Shell Oil Behind London Science Museum Decision to Take Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming?

Shell Oil Behind London Science Museum Decision to Take Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming?
on

The Times of London reports that the London Science Museum has decided to change its position from promoting understanding of the science of global warming to one that they deem “neutral” in their climate science gallery. And by neutral they mean a stance at odds with the widely accepted science on climate change. Science accepted by NASA, the UN IPCC and climate scientists around the world. And science being visibly demonstrated right now – today – in places like Antarctica and Nepal where ice is shrinking and in Africa where bodies of water are rapidly decreasing from drought and climate changes and in our oceans where coral reefs are dying at an alarming rate. But better not to upset a confused public. Let’s stay neutral.

Last October the museum launched a temporary exhibition called “Prove It! All the evidence you need to believe in climate change”. The museum said at the time that the exhibition had been designed to demonstrate “through scientific evidence that climate change is real and requires an urgent solution”.

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.” – Times Online

Joe Romm over at Climate Progress asked the museum director, Dr. Chris Rapley, to explain. Rapley agreed that the majority of climate scientists were in agreement on climate change being real and caused by human activity and that “the weight of evidence” supports them and the exhibit would reflect this. Yet here is an excerpt from Dr. Rapley’s response to Romm:

”The climate debate has become very polarised in recent months, and this has made even more important the need for a public space where people who agree, who are unsure, and who disagree that humans are affecting the climate system are able to explore the science and make up their own minds.”

I always thought it was the role of a science museum to help lay people understand science, not make up their mind as to whether science is real.

But is it just public skepticism driving the change? Left Foot Forward reports that may not be the only reason for the changes to the exhibit. Guess who is funding the exhibit. I will give you a hint. The name of the sponsor starts with an S and ends with an L and rhymes with shill. Yes ladies and gentleman, it might come as a big surprise but the Science Museum Climate Science gallery (no longer called the Climate Science gallery) sponsored by Royal Dutch Shell Oil is taking a “neutral position” on climate change.

Perhaps next they will have an evolution exhibit sponsored by creationists and throw Darwin under the bus.

As Romm points out, the original, temporary exhibit was very different. Their Prove It! website stated it quite clearly; “The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We’re convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action”. So what happened to all that conviction? It seems to have been replaced with shilling for Shell. And how much does it take to buy off the Science Museum? £4m.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

As the world starts to seriously entertain the possibility of commercially mining the deep sea for valuable metals, it's worth taking a closer look at the claims used to justify its potentially long-lived impacts.

As the world starts to seriously entertain the possibility of commercially mining the deep sea for valuable metals, it's worth taking a closer look at the claims used to justify its potentially long-lived impacts.
Analysis
on

The government still contains four ministers who criticised “government-subsidised green technology” back in 2012, but one of them seems to have changed his mind about state intervention since then, and there are some new environmentally-friendly faces around too.

The government still contains four ministers who criticised “government-subsidised green technology” back in 2012, but one of them seems to have changed his mind about state intervention since then, and there are some new environmentally-friendly faces around too.
on

Campaigners have criticised Captain Ian Finley, a UK resident who has represented the Cook Islands at the International Maritime Organization since 2006, for consistently defending industry interests.

Campaigners have criticised Captain Ian Finley, a UK resident who has represented the Cook Islands at the International Maritime Organization since 2006, for consistently defending industry interests.
on

The union dubbed plans to shift away from fossil-fuelled heating “utterly absurd”, a statement one union member called “disappointing”.

The union dubbed plans to shift away from fossil-fuelled heating “utterly absurd”, a statement one union member called “disappointing”.