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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil
I have had this discussion before with Joel Shore about Hansen and his supposed ice age predictions. I agree with you as I did with him. It was all based on a misunderstanding of Hansens involvement which is well explained in this snippet
“The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.
The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” – or by 2021 – fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas”
Hansens software was intended for a completely different purpose-Venus- to what it was uiltimately used for by another scientist. Hansen merely let him use part of it to save the other guy having to rewrite the code. As far as I am aware Hansen has never believed in global cooling.
Tonyb
“Prof. Ball, I have had the pleasure from 7 years old up to today to have had better scholars in this discussion than you around me. No matter what title Ph.D or Professor (spoke with one of them on phone minuits ago) or position Minister of Sweden or other politian (had an comment exchange with one less then a quater ago on my own blogg).”
This presumably from the beauteous Norah. Goodness me!
RW
Rupert Wyndham, Goodness you,
You missed a lot of the real scholars working with Environmental Questions from 50’s and calls those who worked with Climate Change from 1983, professors etc for charlatans – well Goodness you!
You are too impressed of titles and positions of today.
Robin Guenier
Rupert Wyndham: I disagree with your approach: as I said earlier, I believe it is likely to be counterproductive. I daresay Martin Rees deserves it; perhaps it made you feel better. But neither should impede the possibility of communication. It would be quite possible to unambiguously cover your (admirable) points plainly yet courteously and in a reasoned manner difficult to ignore, even by “cultists”; and especially when copied, as was yours, to other prominent people. Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of that.
In the back of the mind, your name evokes a faint echo. From a Google search, I note that you’re an IT guru, which doesn’t help much but, in any event, thank you for your thoughts. They warrant the trouble of replying in some detail. I begin by stating unequivocally that I consider you to be totally misguided.
In almost all controversies, a restrained, sober and courteous dialectic should be the norm. This, however, does not always happen, and AGW “science” is one of the conspicuous exceptions. The reason for this is simple. The hypothesis, if at all it merits that label, was never a construct borne of scientific curiosity, if you will. It was proposition borne of a nefarious purpose, the proselytisers of which had no intention of tolerating any form of debate whatsoever. In spirit, these people were and are Taliban; they don’t want a debate, because there is nothing to debate. I don’t believe that you’ve understood at all this fundamental dynamic.
To me it came home forcefully early in the controversy. In 1990, Channel 4 broadcast “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”, a short but entirely fair and sensible overview, which posed perfectly reasonable questions. By the forces of environmental fascism, and the University of East Anglia in particular, it was met not with reasoned counter-argument but with hissing, spitting, venomous innuendo and vituperation. In fact, this did not come as a great surprise, but it did serve as confirmation, if confirmation were needed, that what we had here was not science but fraud, and fraud, moreover, on a truly monumental scale. It is fashionable nowadays to poo-poo the notion of conspiracy in public life. It’s, perhaps, worth calling to mind that it was no less a figure than Adam Smith who commented: “Show me five or six men of business gathered together, and I will show you a conspiracy against the public good!” In 2009, we might say the same of Parliament and the RS, but perhaps you feel that I’m now being needlessly provocative.
Since you concede that the RS “deserves to be seriously embarrassed”, I make the assumption that you accept that the whole AGW hypothesis is flawed. I take it also that the deployment of “temperate” language such as this is what you would prefer to see. I don’t agree – which is to say, either that any language which I have used to the Noble Lord has been intemperate or that moderating it would be likely to achieve more. Let me repeat to you the challenge I posed earlier to MartinW – if only for the benefit of readers of this blog, provide me please with just one example of a willingness by AGW protagonists during the last two or three decades (decades, mark you) to engage in the sort of dialectic you favour – oh, and by the way, as do I.
AGW has never been a dialogue at all, either scientific or political. By the forces of a debased environmentalism, aided and abetted by some rather stupid public figures, it has consisted almost exclusively of a megaphone monologue rant that has been sustained now for 30 odd years. I do not see that the “temperate” approach which you advocate has had the slightest effect for the good. After all, what now do we have – the Climate Change Act, the prospect of operationally fatuous and grotesquely expensive wind turbines blighting the countryside, absurd recourse to so-called clean bio-fuels which generate probably as much CO2 as do their fossil counterparts and, moreover, result in further starvation and destitution amongst the world’s most disadvantaged – etc, etc, etc?
