In 2005 I wrote about a survey of “renowned scientists” conducted by spiked (if you’ve never heard of spiked, read this) that included 14 global warming skeptics and only three from the mainstream of climate science.
Now they’ve conducted another survey, asking “key thinkers in science, technology and medicine … what they see as the greatest innovation in their field”. They do have responses from great scientists, but once again climate science is represented by global warming skeptics: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, John Brignell, Kenneth Green, Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner, Todd Seavey, and S Fred Singer. This time there is nobody from the mainstream at all.
What does Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner see as the greatest innovation in his field?
When Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543 put the Sun in the centre, a depressing ‘ruling model’ was killed after 1800 years, and science, thinking and innovation exploded. I rate this event as ‘greatest’.
Can you guess where he’s going with this?
Are there any ruling models today, we may ask. Well, I think the hysteria about global warming and the stubbornness in claiming a safe nuclear waste storage have grown to ruling models retarding progress and innovative thinking, and hence are bound to become executed by time.
Yep, another one who thinks he’s Galileo.
And what does Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen see as the greatest innovation in her field?
I can think of a bad one: ever more media people (and others) now pontificate about science and especially ‘global warming’ and the climate (even planetary ethics) without any real understanding of climate and how little we understand it.
If you’re familiar with Boehmer-Christiansen, your jaw probably just dropped at that. She’s the editor that just published Beck’s paper that purports to debunk the Keeling curve, prompting this question from Georg Hoffman:
The last question to answer is how on earth Beck’s paper could survive a half-decent review process from anyone who knows any of this history. But this is a question best posed to the Editorial board of Energy and Environment and its Editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.
And she’s about to publish something from David Archibald that Nexus 6 (with quite some justification) describes as:
the worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere.
Boehmer-Christiansen continues with:
Many who demand policy changes do not know how science and especially mathematical modelling work. Science can and often has been misused for propaganda purposes, to gain legitimacy, practice ‘spin’, or underpin political correctness. I think British society, led by government (bureaucracy and research lobbies) has gone genuinely mad – for non-science related reasons – over ‘global warming’ as a real and proven scientific phenomenon.
If Boehmer-Christiansen had any understanding of how science and mathematical modelling worked how could she possibly have published Beck and Archibald?