If the @royalsociety wishes to be a political body, it must answer criticism.
But it refuses to.
It should be dismantled. It has served its purpose and exceeded its founding principles and its motto.
It has become antiscience.
Bullshit.
Ideological bullshit.
The politics -- ideology -- embedded in the Royal Society is more dangerous to society than climate change.
Until the Royal Society responds to the criticism, the fact will become more obvious.
It is gambling scientific authority for political position.
Science will lose.
It's quite simple. The Royal Society could engage its critics, accept and answer the criticism. Acknowledge its fallibility and the mistakes of its recent presidents.
Or it can double down until it collapses.
Its last president argued that scientists should have power without accountability.
He appointed his sister to a panel with influence over public policy, alongside other mediocre panjandrums.
That is why I doubt both their good faith and competence.
Joanna Haigh is the 'scientist' who lied to the UK Climate Assembly. Here is her lie...
The Climate Assembly was forced to issue a retraction. But not until after the Assembly had been misled.
Haigh is presented as a climate scientist and physicist. But as co-director of the Grantham Institute @ Imperial -- Jeremy Grantham's vanity project -- she was a political campaigner.
Grantham is one of several billionaires that finance almost all green organisations.
How is it possible that Haigh had such a false view of China?
It isn't possible. She didn't have that view.
She merely told the Assembly what it needed to hear to support the recommendations she wanted to elicit from members.
Institutional science has eschewed truth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's true of "systemic 'racism'" too, that people who claim it is a fact cannot identify the components or dynamics of the 'system'. Yet they are obsessed with 'systems'.
What people who demand the abolition of an (imagined) system invariably are in reality demanding is the instantiation of a system.
The EU/EC was no more democratic on 22 June 2016 than it was last night, and it gave no more of a toss about the lives of 500 million people then than it gives now.
EU vaccine policies are completely immaterial to anything whatsoever, even if they are nuts.
It's like waking up tomorrow and deciding that the CCP is bad because of its cheese policies.
Kevin Anderson is Greta's mentor -- the author of much of her bullshit, and as she was a child, partly responsible for her forming a devastatingly grim view of her future, which she then shared with countless children across the world.
Prof Iain Stewart has made some very decent TV shows in his time. But Earth: Climate Wars was not one of them. It was basically Naomi Oreskes's conspiracy theories, fronted by @Profiainstewart, in which he told a pack of porkies.
I.e., the argument that children should be given the vote treats adults like children.
It is a dangerous hollowing out of the concept of citizenship, and a transformation of the relationship between individuals and government.
You get to choose what colour you prefer.
In the green worldview, the state is the parent. It doesn't require the consent of the governed, it only requires obedience. Democratic expression is narrowed accordingly. Environmentalism has *ethics*, but not *politics* -- you don't need choice.