Does it give me satisfaction to write to the RS in terms of which you have expressed disapproval? Well, yes and no. It gives me no satisfaction that any call for such letters exists in the first place. But if it does and, if I can summon the wit and the energy to craft messages that resonate with some at least, then, yes, it does. I hope that answers your implied question. Will my letter simply be binned? Quite possibly, but then your presumably more emollient alternatives appear to have fared no better, so wherein is your point? “Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of that.” Russell Seitz has demonstrated the truth of what?
No, Mr. Guenier, let’s stop dancing minuets. The entire AGW farrago has been from the outset a monstrous scam. In large measure this has been made possible not simply by silence from the RS but, rather, by its pro-active intervention in providing a spuriously authoritative underpinning for the fraud, with likely consequences that as of now can only guessed at. I do not say that, in this regard, its role has been unique. It has not, but it has been highly prominent, and continues to be. You perceive that they might be “hedging their bets”. Given that they’ve opprobriously made their position clear, (a) I very much doubt it (How can they?) and (b) even if true, how disreputable.
I have now officially entered into the ranks of OAPdom, so missed out, as it were, on the war. Since that little unpleasantness, however, I do not recall that there has been a single moral issue of greater moment than so-called climate change. So, let me risk your disapprobation by being once again distastefully candid. I hold it as self-evident that it is quite simply impossible for a scientist (well, anyway, a physicist or climatologist of integrity) to support this fiction. I am aware that Prof. Lindzen has said otherwise and, God knows, on this subject, I would hesitate to disagree with anything – pretty much- that comes from him. But, in this one respect, I do disagree with him. So, from that perspective, what we are talking about here is the wilful subversion the greatest achievement and aspiration of the human species, namely science, and this by the very people whose stewardship should have been directed towards preserving its integrity.
And you favour assuagement. No, I don’t think so; moral turpitude is just that, and there is a time to say so without circumlocution.
RW
Unconvincing, Mr Wyndham.
The roots of the global warming / climate change scare are complex: I won’t bore you with my views. But, as you know, those roots are deeply embedded throughout the mainstream media, institutions, politicians, government, industry, commentators, charities, schools … and scientists. A network of dependencies, careers, incomes and reputations depend on the continuation of the orthodoxy, which has acquired many of the characteristics of religious belief. So undermining it is extraordinarily difficult. But doing so is of the utmost importance: our economy, our environment, the future of our children and grandchildren and, in particular, the futures of many of the poorest people in the world depend on it.
Scientists are the Achilles heel of that network. I believe that many, possibly even most, who are active in or associated with “climate science” are uncomfortable about the scare. But many are, understandably perhaps, keeping quiet because of continued funding, career advancement, honour and perhaps the warm feeling of being part of a popular group in the ascendant. But their underlying lack of comfort is exemplified, I suggest, by the Royal Society’s feeble statement in the headline of its website – see my earlier post.
Therefore, demolition of the orthodoxy must start with the scientists and that means exploiting their latent discomfort. Current actions by members of the American Chemistry Society and the American Physical Society (see Anthony’s stories elsewhere) show what can happen.
The Royal Society has many distinguished Fellows. I do not think all are a part of your “monstrous scam”. I do, however, think that the majority is committed to the integrity of the profession and, especially, the basic importance of the Scientific Method. Most, who have priorities other than the climate, would be disturbed if they thought their Society was contributing to its undermining. Work on that and the edifice will eventually tumble.
The way forward is to avoid argument and the distraction of old battles, but to keep asking to see the testable, empirical evidence that continued human emission of GHGs will cause dangerous global warming. That there is no such evidence must eventually be made plain by polite insistence on an answer. Once that happens, the scare must crumble.
But shrill invective, by reinforcing demonisation of sceptics, can only set back the essential objective of making that happen.
Robin
Phil. (07:49:56) :
Pamela Gray (08:00:05) :
“Some thoughts about ice measurement
1. Is it just me or has the Wilken’s Ice shelf re-constituted itself?”
It’s your imagination, quite the contrary in fact.
