On March 3rd the Royal Society had a meeting to discuss whether it should revoke Elon Musk’s Fellowship. He was appointed a Fellow (strictly, ForMemRS, not FRS, as he is a foreigner) in 2018. The meeting was necessary since not only had two Fellows resigned from the Royal Society, but a few thousand Fellows (all of whom, one supposes, must have what Charles Moore would call Left-wing faces) had signed a letter – after the election of Trump – which complained about Musk’s political incorrectness. Who resigned? Professor Dorothy Bishop of the University of Oxford was first, and Professor Andrew Millar of the University of Edinburgh second. Millar said Musk was guilty of “disinformation”. Alas, the Royal Society code of conduct does not mention either “misinformation” or “disinformation” as offences justifying the disfellowshipping of Musk.
The letter signed by the thousands of scientists alleged the following: Musk had voiced “conspiracy theories”, had criticised Fauci and had made a provocative post about Jess Phillips MP. That was it. The letter was written by Professor Stephen Curry of Imperial College. As well as being an Important Professor, he is an Assistant Provost for Xiversity, Yequity and Zinclusion at Imperial. Obviously, in such a role, Curry found Musk’s politics to be too – spicy, and felt obliged to say so.
Prof Dorothy Bishop, who was the first to resign, in November of last year, wrote the longest criticism of Musk. She complained of his abuse of the “woke mind virus”. She noticed that Musk had posted: “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.” This is usually very amusing, but she of Oxford was Not Amused. She also, a bit more seriously, suggested that Neuralink did not abide by good scientific practice – the only time a scientist cared to allege that Musk’s science was not as ‘scientific’ as it should have been. Musk had also been critical of vaccines. And, taboo of all taboos, he had expressed doubts about climate change. Prof Dorothy Bishop, as I live and breathe, quoted Prof Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann, without any sense of irony or self-doubt. Here is Mann on Musk: “It is sad that Elon Musk has become a climate change denier, but that’s what he is. He’s literally denying what the science has to say here.”
Science, eh, Mann? Ach, let me quote Michael Polanyi, who understood science, since he practised it, believed in it and thought about it:
Propositions of science cannot be verified or falsified according to any definite rule.
Yes, indeed, science is a system based on interpretation and endorsed by authority. Polanyi said this in the 1950s.
Anyhow, even if one is disinclined to agree with what Polanyi wrote, one may still wonder about the sanity of Fellows of the Royal Society who are so badly confusing science and politics. They don’t like Musk’s politics, so they say they don’t like his science. Musk isn’t a proper scientist, they think. Whereas Mann and Fauci, to take two luminaries more or less at random, are scientists, by Jove. In fact, both suffer from a form of psychological disorder whereby they identify themselves with ‘Science’. Remember Fauci’s famous saying: “I represent the science”? Remember Mann’s very personal lawsuit against Mark Steyn?
For your edification, here is a bit more from Polanyi:
A neutral analysis of science as a system of beliefs should always use the word ‘science and ‘scientist’ in quotation marks.
I like that a lot.
Of course the Guardian had to weigh in. It was not enough to report the story, the Guardian had to find its own protestant. So they found “Kit Yates”, another scientist, to write an article in the Guardian saying (as the headline had it): ‘Elon Musk is a proven danger to good science, but the Royal Society won’t say it. That’s why I resigned.’ Well, I had to read this click-baiting bit of nonsense, didn’t I? I mean, Juvenal would have done, and Swift, and Waugh, and, er, Ian Hislop… [GENTS—>]
Sorry, I couldn’t resist that last one: a side effect of reading through Kingsley Amis’s collected letters again.
Kit Yates sounds like a made up name for a scientist: the discoverer of a strange enzyme, ‘Kitiates’. No, actually, he turns out to be not so much a scientist as a populariser. Professor of Mathematical Biology and Public Engagement. We used to joke about ‘mathematics for biologists’ back in Cambridge in the old days, and – ‘public engagement’? Surely that is a job description from Sridharland?
