Sanity returns to the London Science Museum

Climate sanity

All I can say is “bravo” to the Science Museum for having the guts to stand up to alarmism, to abandon propaganda and instead champion impartial science (see original story here):

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.

Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.” [ACM editor falls of chair in shock – Ed]

“You can argue about how much effect the carbon in the atmosphere will have on the system and what we should do about it,” he said. “The role of the museum should be to lay out honestly and fairly what the climate science community has found out about the science.

“There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not.”

I almost cannot believe I am reading that. This is all the sceptics are really concerned about. All we want is to see a balanced, honest and fair portrayal of climate science: what we know and what we don’t. ACM is very, very impressed. Now we wait for the inevitable backlash of alarmists crying foul.

Read it here. (h/t Andrew Bolt)


  1. Sanity? I wonder.
    “..avoid being accused of presuming..”
    Those don’t sound like the words of someone that has a reality check. They’re more the grudging words of someone who has been instructed to act in this fashion.

  2. They could place the Piltdown skull in the climate science gallery and then call it the “Hall of Hoaxes”

  3. cbullitt says:

    And when the government threatens the museum’s funding, I trust the director will say something. Or resign, then say something, rather than reversing himself with an “official statement” about how he was “wrong.”

  4. froggy uk says:

    Lets face it, if they had kept their original title “climate change gallery”then the exhibits wouldnt have been worth looking at,
    all it would consist of is three dummies dressed in white coats, one of them clutching a bunch of government grant cheques, another pushing a barrow full of B/S around & the third would be a phil jones look-a-like sitting in front of a pentium 386, frantically hitting the delete button screaming hysterically with sweat pouring from his brow!.

  5. beautifully said froggy

%d bloggers like this: