Wrong to put words into mouth of expert
CONCERNING my letter, published in the Derby Telegraph on March 6, Mark Edon writes that I “…claim the support of one scientist who is in turn quoting a Royal Society report”.
He states that “…the scientist quoted is telling us a report says one thing when it said exactly the opposite”. He continues “…the actual Royal Society report... confirms that the UK really could…”
The scientist is Professor Michael Kelly FRS. There’s only one problem. My letter made absolutely no reference to any report, Royal Society or otherwise. Moreover, I have never seen, nor quoted, any interpretation by Kelly of a Royal Society report.
To some, apparently, the pronouncements of the Royal Society are sacrosanct.
Reality isn’t that simple. In fact, Kelly himself was one of 43 fellows of the society who co-signed a cautionary letter to its president. To quote him: “…the society has lent its name to claims… that simply do not match real-world facts.”
Kelly lamented that: “Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity”.
Professor Michael Kelly isn’t an isolated, crackpot scientist whom I “found on the web”. He is a fellow of the very society that some evidently consider to be omniscient and infallible. One can’t have it both ways. One can’t put the Royal Society on a pedestal but simply ignore the concerns of 43 of its own fellows.
Kelly has the courage knowledgably, quantitatively and publicly to debunk the King’s New Renewables. Anybody willing to read sufficiently widely, and non-selectively, will discover that his arguments are robust and that he is very far from being alone.
Perhaps, before putting words into Professor Kelly’s mouth, one should at least make the effort to understand his calculations.
After all, Nullius in Verba!
Bob Berrisford