Navigation Menu

Cambridge SRM – Panel discussion

Streamed live on Mar 13, 2015 – Lady Mitchell Hall, Sidgwick Site.

Chair: Oliver Morton.

Panellists: Martin Rees, Amartya Sen, Onora O’Neill, David Keith.

NB: The discussion begins at around 29.00 minutes


 

 

This event was a supplementary event organised by Cambridge SRM Science – as part of the Cambridge Science Festival so as to open up the topic to the wider public.

We will be writing this up more fully in due course but it may take some time due to our current workload.

Our question was right at the end. Sadly the technique of taking several questions at one time was employed once again by Mr Morton. This is a clear tactic employed previously at CEC-14 Berlin and allows panelists to quietly ignore certain questions during the broadcast public debates.

 

Our question to the panel

1:50:15

Question:

Intro… My question is about trust again, but more in the science really. If the predictions and models that we have heard about today and over the last 10-15 years were correct and accurate we would already be in climate chaos. The ice melting and warming hasn’t really occurred and it is blamed on all sorts of blips and pauses and slow downs and stuff like that, yet we hear oh yes we got it wrong for this bit but the predictions are definitely right for the next 20 years and by 2050 we will be in climate chaos. On the back of that people plan to introduce what can only be described as tenuous and extremely dangerous measures that could ruin our climate, so how can we have any faith in the those modeling systems and science on that basis.”

1:56:20

Response:

Our question was only referred to briefly by Martin Rees. His response was:

“It’s quite right that the climate models in detail are very uncertain and that’s why I said I thought it would be 20 years before there was a real consensus and real public motivation, and of course another point is I think you need a greater degree of confidence that your model is right before you take action to do something than you do if you are just following a natural trend”

 

Analysis of the response

The reason we word things the way we do is to coax things from people. In this instance we heard Martin Rees state that he thought it would be another 20 years before there was real consensus and real public motivation. Though this sounds reassuring we must remember that the collective message from the more prominent scientists from the event was a resounding one that trials really should begin very soon. We don’t have a public who are either informed or ready to make any decisions in this field at all, so we suspect what is happening is the continued fostering of climate fear combined with the continued refusal to engage in full-scale detailed public consultation. This will of course result in a situation whereby the people trying to force this through without having to go through any public approval procedure will likely succeed.

Hugh Hunt and Oliver Morton went to great pains to be all jolly ho with us in the interviews we did with them during the event, and also stressed repeatedly that they welcomed us and indeed any member of the public at these events. BY doing this they are, in our mind, trying to give the illusion of public debate, from which they will likely try to claim a lack of public disapproval.The truth is actually in stark contrast to the image they wish to portray. Very few genuine members of the public are likely to attend these events. Those that do are likely not going to understand much of the science and hence not be able to legitimately question the perceived wisdom of these so-called experts. Even we struggle with certain concepts, particularly when it comes to trying to counter very specific claims and data. Each time we do we are ridiculed, patronised and our comments generally disregarded with an aloof arrogance that belies the true nature of those who are trying everything they can to blind the public with science and force through, under the public radar, an issue of unimaginable and incomparable importance.

Our view is also that they are doing so on the most tenuous of claims about so-called scientific data, non of which seems to stand up to scrutiny even from the likes of well-informed laymen such as ourselves. The entire basis of the arguments they use are flawed and riddled with inconsistencies, but the public are not made aware of this. The public’s perception of these eminent people is, quite rightly, of upstanding, well-meaning, honest and intelligent people. We do not seek to lay accusations at any individuals here, but we do accuse the warmist and pro-climate engineering movement as a whole of deeply flawed science, deeply dogmatic and no-scientific approach to the topic, and a bitter determination to force through their ultimate goal of being allowed to spray our skies with substances unknown indefinitely.

We find that deeply, deeply disturbing. That is why we are following these people like Lt. Colombo, listening and thinking very hard. We can’t say we can conclusively prove them wrong yet, but we certainly have been able to go a long way to showing that the story we are being peddled simply doesn’t add up.

As we said in our talk to a packed room of the world’s top climate scientists:

“…somebody is lying. So who is it and why?”

 

…to be continued ASAP…

 

Ed