A right royal fail

Judging from the reactions, the Royal Society's report on population looks to be a new low in its rapid descent into scientific irrelevance. Their outpourings do at least seem to have inspired some excellent work from thinking writers. In particular, Ben Pile and Tim Worstall have excelled themselves.

Comments

[jferguson]

Charles Babbage: "Reflections on the Decline of Science in England" 1830

" Perhaps I ought to apologize for the large space I have devoted to the Royal Society. Certainly its present state gives it no claim to that attention; and I do it partly from respect for its former services, and partly from the hope that, if such an Institution can be of use to science in the present day, the attention of its members may be excited to take steps for its restoration.

This problem seems to be of long standing. Was there ever a time when the Society actually had the virtues we seem to expect of it?

[geoffchambers]

More gems from the Royal Society:

(Box 5.1)
Health pervasively affects both the length and quality of a person’s life.
Good social relations include social cohesion, mutual respect, good gender and family relations and the ability to help others and provide for children... The frequency of contacts with others and the quality of personal relationships are crucial determinants of individual wellbeing. Activities are often more satisfying when shared with others.

I wonder if they’ve thought of turning this into a West End musical?

[johanna]

"The frequency of contacts with others and the quality of personal relationships are crucial determinants of individual wellbeing. Activities are often more satisfying when shared with others."

West End musical is a thought, but they could certainly earn a few extra shekels by producing pop psychology columns for popular publications, and perhaps run a 'Dear Abby' advice service on the side.

As for the mystical BS cited above about 'eco-communities' and the like - it reads as though some of these people are having flashbacks to their acid trips in the 1970s.

Unbelievable.

[Rhoda]

Come on somebody, tell me whether the RS are going to be benevolently watching over us from an Ivory Tower or scratching in the dirt for scraps like the rest of the population.

[September 2011]

By way of a historical comparison: For a strange learned society, the Bavarian Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt wrote in 1782 a radical doctrine of salvation including an appeal to temperance (see Anrede an die neu aufzunehmenden Illuminatos dirigentes, reprinted in Richard van Dülmen: Der Geheimbund der Illuminaten, Frommann-Holzboog 1975, pp. 166-194. ) (excerpts) (my rough translation; for German language see for example http://bilderberger-konferenzen.de.tl/Forum/thema-1-Test_Edit-01.htm (20.03.2012 02:11:00)):

"Who needs the others depends on them, he has assigned his right himself. So, to need little is the first step towards freedom; therefore are savages which are enlightened in the highest degree perhaps the only free men. The art to limit more and more oneself's needs is also the art of getting freedom [page 171]."

"By which bedlam madness and myopia the people were able to imagine this world and the human race will always be controlled this way as hitherto? Who has fathomed the stock of nature, and commanded nature, whose law is unity in diversity, to stand still here and ordered nature's limits [page 179]?"

"He who wants to make all people free, diminish their ignoble needs, whose satisfaction is not in their power: make them enlightened, boldly, and procure them with strict morals: teach them temperance, sobriety, and the great art to desire prudently. He who preaches temperance, frugality and contentment with their estate is far more dangerous to the thrones than he would preach regicide [page 183]".

"When man left the state of its original freedom he has left the state of nature, and he has lost his dignity by indulging his original passions and desires too much, and by not resisting his lust and carnal desires. Men in states live no longer in a state of purity, but in a state of the fallen nature. When they get through moderation of their passions and by limiting their needs their original dignity again, this is their salvation, the state of grace [page 189]."

"Note, however, closely and carefully: we do not force this teaching upon you: do not follow no one else but the perceived truth: use as a freeman here and still further your original right to investigate, to doubt, to audit. If you know or find somewhere something better, so provide us with your views, as we do not conceal anything. We are not ashamed of our finitude. We know that we are human beings; that it is the work of nature, and the part of people not to reach the best at once, but to proceed stepwise, to become wise by our failures, and to use the insights of our ancestors, to become wise sons who shall once father more wiser grandsons [page 193f.]".

When or if a Bavarian Illuminatus reached the high rank of the "Priestergrad" he had -- at least in accordance with Weishaupt's plan --, among other things, to produce climate tables as empirical-statistical exercises. What's interesting is that the researcher Ernst-Otto Fehn thinks he can verify Weishaupt used the word 'statistic' as euphemism ("Hüllwort") for 'politics' ("Politik") (for bibliography and further notes cf. also my link in the first paragraph above).

[BitBucket]

Gil Grisson - "Obama promised 100 billion a year for the next ten years"

US oil import are around a billion daily which rather puts your figure in perspective don't you think?