Anyhow, Elon Musk. Kitiates tells us that he us a proven danger to science. Why? What has he done? Kitiates tell us:
Musk, admitted as a fellow in 2018… has recently engaged in behaviour that contravenes the society’s code of conduct.
What exactly? Only that “many scientists have taken issue with his assault on the conduct of science… as well as his malicious accusations against public scientists (such as Anthony Fauci)”. Oh, is that all? So much for “proof”.
I actually checked the code of conduct for the Royal Society. It states that Fellows should support the Royal Society, not bring it into disrepute, etc., all the usual. But more specifically:
- Fellows should display “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership”.
- They “shall not commit scientific misconduct, defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism”.
- They “shall not engage in any form of discrimination”.
- More seriously, they should not engage in “malpractice” or “fraud”.
That’s it.
The code of conduct says nothing about being obliged to parrot standard Left-establishment bromides.
All Musk has done is offend the politics of these scientists. If he had gone to work for Kamala Harris no doubt the Left-wing-faced scientists would not have blinked at the occasional politically incorrect post on X. We too should start using Establishment Botox. It does a great job of keeping one’s face expressionless while the people on one’s side starting playing cup-and-balls with politics and science. (Ah, you thought that what was under this cup was politics. But it is, in fact, science! Ah, you thought that science was here. But no! It is politics!)
I cannot leave Kitiates behind without engaging in a bit of destructive criticism. Read this, if you can:
I was once told towards the beginning of my career: “Everything is political, especially the things that people tell you are not political. Those are the most political of all.” There is some truth in that when it comes to science. The intersection of science and politics is both inescapable and of vital importance. Scientists possess unique expertise that is crucial for informed policymaking and societal progress. Embracing political engagement allows scientists to fulfil their ethical responsibilities, defend the integrity of their work and contribute meaningfully to addressing the complex challenges facing society today.
Notice the failure in logic. Let me write it out:
- Everything is political.
- Even things not said to be political are political.
- Therefore science is political.
- But of course [sudden cold sweat] science is not political!
- [Sotto voce] The rest is, er, science-and-politics.
- [Note to Lineker: Hire Susan Michie and Devi Sridhar and me for a new podcast.]
Nay, Prof Kitiates. Either everything is political or it is not. And you are on my territory when you talk politics. If everything is political, genius, then there is no way you can bracket out science from this everything. Your science is political. So is Fauci’s. After all, is there not a scientific consensus? Mann and Fauci always liked to tell us so. And what is a ‘consensus’ but a political thing?
Now, as it happens, both Michael Mann and Anthony Fauci were appointed to the Royal Society last year, 2024. Yes, indeed, ‘Hockeystick’ and ‘The Science’ were welcomed into this august institution, shortly before some Fellows tried to usher the X-Man out.
They spit and cough about Musk. He is, for the moment, still what they call a Foreign Member of the Royal Society, along with Mann and Fauci. But I want to ask why there have been no letters of resignation coming from Fellows of the Royal Society appalled by the statistical jiggerypokery of Mann and the gain-of-function denials of Fauci?
It’s a serious question
James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Article nails ‘the Science’ ™. There is only ‘one’ ‘Science’ of course. To find it, follow the money.
Always in the background, as we have reported in the Daily Sceptic on numerous occasions, is the seemingly unlimited supply of elite billionaire money to buy influence with politicians, media and academia. Although set up by Parliament and curated by the CCC, the billionaire money was still in evidence at the Climate Assembly with £200,000 given specifically to Involve, the event organiser.
