Bishop Hill More from the "you're a poo-head" school of science
Sep 18, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Greens Professor Nilay Shah of Imperial College London has announced the results of his deep meditation (£) on the climate debate.
Politicians who dismiss the need for urgent action on climate change are like the South African leaders who contributed to thousands of unnecessary deaths by claiming that HIV did not cause Aids, a scientist has claimed.
Professor Nilay Shah, of Imperial College London, said that politicians such as Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia who has raised doubts about the science behind climate change, would be judged as harshly by future generations as those who questioned the medical evidence on Aids.
I'm not sure if this is just an attempt to get his name in the papers or a defence of the gravy train he is riding. Probably a bit of both. But you can't help but wonder if anyone is going to want to read his report now. I mean, who wants to read something written by somebody who operates at that level of invective? Doesn't it just turn people off?
Reader Comments (56)
They have no choice; ad hominem is all that's left to them now that reality refuses to conform to their catastrophic ideology.
Luckily, ad hominem is something that comes naturally to these people.
It seems that the picture editor has a good sense of subversive humour - the nice picture of a vinyard accompanying the article is captioned :
Many experts believe the benefits of moderate warming this century could outweigh the damage
Hee hee !
Bad example. AIDS is as riven with shonky science as is AGW. What can you say about a disease that is diagnosed differently in different countries and for which even the discoverer of the HIV virus now has his doubts that it's the primary agent involved? Maybe HIV does cause AIDS, but if so, the science is no more settled than for AGW: why do some people with AIDS not have HIV, and some people with HIV not have AIDS? Why do those diagnosed HIV+ who refuse standard meds often survive better than those who don't?
His remarks in fuller context weren't quite as bad as that I think, but an analogy that will win him no friends, the ultimate choir preaching really.
His report is interesting - dependent as always on CCS, so fantasy on scale and cost, and on nuclear, so dependent on big rise in fossil prices to make that happen.
Shah seems to be a prof of chemical engineering, which is probably not a bad qualification for this line of work.
Professor Nilay Shah is also in business with Professor Sir David King via a charity called The Ecological Sequestration Trust
A few hundred years ago people with this types of views were happily burning people at the stack for having 'the wrong type of view ' , we can be at least thankful that there as been some progress .
As we see often in climate 'science' much emotion and lots of heated rhetoric . one could almost say religions further , but no actual science was involved in this article .
Read the EST web page. What a fantastic boondoggle those guys are running.
Professor Nilay Shah is a liberal moron. Brainwashed by $1m a year urban terrorist Alan Rusbridger and his radical team at the Groaniad.
Well Nilay old mate, this may come as a complete shock to you because either PM Abbott -
1. Didn't read your considered thoughts or
2. Did, but couldn't give two squirts of guinea pigs p!ss about them,
because immediately after being sworn in as PM he said the following would be his number one priority-
Why do those diagnosed HIV+ who refuse standard meds often survive better than those who don't?
Sep 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Larkin
ML - any references to that?
I'm not sure about his choice of words
I don't know everything that Abbot has said on the matter, but he was elected by the Australian people a few days ago on a pledge to scrap the carbon tax. It seems that the Australian people at least harbor doubts about policies based on the science of global warming.
So far, Abbott appears to be trying to make good on his manifesto pledges. The previous Gillard government was elected on the lie that they would not introduce a carbon tax. Of the above politicians, it is clear to me that Tony Abbot currently merits the greater respect.
By googling some of the text, you can find the text of the full article. It does get slightly better:
"He conceded that comparing climate scepticism with AIDS denial "might be a bit flippant", but said it involved the same problem of ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence."
And the article ends with
"Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which argues that the threat from climate change has been overstated, dismissed the study. "Most experts agree that the benefits of moderate warming of up to 2C this century would outweigh the damage," he said. "In the meantime, there has been no rise in global temperatures since 1997 and nobody knows if and when it will recommence. It is premature to gamble trillions on a speculative alarm that may turn out to be the biggest mis-investment in modern history."
The Australian has the same article and may be freely available: Climate sceptics like 'AIDS deniers', scientist Nilay Shah says
Hey, eSmiff (Sep 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM)! I object to your reference to Rubbisher and his “team” as radical – they are anything but! They are well and truly trapped in their own ideology, even if they cannot see it; a radical follows no ideology, just their own ideas (which may be wrong, but we can live with that).