Geronimo, I was just teasing on the double negative. Sorry :-)

"We have abundant power sources available to us that the greens are trying stop"

I'm not a 'green' so don't misrepresent me. I agree that we could do a lot more with nuclear as long as the secrecy stops. Everything must be visible (I'm routing for a GE-Hitachi fast reactor prototype up north to burn our plutonium stocks). But you can forget widespread shale gas extraction. There is no incentive for the communities involved (just endless drilling and disruption). My guess is that BH readership is full of windfarm nimbys (adopting skepticism legitimises opposing a windmill that spoils the view) and shale gas drilling would wind them up far more.

"I'm not sure who you want to use less oil, who "we" are, but our economies in the west are critically dependent on oil."

I originally wrote it with 'you' throughout, but thought that sounded too personal so I changed it to we - as in we BH skeptics, which clearly doesn't include me (strange use of 'we' but I thought it less rude).

US energy intensity is coming on for twice that of the UK, so there is plenty of scope for efficiency. Many other countries subsidise oil and gas prices and consequently fuels are wasted hugely. David Mackay's book (Sustainable Energy without the hot air) gives a great introduction to the challenges of decarbonising our economies. The best hope is nuclear and deserts. The US could power itself from its deserts. Europe will have to concentrate on making North Africa democratic and prosperous through trade (think Mediterranean Union). Then it can borrow their deserts.

[geoffchambers]

Yesterday, at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/apr/26/royal-society-report-consumption-population
Leo Hickman put up an extract from an audio interview of Sir John Sulston in which the inteviewer John Vidal puts to Sir John some points about the RS report supposedly made by Matt Ridley. Ridley replied immediately, pointing out that Vidal’s quotes are made up. Here, as an example of Sir John’s thought processes, is Sir John’s reply to what Matt Ridley never said:

No, well, I mean, obviously Matt’s book, “A Rational Optimist” is very much along these lines. I mean, I think, I mean obviously there are points in there, but the thing is, optimism alone is not enough. I think he’s not a rational optimist personally, I think as he lays out his programme, he’s an irrational optimist, because he’s saying Ah! you know, people and the market will take care of everything. I don’t think that for a moment. I mean, after all, I mean, if you look at the history of the financial services of this country, which Matt was involved for a while, you can see very clearly that we need regulation in order to have an equable life. We know that this recession was engendered through financial services that were not adequately regulated. We take it for granted that we regulate important things. One of my favourite little anecdotes for example is air traffic control. It’s taken for granted by everybody, even Matt Ridley, that you control where aeroplanes fly. Isn’t that an enormous infringement of his human rights to fly his aeroplane wherever he wants? No, people accept because it’s pretty bad when aeroplanes collide, it’s sort of certain death. You know that’s a sort of an easy one to sort of agree on. What’s more difficult is to get agreement on the slow-burning long-term issues, the ones we’re talking about, where we can see problems down the line, but actually not in his lifetime or mine probably, you know, not the real bad crash. We’re looking at what will be for our children children’s children.

[ScientistForTruth]

Science is about what 'is', not about what 'ought to be'. The Royal Society continue to transgress this line and have long been a deluded advocacy group.

What I do find really annoying, however, are the double standards in the scientist-cum-advocacy camp. When it suits them, science is that objective enterprise that must not under any circumstances be mixed with religion and religious viewpoints. All well and good, but then the same persons have no right to be making moral and ethical pronouncements from their own worldview if they are purporting to speak as scientists. Let them make their views known at the British Humanist Association or wherever they like, but don't put them out as anything to do with science, or what scientists think when engaged in science.

Of course, the Royal Society craves power and influence, and it has long known (since the seventeenth century) that few people get those through scientific prowess, the way is through politics. And if you are not the political establishment, and they are not, then it is through lobbying and advocacy. The Royal Society have made their choice - and it is not the path of scientific excellence.

[John Shade]

The moral and intellectual decline of the Royal Society's leadership in recent decades has been captured in many of the comments on this unimpressive report. The GWPF have collected a few more here:
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=08302f86ae&e=cb31b54a71

I think they are all worth reading, but I particularly enjoyed one by a chap called Raheem Kassam
(http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1147/and_now_the_redistribution_of_consumption_ ) which begins:
'Edmund Burke’s prescience regarding the French Revolution and the inherent nature of ‘radicalism’ – that is to say the inevitability of spending, debt and tyranny inflicted by leftist ideals – is just as relevant in the 21st century as it was at the time of his writing ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France’.

One of Burke’s most crucial points in my mind is the remarkable nature of populist rhetoric and how the ideas of ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’ would result in further subjugation of the masses at the hands of Robespierre and subsequently, Napoleon.

Sold to the French in 1789 terms as, “We are the 99%”, the doctrine of maximum pricing (the ‘General Maximum’) led not only to rampant social discord as citizens squealed on their wealth creating neighbours, but further throttled the economy, the will to produce and made unfair scapegoats of those who had previously contributed the most to the French economy. Sound familiar?

