May's and several others) was an assumption that all scientists are as honest as they are — and I phrased that v-e-r-y carefully! — and therefore a reluctance to break ranks. Now I'm not sure and I don't really know what their motive is for being quite so pigheaded about refusing to open their minds a bit. Perhaps eugenics and malthusianism does have something to do with it.
[If I said Retreat from Reason I was wrong; should be The Retreat of Reason]