Statement on Arctic Climate Change from the President of the Royal Society

The Royal Society

While we are on the subject of the APS and their consideration of their stance on climate, this statement came to me today via Philip Bratby in comments. I thought it presicent and worthwhile sharing, since once again there is great concern in the alarmosphere about the levels of Arctic sea ice this summer.

‘It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’

President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.(from) http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

If that quote seems familiar to you, it is because it was previously published here on WUWT as part of a larger article on Historic Variation in Arctic Sea Ice.

That quote was also in a letter sent to the current president of the Royal Society, Lord Rees, on 18 July 2009.

The full text of the letter penned by R.C.E. Wyndham to Lord Rees is available here as a PDF. While I do not agree with some things said in the letter, it is worth a read for the humorous writing style. I doubt very much that Lord Rees will respond.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve (Paris)

“…by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice..”
This is rhetoric, not science. And its also patently not true.

Steve (Paris)

…but then I read it again and spotted the date. Doh!

Telboy

Plus ca change … plus c’est la meme chose….

MartinW

In respect of the ‘climate change’ hysteria which is gripping politicians worldwide, we should be grateful to those who strive to counter it by presenting real and unbiased science and by arguing against the abuse of science that is so prevalent today. Anthony Watts, especially, is doing a wonderful job in highlighting flawed science.
However, if the present hysteria is to be overcome, then it must be done in the proper way, especially if the objective is to influence politicians and others. In my opinion, Wyndham’s letter to Lord Rees has not helped at all. The style and language adopted is ill-judged – in particular the repeated phrase “and you call this science?” which is practically guaranteed to annoy anyone who reads it – and the use of sneering, sarcastic and intemperate descriptive comments throughout. This is not the way to address the President of the Royal Society, or UK politicians (even the apparently dim Ed Miliband).
Hopefully, Wyndham’s letter will get filtered out by the various press offices, but if it gets through to the intended recipients, I doubt if any will read further than the first paragraph or two.
Of course, it is deplorable that the Royal Society and all political parties seem to be fully subscribed to the ‘warmist’ agenda, and it is essential that counter arguments are fully aired. But in the right way.

jeroen

If you chek out the dmi polar temperature graph. And you also chek al the other years. The first thing that is obvious is that the temperature is almost constant in de zomer month and in the winter it is waving up and down but still very cold. You must conclude that the latest ice shrink in 2007 and 2008 an mabey 2009 is because of the wind and not temperature and therefor not globalwarming.

kim

Heh, Steve, I guessed by the archaic language, but was off by a third of a century on my guess of the date. I’ll not tell you which way.
======================================

As the Royal Society appears to be impervious to logic and reason, ridicule appears to be the only method left. Let’s roll!

Dodgy Geezer

“..In my opinion, Wyndham’s letter to Lord Rees has not helped at all. The style and language adopted is ill-judged – in particular the repeated phrase “and you call this science?” which is practically guaranteed to annoy anyone who reads it – and the use of sneering, sarcastic and intemperate descriptive comments throughout. This is not the way to address the President of the Royal Society, or UK politicians…”
Respectfully. I must beg to disagree. In style and substance this is a magnificent missive, and I wish that I had written it. British politicians (and I count Martin Rees in that category) are not only used to dealing with dirt, but frequently fling it themselves.
I can see no credible situation where cogent argument will bring the current establishment to see the light. They are politically committed to claiming that black is white. Under these circumstances it is damaging the cause of truth to bend over to accomodate them. They are following a religion – a political ‘ism’, and have rejected science.
The important thing to do (as has been shown so many times before when expediency and tyranny go hand in hand) is to draw a line in the sand. Not for the benefit of those of us today, who are now irrevocably committed to conflict, but for the future generations, who will look back to this time in wonder at the manner in which mankind conducted its business….
(with apologies to W S Churchill…)

I have still doubts about validity of this chart: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
40ties were globally almost as warm as 2000s and Arctic temperature was the same – http://www.climate4you.com/images/MAAT%2070-90N%20HadCRUT3%20Since1900.gif
Global SST in 40ties were also not that far from today SST http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/190772/hadsst2.JPG
I read that even NW passage was open in 1944, but the first graph stubbornly shows constant ice extent until the satellite data came.