With this in mind I write for you, incensed about the new General Maximum all but suggested by ’23 eminent academics’ that The Independent has quoted as calling for a radical ‘rebalancing’ of global consumption. That’s right. Put down that latte.

[geoffchambers]

There’s something daft on every page of this report. How about a competition, with a signed copy of the HSI for the person who can find the daftest quote? Your Grace would soon have a complete evisceration which he could publish as an e-book.

For starters, there’s a Fellowship of the Royal Society and a free visit to Sir Paul Nurse’s coiffeur for anyone who can spot the logical connection between these two sentences (nothing’s been omitted):

happiness is not an objective measure, and also causality in this relationship could arguably go either way: it may be that money does not bring happiness; or alternatively that those who strive hardest and are never satisfied become wealthier, yet still not happier. The lack of connection between CO2 emissions above 5 metric tons per capita and longevity (an objective surrogate for health) is more compelling (Figure 5.1).

[geronimo]

BB thank you for your apology, but I don't deserve it, the other contributors to this blog, who week after week attend to the questions involved in the great debate without ad hominem, or slights to each other do. You, inadvertantdley of course, lowered their tone, not mine.

If you don't mind I'll stick to the points I made originally, that the current concern with world population has a set of solutions that are in reality coincident with the solutions proposed for CAGW. To me this looks like a manoeuvre to get the same solution with a different, less challengeable (at least in the view of the same people who thought we'd all swallow the CAGW meme) meme of population growth.

I have spent some time in my life mixing with the "great and the good" on various levels, including that of being a funder of research grants, and have no illusions about their frailities, both humand and academic, so a bunch of Profs. and Drs. producing a report as light on evidence as bacon is in a BLT from a British supermarket isn't going to impress me. Especially when it's solution is an exact replica of the solution proposed for a scare they also endorsed to a man and woman, CAGW.

So, BB, where's the beef? Or is it bacon?

As for decarbonising our society, if you're not a greenie, and I have to take your word for it, then I'd ask you why on earth would we want to do that when the data show now deleterious effects of CO2 emissions whatsoever?

[Hector Pascal]

@BitBucket

But you can forget widespread shale gas extraction. There is no incentive for the communities involved (just endless drilling and disruption). My guess is that BH readership is full of windfarm nimbys (adopting skepticism legitimises opposing a windmill that spoils the view) and shale gas drilling would wind them up far more.

Your guess is wrong. You should look up Wytch Farm.

"Most of the field is protected by various conservation laws, including the Jurassic Coast world heritage site, Purbeck Heritage Coast and a number of sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and nature reserves (including Studland and Brownsea Island), so the gathering centre and most of the well sites are small and well screened by trees. Directional drilling has also contributed to reducing the impact on the local environment, with extended reach drilling from the Goathorn Peninsula attaining distances in excess of 10 km."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wytch_Farm

The images on Wikipedia are wrong. They show drill rigs, not production.

Shale gas drilling is horizontal drilling, and can be done from a non-intrusive location. Local people can benefit from drilling because the activity provides work and income. BitBucket: you are a troll.

[ScientistForTruth]

"Partly for this reason, the role of science in measuring and diagnosis is of at least equal importance to its role in providing solutions. For example, detailed measurements made over the course of many years have provided a clear perspective on climate change."

That's got to be one of the worst examples anyone could give to make the point of the first sentence. Clear perspective, my foot.

[JAMSPID]

http://www.toronto.com/article/723921--earth-day-2012-15-sci-fi-writers-tackle-climate-change

So Teddy Wilson of the Inner Space Sci Fi Fan Network thinks we should take a leaf out or the Book and film ( another one where Jenny Aggutter gets her clothes off ) and the short lived TV series
We should constuct Bio Domes

So Teddy if you want to Tackle Climate Change why not do what they also did .
kill everyone who lived over 30
Teddy do you think Euthanisia is a soloution to enviromental problems

If you want to get rid of the Carbon Just get rid of the people who create the Carbon
Teddy people are the problem exterminate them
Start by withdrawing healthcare and socal service to the sick the disabled the poor 3rd world peasants Basically slackers
They dont contribute they just create more Carbon footprint to be eradicated
Teddy im not very well read as most on her will tell you but you must of read Aldous Huxley George Orwell HG Wells and most proberly Robert Erhlick
Erhlick wrote the Population Bomb NOT TO MANY PEOPLE JUST THE WRONG TYPE
Teddy your a Sci fi writer use your imagination it aint that far fetched is it

Teddy what is Climate Change really Just An Excuse for people to make money and politicians to make more laws

Teddy ask one Bloogers on here Ben Pile what a Mathusian is
Then ask him in Logans run where they really killing everyone 30 and shooting on sight those who tried to escape
Was it because there was not enough food and resources to go around OR was it because they could control the population easily no old 40 something trouble makers .No 37 year olds demanding Democracy no 63 Years demanding Freedom of expression

Teddy when they finally realease the Remake of Logans Run with actor Ryan Goslin and the Promotional department start mentioning underlying Concerns about Climate Change

They will be hearing me and rest of the sceptic asking why were they really killing everybody at 30
Was it because of Climate Change

[mydogsgotnonose]

Good analogy Logan's run.