Nobody in power was ‘duped’. There is no cock up. The climate agenda isn’t an accident. The woke agenda isn’t an accident. The trans agenda isn’t an accident. The million little things that now makes life so difficult you want to tear your own head off isn’t an accident. All there is is a very simple plan to subvert democracy. To attack us. To frustrate us. To confuse us. To punish us. To make it clear that there are lords and their serfs. They kick us in the face while we lick their boots. Our response? To moan about having to pay the TV licence. We’re f*cked
Correct. ——–The people being “duped” are the unsuspecting public. ——The stuff written above by Chris Morrison and all the stuff in his other articles cannot just be appearing here on the Dail Sceptic though. If the “duped” public are to ever have a chance of becoming “un-duped” then there must be a way found to make them understand that climate change is simply not the black and white issue as presented on BBC and SKY NEWS. There are huge uncertainties that are simply being ignored and there is actually no empirical evidence that CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous changes to climate. But there is clear evidence that 3 billion people in the world living on a dollar a day (one billion of them with no electricity) are being denied the chance to prosper because of these eco socialist policies all emanating from the world government in waiting at the UN. There is plenty of evidence of fuel poverty in the western world as dumb governments are having to dish out huge sums in welfare just to prevent the vulnerable from freezing half to death in winter. ——–Once people realise the extent to which they are being “duped” under the false pretences of “climate crisis”, then they will rightly be very angry. ——-That is the challenge. —–Get the message on Mainstream Television. For if it never appears there then the “duping” will continue and people will meekly surrender their prosperity to the secular religion that is politics masquerading as science.
I share your concerns but since lockdown there are, in my view, far too many people who like being at home watching a small screen & getting their food delivered. So as long as they are enabled to do this they will not care about anything else.
Yep well they can watch a screen and find out plenty about the climate change fraud. ——–But I know what you mean.
One challenger party currently on 12 % in the polls says it will scrap net zero targets. People will have choice to overthrow this scam if they choose to.
They will have the chance to overthrow this scam only if they become aware that it is occurring. ——–I make the argument in other comments that it is ok for us on this website to rant about the scam, but until people get the different perspective on why it is a scam on mainstream TV then they are mostly going to keep falling for the official narrative that there is a climate crisis and Net Zero is essential to stop it. Which is patently absurd. ——-People are being seriously misinformed for political purposes on BBC, SKY etc, and until the information that appears in articles such as Chris Morrisons happens on National TV then most people will continue to be brainwashed and simply accept their lot.
Yesterday on GB News Patrick Christie show I saw this “Just Stop Oil” guy rant on about fossil fuel companies and how the world will almost certainly soon be ending etc etc. The usual evidence free pseudo scientific crap that these silly activists always spout. Despite the fact that the very same IPCC that these idiots think they are quoting have recently said that their worst case scenario’s from models are very unlikely to ever occur. But remember that they are just models, but models full of speculations and guesses are NOT science. ———-So Ok then Patrick next time you get these extreme activist nutters on just ask them this —“What will you use instead of the fossil fuels that we have, and how long will you take to get rid of those fuels and replace them with your fantasy power sources? Then ask them what difference this will make to global climate, and to provide EVIDENCE for all of this. ——–Their answer if you ever receive one will be total nonsense., because they have no clue about how energy works. ——-There has been an attempt to get little smart meters in everyone’s house now for about 10 years and it still has not been achieved. What hope is there of removing 21 million gas boilers from the UK and replacing them all with heat pumps in the timescale that the stupid Climate Junkies say should happen to avoid their apocalypse. ———THERE IS NO CHANCE. —And the gas boilers are just one part of the equation. There is all of the transport, all of the electricity generation that cannot possibly be provided by wind no matter how many thousands of turbines you have. ——-The fact that politicians who cannot really be classed as stupid people have passed Net Zero through parliament with not a single question asked as to cost or practicality reveals that this has NOTHING to do with the climate for even the most dim-witted moron would realise that this is simply Alice in Wonderland on stilts.
And you never hear anything about the miles of gas pipes in the network which will have to be decommissioned, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, because to leave them in situ would be hazardous.
Think of the cost of removing gas central heating radiators, pipes under floorboards, re decoration, then the cost of the new heat pumps and associated radiators etc, or silly hydrogen if the experiment in Scotland gets underway elsewhere and we are talking a mountain of cash. Even with large subsidies the poorest cannot afford this nonsense and it is all for NOTHING as it will have no effect on global climate, which even Tony Blair whose government gave us the Climate Change Act freely admits. ——-So if it will make no difference then why do it? ——-The answer is simply that it isn’t about the climate and never was.
When we’re being gaslit by morons like Thompson, then we’re in real trouble. Best advice comes from Marvin Gaye: “Believe some of what you see son, and none of what you hear.”– ‘Heard it through the Grapevine.’
Or as someone once pointed out “Lies spread half way around the world while truth is still tying its laces”.
Wandering down Whitehall yesterday I passed the department for energy.
Except it’s not called that, it’s called the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
When I saw that, it clicked. The name really reveals the whole game.
The European powers have lost control of the main sources of oil and gas. Comparatively small European powers cannot dominate the bigger more populous world without controlling oil and gas.
Net Zero is a desperate attempt to undermine the oil and gas market and replace it with renewable sources which can still be dominated by European powers.
And China, who have the same problem of big global ambitions but no oil and gas.
It’s no coincidence that the two places in the world that are gung-ho about renewables and electric cars are major European countries and China.
Net Zero is a desperate ploy by our elites, those who have ruled us and the world up to now, to keep the power and see off the rising influence of the big oil and gas states.
And if that doesn’t work, which it isn’t, it’ll be war with Russia, as they are starting to prep us for.
Big wars are always about someone coming up and someone trying to keep others down.
Good comment. I would love to be a fly on the wall as the parasites discuss Net Zero, where the real reasons for it and the seemingly plausible excuse given to the public regarding the phony climate emergency would be revealed.
I clearly recall reading an article in the DT shortly after 9/11 which said the western nations were going to “have to build a wall” to protect themselves from oil-rich, but unstable regimes.
The “wall” would be to wean themselves off foreign oil. Shortly afterwards we started getting the climate change nonsense.
It all comes down to oil.
For all of those things you need a plausible excuse and that excuse is “climate change”.
Possibly, but why are we not fracking then, and going all-out with nuclear and North Sea oil and gas exploration? Domestic energy security at all costs is probably sellable to the voting public.
Good question.
I don’t think it’s about getting energy for ourselves. We can buy it. And we don’t need to produce the things we need. I would say that microchips are absolutely critical and essential but we’re happy to buy the stuff in.
The issue with oil and gas is the wealth and power it confers. I think it’s a threat from a geopolitical standpoint. The Anglo countries have been ruling the world for 200 years and they want to continue doing so.
Whoever has oil and gas in abundance will be able to challenge that rule and power. Since WWII through a combination of their own production, the oil majors and control of oil producing countries like Saudi, through strategic agreements, the anglos have managed to keep control.
But that control has clearly slipped away in the last few decades and these oil nations have become more self assertive.
Countries like Iran that “went rogue” have been attacked and reviled relentlessly. But there are too many of those countries now doing their own thing. Look at all the countries that we’ve had issues with. Iraq, Libya, Russia. The Americans have been relentless against Venezuela. All countries with huge reserves.
They realise d they’re losing their grip. So make up climate change and try to destroy the market for oil and gas.
And that failing, war.
Possibly, though of your list I can only take Russia seriously as a rival – the rest have not amounted to much.
If this is the case isn’t there a fatal flaw in this- oil is used for a lot more than electricity generation and fuelling cars
We don’t frack and we don’t go after oil and gas because we are fully paid up members of the pretend to save the planet eco socialist UN political agenda called “Sustainable Development”. We have forced ourselves in law with Net Zero to reduce emissions by 100% of 1990 levels. This will cause untold misery for millions but all of our mainstream parties only care about the little gold star they will receive from the UN.
