Prof Michael Kelly censures Royal Society

Prof Mike Kelly

Dr Mike Kelly, Kiwi physicist, elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993, has been Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University since 2002.

RS scientists ‘jeopardise their integrity’

Professor Michael Kelly has published a stinging indictment in the Daily Mail of the performance of the Royal Society. Refusing to mince his words, he says that the Royal Society scientists have adopted a role of ‘lobbying’ and in doing so ‘they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.’

These are very strong words that, spoken by an eminent scientist, will not lightly be set aside.

I contacted him with congratulations; he simply said: “My concern is not to do madness.” A simple description of the bizarre anti-scepticism that poisons climate science.

In studying dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), Prof Kelly says the scientists have abandoned science’s neutral inquiry in favour of bias and a closed mind. Never mind what the science said, never mind the cost to society, never mind the queries from level-headed sceptics, these climate scientists insisted they knew what was happening.

They had to change society because the earth needed saving. They just knew it.

Undermines man-made climate change

The alarmists have for 30 years moved the goalposts on the global warming field and invented numerous obfuscations and deceits to avoid the truth. Now they must hear Professor Kelly explain the simple futility of the project to ‘solve the climate change problem’. With an icy logic, he points out:

“We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like.”

I scratch my head in vain to recall evidence that might refute this but never have I heard a person who believes in DAGW set out the full price, the timeline or the appearance of the end of global warming.

The scare has never had an end and yet, with the measures of success just left as empty promises, why would anyone fall for them? How did we let ourselves be fooled so comprehensively? Certainly the result everywhere has been nonsensical policy.

Nonsensical climate policy

Here are Prof Kelly’s comments on the UK:

Aluminium production is highly sensitive to energy prices, and most of the UK smelters have closed down – helping us reduce UK emissions, but also exporting jobs.

No one describes the consequence: we now import that aluminium from China, leading to CO2 emissions from shipping it here. Worse, most electricity in China is produced by coal, not gas, as in the UK. We are exacerbating the original global problem of global CO2 emissions, yet also pointing fingers at the Chinese. We really are leading the world in climate change hypocrisy.

Enough said. I urge you to read the original article and let me know below if you agree that Professor Kelly is one courageous Fellow.

Leave a Reply

17 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Notify of

In an era a little short of genuine Kiwi heroes other than those in the manufactured world of professional sports, Professor Kelly’s statement puts him, in my opinion, very firmly in this category of genuine full-blooded heroism.
To go against The Word of the RS is an act of courage and honesty. I hope this act will open the flood gates of public acceptance of real and sceptical science.
The Royal Society has, disgracefully, sold it’s soul for the UN’s shilling under its’s past three presidents.
Professor Kelly is to be commended for his heroism.


Apparently Prof Kelly is at VUW at this present time.


I would imagine that Prof Kelly will be given the cold shoulder by the NZ climate mullahs

Mike Jowsey

Courageous, even moreso subsequent to the unbridled bullying received by Dr. Willie Soon recently.

More flak directed at the Royal Society, this time by GWPF scientists:

A new briefing paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation has accused the Royal Society of presenting a misleading picture of climate science.


Speaking of Willie Soon, Shub points out how climate scientists (of the “approved” variety) get fossil fuel funding

Richard C (NZ)

>”“We do not know how much the project will cost,…….”

But we do know the first tranche according to the UNFCCC’s Christiana Figueres:

“$90 trillion would be invested in infrastructure over the next 15 years”

Given “$100 billion is frankly a very, very small sum”, should be a doddle.


The MacDiarmid Institute is a nanotechnology research centre. The only thing that I could find that was vaguely connected to “climate change” is a project to develop better solar panels (for which I wish them well)

I’m not sure how much of this real world engineering will be viewed by the climate modellers, who never have any imperative to produce anything of commercial or social value


Welcome to “Tom and Hattie”, 2nd year brainwashed students at the University of Exeter, who leave a pingback for us to troll their site.

If anyone can be bothered


According to our ping back links Kelly “only” has a speciality in Physics and is therefore not qualified to comment on climate science.

Given that all science is based ultimately on mathematics and physics, I find this somewhat at odds with my view of reality.

Also Michael Mann has a background in Maths and Physics, as does Gavin Schmidt

Richard C (NZ)

David Middleton:

‘Anatomy of a Collapsing Climate Paradigm’

What, exactly, is a “climate scientist”?

35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, geochemistry to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policy-ologists.

I would include signal analysts. If there’s ONE area that climate science is particularly clueless it’s extracting and interpreting signals from time series data but the revelations are coming from exactly this.

And meteorology is a prerequisite surely?


Some Rutherford quotes:

“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment”

“You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1.”

“An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.”

Post Navigation