Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Professor announces he would have resigned from Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences

Last week, the world was shocked and awed when Emeritus Professor Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physics Society because of their anti-scientific position regarding the global warming scam. This week, another prominent scientist, Royal Professor Claes Johnson from the Royal Institute for Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, dropped another daisy cutter on the climate junta when he announced that he would have resigned from Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, had he only been a member, which he should have been if there only had been some justice in the world. Professor Johnson’s hypothetical resignation is a great loss to the Academy, as well as a great embarrassment. The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences used to be famous for selecting the winners of the Nobel Prizes in the physical, chemical and medical sciences every year (see picture), but after Professor Johnson’s hypothetical resignation, those Prizes have been seriously devalued. The question is whether anybody really would want them anymore. Will the Swedish king really want to continue participating in the award ceremony after this scandal? And how many more non-members will resign from the Academy, after Professor Johnson has set the snowball rolling?
So what caused Professor Johnson to take the desperate step of leaving (had he been a member) a prestigious and influential position in the Academy? Professor Johnson is objecting to the Academy’s endorsement of the fully unscientific and unproven concept of a fictional “green-house effect”, which is the foundation of the entire AGW-scam (a matter on which he recently expressed disagreement with the Lord Monckton himself, who is for once seriously at fault). The Academy has forever disgraced itself by supporting such nonsense and superstition! Professor Johnson writes:
I don't want to be member of such an Academy. Is there really nobody among the 175 [real members] who has similar hesitations?

Besides Claes Johnson, will enough members and non-members take a stand against the Lysenkonistic corruption that got its hold on the organisation, so that it can recover some of the respect it had before this ignominy? Or will future Nobel prizes have no more value than something you find in a cereal box?

I want to personally contribute to fighting the corruption of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences. Although I am not formally eligible for a membership in that organisation, there is something else I can do in spite of a considerable personal cost:

I hereby announce that if I had been awarded the Nobel Prize by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, then I would return it!

Corruptio optimi pessima


  1. I'm moved by such a nobel move, Baron. Not everybody would be willing to sacrifice all the glamour and money that comes with the Nobel prize for their ideals. And who wouldn't want to have dinner with the Danish King? (Does he have a hot daughter by any chance?) But we all know the Noble prize is rotten, it's just something all these "sceintists" award to themselves to let the world know how great they think they are. Therefore I propose that we, blog sceintists, have our own prize for truly great blog sceintific achievements. I even thought of a name: we should call it the ignore-Nobel (or ig-Nobel) prize.

  2. Ionic disturbances23 October 2010 at 19:02

    Herr Baron,

    Bravo! Your fortitude in the face of such an ethical dilemma is an example to us all. However, I must warn you that your membership in The Society of Those Who Have Never Been Nominated for a Great Award places you in grave jeopardy. Were you to resign your membership, you would face the logical conundrum of being neither fore nor aft. You are wise to avoid this Scylla and Charybdis. Those treacherous waters are reserved for the eternal confustication of climate warmists who routinely find themselves buffeted hither and yon by the alternating Ninas and Ninos of our Brave New World.
    Personally, I would never join any group that would have me as a member.

  3. My question is, does the professor get any funding from the Koch Brothers or other oil and coal corporations? Over 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that man made AGW is a proven fact, an inconveninet one for big oil and coal, but a certainty

  4. Correction 97% of the subgroup of 77 who were post-selected from the 3000 respondents believe that carbon dioxide is a significant contributing factor to the largely natural warming that has occurred. I imagine that many skeptics also believe that mankind has the capacity to alter temperatures. The question is by how much. The physics still say it could be negligible. So we need observations to decide, not mere beliefs.

    Well nature makes fools of those who pretend to know things that they papably don't. There has been no tropospheric warming since 1998, no stratospheric cooling since 1995 and no ocean warming since semi-accurate records began in 2003. Any one of these realities of nature refutes the mere belief of those who would likely be out of a job if they didn't believe in manmade warming.

    I think I'm not far wrong in estimating that 97% of economists did not predict the current financial crash either. Two soft sciences with similar predictive capacities. See a rising trend and predict it continues up. Not clever is it? Anyway, I do believe acid rain was going to have killed us off by this time - or was it global cooling from those selfsame fossil fuels we like to pretend that we only use because evil, nasty corporations forced us into it.

  5. i too do agree two do it


Welcome to comment on my blog, dear reader.