Wednesday 23rd of October 2019

embracing porkies from an idiotic porkyist called patrick moore is easier than understanding the sciences...

moore

What does it take to become a legitimate spokesperson on climate change science and energy policy in the eyes of President Donald Trump and partisan conservative media like Fox News and Breitbart?

If the current worshipping of non-expert and climate science denier Patrick Moore is anything to go by, the only qualification you need is the ability to call first-term Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “pompous little twit” on Twitter.

No other actual expertise is, apparently, necessary. This is fortunate, because Moore has no expertise on climate science.

Since Moore attacked Ocasio-Cortez — known as AOC — and her advocacy for a “Green New Deal” in a Tweet on February 24, the Canadian has been “interviewed” on Fox News by Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson.

After introducing Moore, Carlson managed to not ask a single question of the Canadian.

Now, President Trump is elevating Moore’s statements, thanks to yet another appearance on the Fox channel, this time on Fox and Friends. The President tweeted:

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” @foxandfriends Wow!

Moore has never published an independent scientific journal article on climate change and his claims are contradicted by every major national science academy in the world and all of the evidence they draw on.

Moore does have a 1972 PhD in ecology, but DeSmog could not find any scientific papers published by Moore going back at least as far as 1994. Moore has written many articles for the publications of think tanks and lobby groups.

In his Fox interview with Carlson, Moore said there would “not be any electric trucks anytime soon.” Electric trucks are being manufactured now. Volvo is about to launch its second.

A review of Moore’s past statements on climate change show he has taken contradictory positions, sometimes within weeks, on climate change.

Moore has claimed that nuclear energy is a solution to rising greenhouse gas emissions. But in other forums, he has claimed there is no evidence for human-caused climate change.

Moore’s attempts in recent days to counter suggestions that he is paid for his views by industry are contradicted by his own CV.

Contradicting Statements

In July 2018, Moore claimed that wind farms were a “wealth-destroying technology” that would “rust in place.”

But the previous year, an article uploaded to his own website (with a URL showing the year 2017) said that wind farms were “works of art compared to some of our urban environments,” were “commercially feasible,” and that “a million times more birds are killed by cats, windows, and cars than by all the windmills in the world.”

Moore claimed campaigners against forestry, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear energy were “sick” to “deprive developing nations of clean electricity, stop renewable wind energy, block a solution to global warming, and contribute to deforestation.”

In an almost identical article published around March 2005, Moore wrote that “a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions seems unlikely given our continued heavy reliance on fossil fuel consumption.”

Moore then quoted scientist James Lovelock saying that “Civilization is in imminent danger” and criticized environmental groups' positions against nuclear energy. 

“We can agree renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal, and hydro are part of the solution,” wrote Moore.

Yet in the same month in 2005, Moore wrote in the Toronto Sun that: “The world’s climate has always been changing; it is impossible to tell if our activities are responsible for global warming.”

Career Advocacy

What appears clear is that when Moore is advocating for his favorite industries, global warming has been real. But when he’s not, issues suddenly become uncertain.

On Twitter on March 7, 2019, Moore said: “I have never worked for fossil fuel companies. I have worked with mainly with [sic] agriculture, forestry, and nuclear energy.”

He also wrote: “I have never put $$ ahead of trying to be honest and fair. I am always ready to be corrected on any matter.”  He has also denied being a spokesperson for industry.

Between 2006 and 2013, Moore was the founding co-chair of the nuclear industry-funded front group Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition).

Fellow nuclear energy advocates have been dismayed by Moore’s anti-science views.

In March 2016, DeSmog revealed that Moore had been paid by a European coal industry-lobbying group, Euracoal, to deliver a speech, where he told attendees they should “celebrate CO2.”

The president of the forum that hosted the talk later described Moore’s contribution as among the “less rational” he had heard on global warming.

An archive of Moore’s CV up to 2001 reveals a host of industry clients

According to the CV, other clients included the Canadian Mining Association, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, Westcoast Energy and B.C. Gas, PVC manufacturer IPEX, and BHP Minerals.

Between 1992 and 1996, Moore was “retained by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association for annual two-week tours of countries in Western Europe to brief decision-makers and opinion leaders on forestry and the environment in Canada.”

Moore is also a director for the CO2 Coalition — a climate science denial group founded by a former Exxon manager and professor emeritus Will Happer, who has been picked by Trump to head an inquiry into the national security risk of climate change.

Greenpeace Founder?

Moore’s well-known work as an advocate for industries including forestry and nuclear power have not been mentioned by his supporters at Fox or Breitbart, and his incorrect statements about climate change have gone unchallenged.

But Moore’s fans never fail to mention that he was a “former Greenpeace founder” even though he left that organization 33 years ago and that Greenpeace itself has stated many times that he was not a co-founder.

Replying to the President’s tweet, Greenpeace USA said: “Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He does not represent Greenpeace. He is a paid lobbyist, not an independent source. His statements about @AOC & the #GreenNewDeal have nothing to do with our positions.”

Former Greenpeace colleague and actual co-founder of Greenpeace International, Rex Weyler, has written: “Moore has served as a corporate public relations consultant far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace, and he has never worked as a scientist.”

At Canadian think tank the Frontier Center for Public PolicyMoore’s biography said his values were all about “consensus building.” Moore has been chair of the think tank’s “Energy, Ecology and Prosperity Program” and has published several articles through the group.

