Bishop Hill Nurse accuses Lawson of cherrypicking
Feb 16, 2013 GWPF Royal Society Paul Nurse has used the occasion of a speech to the University of Melbourne to make an extraordinary attack on Nigel Lawson . Discussing people's concerns over global warming, he suggested that this was causing some to attack the science.
We saw that in Britain with a politician, Nigel Lawson, who would go on television and talk about the scientific case. And he was trained as a politician - you made whatever case you can to convince the audience. So he would choose two points and say "look no warming's taking place", knowing that all the other points that you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case, but he was just wanting to win that debate on television.
Strong stuff. Very strong stuff.
The audio file is here. Key quote at 42 mins.
Bishop Hill
There is a transcript of the whole talk here (h/t Tallbloke)
Reader Comments (74)
Feb 16, 2013 at 10:25 PM | pjb253
Fascinating! In my humble opinion, Oprah has done more harm to American culture than anyone else. Her television program took the Christian principle "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and changed it to "Hate the sin, elevate the subculture of the sinner."
A fair cop by Nurse -- you guys have been rumbled with paws red handed in the cherry jar.
When will Lawson , the Bish , and all of Heartland's UK opposite numbers catch on the science ain't Question Time- it's real time fact checking 24-7, with all the facts in play. There's no use trying to back down the up escalator on a century's worth of data.
We have enough of our own bigotted CAGW IDIOTS here in Australia not to need Nurse to mouth-off as well. His mental state needs to be called into question.
Russell, can you give me link to all of the facts please? I'd like to check them.
What you have to remember is that Nurse et al have manufactured a situation that they can't back out of. They have been unequivocal about CAGW and taken an unnecessarily harsh stance against anyone daring to question their dogma. Scientists they are not. Now, as that pesky thermometer starts to reveal their hubris, they are forced into taking more and more extreme measures to maintain the pretence and to change the language used to describe the problem. The truth will out, all they can hope for is that the clique remains sufficiently large and far reaching that they can just ignore the naysayers and keep the groupthink going. A proper scientific debate is the last thing they want.
@ Steve Jones feb17 9:59am
You have summed it up very well. The politicians who signed up to it are in the same pickle. All the politicians do when challenged about their policies is to refer to the "science is settled" mantra as conveyed to them by the Government Chief Scientist and the President of the RS. For both scientists and politiicians it is an extremely tricky predicament - how do they get off the hook on which they have impaled themselves?
Michael, to avoid redundancy in getting you started on all of the facts, would you please tell us
1. Who authored the climate science textbook used to teach you the basics at university ?
2.How many sections of JGR and Phil. Trans. do you subscribe to, or regularly peruse ?
3. Have you found them, and your well thumbed shelf of atmospheric science classics, an adequate prerequisite to your reading of the IPCC reports ?
If you are at a loss to answer in the affirmative , what makes you think you can distinguish fact from political fancy in this matter?
Oldtimer + Steve Jones
Yes, they have painted themselves into a corner.
As people try to retreat from 'the world is going to burn' to something more like the luke warmers, they will have to project the idea that sceptics are rabid nutters who deny that there's even such a thing as climate. Even if we slip into an ice age they would still argue that sceptics are wrong. Unfortunately for them the internet has a long memory.
Feb 17, 2013 at 3:24 AM | michael hart
Judging by his comment, Russell has difficulty with the concept of 'facts'.
Can anyone find an example of Lawson doing what Nurse claims? Afaik Lawson accepts most of climate science but argues about the economics.
Some weeks ago, Russell demonstrated that he had been criticising my book without actually having read it. I don't think we need to take anything he says very seriously.
Phillip Bratby
That's one level of cherry-picking, yes.
Paul Matthews:
And that's the other. The GWPF have been open enough to say Here is the BBC debate Paul Nurse seems to be referring to – judge for yourself. I have to say I haven't bothered. Because what Nurse says is so unrepresentative of what I know Lawson has been up to, notably in An Appeal to Reason, the book he discusses with Paxman and Rapley on Newsnight in 2008, in the first example given.
Steve Jones is bang on as to what is happening.
Those who have backed the wrong horse and repeatedly demonised 'Deniers' cannot back down now. They are doomed and, like Chemical Ali, will keep doubling down until they are exposed and ridiculed.
Change will come from the silent ones. The experts who've held their tongue all these years for fear of being called a witch. If a few speak up, the damn will break.
Struck-Record
They are doomed and, like Chemical Ali, will keep doubling down until they are exposed and ridiculed.
