Why the GWPF clicks

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is pretty cool. This is Benny Peiser setting the ground for its discussion with the Royal Society:

Integrity, openness and objectivity need to be introduced to the conduct of the scientific debate to restore the damage done by the Climategate, Hockey Stick, Gleick, Gergis, Lewandowsky and Marcott episodes.

You can bet dollars to donuts there’ll be no one in the firmly-establishment Royal Society with any clue what the above items might be.

There may be a clutch of alternative thinkers like Roger Pielke Jr, who, along with their Hartwell and Breakthrough friends have tried years selling such absurdities as a ‘carbon tax’. Or the notion that ‘climate sceptics’ are not ‘relevant’. But the climate sceptics are driving the debate forward.

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. omanuel

    I have known Benny Peiser for many years. Before starting GWPF, he was editing the CCNet scholarly electronic network and watching out for dogma disguised as consensus science. I share your admiration for him.

  2. Richard T. Fowler

    “You can bet dollars to donuts there’ll be no one in the firmly-establishment Royal Society with any clue what the above items might be.”

    In other words, these RS members don’t understand that any damage has been done to those who would constructively criticize them.

    Or, Shub, is it possible that they really don’t care whether it has, so they feign ignorance of the damages in order to avoid having to admit to their apathy??

    RTF

  3. Simon Hopkinson

    I do wish everyone, including the GWPF, would refrain from conflating a popular opinion among climatologists with a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus would refer to a balance of scientific evidence, which is something completely different from what is being proffered by climatologists.

    To refer to the opining of a vocal group of activists as the scientific consensus is to misrepresent the current state of the debate, falsely inflating the apparent credibility and relevance of the opinions of a group of ideologues and ignoring or diminishing the value of the available observational data.

    It is a concession too far, for no good reason, and with potentially damaging consequences to the long-term credibility not just of climate science but all sciences. If we are to hold dear the principles of the scientific method then we must work to clarify where science ends and beliefs begin.

  4. omanuel

    I agree, Simon, a popular opinion is not necessarily a scientific consensus.

    But popular opinions of a group of ideologues have been falsely inflated and sold to the public as a scientific consensus, despite being directly falsified by the best available observational data.

    That includes not only AGW (anthropogenic global warming), but also SSM (standard solar model of H-filled stars), BBM (big bang model of H-production from nothing as the “scientific” first cause of the universe at t = 0), and YMAANF (Yukawa model of all attractive nuclear forces).

    Scientific deception now threatens the very survival of mankind:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Resolution_Advancement.pdf

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo