Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More evidence that nobody believes in climate policy | Main | 50 to 1 »
Thursday
May022013

Royal Society responds to Lawson?

Readers may remember that Nigel Lawson had responded positively to Paul Nurse's offer to put forward some scientists who wanted to engage on the great global warming questions. Today, Hannah Devlin, the science editor at the Times, has tweeted that the Royal Society has now sent GWPF a list of scientists who are willing to take part:

I hear has sent list of top scientists who'd be happy to provide sound advice on evidence for climate change 1/2

I do hope takes up on this offer to engage with mainstream scientific community 2/2

Nothing from GWPF itself yet.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (29)

Isn't the word Hannah Devlin is struggling to find 'debate', rather then 'advise'!

May 2, 2013 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Dennis

I'd dearly love to be proved wrong about this, but suspect that the Royal Society are simply putting forward the list of scientists who will offer written ‘advice’ to Lord Lawson.

The Thermageddon crowd have refused to debate at the highest level with the sceptical crowd. They know it's far too risky. I don't see how this has changed. The possibility of their arguments being exposed to public ridicule has always been too much of a risk. They've too much to lose.

May 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

If invoke the Precautinary Principle, all things appear toall men, & women. One can even prove fairies exist!

May 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

Instead of sending a list of names, the Royal Society should have sent a list of possible dates when this "advice" could be provided. That would have been a more genuine offer.

May 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndyL

Have they asked what Susan Solomon thinks yet?

May 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

The Royal Society has now sent GWPF a list of scientists who are willing to take, er (extract the urine).

May 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

Sorry, I think the dog must have eaten it.

May 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

The Royal Society is at 6-9 Carlton House Terrace. GWPF are at 1, Carlton House Terrace.
It takes a maximum of 1 min to walk from one to the other.

Couldn't Nurse drop the letter in before his pre-lunch snifter? Or even ask a passing FRS to do him a favour? No peer review needed..just the ability to read house numbers. Starting with '1'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_House_Terrace

May 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Perhaps it has been lodged with the original records at UEA?

May 2, 2013 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDerek

"Couldn't Nurse drop the letter in before his pre-lunch snifter?"

It all depends on what you mean by "sent".
In this case I suspect "sent" means that they have just read the text of the letter into a dictaphone. Now a typist will type it, print it, sign it "pp" the author and put in an out tray. Someone else will collect it and take it down to the post room, where it will be franked second class and put into a sack for collection by the Royal Mail.

May 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndyL

The trouble with these blow-hards with inadequate physics** is it is very difficult to admit they're wrong.

**The explanation of the control system that keeps a stable climate on a water planet is laughably simple. The lefty CO2 religionists claim CO2 was responsible, about the same as now. However, if it was responsible then 12 times that concentration 450 million years ago in a long ice age would never have been possible.

May 2, 2013 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecm

Make it public, sell tickets. Don't care which end of Carlton House Terrace.

May 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

May 2, 2013 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

I'm with Stuck on this. As I said before, Read the wording and remember who wrote it.

May 2, 2013 at 3:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

So Hannah Devlin who works for The Times tweets info gathered in her work to all and sundry freely on Tw@tter.
No need to buy The Times then - so who pays M s Devlin's wages?
Has Wind generation saved the money trees of Utopia, and is this the new economic model devised by Millipede and B@lls?

May 2, 2013 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterroger

Read the wording and remember who wrote it.

You are quite right, of course, but this is the best offer we have had and I know we can rely on Lord Lawson to interpret any reply "appropriately".

May 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered Commentergraphicconception

I too am with Stuck, there will be no debate, just a monologue probably by email, and probably referring to the AR4/AR5.

May 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Roger

Mrs P fielded a call from the Telegraph yesterday, trying to interest her in a week’s worth of their product for £4.
The salesman wanted to know where we got our news - “The radio and t’internet” was her reply.
“But wouldn’t you like a newspaper?”
“Not really”
“But you can have the Telegraph for a whole week for £4!”
Click.

May 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

I love that offer to engage with "the mainstream scientific community". Dear cranks and oddballs, we at the Royal Society are kindly offering to show you the error of your ways. Hope you'll respond positively.

May 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

A couple of veteran FRSes should definitely be involved.

James Lovelock:

On climate sceptics: We're very tribal. You're either a goodie or a baddie. I've got quite a few friends among the sceptics, as well as among the "angels" of climate science. I've got more angels as friends than sceptics, I have to say, but there are some sceptics that I fully respect. Nigel Lawson is one. He writes sensibly and well. He raises questions. I find him an interesting sceptic. What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: "Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?" If you don't have that continuously, you really are up the creek.

Freeman Dyson:

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.

Those are from the Guardian and Edge.org respectively. It promises to be a great debate.

May 2, 2013 at 5:08 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

To be fair to the RS, the terminology "mainstream scientific community" is Devlin's.

May 2, 2013 at 5:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

"Isn't the word Hannah Devlin is struggling to find 'debate', rather then 'advi[c]e'!" --Paul Dennis

Perhaps. But the operative word is, I believe, 'sound,' as in "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing."

May 2, 2013 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

I think the problem with the RS has always been too much sound and too little advice. They need a litlle balance... :)

May 2, 2013 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeP

Whatever sort of liquid emanations we expect to see projected by the RS, Ms Devlin's mendacious sniveling is just embarrassing. "Provide sound advice", indeed.

May 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

The GWPF should ask the Royal Society if the scientists listed in the letter are willing to listen to points made by the GWPF and to answer questions.

May 2, 2013 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Speaking of the AGW crowd in general, when have they ever really engaged in open debate? Only on a few occasions and then they mostly got their clock cleaned.

They don't debate. They proselytize.

May 3, 2013 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

theduke: Absolutely. But that's what's so neat about Lawson's immediate reaction to Paul Nurse's original high-handed message: he interpreted it as an invitation to the debate it most certainly wasn't. That's the last thing they want. Except of course for guys like James Lovelock, Freeman Dyson and a whole lot of other open-minded FRSes with less famous names that as yet have not triggered a revolution against the central committee of the RS politburo or whoever the manipulators think they are. Lawson and the GWPF are playing a blinder. Let's have it all out in the open - including the views of all FRSes, entirely free to disagree with one another, without fear. Hasten the day.

May 3, 2013 at 12:33 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Does anybody know how many climatist FRSs there are? Who are they?

May 3, 2013 at 7:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Seeing as they are neighbours, perhaps Lawson could check when Nurse is in and go round in person. It might cut through a lot of paperwork...

May 3, 2013 at 9:29 AM | Registered Commenterjamesp

May 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM Jack Savage

"Susan Solomon thinks".

Who knew?

May 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterEvil Denier

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>