The Royal Society's elevation of Paul Ehrlich to the ranks of the fellowship last year was a surprising development, given the great doomsayer's predeliction for being entirely wrong about everything. Many noted at the time that Ehrlich shares Paul Nurse's interest in the global population figures and wondered whether Ehrlich's election as a fellow was connected to Nurse's election as president. As I understand it, however, new fellows are appointed after a vote of the existing fellowship, so presumably there was in fact broad support for Ehrlich's candidacy. There is no accounting for taste.
Anthony Watts recently noted the publication of a new Ehrlich paper in the Royal Society's Phil Trans B, in which full vent is given to the tale of environmental doom that he has been getting so badly wrong for the last 30 years. Is this kind of millenarian nonsense new for Royal Society Journals? I certainly have no conception of their stable of publications as being particularly full of woo in the way that, say, Nature is. Have I missed anything?