I think you mean Comical Ali.
While it is to be hoped that they will withdraw from public life in a route abandoning all credibility, I fear that they will try to complete a tactical withdrawal under covering fire from the Beeb and all the other institutions that they control.
Ah...Nurse....
Yes Sir?
Your climate model did not work because you have not allowed enough for Negative Feedback...and
overloaded Positive Feedback.
Also you really must understand that Carbon Dioxide's ability to create heat is one of diminishing returns. It's relationship is therefore logarithmic...and not linear.
Que?
Precisely young man....
Nurses autobiography reads like the typical phd job-shopper in the academic world ..Switzerland ? ooooh have to have been there..edinburgh? aaah nice. In the mean time whole femmily set up, houses sold and bought and many holidays of course.
He probably did some interesting work in between but note starting 1985 (28 years ago) he became professor = basically managed people and prepared his lectures and meetings.
The protein mechanism that got him the nobel (no doubt together with his leftwing credentials) was "found" with 2 others and part of the gold rush that all research institutes had jumped unto.
What I am missing is the perseverance the little scientist who fights against the odds the hard work the hard life. It looks more like a leftwinger he drivels a lot and has his career in the top1 of his priorities list.
We should stop giving such establishment characters prizes.
The nobel committee can ofcourse not be stopped , they are like the bbc they will red rat until they drop. what we can do is pay less attention what comes from such liberal retard venues, and stop funding them unless they recruit with outsourced company only.
"Strong stuff. Very strong stuff"
Are you kidding? Compared to AM, a person on whose website the main occupation is accusation, insiniation and general put-downs of anyone public or private or any organisation in the way of his agenda, Nurse is a rank amateur. All he did was to suggest that Lawson, a pol unknown to most of the audience, acted as politicians do by trying to score points rather than representing the science fairly. Shocking accusations indeed!
As I have never mentioned the Bish's book, it seems odd he should elide my criticism of what he writes here with what he has paywalled elsewhere.
Now will he please tell us who authored his favorite climate science textbook?
We'll all feel better when he does.
At the end of 2007, Dr David Whitehouse had an article in the New Statesman which included this observation:
Sensible stuff you might think. But, needless to say, in the comments that followed, it attracted vehement criticism - and, exactly like Nurse's attack on Lawson - accusations of cherry picking. I remember observing to a critic that it was as if he and I were climbing a mountain in the mist and, after six hours of climbing, the path levelled out - continuing like that for an hour. But he'd get angry if I even commented on it. “No” he'd bluster “you can’t say that: we’re still higher than we were two hours ago.” Yet all I was doing was commenting that we weren't climbing any more – why get so cross about it?
This immediately brought to mind the "Nursey" character in Blackadder.......
Read this for an example of the pitiful situation that Nurse and his cronies have been contributed to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21501878
Where are the politicians with the courage to point out the obvious answer to this green-inflicted predicament. The politicians, particularly the green ones, should be very worried and I am sure that, privately, they are. When the blackouts start the public will know who to blame and no amount of sophistry will persuade them otherwise.
Incidentally, our magnificant windmills are currently producing 0.14 GW = 2.5% of installed capacity. Real time data available here:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
@Feb 18, 2013 at 2:44 AM | Russell
That's funny, strikes me that someone else called Russell, who displays a similar proficiency in vacuous prolix, has mentioned the Bish's books many times. For example it didn't take me long to find him on this BH page:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/22/thought-for-the-day.html#comments
And then goes on to quote from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
That guy definitely mentioned one of the Bish's book, with a full name check, and implies he had an informed opinion of it to boot.
Same guy?
Michael, to avoid redundancy in getting you started on all of the facts, would you please tell us
Who authored the climate science textbook used to teach you the basics at university ?
If you are at a loss to answer in the affirmative , what makes you think you can distinguish fact from political fancy in this matter?
Feb 17, 2013 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell
------------
Russell,
Atmosphere, Weather and Climate. Barry & Chorley
I'll also give you another piece of information for free. I know for a fact this book has been used as the course text book in the same University Environmental-Science Department where Prof. Phil Jones studied as an undergraduate.
There you go. You answered my request for information with three questions. I have answered one of them. Before I go further can I ask you to start addressing my question? And when you are giving me your list of "all the facts" please omit any ridiculously politicised sources such as the so called "Skeptical Science" blog.
Cann't help looking at Sir Paul Nurse and thinking, Robin Williams does the Royal Society and when will he do that funny voice ?