That is all that’s necessary to refute that rather strange notion, which a glance at the current image of the Wilkin’s compared with a year ago will confirm:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/wilkinsarctic/pub/images/ASA_WSM_1PNPDE20090729_050324_000004152081_00119_38750_9727_100m_img.jpg
http://www.esa.int/images/Envisat_ASAR_Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_9_July_2008_annotated_H.jpg
I don’t see why a detailed essay on the nature of the Wilkin’s Ice shelf as requested by you is necessary to underpin what is self-evident from the images. You might like to explain to us why you believe that a covering of frazil ice around the remaining wreckage of the Wilkin’s will lead to the former 200m thick ice shelf reconstituting itself? A detailed mechanism such as the one you requested might be useful.
Phil, now describe the Wilkin’s ice shelf. Is it formed by land ice pushed out to sea or is it land anchored sea ice? And what forces do these shelves of ice experience? Do sea-terminal glaciers push on them? Do oceanic oscillations impinge on them from underneath? What might tides do to these shelves? What wind forces are at play? And is AGW the major cause, adds to it, or is not a player in this scene?
Robin Guenier (06:41:41) :
Unconvincing, Mr Wyndham.
Well, Mr.Guenier – plainly we are going to differ. As to specifics:
Para 1 – analysis questionable, but you’re certainly right about the broad conclusions you draw.
Para 2 – scientists (whatever that word means) are not the Achilles’ heel of that network. Nature being uncooperative leading to increasing public incredulity is/are. To its great credit the Sunday Telegraph has consistently published dissent; the Daily Mail looks as though it may be starting to do so. At the moment, we can only hope so.
Para. 3 – your analysis is wrong. Scientists who have invested in this scam will hang in for dear life – as you say, too much to lose, and will continue to falsify data and keep secret their methodology. They will continue to make assertions without benefit of evidence. They will continue to lie. The following e-m received on 30 July from a prominent and distinguished Canadian climatologist may be of interest both to you and to readers of the blog:
“Hello Rupert
I have been reading your letters to Royal Society President and to BBC as well as to other scientists and politicians on the global warming science.
Your letters bring out so many isuuses and unceratinties in the science and you have an uncanny knack of presenting these scientific issues in a way that many scientists like me do not have ( at least this is my personal persepctive) in our lingustic skills.
I forward an e-mail I receive regularly from Prof Alan Robock an atmospheric Science Prof at Rutgers University in New Jersey USA.
Robock has become a high-profile scientist and one of the main pillars of the IPCC science.
He is one of the important members of the AGU ( American Geophyiscal Union) executives and weilds a lot of influence on the scientific community in the area of weather & climate and of course climate change.
As you know AGU is the largest scientific society in the world ( I think) with a membership of 48000 or about. Further AGU is still pushing for the AGW hypothesis and in its recent 2008 statemnt of climate change it has endorsed the IPCC science. Many of us who are members of the AGU made submissions as requested by AGU executives in summer 2008 on climate change. I made submission along with Fred Singer whose submission we all felt was important as it pointed out the “mis-match of fringer prints” by showing how the trop temp in tropical latutudes have changed very little against the GHG hypothesis which requires the trop troposphere to warm up much more rapidly than the sfc levels ( the simple GHG hypothesis requires that more radiation will be absorbed from lower levels due to greenhous warming and this must warm upper trop more than sfc). You may have read recent article by Prof Lindzen in which he ( Lindzen) refers to a paper by Santer/Wigley/ Susan Solomon/Phil Jones etc ( all the main IPCC scientists ) claiming that the trop temp patterns are “in line with IPCC hypothesis ” if we take into account uncertainties and corrections to data etc. In short these authors still refuse to accept that the trop temp signature is inconsistent with AGW hypothesis. Lindzen has dismissed this contention by simply saying that “this represnts a curruption in the IPCC climate sc community which would rather correct the data to fit the theory than accept that their theory is wrong” I agree with Lindzen’s assessment. These IPCC BIG WIGS do not want to accept that their models are NO GOOD! The IPCC models all exaggerate warming!
What I am suggesting here is : If you feel motivated would you like to consider writing to Prof Robock about the prsent state of the GW science?
You may want to include some of the letters you have written to various scientists and politicians.