I do get the impression that people like Sunak are in love with the idea of world (unelected) government and see UK politics as a stepping stone to that. Once you’ve made your mark it doesn’t matter that you lose an election because that then frees you up for a endless round of positions of influence – much more secure, less stressful and probably allows you to “shape the world” more than being an accountable elected politician ever could.
They don’t work for us. ——They work for the Global Community. The UN and WEF are where they want to be with their own citizens as simply a minor inconvenience.
Net Zero hasn’t been imposed by “our” Parliament. It’s been imposed by the UN, WEF and EU …. and the propaganda is funded by a handful of billionaires who expect to make £billions more out of the scam.
Citizens have to resist …. like the Dutch, German and French farmers.
Personally, I intend to get a nice – large – steak for dinner tonight. I’ll pay for it with cash and I’ll be washing it down nicely with a glass or two of Aussie Shiraz.
Absolutely, except for the Aussie Shiraz: since watching Dan Andrews and his like abusing the population, I’ve only drunk wine from Eastern Europe, S. Africa and the more lax S American countries.
That’ll show ’em.
(Ok, probably not…)
Every little bit counts.
If everyone did just that little bit, we’d be well away.
And even if they don’t, there’s nothing like doing what you think is right and sleeping easy.
Boycotts work if they catch on and take off. But otherwise there’s no point in depriving yourself of something if you really want it, when it will make no difference in the grand scheme of things. If it’s a matter of conscience, where do you draw the line? To be in the best shape to oppose the insanity of today’s world, we need to enjoy ourselves.
That’s a question for each tp grapple with individually.
I doubt staying away from Australian wine puts much of a dent in anyone’s happiness, but what do I know…
I was speaking generally.
I doubt staying away from Australian wine puts much of a dent in anything.
Start with the French ….
But our Parliament had the choice to not accept Net Zero being “imposed”. ——They chose to accept it and not a single question of cost or practicality was asked, despite the estimated cost being in the trillions and with no realistic hope that it could ever be achieved anyway. ———-This is insanity and economic suicide.
Slightly off topic, but very relevant is the MannV Steyn defamation trial currently taking place in Washington. This case against the brilliant writer and broadcaster (who many of you may know from GB News) is taking place 12 years after MS called Mann a fraud for his famous ‘hockey stick graph’ which appeared to show that World temperatures had risen sharply since the 19thC when Industrialisation took place and fossil fuels were widely used. This graph has been widely used to ‘prove’ that Climate Change is all the fault of mankind.
Mark Steyn is ill and using a wheelchair after 3 heart attacks, but remains as sharp, funny and well-informed and so the podcast Climate Change on Trial https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/climate-change-on-trial/id1713827256?i=1000632768141 is entertaining as well as showing his in depth knowledge of the fraud.
You can also follow Mark here https://www.steynonline.com
If we know which years the wind allows the windmills to produce <10% faceplate, then surely the data is out there somewhere which shows average daily wind speed for the last say 25 – 30 years. That data could in turn be used to plot a simple line graph showing daily wind speed for 25 – 30 years and the subsequent number of windmills required each day to produce in real world terms circa 40GW which is broadly speaking the UK’s peak need.
Back of a fag packet says we need at least 12 times more windmills than we have at present to achieve this on low wind days. Seeing as there are no financially viable storage solutions, there is no other option than this if we’re to abandon fossils.
Adding costs, resource requirements in gigatons, and pictures of African kids digging in open cast mines alongside photos of freezing British grannies would also help.
Get Frosty to add all this to a Telegraph piece and who knows, the brainwashed masses might start paying attention.
“If you take the time to guide people through this, to explain why the changes are needed, to explain the sorts of things that need to happen” – note not a single piece or mention of actual EVIDENCE! This is always the case with these people, unevidenced assertion; always belief not truth.
People should be able to eat whatever they want.
The problem is when some people/groups want to force other people to eat what they want because of their ideology.