Bishop Hill Nobel laureates - not what they used to be
Jun 2, 2014 Energy: gas Greens In an astonishing display of group hypocrisy, a mob of celebs, each with a carbon footprint the size of a small city, have called for a suspension of moves to develop a UK shale industry. Alongside them are names such as Nobel Laureate Sir Harry Kroto, greens like George Monbiot, crony capitalists like Jeremy Leggett, and ecoactivitst groups like Friends of the Earth and the RSPB.
Their letter claims that
...there is substantial evidence that fracking causes water stress and risks water contamination and soil contamination, earth tremors - and is a threat to human, wildlife, bird, fish and livestock health.
I think it's pretty amazing that they managed to get a Nobel laureate to sign up to a statement like that. Even the Green party doesn't try to make such claims, which are right up there alongside visitations from the afterlife as viable scientific hypotheses.
Nobel laureates aren't what they used to be it seems.
Reader Comments (71)
re: my post Jun 2, 2014 at 2:45 PM | hunter
My comment included a recollection that there is a group hiring older Nobel Prize Laureates to hype AGW.The lecturer mentioned that he and other Nobel Laureates were teaming up, but I am unable to ID that group at this time. I am unable to verify that at this time and so withdraw it until I am unable to document it. .
Dave Salt - it looks as if it may be relevant - and it seems to be based on physical measurements. I can't say anything more useful than that.
While working in the UK, running the art department of a co-ed high school in the farthest reaches of Berkshire, I had some dealings with minor slebs and the awful luvvies that inhabit that weird London-centric bubble known as 'The Arts UK' and the double-edged freebies that are administered by such people. Now, almost a decade on from all that nonsense and safely back in New Zealand, I still have very occasional waking nightmares about the depths of the idiocy, nastiness and counter-productive nonsense that such luminaries trail like a miasma.
And our local political Greens, so wonderfully expert at shooting themselves in the foot, have just this week announced that they will introduce a tax on non-agricultural industries that produce 'emissions' to a fanfare of publicity from their associated filmic and sleb luvvies. A short time ago, the same zealots attempted to pressure our government into accepting that 'frakking is so dangerous we shouldn't be doing it'. The government held a very quick enquiry, reported that the oil industry had been frakking with no ill-effects for over sixty years and told the Green luvvies and assorted camp-followers to go away. But that lot always comes back as their kind of lunacy is eternally tireless.
Alexaner K,
Since the booming film industry in NZ, as I understand it, depends heavily on filming companies flying in on charter jets and cargo jets and shipping equipment to NZ to produce movies. No doubt the emissions associated with the various logistical challenges of making movies/shows would fascinating to audit and tax under the regime the artists are demanding. Then one could notice the lifestyles of the rich and artisiticand make their emissive choices fairer in this age of emission obsession.
The recursive nature of the climate obsessed is interesting. I too have noticed how they will circle back to re-hype a topic long after it has been disproven or turned out to simply be made up tripe. Sea level rise, ocean acidification, storms, droughts, polar bears, fracking, heat, cool, 'change' 'extreme weather', etc. Each of the climate obsessed claims of doom have failed to hold up. Yet the obsessed are perfectly content to re-read months and years later the same tired old phony claims and treat them as if they are brand new each time.
Nobel laureates aren't what they used to be... for a long, long, long time now.
Can one hypothecate that the selection process for a Nobel more or less guarantees that the recipient will conform with Establishment ways?
This would be a sorry outcome, because Nobel should reflect a spirit of independent discovery, almost a rejection of the stodgy Establishment stuff.
We have examples of extremes here in Aust. Prof Peter Doherty (medical,immunology) is loud on accepting Establishment. Drs Marshall & Warren had to fight the Establishment to show their (correct) medical science.
One can imagine scenarios wherein Establishment Science is the default assumption for thinking scientists. It should be, in a perfect world. My concern, which is high, is that those who do this default adoption are seldom well read about objections to critical parts of the Science.
Hence, the success of the Establishment by essentially refusing to discuss or acknowledge failings.
Hence, also, the continuing importance of blogs Such as Bishop Hill.