[BitBucket]

Hector Pascal: "Your guess is wrong. You should look up Wytch Farm."

What does that have to do with windfarm nimbys?

But interesting stuff on Wytch Farm. That is a conventional well if I am not mistaken. How does that compare operationally with shale gas drilling and fracking? As I understand it, the output of a shale gas well decreases more rapidly than that from a normal well. So new drilling is required more often and hence will cause more surface management problems. Is this wrong?

[Jamspid]

http://moviecynics.com/logans-run-fun-movie-drinking-games/

JUST TO PROVE I DO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR

[Cumbrian Lad]

BitBuckett: "Europe will have to concentrate on making North Africa democratic and prosperous through trade (think Mediterranean Union). Then it can borrow their deserts."

Judging by past experience in that area, I think the record of Europe (and the US) in exporting democracy and prosperity would suggest a jolly long wait. (We've not been that successful at achieving it ourselves). I think a better plan is to borrow their desserts, and look for our energy within our own borders.

[diogenes]

Bitbucket is so amusing...forcing people to become democratic....with thoughts of this quality, he is waiting to become boss of IPCC

[BitBucket]

Geronimo, I am not a greenie as normally portrayed here - ie I'm not a hair-shirt and sandal wearing beardie who want us returned to the stone age. However I think such greenies are straw-men. I do believe in protecting the environment and I do believe in AGW, hence my interest in decarbonising the economy.

Cumbrian Lad, I think you are being too pessimistic. Europe has been successful in encouraging the rooting and flowering of democracy in the former Soviet satellites, etc and can do it again. The economic advantages of belonging to a block such as the EU have been huge to small peripheral countries and this is a great incentive towards democratic rule (if handled properly by the EU, which is always a question).

Diogenese, where was force mentioned? Incentives are a much more powerful form of persuasion than force.

[geronimo]

BB: I have already taken your word that you're not a greenie, but now you tell me you are, but not the type you believe I believe is a greenie. Are you following me that's a bit contorted. I 'm not a greenie either, but believe in protecting the environment, I believe in AGW, so we should be on the same page. But we're not. I'm assuming we're not because you believe in the "catastrophic" global warming meme and I don't. On the other hand, you are assuming that the "I'm not a hair-shirt and sandal wearing beardie who want us returned to the stone age." type of greenie is the one referred to as a strawman by the sceptics. I don't and would like to see any evidence you have to that effect.

The greenies I'm referring to were suits, both men and women, and believe the ecosphere is more important than humans by a country mile. In fact no hair shirted hippie would get within a thousand miles of a politician to lobby for the banning of DDT and concomitant 40million deaths, most of which were entirely avoidable except for the banning of DDT. Maurice Strong is a greenie. Paul Erhlich is a greenie, Rachel Carson was a greenie, Prince Charles is a greenie, are you getting the picture? If not let me explain it, you've used the trick of telling your debaters what they think and then knocked it down, I suggest you learn from this and stick to believing what they're saying to you. I took your word for it when you said you weren't a greenie, and I'm now taking your word for it when you say you are a greenie.

As with sceptics "greenies" are a broad church, and as you can see, many of us would qualify for being a greenie in the sense of protecting the environment. However, the thrust of the leadership of the green movement is something more than protecting the environment, it's about making people live life in a way proscribed by the green movement. That's why there's widespread support for unaccountable UN bureaucracies to dictate all issues on the environment, the greenies will flood into these organisationas and very soon we'll find ourselves tied to energy rationing, travel bans, educational directives and a whole raft of articles of faith from the green movement as they force their anti-human views on us through world government - by them of course.

[BitBucket]

Hi Geronimo, nice to have that sorted out then! I think you will find there are plenty of angry posts on BH that accuse 'green' opponents of wanting to reduce rich world populations to poverty and return us to the stone age. Maybe not those exact words but along those lines. I've seen various such examples here and in fact the end of your third paragraph travels this same road. While many posters may not subscribe to such rhetoric, I have only seen one example of a poster distancing himself from an unpleasant or untrue post by a skeptic. In that respect people might be considered guilty of such views by association.

Admittedly, lots of things are said here by BH supportes that are clearly false or unsubstantiated by facts or just cranky. People cannot distance themselves from everything they disagree with. Even the owner of the site has, if I am not misquoting, admitted that he would not be surprised if AGW were true. To my mind, it would be sensible to have a commonly agreed/defined BH position of the issues. That might drive away the cranks and encourage more sensible discussion. But it is none of my business, of course.