Skip to content

Royal Society Fellowships

March 26, 2016

By Paul Homewood   


We saw the other day that Dr Paul Williams, of airline turbulence fame, was the recipient of a Royal Society Fellowship worth £739K.

It won’t come as any surprise to learn that there are many other climate scientists at the trough. The RS helpfully offer a filter tool, which allows us to drill down into fellowships for climate science. In all there are 14.






Their fellowships are worth:


  Total Grant No of Years Current Annual
Tim Palmer 1743912 11 171827
David Stephenson 42500 5 8500
Andrew Watson 1680877 10 159511
Paul Williams 739550 8 91033
Pierre Friedlingstein 50000 5 10000
Andrew Shepherd 50000 5 10000
Geoff Vallis 50000 5 10000
Peter Cox 25000 5 5000
Gabrielle Hegerl 50000 5 10000
Katharine Hendry 477373 5 95474
Eric Wolff 843062 5 168612
Tim Lenton 50000 5 10000
Theodore Shepherd 75000 5 15000
Piers Forster 50000 5 10000
TOTAL     774957


At the end of the day, most of this money comes from central govt, which contributes £46.8 million of the Society’s total income of £75.1 million.

Of course, I am sure that none of these will allow the money to influence their judgement!







Professor Tim Palmer

Professor Tim Palmer FRS

Research Fellow


Readers may recall that it was Prof Tim Palmer who turned up on the BBC’s Today programme last year, to discuss Cyclone Pam which had just hit Vanuatu.

He claimed that Pam had “produced record breaking winds” and said “it’s exactly this type of extreme cyclone that is predicted by the climate models to increase under climate change, under global warming”.

When John Humphrys suggested that we have always had cyclones, Palmer said that these latest ones have seen “wind gusts that have never been measured before, 200-plus mile an hour winds“. When Humphrys pressed him on this, asking him to confirm that they are quite unprecedented, Palmer repeated that “these things have never been seen“.


As I pointed out at the time, these claims were simply nonsense. There had been many other cyclones in recent years that had produced winds as strong and stronger in the South Pacific alone.


You don’t get much for £1.7 million these days, do you?

  1. Adrian permalink
    March 26, 2016 3:32 pm

    Sorry Paul it can’t be true. We know for a fact it is only the weasels of denial who receive funding to spread their lies and nonsense.

  2. March 26, 2016 4:00 pm

    It won’t come as any surprise to learn that there are many other climate scientists at the trough.

    Do you expect them to work for free?

    • March 26, 2016 8:59 pm

      The science is settled, so let them get proper jobs!

      In any event, as I am sure you know, this is not the whole story. As the RS themselves say about their fellowships:

      The scheme provides the opportunity to build an independent research career. Those appointed are expected to be strong candidates for permanent posts in universities at the end of their fellowships.

      A mighty powerful incentive to say what your masters tell you to.

      BTW – I am not going to publicise your silly little Wottsupwiththatblog, regardless of your repeated attempts here and elsewhere.
      You admit that you are an active scientist who teaches and carries out research at a university, so you clearly need to declare your self interest in this matter, ie the amount of money you earn from your university activities, before you can be taken seriously.

      You also admit on your blog that you wish to remain anonoymous.

      Neither of these facts is consistent with an open debate about the corruption of climate science by govt funding.

      You may return when you have provided answers to these two points.

  3. Eric Hutchinson permalink
    March 26, 2016 5:00 pm

    Interesting! The “warmIsts” tend to warn of corruption on the side of those believing there is no proper connection between CO2 and any temperature increase. Seems the “experts” are quite corruptible. Not really surprisable! Yawn!

  4. Joe Public permalink
    March 26, 2016 5:03 pm

    Thanks for exposing the troughers I unwillingly help to fund

  5. Broadlands permalink
    March 26, 2016 6:45 pm

    In the period 1904-1915 the average number of typhoons (winds at least Beaufort Scale 12) was nine. If you include all well-developed storms, the number increases to 20. I believe those are the numbers that are about average now. Clearly, those storms 100 years ago had nothing to do with man-made climate change. A comparison of “Superstorm” Sandy in 2012 with the 1938 hurricane (“Long Island Express”) that devastated the same East Coast location would lead to a similar conclusion?

    • David Richardson permalink
      March 26, 2016 7:30 pm

      Yes Broadlands – the Long Island Express had gust speeds close to double that of Superstorm Sandy which in fact did not record winds of hurricane force on land at all I believe.

      The warmists always only tell one side of any climate happening so we (the realists) should point out that although Sandy was deficient in wind force, it generated storm surges as big as they get in that part of the world and co-coincided with very high spring tides. It was enormous in size and slow moving enough to cause huge destruction. Given its size (not unprecedented) it isn’t surprising that wind speeds were not that high. I think revolvers are like spinning ice skaters and can’t spins very fast when they are large in size.

      I was in the area from New York to Cape Cod 3 weeks before Sandy hit and noted that several towns in the Rhode Island area still have an annual remembrance for the 600 people who died during The Long Island Express in 1938.

      From sedimentary records it is reckoned that the 17th century had the highest number of similar storm surges on the east coast of America and co-coincidently, according to the Chinese, the SE Asian Pacific basin suffered in the same century. Surely one of the coldest centuries in the Holocene Interglacial.

  6. Dorian permalink
    March 26, 2016 7:00 pm

    I just got an idea.

    This looks like a perfectly good time to start a Wall Of Shame for Science, and you have immediately 14 inductees!

  7. March 26, 2016 7:00 pm

    Further to the Footnote on Cyclones, rather than making claims on some arbitrary standard without data as Prof Tim Palmer did, one should look at actual data from an expert in the field.
    This Roger Pielke Jr on US Hurricanes making landfall.

    No major hurricanes (cat 3 or greater) have made landfall in the USA since 2005. This is far greater than any gap since 1900. Yet climate change was meant to make the weather worse.

    • David Richardson permalink
      March 26, 2016 7:32 pm

      Yes in fact you have to go back before the American Civil War to find a bigger gap.

      • March 26, 2016 8:37 pm

        And they had better things to do in the Confederacy than count hurricanes!

  8. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 26, 2016 9:23 pm

    I heard that BBC Radio 4 programme. Humphreys was badly briefed and sounded discommoded -an experienced journo, he had a suspicion he was being lied to. A couple of clicks by his researchers was all it needed. Where stands the RS’s nullius in verba policy, by the way? Bankrupt.

  9. Bitter&twisted permalink
    March 27, 2016 2:47 pm

    A real “Rogue Gallery” if ever I saw one.
    What a pack of con-artists.

  10. Flaxdoctor permalink
    March 28, 2016 5:59 pm

    “Do you expect them to work for feee?”

    Hey Rice,

    “Work” would be novel for some – and on that note, why don’t you apply for a Fellowship? It would supplement your Edinburgh University blogging salary quite nicely.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: