EXCLUSIVE: ‘We’ll All Be Dead Before Climate Change Orgs Admit They’re Wrong’ Says MP

protestMember of Parliament David Davies has warned of the stubborn nature of organisations like Britain’s Royal Society – the oldest grouping of eminent scientists in the world – who have admitted that they will not accept any other thinking on global warming for at least “fifty years”, even if the data shows otherwise.

Attending a speech on climate change in the House of Lords, the Welsh Tory MP spoke about on his surreal experience meeting two men from the Royal Society whom he said had been sent to persuade him and fellow climate realists Peter Lilley MP and John Redwood MP to embrace the idea of man-made climate change. He said that representatives from the Society – often lauded as the most eminent grouping of scientists, founded in the 1600s – told him that they would not change their mind for at least fifty years, regardless of the evidence.

After the meeting, which was chaired by Margaret Thatcher’s former Chancellor Lord Lawson, and also attended by former environment Secretary Owen Paterson MP, Davies Spoke to Breitbart London and recalled the extraordinary admission made by the Royal Society to him as they addressed members of parliament.

Speaking of the ‘hiatus’ in global warming that has been observed since the end of the 20th century, and the doubt that it has cast on climate change modelling – points which had been discussed at length at the Global Warming Policy Foundation event – Davies remarked:

“They had two guys whose job it was to go around and persuade everyone that we’re all trying the ruin the economy.

“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?

“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.

“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.

“Effectively, we’re all going to be dead before the Royal Society admits they’ve got their facts wrong. There could be absolutely no warming every year for the next fifty years, and the Royal Society would still maintain that climate change is a major problem”.

Breitbart London reported in March how the Royal Society had come under a blistering attack by a fellow for  jeopardised both its purpose and integrity by becoming a pressure group for the climate change lobby. Professor Michael Kelly said Britain is now guilty of “leading the world in climate change hypocrisy”, and that the Royal Society had published a key document on climate change which was biased and “‘left out’ parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different”.

Professor Kelly said: “Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity”.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (11)

  • Avatar

    Ilma

    |

    When Sir Venki Ramakrishnan takes over from poor confused Nursey in December, he has an opportunity to make a course correction for the RS. He needs to reinstate ‘neutral enquiry’ and banish all politically based lobbying and bias, and also state that any member who continues to use the RS as a political instrument will be ejected.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    The accompanying photo shows the banner, “Climate is a Moral Issue”…

    How many times can this thing morph into something different? [i]Global Warming[/i] morphs into [i]Climate Change[/i]. [i]Science[/i] morphs into [i]consensus[/i]. The whole thing morphs into [i]Social Justice[/i] which morphs into [i]New Age Religion[/i] that morphs into politically directed [i]Catholicism[/i] that morphs into [i]”Morality”[/i].

    The very people who were [i]offended[/i] when conservative politicians campaigned on morality issues 20 years ago, telling us that morality doesn’t belong in politics, are now champions of morality politics.

    This has never been about science. It is and will be about anything the left wants it to be today – whatever best serves the political cause now.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      Absolutely correct…………….

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Dale

      |

      Well stated, FR82DRV. This seems to be the situation, exactly.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [i]”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”[/i]
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    [i]”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”[/i]
    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    [i]“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”[/i]
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    The Royal society is just toeing the line.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      GR82DRV

      |

      Love the quotes Gator!

      This scam is now about changing the subject as often as necessary just to run out the clock. The truth matters not a wit. Leftists would be just as happy to champion an end to [i]battered shrimp[/i] as an end to [i]climate change[/i], as long as it achieves for them their Marxist goals.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        They are already after my cheeseburgers. [b]That[/b] is crossing the line.

        [i]First they came for the hamburgers
        and I did not speak out
        because I was a vegetarian.
        Then they came for the cheese
        and I did not speak out
        because I was lactose intolerant.
        Then they came for the breweries
        and I did not speak out
        because I was was a teetotaler.
        Then they came for the beans
        and there was no one left
        to speak out for me.[/i]

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Dale

      |

      Gator. Apparently no one is concerned with hypocrisy any longer. Actually, there seems to be a contest for who can be the most hypocritical with the winner receiving huge government grants. Humm.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        [b]grantologist[/b] [grant-ol-uh-jist] [i]n.
        a person who specializes in grant research and study.[/i]

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Dr Tim Ball-Historical Climatologist

    |

    Latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.





    http://www.drtimball.com

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    If we are discussing moral issues than why don’t we discuss the cost of this AGW scam in terms of lost opportunities for mankind.

    Traditionally when we looked at research spending the money was directed toward causes with definable goals. Fields of medicine, agriculture, and engineering all have produced tangible and valuable results through research.

    By comparison, the climate change cause produces nothing of real value and mostly serves to enrich the well-connected and advance left-wing political ideals. Even the seldom-stated [i]desired research outcomes[/i] are vague and often altogether undefined.

    Meanwhile, the climate change cause in terms of spending and resource allocation is beginning to rival that of health and medicine at many of our major universities and research centers. Just imagine what tangible, life saving breakthroughs we have likely already sacrificed to fuel this political scientific diversion scheme.

    So after all the billions of dollars spent on climate change, who has emerged as as the Jonas Salk, the Louis Pasteur, or the Marie Curie of the field, and what tangible achievements have they offered?

    If we’re looking for a moral outrage this monumental waste of resources certainly ranks high.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.