The incredibility of the scientific academies

An interesting comment has turned up on a previous thread listing 200 academies that appear to support the climate fraud. They range from Academia Chilena de Ciencias (Chile) to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

Who knewth there were so many socialist fools in the world? And the American science bodies that agree, via NASA.
Fools all, according to Dear Rafe?

A sample:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias (Chile)
Australian Medical Association
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

I don’t know how much credence to ascribe to support from medical doctors and nurses, teachers and the humanities but there are enough supposedly reputable hard science bodies there to carry conviction to the casual onlooker.

It is important to be more critical than the casual onlooker. First up, there is a paper in the literature that that reported a close examination of the survey of the major scientific bodies to see what kind of response they really gave to a loaded question regarding their position. It seems that some organizations that are claimed to support the fraud actually hedged and qualified their position because they were clearly unwilling to give offence but they were also unwilling to go all the way.

The executive of one the more important bodies (The Institute of Physics? someone will know) had to redraft their position after the membership revolted against the “executive decision” and demanded a proper discussion of the scientific issues.

That points up the disconnect between the boards/administrators of the academies and the world of critical/sceptical scientific investigation. The typical example is the head of the Australian Academy of Science who is a Labor Party hack, pure and simple.

The overwhelming priority of the academies is to keep the money rolling in. They are PR agents and lobbyists and their KPIs are measured in government dollars. What more need to be said? Of course a lot of good work gets done, you can’t have that many bright, hard-working and well resourced people working for years without finding something, at least in medicine, science and engineering where there are tests in practice. Even there you will find serious concerns about a lot of the work. That also goes without saying when you consider the motivation of researchers, as described by Gordon Tullock (1965).

There is more to be said in another post and I welcome an ongoing exchange to explore the issues that arise here in appealing to the authority of the academies.

Just to finish with a comment on the credibility of NASA, about 40 retired astronauts wrote an open letter to deplore the politicisation of the organisation since they were at work.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The incredibility of the scientific academies

  1. Genghis

    Yes I was going to rebuke you about NASA until I read you last paragraph.

  2. stackja

    Follow the money? The best opinion can buy?

  3. RobK

    Clive Palmer might be able to shed some light on the persuasive power of the likes of Al Gore. Its a mystery how a nation’s fortune can be swayed by a meal. Clive has a lot of work to do on bis credibility. The same persuasive power permeates NGOs and QONGOs.

  4. One is reminded of the observation made by King Henry of France circa 1600.
    It was in relation to King James II of England.
    King James was regarded ’round the world as an authority on witches, demons, goblins and all of the other entities of which he spoke in his book “Daemonologie”.
    King Henry noted that he was “the wisest fool in Christendom”.
    The phenomenon is exactly the same. As Earth continues to cool as it has for 9000 years, such nonsense as ‘global warming’, sea level rise, ‘greenhouse gases’, ‘carbon footprint’ are no more part of this earthly realm than witches, goblins, and werewolves.

  5. egg_

    Australian Medical Association

    It’s fashionable for Doctors Wives to believe in CAGW?

  6. Leo G

    It is the traditional way of academies to betray truth to power- and why they are named after the mythological Academus who betrayed Helen to the Dioskouroi in the belief that wisdom lay in protecting his landed interest.

  7. I saw first hand, prior to my retirement, how these organisations have transformed from the world of pure science to that of hucksters.

  8. Dr Faustus

    The executive of one the more important bodies (The Institute of Physics? someone will know) had to redraft their position after the membership revolted against the “executive decision” and demanded a proper discussion of the scientific issues.

    It was the board and members of the American Physical Society that kicked back against the politically correct 2007 position statement published to coincide with (and support) the IPCC AR4.
    The 2007 APS policy statement ran:

    “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

    The political ‘certainty’ and scientific gibberish offended the majority of the APS’s 50,000 worldwide members. The upshot was outrageous outrage, resignations, hissy fits, threats of legal action – and a revised statement approved by the whole membership in 2015 that better reflects the massive uncertainty in climate science and all its predictions:

    Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

    Never believe anyone who claims the science is settled, or that 97% of scientists agree with the IPCC’s analysis. So much of ‘climate science’ consists of ‘unknown unknowns’ that the uncertainty chokes modelling and prediction.

  9. Mick from Vic

    had to redraft their position after the membership revolted against the “executive decision” and demanded a proper discussion of the scientific issues.

    I am reminded of where the true power lay between Dr Ferris and Prof. Stadler at the State Science Institute.

  10. Galileo Galilei,

    We write to inform you
    the science is settled,
    your trial starts tomorrow.

