This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Nurse, presumably humourously in the style of Tim Hunt, is proposing selective breeding?
How far is that removed from Eugenics?
Given the problems that the Green Saviours seem to have with humanity and its future offspring I'm somewhat surprised by his suggestion on a number of levels - or is that part of the plan? An attempt to raise the "standards" in London whilst at the same time trying to influence people's breeding habits?
Yes, it does look like selective breeding, but presumably this version of it is 'OK' because it is non-patriotic and non-racist.
Paul Nurse has been associated with the issue of global population control. Before he became President of the Royal Society, he was between 2003 and 2010 the President of Rockefeller University, a private university in the USA founded by the Rockefeller dynasty. In 2009 Nurse held a meeting at his house in New York with about a dozen billionaires as described in this link:
"According to the Times, the billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favorite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests. Taking their cue from Gates, the report said, they agreed population control was the No. 1 issue."
I was reminded of Paul Nurse the other day when I heard a news story about the new Minister for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson (Boris Johnson's brother), announcing a new policy called "One Nation Science", where the whole of the UK is encouraged to develop its full potential in science. The Paul Nurse version of UK science seems to me to be the opposite of that, where you concentrate scientific research in the south east of England because Johnny Foreigner (who he seems to prefer over the native Brit) prefers to live there.
I noticed another example of Harrabin's propaganda activities the other day, picked up by the "Not A lot of people know that" (NALOPKT) blog:
This relates to a BBC news story Harrabin wrote at the end of July where he claimed "The Automobile Association (AA) has joined green groups in warning that recent changes in energy policy will harm the climate". When I first saw the BBC news story, it struck me as a being a bit implausible. The AA relies for its income on motorists subscribing to it, in competition with organisations like the RAC that provide a similar service, and a significant proportion of motorists are rather sceptical of Greenery. Appearing to be as pro-Green as Harrabin is making out might be a bit damaging to the AA's business.
A reader of the NALOPKT blog checked up on the story by contacting the AA, and Paul Homewood (the NALOPKT blogger) also contacted the AA, and it turned out that Harrabin's reporting was somewhat inaccurate, with the AA revealed as being unhappy with the article.
You do get UK businesses that appear to be more pro-Green than might be expected, an example would be this strange group of eighty firms that put their names to a letter a couple of months ago calling for David Cameron "to seek a “strong climate deal” in Paris that would avoid dangerous global warming".
But the list doesn't include any motoring organisations like the AA, and the firms that are signing up to the letter strike me as the sort who might also provide such advice as "It would be a disaster for Britain to leave the EU" and "Britain needs a lot more university graduates". Many of the firms will be making money from environmental regulations.