Skeptic Tank

… also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’

That’s small consolation to the self-imposed intercourse of cap & trade.

President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153,
Interesting. This date occurs in the depths of the “Dalton Minimum”. But, I’m completely wrong , of course, whenever I suggest that the Dalton Minimum was not a particularly cold period.
I’ve warned on a number of occasions that reliance on the sun to explain GW will come back and bite the solarphiles. Yesterday, the Guardian (UK) published an article on a Lean & Rind study which cites the solar minimum as the reason for recent flat temperatures. The expectation is that warming will shortly resume at an increased rate. I think they could be right. If so the solar argument is gone and any opposition to AGW much reduced.

Richard111

Seems to be quite a discrepancy between DMI Polar Temperature and NPEO at:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/

“The first thing that is obvious is that the temperature is almost constant in de zomer month and in the winter it is waving up and down but still very cold.”
I’ve noticed that warmists frequently choose to use proxies even when it’s possible to directly measure the effect they want to measure. The most extreme example is the joker who used wind speeds as a proxy for upper troposhpere temperatures when direct measurements were available.
Why would anyone voluntarily add a layer of complexity and uncertainty to their measurements? Seems to me it’s tempting when the direct measurements don’t give the answer you want.

Rhys Jaggar

Wasn’t the Dalton Minimum happening around then?

In a similar vein, this rather surprising piece appeared on BBC Online recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8167209.stm
Quote: “The Ilulissat glacier has indeed retreated dramatically in recent years – more than 15km in the last decade alone – but plenty of evidence suggests such rapid change in the ice is not unprecedented.
In fact, over the last 10,000 years (a period of long-term warming since the end of the last Ice Age), the glaciers on Greenland’s west coast have been through many periods of advance and retreat.
Four thousand years ago, the Earth was significantly warmer than it is now, and accordingly the glacier retreated; but the evidence suggests it was perhaps only 20km back from its current position.
In other words, the Ilulissat glacier may reach a point in its retreat where the dynamics of the ice sheet make further regression very difficult, and very slow.”

stephen skinner

Is there any Ice Breaker activity at the moment on either the Canadian or Russian routes? Just interested as Spring melt on the Great Lakes and St Lawrence is given a helping hand by Ice Breakers. I read that the Russians are intent on opening up Arctic routes, and they are not the only ones.

Joseph

Can anyone point me to a short list of reasons that man-caused global warming is so much fake-science? I have followed the issue since around 1974 and have seen a lot of the argument but it seems that these days the hysterical and fraudulent claims come 90 miles a minute. (bad metaphor, I know)
Another question while I have your attention. Why is the data from satellites not used for this debate? You can measure the entire planet from orbit rather than just airports in big cities. Heck, even if you could cover the land of the planet with fair, honest, and reliable insraments you would still not be measureing the air above the oceans. I understand that your planet, Earth, has a lot of ocean coverage. 🙂

One thing this shows to me is that humans have short memories. Let me give you an example familiar to many people. When Hurricane Katrina was coming toward New Orleans, how many people took the warning seriously? Far too many people stayed, for reasons I won’t get into. People in the area forgot how powerful hurricanes can be, so they did not take the threat seriously. The result has the great catastrophe that occurred. This is not isolated. Florida had about a 10 year lull in hurricane strikes, in that 10 years people forgot about Hurricane Andrew.
People have short memories.

Robin Guenier

MartinW is right about Wyndham’s letter. His facts may be sound and his intention seems admirable, but the tone is rude, intemperate and shrill. It could be a significant setback to the cause he (presumably) supports. It’s unfortunate that he appears not to have any sensible associates who can provide measured advice before he fires off such missives.

Arthur Glass

Interesting that 1817 would be the year following the infamous ‘year without a summer’ in North America and Europe.’ Was Arctic warming a counter-response to that extreme event, an attempt by the atmosphere to restore the sweet sleep of equilibium?

Steven Hill

“I have followed the issue since around 1974”
Interesting….in 1977 hansen was talking ice age, not global warming.

Patrick Davis

“Wade (05:04:43) :
One thing this shows to me is that humans have short memories. Let me give you an example familiar to many people. When Hurricane Katrina was coming toward New Orleans, how many people took the warning seriously? Far too many people stayed, for reasons I won’t get into. People in the area forgot how powerful hurricanes can be, so they did not take the threat seriously. The result has the great catastrophe that occurred. This is not isolated. Florida had about a 10 year lull in hurricane strikes, in that 10 years people forgot about Hurricane Andrew.
People have short memories.”
Human memories are short however, we still use human timeframes to measure geological and planetary timeframes (Since records began etc, circa 150 years).
And forget they live in a basin, a flood plain at that, with man-made (Poorly made as it turns out) levees. You *WILL* get flooded. Just like the people’s of Pompei got smothered in AD 79, it *WILL* happen again to those in Naples, one day.

Patrick Davis

“Joseph (04:58:50) :
Can anyone point me to a short list of reasons that man-caused global warming is so much fake-science? I have followed the issue since around 1974 and have seen a lot of the argument but it seems that these days the hysterical and fraudulent claims come 90 miles a minute. (bad metaphor, I know)
Another question while I have your attention. Why is the data from satellites not used for this debate? You can measure the entire planet from orbit rather than just airports in big cities. Heck, even if you could cover the land of the planet with fair, honest, and reliable insraments you would still not be measureing the air above the oceans. I understand that your planet, Earth, has a lot of ocean coverage. :-)”
You need to study physics more to discover why Co2 absolutely cannot “force” this “catasrophic climate change” aka Al Gore and the IPCC . I suggest you read the many posts of some of the posties here to discover that. When you do you will be enlightened.

Shawn Whelan

1819-20: In command of the HECLA, William Edward Parry leads his first expedition in search of the Northwest Passage. Lt. Matthew Liddon is second in command aboard the GRIPER. A Parliamentary Act passed in 1818 “authorized the [payment of] … five thousand pounds to the officers and men of the first ship to cross the 110th meridian of west longitude to the north of America by sailing within the Arctic Circle.” Parry was the first to qualify when they proceeded westwards along what is now called Parry Channel, passing 110° West longitude in September 1819. They subsequently reach and name Melville Island after the First Lord of the Admiralty.
http://www.south-pole.com/arctic00.htm

UK Sceptic

The Royal Society, like UK politicians, is so out of touch with reality it has become a bad joke. Maybe they should take a look in their archives once in a while so they can see climate history repeating itself…

And today, it is snowing at the North Pole. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg

Craig Allen

For how many years would the Arctic ice have to trend down before it would be considered to not be a short term fluctuation?

Pofarmer

Joe Bastardi gives a pretty good interview on the NA Summer, what he expects for the coming winter, and his views on Global Climate Change.
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?collection=weather&video=JOE71409&lineup=US

rbateman

John Finn (04:07:03) :
That would be the a portion of the crazy way it works. A slighty warmer Arctic may let a few ships through in the Northwest Passage, but the Arctic is still a frozen inhospitable wasteland.
Where did the cold go? South. Made life miserable for many, taking huge chunks out of regional agricultural productivity. If it weren’t for trade, Europe would have starved.
Now, how about today? What would a similar failure do to today’s needs, and would there be enough to send relief? Or is the West so caught up in it’s runaway warming mantra that it has soured those who would send it help?

Lloyd

@ Robin Guenier (05:09:34) :
I disagree. Logic and reason are brushed aside by these people. With a little sensationalism like this he at least has the possibility of gaining the attention of the media and the ordinary people. And if enough ordinary people start paying attention maybe we can reverse the political trend associated with this “man made” disaster.

timetochooseagain

I read somewhere that China and Russian are planning for Arctic Ocean warfare to get at the Oil there when AGW clears up the ice. Seems that there was something prescient about this statement:
“This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
Unfortunately the “future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations” does not look bright. Politicians plan to destroy “the commerce of distant [and/or domestic] nations” for the sake of preventing such a climate change. And if they turn out to be right, while I do not believe it will be a general catastrophe, one does not look forward to the Arctic Oil Wars. The good, if ironic news, is that AGW would, if true, increase our access to hard to get at fossil fuels.

rbateman

Hansen may soon be talking about Ice Age again. Only this time, he might be closer to the truth, but nobody will take hime seriously because of his hysterical effects.

timetochooseagain

BTW Anthony, maybe you should put together a convenient compilation of all articles you have written such as these. A picture of cyclical variations in Arctic climate on multidecadal timescales may start to emerge. You might even be able to write up an article for a journal “anecdotal evidence for past cycles in Arctic climate before thermometer records” or something. 🙂

Ron de Haan

GreenPeace, after reading the letter of the Royal Society to a ship and went to the Arctic Ice Sea to see the increddible melt with their own eyes.
Unfortunetly they were forced to flee when they got stuck in ice with a thickness of more then 6 meters:
Monday, July 27, 2009
Midsummer farce in the Arctic: Greenpeace flees ice “way thicker than anything we can break”
Climate Rescue Weblog
The helicopter gets off the deck at 0800. The ship’s main engine starts 20 minutes later.

The Arctic Ocean pack ice has invaded Nares Strait. It is old (called multi-year) sea ice, and averages six meters thick. This is way thicker than anything we can break with Arctic Sunrise. So before it can trap us in Hall Basin, we escape south. The crew all walks around telling each other that this is good, as we are all bored with Petermann.

The sea ice is chasing us into the bay of large icebergs. The east side of Kane Basin is the Humboldt Glacier. Being a grounded glacier, the pieces that break off are huge. As a result, Kane Basin is littered with icebergs. There are maybe 70 that we can see from here. It’s a real contrast to Petermann, where the glacier is floating. From a distance the glacier ice breaking off from Petermann does not seem very different from the sea ice that forms over the winter. But these icebergs from Humboldt are ten to twenty meters high.

For the first time in this trip we do some real icebreaking. The ice is mostly first-year sea ice, sprinkled with pieces of glacier ice, which is much harder. It does not look very thick, and seem to be 50% melt pools, some of which go right through. At first, it is pretty easy going. With 90% power on, we are just able to break through the 50cm ice. Then we have to stop, back up one ship length, and charge at it again. And again. And again. As we cut alongside a large ‘berg, I understand Arne’s explanation of ice under pressure. Here is ebb tide is pushing the floating sea ice against the grounded berg. The ice stops cracking ahead of us. We have to back up every boat length, and ram it again.
This explains Arne’s first rule of icebreaking. Avoid it. Always look for a lead or a way to get around it. Icebreaking is time consuming and sucks down tons of fuel.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/midsummer-farce-in-arctic-greenpeace.html

Patrick Davis

Ron, it is supposed to be ice free don’t you know. I mean, Al Gore is right, isn’t he?

timetochooseagain

rbateman (06:15:29) : A case of the scientist who cried warming? LOL.

Craig Allen (05:55:42) :

For how many years would the Arctic ice have to trend down before it would be considered to not be a short term fluctuation?

If you are discussing global warming, you must include the Antarctic: click.
As you can see, global ice cover is increasing.

Don S.

Some of the replies to Wyndham’s letter lead me to wonder if colon detox really is hype. This is a communication among peers the likes of whom most of us have never met. Old schoolboy rhetoric, if you will. Get over it, the message has been transmitted and received.

“Icebreaking is time consuming and sucks down tons of fuel.”
WIDIMITWEED
I can only assume that they’re trying to make damn sure they don’t get rescued by an oil tanker – by getting stuck in the ice where the tankers can’t get to them.

Alan the Brit

It is perhaps true that Wyndham’s approach was unwise. As a professional person, one should avoid facetious sarcasm in any verbal or written work. However, this letter was very amusing, & how does one address people who bury their heads in the sand at anything resembling contradicting a “political stance”, of evidence of cooling global temps, & any other contradicting evidence of no AGW, who arrogantly & dismissively & patronisingly respond with the bland & trite tosh dishing out the same old story lines, like I got from the BBC over Roger Harrabin’s gutless & ball-less cave in to the threats of eco-activist Jo Abbess (a Christian I understand but not the type I see in my Church – such actions are most frowned upon) or was it Abyss! They endorsed the mantra of “better reflecting the science”! which she wanted him to do. Sometimes in the real world one has to get tough & sarcastic with these people who promote a lie, perpetuate that lie, & ignore & dismiss others who are seeking the truth, all in the apparant name of the greater good (for who?). Still it was amusing & I agree that he will probaby receive nothing in the way of a response, rather as he has intimated that the RS has been behaving of late in many ways!
While I’m at it, we know they’re lying when they trot out this bovine faeces by telling us stories, yes, actually they admit to telling us “storylines”, it’s a term I’ve heard time & time again, but not from scientists, but from tv writers & producers of Soap Operas & other tv progs for crying out loud, when they explain why the plot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ask you, what is the scientific world coming to? They actually confess it, but maintain it’s the truth, & expect us to believe them.

