News has just reached me that the great Professor Ian Plimer, scourge of climate-fear-promoters everywhere, has been suddenly disinvited by the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) from a lecture he was due to give in May before an audience including the Duke of Edinburgh.
Here’s part of the embarrassed kiss-off Prof Plimer received from the RSA’s chief executive:
I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news regarding
the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.
As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently become
highly politically charged, both globally and especially in your home
country. Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal
Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or
supporting a particular political stance. The RSA’s charitable status
also requires us to maintain absolute political independence in our
programme of events and research events.
After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great
regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year’s Prince
Philip Lecture. The Duke of Edinburgh is personally disappointed as he
read your book with great interest and was looking forward to hearing
you speak, but I know that you will recognise that the now highly
controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable
that he was seen to be taking a particular position.
Actually, no I don’t think that Prof Plimer DOES “recognise that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a particular position.” Au contraire, he’d consider closer to being a case of bringing a sense of balance and proportion to a hitherto very one-sided debate. After all, if the Prince of Wales is permitted to take such an extremist “100 months left to save the world” approach to AGW, why on earth shouldn’t his Dad be allowed to adopt a more sensible, sceptical position.
As Plimer puts it: “Strange that those who preach environmentalism at The Palace are feted as concerned scientists with no political agenda whereas those that try to speak rationality
are regarded as political.”