Stephen Wilde
Stephen Wilde F.R.Met.S. has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968. Except he is not a member. see link. and here where he explains it, also list of ‘paper’.
Contributes to blogs. frequently re-quoted but no biography. Used by the scientist Richard Duffy.
New Theory posted on WUWT in 2010 is imaginative. see here
-
1
Pingback on Nov 13th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
[…] was reproduced by the kindly Delingpole in his Telegraph post it was issued by Stephen P R Wilde. LLB (Hons.), Solicitor.[and […]
the Climate Denier List 
August 16, 2012 at 9:08 pm
I have a letter from the Royal Meteorological Society confirming that I am entitled to use the term Fellow as a courtesy title due to my long standing membership.
I am not entitled to use the term F.R. Met. S which was only used on one occasion in error by the publisher of my material.
April 30, 2013 at 11:57 am
Stephen, although you style yourself as “a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968”, you tend to obfuscate the fact that this was before professional qualifications became a mandatory pre-requisite for fellowship. Therefore, as much as you might like to pretend otherwise, you are not a professional meteorologist. You are, in fact, a fully-qualified and practicing solicitor who has pretty much always been ‘sceptical’ about anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD).
As such, you are a regular contributor to the ‘sceptical’ US-based ‘Climate Realists’ (CR) website; and your postings rank amongst the most-popular on that website. Therefore, despite being widely cited as an expert, you are little more than an amateur observer who only looks at the minority of evidence capable of supporting your prejudical assumption that ACD is not happening.
From a review of your CR postings, it is clear that:
— You consider ACD to be an example of environmental alarmism; that the Sun is the cause of the changes we are seeing; and that therefore the ‘theory’ of ACD… “should now die” (Wilde 2008).
— You suggest and/or believe that those who continue to claim ACD is cause for genuine concern are misguided and/or not being sufficiently rigorous to see the intellectual flaws in their own arguments (Wilde 2011).
These are just two examples. However, the language you use tends to be emotive and prejudicial; and (E&OE) your work has never been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Furthermore, as a solicitor, it could be argued that you are no better qualified to pronounce on the subject of climate science than is an investigative journalist.
May 7, 2013 at 8:42 pm
I have always made it clear that I am not a professional meteorologist or climatologist.
However I have maintained a lifelong interest in and study of those subjects and am fully entitled and able to asses evidence and set out valid opinions.
May 8, 2013 at 6:18 am
Dear Stephen, Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not all opinions are valid. To be valid, an opinion must be capable of explaining all the data. Dismissing nearly all the data as being part of a political conspiracy and/or nearly all the scientists of being incompetent is not a valid opinion.
http://oncirculation.com/2013/05/08/co2-set-to-hit-400ppm-highest-levels-for-millions-of-years/#comment-9689
January 4, 2020 at 11:46 pm
Hi Lack. This is quite the prejudicial list. Handy for climate cult witch hunts. has any contemporary climate scientist been told that infrared absorption by co2 is a quantum effect not thermodynamic? science has moved on since John Tyndall’s settled science experiment in 1860. with dipolar molecules (greenhouse gases) translational states contribute towards air temperature but vibrational and rotational energy states do not. so there is no greenhouse heating effect. no need for complicated black body atmospheric radiation explanations. from “Physics Companion” by Fisher-Cripps.
February 26, 2013 at 7:22 am
Yup!
Temperatures declined from 1940 t0 1975 then rose a bit till 1997
Co2 rising steadily and temperatures flatlining for the past 16 years.
Out of the past 72 years temperatures rose a bit for just 22 years
Let’s face it, temperatures rose to just 25C when CO2 was 7000ppm and also rose to 25C when CO2 was lower than now.
The whole CO2 thing is unproven unscientific hypothesis.
February 3, 2014 at 1:27 am
Congratulations, Martin Lack! You seem to have some semblance of science in that you allowed Stephen’ responses and the RKS guy’s succint skewering of the “climate disruption” hypothesis you are conforming to.
Doesn’t it hurt to read truth and not censor it away?
Stupid name BTW “climate disruption”. Guess you can’t call it global warming seeing as the globe is obviously not warming, eh?
February 3, 2014 at 1:42 am
“Dismissing nearly all the data”
We don’t dismiss the data… you do. You call it “adjustment” and you clutch at fictitious straws like missing heat being in the oceans when even the adjusted data is obviously disproving your BS. “ACD” is a pack of lies.
“as being part of a political conspiracy”
Promoted by the Club of Rome, working for the Rockefeller and Rothschild-led Elite, and the whole damned Elite-controlled System: mass media, political parties, academic “authority”, religion, etc. Easily verifiable by the honest. It would be truly sad if you actually believed “ACD” and were not just selling out for shillings.
“and/or nearly all the scientists of being incompetent is not a valid opinion.”
Appeal to authority and popularity much? Your inductive argument holds no merit in view of the deluge of historical lies and idiocy amongst the politically correct Establishment and their conformist slaves.
November 26, 2015 at 10:45 pm
See here:
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Stephen-Wilde/1276776649
Where I am clearly listed as a ‘Fellow’.
An apology from Martin would be appreciated.
August 30, 2020 at 3:20 pm
Strange, that link no longer goes where it should.
February 22, 2022 at 9:00 pm
Stephen Wilde we’ve been here before. One must celebrate your dogged insistence on things that are not and never were true, starting with the FRMS business. I was the one who contacted the Met directly, back when, and got the full story: yes you were a member at a time when members were tagged ‘fellows’; and then the policies changed, making membership the rank of professionals of proven and vetted background and contributions to the science. You were afforded, as courtesy, the privilege of continuing to refer to yourself as a ‘fellow’ — but what in heaven’s name IS it that you are unwilling to present yourself clearly (and one hates to add, honestly) as who and what you are in reference to the Met?
I am a geologist (we’ve been through this before, too) and a member of the Geological Society of America. I have a BS degree in geology: and a decade-plus career as a professional geologist. I am certified by the State of California as a professional geologist, carded as such. But I am NOT a GSA fellow!
Nor are you, in the true sense, a Met fellow.
February 22, 2022 at 9:01 pm
One may add that a Solicitor stands by a code of conduct and ethics. Are you living up to that in your hobby? That counts too, you know.