Sir Paul Nurse: ‘Klimaatsceptici dienen te worden verpletterd en begraven.’
Aanvankelijk leek het de goede kant op te gaan met de dialoog. Maar in een recente toespraak vloog Paul Nurse, die binnenkort ook president wordt van de ‘British Science Association’, toch weer uit de bocht.
Onder de titel, ‘Climate sceptics should be ‘crushed and buried’: Sir Paul Nurse attacks politicians who ‘distort’ facts on global warming’, schreef Ben Spencer voor de ‘Daily Mail’:
Politicians who do not believe in climate change should be ‘crushed and buried’, according to a speech given by Sir Paul Nurse. Sir Paul Nurse, who starts his presidency next week, pledged to ‘take on’ the ‘serial offenders’ who he accused of cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments.
In an extraordinary outburst, Sir Paul accused those who refuse to accept scientific orthodoxy on global warming of ‘distorting’ the facts. Sir Paul launched what could be interpreted as a thinly-veiled attack on former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, who is widely viewed as a climate sceptic. He also targeted climate sceptic lobby groups such as that run by former Chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson. Mr Paterson, who was sacked by David Cameron in July, has said he believes the negative impact of global warming has been exaggerated – to the exasperation of climate scientists.
Sir Paul, speaking in London yesterday, said: ‘Today we have those who mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and logical argument. …
The scientist also criticised Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate-sceptic think tank. Sir Paul said: ‘We have to be aware and beware organisations that pretend to talk about science but masquerade as lobby groups’. …
Lord Lawson who describes himself as a ‘climate realist’ has said his think-tank is ‘open-minded on the contested science of global warming’, but remains ‘deeply concerned’ about the costs of policies proposed in the quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Sir Paul added: ‘We need to be aware of those who mix up science, based on evidence and rationality, with politics and ideology, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway. We need to be aware of political or ideological lobbyists who do not respect science, cherry picking data or argument, to support their pre-determined positions.’
Owen Paterson, who was sacked by David Cameron in July, has said he believes the negative impact of global warming has been exaggerated – to the exasperation of climate scientists. Mr Paterson, who is to deliver the Global Warming Policy Foundation annual lecture next month, left his cabinet position with a rant at the power of environmental pressure groups. He said he had grave misgivings about the influence of ‘the Green Blob’, adding: ‘By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape.’
Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, accused Sir Paul of using ‘the language of extremism’. ‘If he can’t live with critics and sceptics that is too bad. But there is no need to use this kind of violent and aggressive vocabulary. ‘Scepticism used to be a sign of science itself. When scientists cannot cope with that, and instead use this language of extremism, it is a sign of desperation, a sign they are losing the plot.’
Lees verder hier.
In een bijtend commentaar veroordeelde Jo Nova de filippica van Paul Nurse. Onder de titel, ‘Sir Paul Nurse, once a respected scientist, is reduced to mud-wrestling’, schreef zij:
Hes the new President of the British Science Association (I bet they are loving this media coverage) and has decided to move on from the old technique of debating scientific points on their merits. Its too slow (especially if you dont have evidence). Instead hes going with retro-science Do you believe, sinner? Its so retro, its retro-the-renaissance.
The Daily Mail UK:
Politicians who do not believe in climate change should be crushed and buried, according to the new president of the British Science Association.
How much belief is enough, I wonder, to avoid the crushing? If a politician believed in the greenhouse theory but not the catastrophe, is that half crushed, or do we skip the squishing and go straight for the burying?
Sir Paul Nurse, who starts his presidency next week, pledged to take on the serial offenders who he accused of cherry picking scientific facts to suit their arguments.
In an extraordinary outburst, Sir Paul accused those who refuse to accept scientific orthodoxy on global warming of distorting the facts.
Sir Paul singled out GWPF as pretending to talk about science and he whipped them mercilessly with ad hominem fallacies, generic infringements, petty insults, and argument by association.
He chanted the liturgical sacrament:
Today we have those who mix science up with ideology and politics, where opinion, rhetoric and tradition hold more sway than adherence to evidence and logical argument.
Lo, behold, its a form of confessional projection. If Sir Paul swayed some evidence he wouldnt need to preach adherence to his ideology with violent threats, baseless opinions, and logical errors.
Aldus Jo Nova
Lees verder hier.
Een bizarre en tenenkrommende affaire! Men mag natuurlijk niet chauvinistisch zijn, maar het is toch moeilijk zich aan de indruk te onttrekken dat, vergeleken met de toestanden in Groot Brittannië, de Nederlandse klimaatdialoog een toonbeeld van keurigheid is. Houen zo!
Voor mijn eerdere DDSbijdragen zie hier.