The lunatics have taken over

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Mar 2010, 21:22

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... tr=6980618?

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.

Post by **clv101** » 23 Mar 2010, 21:42

I'm quite dubious about this. I was in the Science Museum a few weeks ago and looked at all their climate change exhibits. They are currently hopeless! Most at least 15 years old - and full of 'scepticism' and uncertainty. I'm extremely confident the new exhibition will be an improvement. The Times write up - spin!

As an aside, for the last two days I'm been at a conference at the Royal Society on Handling Uncertainty in Science. The scientific community there, from the Professor Sirs on the stage to the regular scientists in the audience had a very good understanding of what's uncertain and what's not.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 23 Mar 2010, 21:58

Hahaha! The AGW-climate hysterics were wrong then, are wrong now and will be wrong forever in the future. I told them so all the time, but they refused to listen. Instead they made fools of themselves, and now they think that some huffing and puffing will save them from being exposed as hysterics. Well, good luck to that. They had their time in the sun, but now its over.

It is normally against my principles to be triumphant over intellectual losers, but this particular bunch were extremely nasty when they had their heydays, calling us scientist things like 'denialists' and other rude things. They deserve some mockery now when their time is up.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Mar 2010, 23:35

MacG seems to have gone all incomprehensible.

Seen this Chris? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36007220/ns ... vironment/

The Uncertainty conference certainly had a good cast list:

Professor John Barrow FRS, Professor Harvey Brown, Dr Philip Campbell, Professor Sally Davies, Lord Smith of Finsbury, Lord Krebs FRS, Mr Mervyn King, Lord May FRS, Sir Rodger Penrose FRS, Dr Nina M Skorupska, Professor Julia Slingo, Professor Leonard Smith, Professor David Spiegelhalter FRS, Professor Ian Stewart FRS, Professor Peter Webster.

When I went to uni, almost 40 years ago, uncertainty and how to handle errors was taught as absolutely the foundation of all our experimental work.
I'm not surprised that, as you say, regular scientists in the audience had a very good understanding of what's uncertain and what's not. It's the general public that seems to be completely at see with the thinking.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 24 Mar 2010, 07:19

biffvernon wrote:It's the general public that seems to be completely at see with the thinking.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Mar 2010, 08:00

sea

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 24 Mar 2010, 16:15

biffvernon wrote:MacG seems to have gone all incomprehensible.

It dont take much...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Mar 2010, 18:24

Here's a spare apostrophe for you: '

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 31 Mar 2010, 02:27

biffvernon wrote:MacG seems to have gone all incomprehensible.

As opposed to religious, eh friar?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Mar 2010, 08:23

5th goes incomprehensible too.

Maybe it's because the Commons Science and Technology Committee found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data and said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 31 Mar 2010, 12:18

They are obviously in on the conspiracy. It's the only logical explanation.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 31 Mar 2010, 14:50

biffvernon wrote:5th goes incomprehensible too.

Maybe it's because the Commons Science and Technology Committee found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data and said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.

After a one-day review? Those politicians must be real geniuses to be able to contemplate such complex issues in just one day...

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 31 Mar 2010, 18:22

biffvernon wrote:5th goes incomprehensible too.

Maybe it's because the Commons Science and Technology Committee found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data and said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.

Keep repeating the lie often enough and people will eventually believe it, eh?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Mar 2010, 18:28

MacG wrote:Those politicians must be real geniuses to be able to contemplate such complex issues in just one day...

They are. That's why we pay them so much