‘So What’ Is Not What A Science Body Should Say

Posted on Tue 01/22/2019 by

3


By Andrew Bolt ~

Professor Ian Plimer destroys a popular warmist hoax:

It is often claimed that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic…

The 97 per cent figure derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people with a self-interest in human-induced global warming who published “science” supported by taxpayer-funded research grants. Replies from 3146 respondents were whittled down to 77 self-appointed climate “scientists” of whom 75 were judged to agree that human-induced warming was taking place. The 97 per cent figure derives from a tribe with only 75 members. What were the criteria for rejecting 3069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3146 is 2.38 per cent.

The response of the president of the Royal Society of Queensland, Geoff Edwards, gives a sad insight into how little truth matters:

So what?

So what?

The Royal Society of Queensland is a supposedly devoted to “respect for intellectual inquiry” and “the application of scientific knowledge and evidence-based method”. Is “so what?” really the appropriate response to proof that a “scientific” claim produced by a Queensland academic and endlessly repeated by warmists, including Barack Obama, is as dodgy as all get-out?

Edwards does not even atempt to defend the “97 per cent” claim so beloved of alarmists, which suggests to me there can be no defence at all:

The implications for policy would be almost the same if only half of scientists or even fewer agreed.

So why isn’t the Royal Society of Queensland cross with the dodgy claim of a warmist academic? Why is it cross instead with the academic who exposes it?

Then Edwards produces this dodgy claim of his own:

Warnings of coming climate-caused disruption have enjoyed majority support among scientists since well before 1989 when British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, a conservative icon educated as a scientist, lectured the UN on the need for governments to orient policy towards remedial action.

In fact, and ignored by Edwards, Thatcher became increasingly sceptical of the global warming warming scare that she had earlier helped to promote.

By 2002 she was in full retreat. In her book Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World, she attacked “the doomsters’ favorite subject”:

The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes…”

I’m afraid the global warming dogma has swept through the Royal Society of Queensland, too.

FOOTNOTE:

Edwards will not or cannot defend the “97 pe cent” claim. So will he now retract his own dodgy stat from 2014?:

IPCC 5 in 2014 represented a consensus of more than 95% of climate experts that the planet is suffering serious climate change

UPDATE

I fear that Edwards has form in attacking those who demonstrate dodgy science by warming alarmists. Here he is in January last year:

THE most concerning aspect of the article by Graham Young in last week’s Sunday Mail casting doubt on the reliability of scientific research is that politicians and commentators may seize upon it as justification for disregarding scientific advice, particularly warnings of environmental distress.

That strikes me as a very dangerous attitude for a scientist: to seem more alarmed by the exposing of bad science than by the bad science itself. This is how group think develops even among scientists, and especially when they are gripped by a new faith or ideology.

In this case Edwards was alarmed by an article which quoted two whistleblowing scientists:

Ridd and Larcombe find that nine of the most heavily cited (5791 times) studies on the [Great Barrier Reef] are flawed.

Yet, on the basis of them, government has committed to spend $1 billion and is being asked to commit another $8 billion, plus inflict unquantified financial and emotional costs on communities and businesses.

I should note that Edwards is not actually a scientist himself, but an Adjunct Professor at the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University.

Andrew Bolt writes for the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, and The Advertiser and runs Australia’s most-read political blog. On week nights he hosts The Bolt Report on Sky News at 7pm and his Macquarie Radio show at 8pm with Steve Price.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog . http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Advertisements