Radical Rodent
It was pure sarcasm. The Guardian is a central pillar of the global establishment.
[Snip - OTT]
Michael Larkin, "Maybe HIV does cause AIDS, but if so, the science is no more settled than for AGW."
My PhD thesis involved working with CD4+ T Cells, and I have no problem with the general theory that HIV causes Aids. Contracting AIDS, and disease progression is, like many diseases, also dependent on individuals, and individual ancillary factors. This is probably not the appropriate forum to say more.
Another nondescript
Interesting according to
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/AP/faces/pages/read/Home.jsp?person=n.shah&_adf.ctrl-state=15xbunqo0w_3&_afrRedirect=416718444234273
he was
1992-1996 Shell Lecturer Support Award
oh my another fossil fuel lacky
This kind of guff is simply a variant of the argument from authority: the consensus of people in the future is that you're stupid.
It fails because as the future, is unknown it's logically as plausible that they'll think he's stupid. In fact, it's more plausible, looking at the basis of his religious beliefs.
Yup! He fears the end is nigh for public finding.
Well - its out in the open now - Her Righteousness the EU Environment Minister has in effect admitted that its got nothing to do with 'the science' - its 'politically' the thing to do - be green, that is. She has said 'whether the scientists are right or not about climate change', we, poor peasants that we are, have just got to man up and pay more for our energy...
We were right all along, eh..?
Canadian agreed Party Leader goes Full Delusional Overspeed Nutter.
Power Play: Report counters climate scare
Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition, and Green Party leader Elizabeth May, discuss a controversial climate change report.
www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin
I'll be glad when the Global Warming Hoax is over, that Science Culture will end it's infatuation with the Bad Analogy. Make it stop.
Andrew
How can future generations judge Tony Abbott? According to the apocalyptos there aren't going to be any future generations due to our planet-killing ways. Or perhaps they don't really believe that. They've just been bullshitting all along. For the LULZ.
"AIDS is as riven with shonky science as is AGW."
I agree with this, but this is probably not the appropriate forum to say more...
Next battle maybe, after this one is won.
It appears Nilay sees his fat fees from his involvement with the Ecological Sequestration Trust, of which he is a Board Member, disappearing over the horizon unless he can stoke up some alarmism. Perhaps he's following the Gleik model of no publicity in climate science is bad publicity. We will see about that in time for him personally, but for Imperial College London it will not do their reputation any good to be seen employing someone like this.
@Fred from Canuckistan - 1:59
Watched Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May's weird performance.
The interesting part of the interviews was the fact that Tom Harris got several minutes to say his piece on a major Canadian network without being challenged by the host.
On the other hand, the host was having a hard time keeping a serious face during May's rant.
If we're playing this game, I suppose that means Professor Nilay Shah is like those who were convinced Iraq had WMDs and was an imminent threat.
If CCS means new wells, I'm all for it. Drill, baby, drill.
Richard Betts and Doug McNeall, if you're reading this, Shah is another example of the dozens of scientists that undermine climate science every single week in a way that you obsessive Daily-Mail readers can never understand. Cue Twitter indignation against the "unkind" skeptics.
Straw man argument.
Slightly OT I suppose but Abbot has instructed his Minister (running energy) to continue with their "Action Plan" which is to reduce carbon emissions?
The imperative to act 'urgently' always reminds me of advice I was given years ago. If someone is trying to pressurise you into a deal without proper opportunity for detailed examination, there's generally a major downside to the deal. Walk away. Always worked well for me,
The more I hear of the need for urgent action, the more I think of double glazing.
Edim, you said:
"I agree with this, but this is probably not the appropriate forum to say more...
Next battle maybe, after this one is won."
Yeah, you're right. Let my point be that one not infrequently sees highly disputable ideas supported by analogy to other highly disputable ideas. It all relies on the assumption that listeners accept the analogue as valid. If not, it makes the case even weaker.
Professor, how many people did the DDT ban kill?
Professor, how many children died because the Lancet published a phony paper on the link between MMR and autism and refused to retract for years?
Professor, how many people die each winter because of the massive increase in energy costs caused by the AGW cult?