I do not know whethher this would make any difference and whether Prof Robock may feel motivated to respond to your letter, but I feel it is worth a try.
AGY prides itself as serving the world sc community and AGU to be fair has been now publishing many papers questioning the GW science.
Having said that AGU executives still adhere to IPCC science.
Hopefully a letter from you may prompt Robock and others at AGU to take a closer look at the growing debate.
In a recent July 2009 issue of EOS ( a weekly AGU publication which is widely read) there were exchanges about a “survey” which AGU took ( the survey interpreter is one Dr Peter Doran who spent sometime in the Antarctica few yrs ago) and Doran claims that “there is NO sc debate against the GW sc! ) I felt this statemnt was completely contrary to what we sceptics feel is a growing debate about the GW science. The recent exchanges were by a couple of Profs in USA & Sweden both questioning Doran’s conclusions. I wrote to Doran informally soon after his article appeared in February 2009 but Doran never responded to my e-mails.
Anyway the point I am making is; Despite AGU”s open policy and its publshing of many good papers on and against the GW science, it ( AGU) still refuses to admit that the AGW hypothesis needs to be revisited.
If your letter get Prof Robock to rethink the AGU policy perhaps we have achieved something.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this”
I have not yet responded, but have received another e-m yesterday from the same source, to wit:
“Hello Rupert
I presume you are followingthe saga (sordid!) of data manipualtion and purging of data files from Public Domain by Phil Jones, the data manager ( manipulator) and a leading GW alarmist.
You may be interested to note that the AGU recently awarded Phil Jones with a special honour and selected him along with about 40 others as the AGU Fellow for 2008/09.
AGU prodes itself in selecting the most emeinent scientists for this special hnour. Per AGU only 0.1% of total memebership is selected for AGU fellowship each yr, roughly about 45 ( out of 45000).
I hope you feel motivated to write to Prof Alan Robock the atm science head for AGU who probably makes the selection of people like Phil Jones.
If Phil Jones is really massgaing data and/or withholding information as we think he does, should an august Body like AGU confer a Fellowship Title on such a ( sleazy!) fellow?
Anyway this is my take on this news item.
I feel now that we sceptics must keep pushing these AGU guys who control now the GW agenda and ask them some hard questions as to what is happening in their sc community. Why is groundtruth being altered to fit the GW theory?”
I must ask you to accept that messages such as these are not exceptional – and, while I hope I am not bowled over by them, yes, I am pleased to receive them. The first conclusion to be drawn from these two is that your advocacy of seeking to influence the scientific community is unpersuasive. The second I will come to at the end.
Para 4 – Frankly, I find this an amazing paragraph. Of course, there are distinguished fellows of the RS, some of whom may have reservations about its stance. They are doing precious little about it, however, which at best is not very impressive. There are even more scientists of great distinction outside the RS and, by God, they are doing something about it! Strangely enough, they too are often accused of being shrill and intemperate. Your view of human nature is commendably optimistic; no, the edifice will tumple, when it seems expedient to jump ship, if you’ll forgive the mix of metaphors. Oh, and in passing, since you parenthesise “monstrous scam”, am I to infer that you dissent from this description. Would you likewise dissent from a description of a drug dealer as a “monstrous parasite”?
Para 5 – Alas, these are not old arguments – would that they were. They are very much current, as the two quotes above illustrate all too clearly. In short, science continues to be actively subverted on a daily basis – yes, with the open collusion of the RS.
Para 6 – Now to be second conclusion. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to make references such as “shrill invective” if you wish, and I don’t doubt that there will be some who agree with you. I can tell you, however, that most (by a long way) do not, and I am not talking about vox pop, I am talking about authentic scientists.
Your approach really amounts to a form of appeasement. I see no evidence that it has had the desired effect in the past, and I don’t believe that it will in the future. The RS and the BBC, in particular, will give way when they are generally treated with scorn, anger and derision. Fortunately, they seem at the moment to be doing quite a creditable job in securing that outcome.
RW
Yes, Mr Wyndham it does seem that we differ. For the reasons I’ve given, I believe you are misguided and your approach likely to be a setback to efforts to undermine the established view of AGW.