In 2014, Moore compared students who walked out of a speech he was giving to the Taliban.

When one fellow nuclear advocate pointed out a paper Moore had written about ocean acidification had been published by a think tank he worked at and was not a recognized scientific journal, Moore said “GFY.”

Qualified?

So what are Moore’s scientific qualifications?

According to his CV, Moore completed a degree in Forest Biology at the University of British Columbia in 1969. He gained a PhD in 1972 for his thesis focusing on “The Administration of Pollution Control in B.C., A Focus on the Mining Industry.”

Despite speaking on climate change and energy policy, Moore has no qualifications in either field.

British environment journalist Peter Hadfield has looked in detail at some of Moore’s contradictions and cherry-picked science in a YouTube video.

 

Read more and see video:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/12/trump-tucker-carlson-fox-breitbart...

 

 

 

 

but his brother is a competent and intelligent minister...


Brexit backer Boris Johnson stokes fears for U.K. scientists

Erik Stokstad

Science  02 Aug 2019:

Vol. 365, Issue 6452, pp. 418

DOI: 10.1126/science.365.6452.418


The twisted tale of the United Kingdom's planned withdrawal from the European Union has taken a perilous turn. Boris Johnson, a charismatic but incautious politician with scant public views on science, became U.K. prime minister last week. He immediately packed his Cabinet with ministers pledging to exit the European Union by a 31 October deadline, even without a deal in place for an amicable divorce—the “no-deal Brexit” that economists predict would cause a recession and scientists say would cause additional hardships for research. Although no-deal now seems more likely than before, Johnson has touted the benefits of science and may be open to post-Brexit immigration reforms that U.K. scientists want. “This is a moment of both opportunity and risk,” says Beth Thompson, the EU policy director for the Wellcome Trust, a biomedical charity in London.

U.K. scientists have overwhelmingly opposed Brexit, in part because they do so well winning grants and recruiting talent from the European Union. The previous prime minister, Theresa May, resigned when Parliament wouldn't approve a deal she had negotiated that would have included a 2-year transition to preserve existing arrangements for trade, regulations, and grants (Science, 7 December 2018, p. 1092). Last week, Johnson won the Conservative Party vote to replace May, but with a deadlocked Parliament, he may need to call a general election in a risky attempt to win enough support to deliver Brexit. “A lot more uncertainty and chaos has been introduced into the system,” says Kieron Flanagan, a science policy expert at the University of Manchester.

Some stability comes with Jo Johnson, Boris's brother, who returns as science minister, a position he held from 2016 to 2018. “Having Jo there is a reassurance,” says Martin Smith, policy manager at the Wellcome Trust. “He's a competent and intelligent minister.” While in that office, Jo Johnson pushed legislation that created UK Research and Innovation, a new funding agency that brought together the government's research councils (Science, 23 March 2018, p. 1319).

Boris Johnson, in contrast, does not have much of a track record on science. After studying classics at the University of Oxford, he became a Euroskeptic journalist. He was fired from his first job for making up a quote. While mayor of London from 2008 to 2015, he promoted policies to reduce climate emissions, although later, as a member of Parliament, he voted against support for carbon capture and storage technology. As mayor, he also helped start MedCity, an initiative that promotes investment in science and technology in London. “He really was supporting London as a research hub,” says Sarah Main, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, a nonprofit based in London.

In his inaugural speech last week, Johnson cited the “extraordinary” U.K. bioscience sector and pledged to ditch European rules that he says stifle the development of genetically modified crops. He said the nation should launch its own multibillion-dollar GPS satellite system, countering an EU plan to eliminate the ability of the U.K. government to tap into a secure signal from Europe's Galileo GPS system. He also called for tax incentives for companies investing in research.

James Wilsdon, a science policy expert at the University of Sheffield, wonders how these aspirations will fare when competing with pledges Johnson has made for schools, police, and hospitals. The new government's priorities will be revealed in its budget plans, which may be released before the Brexit deadline.

U.K. researchers are feeling more optimistic that future immigration policy will encourage scientists to come from abroad. May's government had a target of no more than 100,000 immigrants per year, which Johnson has now scrapped. “That's a good sign,” says Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society in London. Johnson has also backed the idea of a points-based merit system for visas, which could benefit scientists. “The devil will be in the details,” Ramakrishnan says.

Still, a big question is whether the U.K. government can replace EU research funding opportunities. The former science minister, Chris Skidmore, commissioned an external study, due next month, of how the U.K. government could create an alternative to the European Union's main funding scheme, Horizon Europe, which includes coveted grants handed out by the European Research Council (ERC). “I cannot see that any U.K. scheme will be capable of replicating the prestige and the success of the ERC,” says Athene Donald, a physicist at the University of Cambridge and a former member of the ERC council.

The continued uncertainty about Brexit is taking a toll on the United Kingdom's European citizens and potential immigrants from the continent alike, whether they are investors, entrepreneurs, or scientists, Ramakrishnan says. “All of them are anxious or holding back.” According to an analysis in January by the Russell Group, a consortium of major U.K. research universities, the number of graduate students coming to these universities from other EU countries fell 9% from the previous academic year.

 

SCIENCE     AAAS

 

See also:

artificial fat little britain as boris will perform a miracle in the brexit desert...