pyromancer76

Great quote Anthony, Phil Bratley (and TonyB in earlier post on Arctic?). Mysteries always lead us on. The science is not settled; climate always changes; CO2 is not a driver; CO2 is essential for life on Earth.
Great letter from R.C.E. Wyndham to the current President of The Royal Society, Lord Rees. It ROARS. We need more ridiculing of “emperors (or those trying to become global rulers) without clothes.”
Interesting part about “child abuse on a daily basis…schoolchildren psychologically damaged… by catastrophist brainwashing with not a scintilla of real world evidence.” Obama chaired an NGO on education reform authored by Billy Ayers with millions from the Annenberg Foundation. They refused to give grants to school projects that increased students knowledge of science, among other subjects. Guess what they spent the money for?
By the way, who is R.C.E. Wyndham? I can only find his name as secretary of the Sage Group in a 1998 paper that I could not view. My hat is off to him. Every politician, every head of schools, every media president and corporate owner, every president of a university, and many others should have this letter addressed to them.

Nogw

Your lordship should realize that you are being deceived by wrongful informations regarding those ice extensions far north, which, as shown by Anthony Watts publisher of the most reliable scientific blog in the world, Wattsupwiththat, are the same as ever, so your lordship must not worry about it.
You must be aware that all this scam was originally concocted by the same minds and organizations which atempted in the past against royalty and nobility.

John Wright

stephen skinner (04:43:08) :
“I read that the Russians are intent on opening up Arctic routes, and they are not the only ones.”
I was led to believe during a visit to Yakutia (now the Sakha Republic) in 2003 that the early Russian trade counters were set up on the River Lena some time in the 17th Century (smack-bang in the Dalton Minimum) using the Arctic sea route . Anyone else have any information on this?
In response to John Finn. Go visit Piers Corbyn’s site http://www.weatheraction.com/

matt v.

According to NSIDC, there are no reliable ice records before 1953 . They recently told me
“NSIDC is showing the satellite data record for many reasons. This is the data we archive and distribute, it is the most reliable record of sea ice that currently exists, and other observations only allow you to go back until about 1953 with any confidence (the earlier records are mostly based on climatology). As far as the 1953-1979 record the ice extent was decreasing from 1953 to 1961 after which it showed a steep increase for about 4 years.”
If you look at FigS4 of the attached report, one can see this . To my eyes , the ice extent was relatively constant until about 1976 when there was a
major climate shift in the Pacific and ENSO/PDO went warm. The melting of
ice increased after that and when AMO also went warm in 1995, the melting
increased some more . Both of these cycles are expected to go negative or
cool for the next 2-3 decades and I project the ice will increase
accordingly. It has not happened yet but traces of the cold weather and
severe winters have already started during the past winter and past 12
months. For 5 months already this year[Jan -May] AMO and PDO were both cool.
Cold records were set all over North America . Even Hudson Bay ice stayed
into June.
We only have good ice records when the global climate has been warm, namely 1976-2008 and also when it was cooler 1950-1976. When it was cooler, the ice extent was higher and when it was warmer, the ice extent diminished . This what one would expect anyway
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

pyromancer76

Patrick Davis (05:32:22) and Wade (05:04:43) : Yes, P. Davis is absolutely right; if you choose to live in a floodplane or a volcanic area, “it” will happen again. One important point that I wish everyone would remember about Category 5 Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans: the damage was manageable until the levees gave way. Why did they give way? Because the Army Corps of Engineers did not build them to “code” (the required strength). Everyone in New Orleans and Louisana knew about the “problem”, but for decades refused to do anything about it — you know, government attention and taxes going to solve real problems rather than to corruption. A similar catastrophe will happen to California’s water system around the Sacramento Delta someday, not up to “code”.
Regarding New Orleans, an engineer exploring the materials that were being used to repair and strengthen the levees stated: Still not up to “code”. “It” will happen again — and again the worst damage will not be caused by a hurricane. But catastrophists want to tell untruths.