Read this (the RC’s “Climate change controversies: a simple guide”): http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=33479
It contains no histrionics, no obviously outlandish claims – indeed, through the eyes of, say, a busy politician with a myriad of other concerns and priorities, it would – I suggest – seem rational, sensible and authoritative. Yet you and I – and most readers of this blog – know that it is seriously flawed and misleading. Do you really think that your approach would be more likely to expose that than my simple question, focused exclusively on demonstrating the lack of empirical evidence that further human emissions of CO2 will cause dangerous global warming (see the penultimate paragraph of my post yesterday)?
Hello Mr. Guenier
We have both given our reasons for believing that the other is wrong. Moreover, unlike the cohorts of the warmistas, we have done so reasonably civilly and in open forum (very much so). Well, you will take the high road, and I’ll keep plodding along on the low; insh’Allah between us, we may make a tiny difference, though I wouldn’t bet on it. Alas no, that will happen when (a) the absurdity of AGW claims increasingly becomes apparent for all to see (eg the BBQ summer of 2009, which has received a gratifying level of derisive coverage), (b) above all when the sheer, staggering cost of this fraud comes home to people (that’s only just begun), (c) when, just perhaps, the outright chicanery of taxpayer funded ersatz science (the Met Office being at this moment in mind) is more widely acknowledged.
As to your question, “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” is, indeed, a farrago of mendacious claptrap. Certainly it convinces some, especially those who, for a mishmash of reasons from the self-serving to the pathetic, desire religious endorsement above all else. Others it disgusts, to wit those who hold that the duty implicit in God-given intelligence is to use it, and never ever take on board anything handed down solely on the basis of authority. The RS is supposed to be the embodiment of that spirit of intuitive scepticism, and, at its best, has been. The fact that it has diverged now indicates, I suggest, a clear determination to be perverse and that, as you have suggested but without following through, this perversity is motivated by lucre – well mainly.
In short, why should you or anyone feel impelled to persuade the RS to alter a stand which should never have seen the light of day in the first place? “Do you really think that your approach would be more likely to expose that than my simple question,……?” Yes – it is less calculated to allow liars to remain cosily in their comfort zones. As for politicians – please, let’s not debase a good honest difference of opinion!
Well, much to the relief of the moderator no doubt, I am now signing off.
RW
Well, Mr Wyndham, I certainly agree that the chances of either of us doing more than make a tiny difference are slim. So let’s hope that reality about the absurdity of the dangerous AGW enterprise dawns soon. And, as I said before, current actions by members of the American Chemistry Society and the American Physical Society (see Anthony’s stories elsewhere) just may mark a beginning. I have little doubt that it’s largely up to scientists to break the mould and suspect (a vain hope in your eyes) that the Royal Society has members brave enough to contribute.
I’ve enjoyed the exchange. RG
Hello Mr. Guenier
Having signed off, I would not normally return to a thread. However, by virtue of an association with a scientific i/net group, I’ve been sent an e-m containg the following link, namely http://www.climateaudit.org/. If you’ve not already seen the latest content through another route, I think you’ll find it interesting and disturbing. climateaudit is now, of course, world famous, but these latest reports, even by the standards set by Hadley, are arresting .
Rgds
RW
RW: yes, I look at ClimateAudit regularly and agree it’s a useful – and often disturbing – resource. I have contributed once or twice. I assume you’re referring to the Met Office, Dr Phil Jones (CRU) and FOI. “Arresting” puts it well – if mildly. Best wishes – RG
RW: in case you’re still reading this, I suggest that, if you decide to post a comment on ClimateAudit, you adopt a more temperate tone than you would seem to prefer. As you see from Steve McIntyre’s comments at 4:38 and 7:49 yesterday, he doesn’t like angry epithets. As you know, I agree with him. Best wishes – RG
RG – I have seen your posting, because notifications of new ones to the thread pop up in my Inbox, and I don’t know how to stop them.
Anyway, thank you for your observations; for someone they will doubtless be useful. As for Steve McIntyre, I’m afraid I can’t follow your references. However, I do have some reason to believe that he is aware of what I have written, including the latest Rees letter which has caused you distress. Since, subsequent to its wider dissemination, I have briefly heard from him, it does not appear to have affected him in the same way.
I do not recognise your choice of vocabulary.
Rgds.
RW
PS Emphatically now signing off.