    Signed/The Inquisition.

  11. .

    The phenomenon is exactly the same. As Earth continues to cool as it has for 9000 years, such nonsense as ‘global warming’, sea level rise, ‘greenhouse gases’, ‘carbon footprint’ are no more part of this earthly realm than witches, goblins, and werewolves.

    But as Randall Carson notes – a very stable climate for the last 7000 years – which is actually unusual in itself.

  12. PB

    Zimbabwe Academy of sciences.

    Well there it is. No more arguments needed. Zimbabwe is of course brimming over with smartness ‘n sheeit.

  13. Leo G

    Zimbabwe is of course brimming over with smartness ‘n sheeit.

    An excess of Zimbabwean compare-the-meerkat academic simplesness.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    Actual scientists want to do science, a notoriously nerdy thing.

    To be a potentate in a science organisation requires you not to do science. Instead you have to be an administrator, organiser, communicator and money raiser.

    The world is full of such organisations, and the people who populate their heirarchies tend to be the same type of people, ie bureaucrats, mandarins and those who are attracted to prestige and power. Thus all scientific organisations are subject to the same leftist colonisation process that political organisations everywhere are prone to suffer (ie Conquest’s 2nd Law/O’Sullivan’s Law).

    Consequently because geeky scientists aren’t really interested in being bureaucrats they allow the annoying jobs of running science organisations to go those people who want to do it.

    Who are exactly the wrong sort of people to be science organisation leaders and functionaries.

    Science organisations therefore are even more prone to lefty Gramscian takeover than most organisations.

  15. egg_

    Actual scientists want to do science, a notoriously nerdy thing.

    Frauds, from the IPCC to the technocrats who approve renewables boondoggles jeopardising the National Grid’s security.

  16. Delta

    Add one more: Engineers Australia

    It’s appalling!

    And by the way, I’m an engineer and belong to Engineers Australia and they can shove this policy where it belongs! I do not consider bound by it because to do so would be acting irresponsibly! And with the world now entering a phase of a grand solar minimum accompanied by global cooling, we can hope that the insane climate scam policies will be consigned to the garbage bin where they belong. And the likes of Engineers Australia will be shown to have been foolish.

  17. egg_

    Actual scientists want to do science, a notoriously nerdy thing.

    $500 Million to save the GBR from eebil CAGW?

  18. min

    Firstly I am a doctor’s mother and grandmother so maybe that makes a difference as neither believe science is settled and all families know about history of Climate change. Possibly as a woman of a certain age,OBE, one of a few that studied Statistics, Research and Analysis at post graduate level . Fortunately late enough to be schooled in Karl Popper’s theories and also to have experienced the falsification of Burt’s hypothesis re nature/ nuture, he fudged the figures . BTW that took at least 25 years before someone queried data and methodology, he claimed to have studied identical twins separated at birth.
    I can remember that recently members of a Geological society based in Uk disagreed with the stand taken and made the powers that be change their statement. You may remember Rafe.
    PS every time I meet a pollie I ask them if they learnt about Erik Thorvallson at school, always a No, perhaps you know him by Erik the Red. No they say so I cheerfully tell them about Greenland, the cathedral built in 1126 and current top summer temps .

  19. min

    Delta, my friend Dr Howard Brady, author of Mirrors and Mazes , on Google, gives talks on this subject and this year spoke to a group of engineers in Sydney and was appalled at the lack of knowledge. However he is doing his best to get message out. He is a geologist who worked in Antarctica and his book has been promoted in USA by the the real scientists.

  20. Rafe Champion

    min thanks for the mention of the British geologists, I don’t recall that, can you document, I wld like a file of cases where that happened like the American Physical Society.

    A year or two ago Will Happer was canvassing scientists in the US to get pushback against the perceived consensus, no report on progress.

  21. Charles Rasp

    Min refers I believe to The Geological Society of London (known colloquially as “The Geological Society”, which published in 2010 (amended 2013) the usual “consensus” statement so typical of organizations dominated by academics. There is useful discussion and disagreement with this academic propaganda shown at euanmearns.com (search for “euan mearns Geological Society statement” with any search engine other than G**gle). Similar fluff was peddled by my own Geological Society of Australia, which is also dominated by academics. Follow the money, but also under no circumstance embarrass oneself or one’s institute by breaking ranks with the “consensus”. Fortunately there are / were geoscientists who are prepared to step up, including Ian Plimer, Peter Ridd, and the late Bob Carter. Industry geologists are also more inclined to be skeptical, so these statements do not have unqualified support in geoscience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.