John Peter

I actually copied R.C.E. Wyndham’s pdf letter to Peter Lilley MP here in UK because I thought it wrong to leave him off the distribution. In any event I am sorry that the debate has been turned into a for and against CO2 as driver of “climate change” i.e. AGW. Such authorities as Dr Spencer and Lintzen promote the idea that man made CO2 could account for around 20% of any global warming, the rest being due to natural climate change. I rather think that an informed debate should be about the distribution of any change between natural forcings, man made CO2 and other man made forcings such as aerosols, soots, heat generated by human activities such as forest burnings, motors/engines and other machinery, heating of houses and a host of other activities generated by all 6 billion of us. It is so regrettable that the main debate focuses on the pro/con man made CO2 and thus ignoring a lot of papers touching on other potential forcings including man made ones other than CO2. A lot of what follows in the slipstream of proposed CO2 reduction is good in itself such as cleaner coal powered power plants, more fuel efficient motors in cars, trucks, ships and planes as well as better insulated homes. These are obvious improvements regardless of the CO2 debate. They will generally lead to better health through a cleaner environment and air. The key is that it is focused on real issues and not overdone so that we in the western world are being forced into a state of second rate countries.

Pamela Gray

Some thoughts about ice measurement
1. Is it just me or has the Wilken’s Ice shelf re-constituted itself?
2. The current Arctic ice behavior, area, and extent is closely following wind patterns in and out of the area. It is not abnormally warm and many ice areas of the Arctic are at average levels, such as the Arctic Area proper.
3. Much of the discrepancy in ice measurements between the mean and current measures may be due to mixed data sets in the mean (old poor pixel counts mixed with improved resolution pixel counts) compared to current improved resolution only pixel counts. I say this because the areas that have significant contact with land appear to be the ones showing up as below average. Pixel resolution was notoriously poor for these ice-land contact areas in the past. This reminds me of the sunspot counts and the discrepancy in count between old and new. The historical data set making up the mean may be contaminated.

Douglas DC

I read many years ago-during the great Ice Age scare,that it was postulated that the Arctic was Ice-free,giving a source of water vapor for the great ice sheets.Also the colder it got,(which wasn’t much) themore the polar ice retreated.-Feeding the Ice sheets.-Anyone ever hear of this,I can’t cite the source as i don’t recall where I read it.
I think it was Scientific American,about 1975…

Don S.

Wyndham has declared war.
Wars are the results of failures of diplomacy. Diplomacy, you will recall, is practiced by men sent abroad to lie for their country. When these lies become particularly egregious and the host country can no longer ignore them, war begins. Science is at war with AGW.
Science is usefully conducted in a diplomatic atmosphere which promotes the exchange of ideas. Scientists are not preconditioned to suspect fraud when someone who is properly credentialled advances a theory or a study or a conclusion on a question. There are millions of examples of mainstream science being very slow to squash patently false claims by other scientists. Certain genetic studies and cold fusion spring readily to mind. Scientific discourse is diplomatic and diplomats don’t fight wars. Fraudulent claims by scientists leave other scientists at a loss about what exactly to do.
Wyndham knows what to do. You yell Bullshit at the top of your lungs and marshall your intellect to defeat the frauds, using any weapon you have or can fabricate. This is no time to parse the language of science, it is a time to fight.

Robin Guenier

@ Lloyd (06:10:05):
You might conceivably be right if there was the remotest chance of the MSM publishing it. But there isn’t. And, even if they did, they would probably use it to show just what intemperate fools these deniers are. No, if you have a strong case (as sceptics have), it’s always best to make it in strong, calm sober language: it puts your opponent on the back foot and makes it harder for them to avoid a reply.
I believe the alarmists have made a bad mistake in so often responding to “deniers” in a rude, insulting manner. We should not make the same mistake.