In a move which once and for all removes any doubt any reasonable person may have had on the impartial nature of climate science, the head of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse, has issued a statement calling for climate scientists to get get involved in activism and political agitation.
An interview with the left-wing magazine, The New Statesman, quotes Nurse calling for climate scientists to drop any pretense of impartiality, and start agitating for political change:
Nurse’s undergraduate socialist spirit is still alive and well: he wouldn’t be against scientists getting involved in activism. “We are citizens, and citizens should be involved in politics, and I think those that have a strong view should be involved in party politics,” he says. “I’m happy to see fellows of the Royal Society politically engaged, if that’s what they see as right.”
We can see what kind of shape this activism will be taking already. As The Guardian reports, activist climate scientists are “getting angry” and recording videos calling doubters of global warming “motherf**kers” and “bitches”. This was welcomed by New Scientist and Guardian writer, Michael Brooks, as a very good thing:
While most scientists have learned keep their heads down, a few are beginning to argue that what a scientist knows must inform his or her personal opinions and values. That’s why a group of young Australian climate scientists released an expletive-filled music video earlier this year. It was an angry rap aimed at those who question climate science while holding no qualifications in the field. They used the rather unscientific word “motherfucker” and poured scorn on “bitches” opposing a carbon tax.
Hearteningly, there may be more of this to come. Paul Nurse, the new president of the Royal Society, has said he would be happy to see scientists getting fully engaged with politics and involved with activism.
The farce of the great global warming scare will, sadly, continue for some time to come. What is now very clear for all to see, though, is that now it is no longer a question of disinterested scientists interpreting the data, but outright activism with a clearly political agenda. It is now out in the open.