Bishop Hill More silliness
Mar 23, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Journals Daniel Cressey at Nature's Great Beyond blog seems to be adding his voice to those who support the idea of Lord Oxburgh being a suitable chairman for the Royal Society panel despite the noble lord's conflict of interest.
Daniel's case for the defence is almost as obscure as Fiona Harvey's but seems to consist of a belief that since Bob Ward, the public relations officer at the Grantham Institute, predicted that the appointment would be criticised, we should shrug our shoulders and move on. I hope I'm not misjudging Daniel's position here, because he doesn't make his position very clear. I do sense, however, that his article carries an air of criticism of those who are pointing out the conflict of interest rather than those who are behind it.
You have to laugh, don't you?
Reader Comments (2)
"The question you should ask yourself if "Why did it come to pass?"
How is it seemingly impossible to find a chairman for the panel who doesn't have a substantial interest in it's findings?
The fact that you've predicted people would voice concern doesn't nullify or mitigate those concerns in any way.
They are genuine concerns, and they need to be addressed - or better yet they should never need to arise in the first place."
Awaiting moderation. To be fair, the other comment on the FT made it through untouched.
"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"
We really are through the looking glass!
SDCS