WUWT Flashback:
Royal Society to review climate consensus position
“I don’t think they were very pleased. I don’t think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the society.”
Society to review climate message
Today: (Via email press release from the GWPF) Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics
Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.
The Royal Society is publishing a new document today after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows who questioned mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.
…
The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”
The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heatwaves and rising sea levels. It now says: “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”
It adds: “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
The working group that produced the new guide took advice from two Royal Society fellows who have links to the climate-sceptic think-tank founded by Lord Lawson of Blaby.
Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge are members of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. They were among 43 fellows who signed a petition sent to Lord Rees, the society’s president, asking for its statement on climate change to be rewritten to take more account of questions raised by sceptics.
…
Full article at The Times, 30 September 2010
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Monckton must be very happy….
Make sure to include scenarios for intense cold, heavy snows and dropping sea levels.
The last one would be a show-stopper, should it ever occur.
Since warming is unpredictable, so is cooling. Nature is squirrely.
“Professor John Pethica, ….. stated clearly that there was “strong evidence” that the warming of the Earth over the past half-century had been caused largely by human activity.”
And what were those activities specifically?
And for the usual spin and Bob the Knob’s distortions …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/30/royal-society-climate-change-guide
Monbiot, Harrabin, Black, Pearce, the RS — the list of people trying to negotiate their way back to credibility after years of Warmist dogmatism is growing to a steady trickle, reminiscent of the demoralised remnants of Napoleon’s army straggling back from Moscow….
Didn’t they get curbed stomped for not towing the AGW line at one of the pseudo enquiries then back track? It will be interesting to see if they keep fluttering in the wind or pick a story and stick with it. Of course fluttering in the wind tells a story all it’s own and it isn’t very, ahem, settling.
This does not sound like an enthusiastic ’embrace’ of skeptics and uncertainty, but it does appear that the RS has had a reality check. Huzzah!
The sun is rising. The quotations are:
“There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”
It adds: “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
The 43 fellows who demanded this new report have restored science to its rightful place in the Royal Society. There will be “significant modifications in our understanding” of climate. The quotations above accurately describe the state of climate science today. I find this statement totally satisfying. The Great Climate Fraud is finished. Thank God. Thank Science. Thank Anthony.
Joe Romm will blow a gasket. The fireworks and steam vent from that alone will warm the winter.
REPLY: You know, I actually typed in almost that exact line, then deleted it. I didn’t want to spoil the story with snark – Anthony
sanity at last…congrats to all who have played a part.
What else can one say, but “Wow”. This counts as a M=8 seismic shift.
Imagine, acknowledging uncertainty and things unknown after so many years of “settled science”.
Next we know, folks will be talking about “falsifiable hypotheses”
Change we can believe in.
A little more “Nullius in verba” is just what they needed
Is sanity finally starting to return?
“ . . . the Government is planning an exercise to test how England and Wales would cope with severe flooding caused by climate change. Exercise Watermark will take place in March . . .”
In England and Wales severe flooding can be caused by excessive rain or rapid snow melt. Climate change does not have to be invoked. They might want to examine their plans for prolonged cold, and by March find it necessary.
Regarding The Royal Society: When your name includes the term “Royal”, wise behavior ought to be expected. (Wanted to say “inbred” but that’s another story.) They goofed and are paying the price.
This is so refreshing after going through the John Holden PP presentation. I was looking for rope, but found and 7 day delay of sale…
Good on the RS for thinking about PERSPECTIVE. How rare these days.
This sounds nice but I am skeptical of any firm results that will be truly satisfactory, to me and most of the WUWT readers. The original statement was anything but based on the scientific method. Why should a review, forced on the believers, produce a result that meets its criteria now?
I strongly suspect this is nothing more then window dressing and a publicity stunt. I strongly suspect the Royal Society gets is whitewash from the same supplier as the others.
This is one of those times when I sincerely hope to be in error.
This little bit of news is HUGE in its tacit implications. Claims of scientific consensus can’t find a reputable home any more.
The Times web site has a paywall so I didn’t read the article. However, it is hoped that this shows an increasing trend towards real science and not political consensus.
Where is Oreskes now?
Their reputation is still damaged. They should have been in the forefront of the science and not admitting this so late in the game.
I suspect that my colleague Mr. Nikols may be closer to the truth than I would like. This smells a bit like a set up.
“Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge are members of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. They were among 43 fellows who signed a petition sent to Lord Rees, the society’s president, asking for its statement on climate change to be rewritten to take more account of questions raised by sceptics.”
Just when looked like science would be reduced to poli-sci they take a stand. Good for them!!!
Now lets see if makes any difference. The politicians are set on a course like lemmings to the sea.
HAH!! At LAST!! Vigilant Fish said:
“This does not sound like an enthusiastic ‘embrace’ of skeptics and uncertainty, but it does appear that the RS has had a reality check. Huzzah!”
I agree; more like ‘dragging their feet every inch of the way’. It’s no more than a hairline crack in the dam, at present; but you know what a hairline crack is?
It’s a place where you can fit the thin end of a wedge . . . 😉
Shub says:
September 29, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Where is Oreskes now?
——
She’s in Toronto, scheduled to give a talk about “Merchants of Doubt” early tomorrow afternoon at York University. Still have not made up my mind whether or not to go, as getting to York U is a pain, and my slate is full. I doubt her stance has changed.
Good thing its now GLC not AWG, Glibbering Climb Down. But I wanted to watch them fall so am terribly dissapionted.Soon they will be stating how they never really mean their past certainty, or were fooled by their peers.