Someone has to encourage Nobel luminaries to dig deeper into existing knowledge before becoming public advocates.
Don't forget chem-trails...
@Jun 2, 2014 at 12:16 PM | CharmingQuark
thanks for boosting my home town with your link -
http://www.scottishshale.co.uk/KnowledgePages/Histories/index.html
try telling the guys in that pic the State knows best (not sure about the guy on the far left tho').
what has happened from those times, they would be/are enraged that the present genaration are just throwing it all away ?
PS. just one of the names - Bryan Adams ? p*ss off
an anti fracker was found dead in a fracking well water..
the question now is who is going to pay for this water contamination ??
I am sure there is a facebook page up for it already (not that I know how to check for it, it seems you need a password userid telephone for entering that place of enlightenment? a bit like huffington)
Jun 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM | michael hart
Indeed, Barack Obama got a Nobel for peace after a mere couple of weeks in office, having achieved nothing before and achieved nothing since.
Jun 2, 2014 at 12:43 PM | Messenger
Yes, ballet is the major!
Streetcred: You are wrong I'm afraid, the UEA is best known for its creative writing course. Clearly we've all witnessed that the professors in the CRU have indeed combined the creative writing and climate science courses through the climategate emails.
Sorry if I'm repeating this Streetcred, but the UEA is most famous for its Creative Writing degree, absolutely true. It is no surprise then that the CRU decided to put the unis most famous course along side climate research as evidenced in the climategate emails.
I've tried, but I cannot get access to the list of people who signed this. Can some kind soul tell me whether the letter was signed by Sir Paul Nurse and, if so, whether in a personal capacity or as RS President?
The link in the posting should take you there, alan. It did for me, anyway.
And today there is a letter in the DT with the heading 'Peer preview tyranny' signed by 5 Professors + 24 others - [see online for names], one of whom is Professor Sir Harry Kroto FRS, Nobel Laureate, Florida State University decrying the peer preview process.
'.... Peer preview is now virtually unavoidable and its bureaucratic, protracted procedures are repeated for every change in direction or new phase of experimentation or for whatever an applicant might subsequently propose. Consequently, support for research that might lead to major new scientific discoveries is virtually forbidden nowadays, and science is in serious danger of stagnating.
Many scientists privately deplore these policies but their professional standing often depends on their acquiescence - a Catch-22 that effectively diminishes public opposition to the policies. We call upon funding agencies to support sustained open-ended research in unfashionable fields.'
Am reading the print version with a late lunch so haven't checked the other names. Does climate change or even climate revolution count as an unfashionable field, or is everything hunky-dory in fashionable climate change and doesn't warrant this change?
Answer to self: probably fashionable if Viv & Co are supportive, therefore no need to change peer preview tyranny.
Hunter,
There appears to be a list of scary topics and myths that can be recycled endlessly, despite the equally endless series of rebuttals, by the scientifically and factually challenged.
The '97% of climate scientists say/think/belive' is now a myth and a major chapter in the bibliography of modern fairy tales for 'progressives'.
Rob: I also saw that episode of the Mentalist. They also did one that included the old person-frozen-solid-by-ridiculously-small-amount-of-liquid-nitrogen gag. Shows like this don't have a science advisor. They go by what they read in the paper.
No conspiracy involved.
The fascinating thing is that the anti-fracking hysteria started BEFORE all the "evidence" came to light, before indeed most of the activists had a clear idea of what fracking was. I suspect some still don't.
Much the same thing happened with GM foods, with the supermarkets "responding" to consumer outrage before the consumers even knew whether it was spelt GM or GE.
How do they decide what to hate in the first place?
Jun 2, 2014 at 1:29 PM | mangochutney
Of course I used taxpayer funded work time to do work on AR5. It's part of my job to do so. (I also did quite a bit on my own time too though, as it's so time-consuming, and often Skype calls with chapter co-authors in other countries would take place outside of UK office hours).
Mikky
Sure - see here and here (top of page 870 - NB this link is to a 10Mb document, one of the IPCC AR5 chapters).