The G8 meeting in Scotland has given rise to some rather unsavoury activities by scientific organisations.
Benny Peiser distributed this comment on the CCnet this weekend.
(1) SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY AS RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE WITHDRAWS FROM G8 STATEMENT
Benny Peiser [firstname.lastname@example.org]
The international scientific community was plunged into disarray as news emerged yesterday how Britain's Royal Society has been orchestrating a political campaign behind the back of the Russian Academy of Science. In a calculated attempt to overthrow the well-known sceptical position of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) on climate change, the Royal Society appears to have pressured its president, Yuri Osipov, into signing a politically motivated document against the expressed stance of its own organisation.
The RAS had never seen or discussed the text of the Academies' statement. After having done so, the RAS climate scientists have come to the conclusion that the statement of the Academies is "lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions."
The shenanigans of Lord May and his cronies appears to have backfired: Instead of providing evidence of an international "scientific consensus" on climate change, the public retraction by the Russian Academy of Science from the Royal Society's unduly political G8 statement has exposed the whole exercise as a complete farce. As a result, the reputation and integrity of the world's leading scientific academies have been severely damaged.
(2) STATEMENT OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
Please, find attached the Statement of the Russian Academy of Science adopted on July 1, 2005.
STATEMENT OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
Moscow, July 1, 2005
Statement of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change» (further - «Academies' statement»)
The Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science has examined the «Academies' statement» and makes the following statement:
1. The Council-Seminar announces that the Russian Academy of Science has not been given the opportunity of working over the text of the «Academies' statement». «The Academies' statement» itself has not been discussed by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science. The decision to support it has not been taken by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science.
2. The Council-Seminar sees the Academies' statement as lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions.
3. The Council-Seminar attracts attention to the fact of absence at the present level of knowledge of cost-effective methods of stabilization of greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.
4. The Council-Seminar noted that the «Academies' statement» offers costly and ineffective measures to achieve unproven targets.
5. The Council-Seminar asks the President of the Russian Academy of Science to repudiate his signature from the «Academies' statement».
6. The Council-Seminar reiterates its full support to its Statement of May 14, 2004*, including:
- in regard of the absence of scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol,
- in regard of ineffectiveness of the Kyoto protocol to achieve aims of the UNFCCC,
- in regard of risks to the Russian economy from the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.
* Opinion of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on anthropogenic climate change and Kyoto protocol, Moscow, May 14, 2004.
There is not much one could say on this development in science, but it doesn't surprise me in the least as the Royal Society's 19th Century Sibling, The London Geological Society, did a similar hatchet job on geology at the time of the Great Reform Act in 1832, transforming evidential geology into a more philosophical, armchair type of science in which abstractions became dominant over blindingly obvious field evidence. Why are the English so prone to intemperate science..........
Much like climate science today - in which computer modelling points to catastrophic warming while physical reality, if it is measured routinely at all, tells the opposite.
Another comment is here.
There seems to be a sort of email barney over a simple request for data at Steve McIntyre's site here where it seems one needs to be very careful when saying something to journalists. I leave it to our readers to make up their own mind on the matter. As the narrator of the Rocky and Bullwinkle Movie would have noticed, some untruths are being uttered and it sure isn't the climate sceptics.
This project was designed to help science understand a little more about the nature of comets, and in this particular case 800kg copper projectile is going to be fired at Comet Tempel 1 in the near future. Most astrophysicists will tell you that comets are blocks of ice. But are they. An alternative view is described here and it might be useful to recall this article when the event happens to see which scientific view got it right. Seems the plasma cosmologists are scoring impressive wins these days.
Driving along Great Eastern Highway through Belmont in West Australia the other day and shock horror! Enormous BHP-Billiton Signs on the old WMC Perth office (WMC HR was in the CBD in QV1 Building - a telling separation if there ever was one). So it must be true, WMC is no more.