I followed the link to 'deep meditation' and came across words to the effect that if you want to read more of this crap then you have to part with some of the little dosh that the climate change stalwarts have allowed you to keep. So I retreated rapidly and found myself perchance on Dr Roy's site where he is waxing lyrical on the IPCC's problems of facing reality. The same problem that Richard Betts is trying to avoid.
see here http://www.drroyspencer.com
nothing new really - except Roy has a paper on sensitivity coming out at the end of October - but worth a read nevertheless
Actually, the hysterical hype of the AIDS scare of the 1980s and the hysterical hype of the CAGW are amazingly similar. Shah has a point in that, like many, I was a denier of the claim that I was at risk of dying of AIDS (thanks to my old-fashioned monogamous heterosexual lifestyle), and I am a denier that I am at risk of dying from CAGW.
Mind you, the CAGW scare has never come up with anything as good as the T-shirt with 'ADIS - Don't die of dyslexia!'.
Charllie in its other guise as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change the T-shirters have come up with 'CACC - exactly as it sounds'
Read the EST web page. What a fantastic boondoggle those guys are running.
Sep 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commenter Stuck-record
__________________________________________________________
I tried to but I have no idea what they do. Although from what I've read, it's pretty clear they are riding whatever green gravy train they can and thus Professor Nilay Shah's point of view makes perfect, self interested sense.
And what does Shah want to do? http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ concludes that there is no 'action on climate' which can possibly have any measureable effect on the climate unless unthinkable sums involving trillions of dolllars are expended (assuming the science behind the CO2 effect tells the whole story - which evidently it doesn't). He should be challenged to answer this analysis or we have to conclude he's irrational on this subject.
@Michael Hart.
A cool blast of common sense from an immunologist! I agree that the progression from HIV to AIDS can be very variable and can present in many different ways. As for Shah's remark - I guess that there are lots of people talking b**ls about climate, so why shouldn't join the club and talk about medicine?
Mike C.
Exactly. They are 'systems consultants’. I've known lots of consultants. It's a great wheeze. Their particularly expertise is entirely predicated on CAGW being a terrible threat. Remove the threat and you remove the reason for their consultancy to exist.
The money dries up.
I saw Ed Davey being interviewed by Andrew Neil the other day, when He claimed that our species is in danger if action is not continued on climate change. By danger He doesn't mean, I don't think, that we will all suffer severely from prickly heat or something along those lines. No, He means we are all going to die, you know, set about each other for the last morsels of food and water and eventually starve to death. Gone, finished, no more human kind. Crumbs He's really clever isn't He to know this, quite an insight. But He has the answer.That is, His policies and beliefs must be followed, because only He and people like Him can Save the World. He knows this but how? I'll put it down to a personality defect as I wouldn't want to accuse Him of being a cynical politician.
Maybe He and His like should be put in a compound of sorts where they can have a windmill or two for electricity and logs for heating and cooking. In other words try out the world he wants us all to live in.
He said he'd been persuaded in the last couple of years of the merits of nuclear power, but I wouldn't let him have the benefits of that because He has rejected the science previously so He would have to live in a pre-nuclear world, as two years isn't long enough to build any power stations.
If Mr Shah is a professor of Chemical Engineering, his alarmist pronouncements are entirely in keeping with his professional body - the Institute of Chemical Engineering. I have just read this month's journal - much of it reads like Greenpeace propaganda.
The "you're a poo-head" school of climate scepticism is also alive and well and commenting at Bishop Hill.
What a profound self description, Entropic Man ...
The proliferation of environmental fake charities, which almost invariably turn out to be public-funded and essentially quangos, seems to be endless.
EST seems to be closely connected to the World Bank and the UN sustainability circus. Founder Peter Head the Chairman and Director of the major engineering consultancy Arup (pictured with Pachauri in the link below) knows big business potential when he sees it.
http://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/it-s-time-to-scale-up-and-speed-up
Sometimes in a rare charitable mood I humour those about to slit their wrists over the prospect of a rise in temperature of 2-3C.
I suggest if they want to experience it first hand they take a drive from Melbourne to Sydney. Only takes a day.
I, like Andrew, wonder about those who think that hearts and minds can be won by consensus scorn such as Shah exhibits. It was the level of contemptuous invective from certain RC denizens directed at those that dared to ask questions of mainstream certainties that made me want to look beyond proscribed boundaries.
That was a few years ago but, at least, they did the wrong thing at the right time - they had the upperhand.
That they still adhere to the same failed strategy and expect it to work in the current climate (partial pun intended) is extraordinarily courageous.
In summation; wrong thing, wrong time!
@levelgaze
you have to wonder...even in California, an average day can vary between -2C to 30C....just how do people manage this degree of diurnal variation?