A Place to Stand

Lord Lawson sent this to Sir Paul Nurse, head of the Royal Society

Sir Paul Nurse


President

The Royal Society
Dear Sir Paul,
My attention has been drawn to a speech you gave last month at Melbourne University, in which you chose to criticise me by name in terms which bear no relation to the truth. In the interests of accuracy, I have obtained a full transcript. I recognise that, as a distinguished geneticist, you are not a climate scientist, and may therefore feel ill at ease discussing the complex issue of climate policy. But that is no excuse for wanton misrepresentation both of the issues involved and of my own position.
So far as the latter is concerned, you claim that I “would choose two points and say ‘look, no warming’s taking place’, knowing that all the other points that you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case”. That is a lie. I have always made clear that there was a modest degree of recorded global warming during the 20th century (see, for example, my book An Appeal to Reason, which you have clearly not taken the trouble to read). However, so far from choosing any arbitrary ‘two points’, I was drawing attention to the fact that this warming trend appears to have ceased, since – contrary to the predictions of what you describe as “consensus scientific opinion” – there has been no further recorded global warming at all for at least the past 15 years, as even the IPCC Chairman, Dr Pachauri, has now conceded. Whatever the precise reason for this, it cannot simply be dismissed or denied.

and so on. He wrote this several weeks ago. Clearly a former Chancellor and member of the House of Lords does not lightly call anybody a liar, at the very least circuimlocutions would be normal.

  I past days this is the sort of thing that would have had people challenging duels. I am certain that Lord Lawson will have at least run this past his solicitor.

  Nor is this calling any ordinary mortal a liar. Science as a profession cannot exist without the "scientist" being above reproach as to their honesty, at least when discussing scientific matters. To call a scientist a liar is like saying a hudge auctions off verdicts or a footballer has no legs. If true they simply cannot carry out their professional duties.

  Nor is Sir Paul an ordinary scientist - he is the head of what was once the most respected scientific instition in the world & a Nobel winner..

   Which is why Sir Paul, for the sake of his reputation and any lingering self respect was forced to sue Lord Lawson.

   Er no

    Which is why the Royal Society, to avoid being seen as a corrupt lying propaganda organisation with its collective tongue wedged up the government's arse, was forced to ask the undisputed liar to step down from any position in the RS.

  Er no.

    Which is why the Royal Society are no longer, in any way, even one of the world's least reputable scientific organisations but simply a corrupt, lying, propaganda arm of the government, and its members simply whores. Not whores like the ladies of the night or rent-boys who honestly hire themselves out for pleasure - they are professionals behaving honestly. The members of the Royal Society and every other "scientist" who lies in the same way are in no way scientists, they are simply a much lower sort of whore.

   On the other hand, since the RS gets £50 million a year to  lie for the state, it is also more lucrative than being being a rent boy.