I've seen it alleged that the Royal Society was on the left, but to me this is quite meaningless. Here's why. I could and did easily look up Union of Concerned Scientists and verified that by USA standards, they tilt to the left in their platforms and public policy recommendations. That's easy to do, if one is familiar with the various categories of zoo animals that inhabit both of the primary political parties. With Great Britian I would be an idiot to presume such familiarity. I don't have even a clear understanding of what "leftist" means in the context of your society.
Well over here we have the Labour Party, or as you'd describe them, the Socialists, and the Conservative Party or, as you'd describe them, the Socialists. In between, and slightly to one side, is another Socialist Party called the Liberal Democrats.
But I believe this issue of the Exxon conspiracy myth goes beyond that and here's why. Assume that some years ago, a lot of people believed on what seemed plausible evidence that (a) the world was warming (b) we caused it (c) something like the Kyoto deal would fix it. Ergo, a "statist solution" not private enterprise was required. The Royal Society believed that. That put them immediately at odds with Exxon. Exxon obviously didn't believe in (c) at the minimum.
Nobody has ever contended that Kyoto would fix the problem. The intention was to establish a principle and a framework under which some
real impact would be possible in the future.
Kyoto sets
targets, not policies. The policies that have been introduced are intended to recruit private enterprise and the market system - which is never without distortions - to the cause of meeting those targets.
Now today, we have factual data on Kyoto's economic impact and lack of tangible results. The situation is different today, right? Reasonable "left leaners" Royal Society included one would think would be saying "Oh, Kyoto's a boondoogle, let's do something different and try to fix the problems".
But they don't. They keep right on promoting Kyoto, carbon credits, carbon offsets, higher taxes and higher utility bills, in the name of "solving global warming"...
On what basis do you accuse the Royal Society of such advocacy?
That means it hard for me to equate the political position of AGW with "tax and spend", which even if one does not like it philosophically is understandable and a traditional leftist position.
As opposed to the traditional rightist "tax and give" position - tax the poor and give to the rich. Such a conversation is more appropriate to the
Politics Forum, don't you think? I'm here for the science, really.
Kyoto, carbon credits and offset trading are beginning to smell like just "tax and steal". Once the data comes in that these economic systems are flawed, then people who continue promoting them become suspicious.
OK, I'll bite anyway : how is carbon-trading connected to tax?
And given that trillions of dollars of taxes and higher utility costs and offset/credits are implied, I have zero - zero - sympathy with any researcher that wants to obfuscate his research data or computational methods, or who refuses to reveal them very promptly.
Back to science and the fraud that, so you seem to think, lies at its very core. Which is bollocks, quite frankly. Only the pharmaceutical industry and the military keep their data secret.
The recent discovery by McIntyre of temp errors gives us all a chance to check the blogosphere - directly, say through checking DailyKos, Michel Malking, Rush Limbaugh, RC, etc or even more directly, through Technorati. This provides a way right now to see how the left and right slant and spin an issue related to AGW. There is in fact a huge difference there - it's quite obvious.
Since you've been good enough to do the work already, how does the anti-AGW left spin this minor error in US temperature measurements? Do they too claim, as some of the anti-AGW right do, that the whole edifice of climate science has come crashing down, glaciers are re-filling valleys as we speak, robins in Alaska are proven to be a rural myth, yadda-yadda? It wouldn't surprise me, I've had experience of such people.
The Republicans are pro nuclear/anti Kyoto type deals, the Democrats are anti nuclear power/pro Kyto type deals. The conclusion seems irrefutable that of the two parties the one that can "fix AGW" is the Republicans, which is curiously non intuitive (and I'm sure this statement will evoke a lot of responses). That's US politics, and I don't want to dwell on strictly US stuff here, since we have contributors from all over.
Responses to AGW aren't my bag (except personally and I'm comfortably insulated, so to speak), I'm on the case to help defend science against the slings and arrows of outrageous assault. From right
and left.
Personally I've tried to apply an engineering mindset to the issue of AGW and I'm very much opposed to "alarmist AGW". Also anyone who would be unhappy if AGW was proven by science to be only 20% CO2 related and the rest being a mix of land useage, data errors and the like - such a person (bruised ego issues nonwithstanding), is one sick puppy.
We should all think it is a good thing if the planet is diagnosed healthy not with a chronic serious illness. But obviously some prefer the serious illness. And they are the ones that want to take our money....
Some who are
already taking our money want to persuade us that the planet is perfectly healthy. The tobacco industry once tried the same thing on a more personal level, as in smoking not being a health issue. That's really when the industry-promoted assault on science began, and it's continued in much the same vein. it's even kept some of the original cast.
So wasn't Exxon right, and the Royal Society wrong?
See above for the Royal Society's stance on Kyoto - what is it, explicitly? Exxon don't give a toss about being right, they know which side their bread is buttered. Kyoto's on the
other side. (Just as it is for Russia.) Exxon will promote anything that has
status quo stamped on it - there's no warming, the warming's natural, Kyoto won't have any effect even if it
isn't natural, it's a Marxist plot, it's a Western imperialist plot, whatever. Just think it up and apply to Exxon
et al via the Heritage Institute or a host of other cut-outs.
The Royal Society's letter to Exxon was specifically about Exxon's funding of websites and lobbyists that
deliberately misrepresent Science. They were right - morally - to do so, since the Royal Society exists to promote
and defend Science. Exxon are wrong - morally - to promote such behaviour.
Science can take on religion, no problem. It's a lot harder when an integrated politico-industrial-media establishment sets itself to undermine the image of Science itself because, since the 50's, it's occasionally been an embarrassment to influential vested interests.
I'm here to add my little bit of weight to the Good Guys. I'm not here to argue policies because I don't care; apart from anything else, we're screwed anyway and
events are going to drive policies in the near future. The only viable strategies will be
coping strategies.
