“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
By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
There is debate over “feedback” effects on the climate
The UK’s Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages.
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
The society’s ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document.
The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September.
It is chaired by physicist John Pethica, vice-president of the Royal Society.
Its deliberations are reviewed by two critical sub-groups, each believed to comprise seven members.
Each of these groups contains a number of society Fellows who are doubtful in some way about the received view of the risks of rising CO2 levels.
One panel member told me: “The timetable is very tough – one draft has already been rejected as completely inadequate.”
The review member said it might not be possible for the document to be agreed at all. “This is a very serious challenge to the way the society operates,” I was told. “In the past we have been able to give advice to governments as a society without having to seek consensus of all the members.
“There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything – and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue.”
Another review member told me: “The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised. It’s not clear to me how we are going to get precise agreement on the wording – we are scientists and we’re being asked to do a job of public communication that is more like journalism.”
But both members said they agreed that some of the previous communications of the organisation in the past were poorly judged.
Question everything
A Royal Society pamphlet Climate Change Controversies is the main focus of the criticism. A version of it is on the organisation’s website. It was written in response to attacks on mainstream science which the Royal Society considered scurrilous.
It reads: “This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change…”
One Fellow who said he was not absolutely convinced of the dangers of CO2 told me: “This appears to suggest that anyone who questions climate science is malicious. But in science everything is there to be questioned – that should be the very essence of the Royal Society. Some of us were very upset about that.
“I can understand why this has happened – there is so much politically and economically riding on climate science that the society would find it very hard to say ‘well, we are still fairly sure that greenhouse gases are changing the climate’ but the politicians simply wouldn’t accept that level of honest doubt.”
Another society protester said he wanted to be called a climate agnostic rather than a sceptic. He said he wanted the society’s website to “do more to question the accuracy of the science on climate feedbacks” (in which a warming world is believed to make itself warmer still through natural processes).
“We sent an e-mail round our friends, mainly in physical sciences,” he said.
“Then when we had got 43 names we approached the council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. 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.
“But we won the day, and the work is underway to re-write it. I am very hopeful that we will find a form of words on which we can agree.
“I know it looks like a tiny fraction of the total membership (1,314) but remember we only emailed our friends – we didn’t raise a general petition.”
much more here at the BBC
h/t to WUWT reader “Sandy in Derby”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is debate over “feedback” effects on the climate
Perhaps I’m a bit slow but isn’t that what most ‘sceptics’ have been suggesting all along?
They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
Understatement of the last two decades there if you ask me.
“The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised. … “
What can one say? Must be our infinite funding trough feeding layers of advocacy combined with unfettered access to the MSM and Government. Can’t fight that so you may as well just give up and join us (we know where you live).
The society’s ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document.
While a review by the RS is welcome I’m not quite sure they will ever produce a ‘consensus document’. Too much riding on CO2 politically to suggest that 1.4 billion cubic Km of liquid water (or whatever) may have some part in regulating climate. The advocacy hotline at RS HQ will be ringing 24/7 after this announcement. Long before anyone gets down to reviewing the science.
For clarity we could refer to it as Ice from now on.
Re education camps, for the publicly employed.
It’s all falling apart.
In a revolution you need the Polity. Unfortunately we are tech societies nowadays.
I disagree with those concerned about the need for consensus. It is an important part of science (as is nonconsensus). Mainstream science is limited to consensual reality. Consensual reality is all about agreement between scientists. Agreement comes through peer review. It is important for such groups to consider concensus when making statements. Some people look to mainstream when considering new policy, hoping there is “safety in numbers”.
But truth is another matter altogether, and individuals must be willing to disagree with consensus when it is evident to do so. Otherwise consensus only perpetuates old understanding, be it true or false.
Sounds like the society understands the importance of agreement and members are willing to disagree. I see no problem with that.
Yes, Lord May is perfectly happy to use other forms of mind-control instead when the AGW one is becoming tired and ineffective 🙂
“The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised”
Do the alarmists ever look at themselves? They are well organised and strident, and have the force of Government and taxpayer funding to back them up. As usual the argument most flung at an opposition is the one that applies most to the flinger.
I suspect this is only a puff to show how accommodating and rational the RS really is, even in the face of hysterical critics who aren’t *real scientists like Rees and cronies. There will be some sort of whitewash which takes us back to the consensus position and a flurry of concentrated odium academicum in which the agnostics are either booted out or get their coats and leave in disgust. You should not believe a word of what the Beeb and Harrabin say – after all, the “prestigious” Reith Lectures are being done by Rees this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/01_january/04/reith.shtml
“His Reith Lectures will explore the role of science as a common culture and the scope and limits of our scientific understanding.
Professor Rees will also discuss how science might further transform our lives in the rest of the 21st century – posing new opportunities, threats and ethical challenges.
And he will consider scenarios, some optimistic, some less so, for a world in which pressures on resources and the environment will become ever more acute. ”
Yeah.
“Roger Harrabin Environment analyst”
He does NOT analyse anything. Ask Jo Abbess.
ImranCan says:
May 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised…”
Given that scepticism is one of the key ingredients in all science I really wonder if these plonkers actually hear what they themselves sound like when they make this kind of comment ….
Whats the hell is worng with scepticism ??
__________________________________________________________________________
Nothing is wrong with scepticism.
All scientist are supposed to be sceptics so there is something very very wrong with so called scientific bodies that brand sceptics as deniers and worse. To any intelligent person these announcements of “the science is settled” and “there is a consensus” especially in a very young science like Climatology, shouts “We are no longer a scientific organization but a political propaganda outlet for the government.”
Shades of the Soviet Union me thinks.
This plugin: Comment Rating does that and a lot more. Has a useful reader-defined twit filter too 🙂
‘Another review member told me: “The sceptics have been very strident and well-organised.”‘
Well that hackneyed defamatory guff had better not find its way into print. For a start, I represent an organisation of just one: me. Not a red cent from anyone on this. What’s driving me (and, I’m sure, millions of other sceptics) is watching the good name of science being trashed by scammers peddling an idiotic hoax to make a buck. It’s downright sickening. That’s what’s “unprecedented”.
Reading this prelude to the next RS attempt at a formal statement is depressing. It looks like they’re not going to shift much from the utterly childish claptrap they delivered last time, straight from Gore’s abominable song sheet.
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2009/12/royal-society-statement-on-cli.html
“Ian H says:
May 28, 2010 at 12:39 am
George E. Smith said ”
“I have never experienced any cloud at any height that warmed up the surface in the shadow zone, when it passes in front of the sun; it ALWAYS cools; no matter what.”
And yet cloudy nights are still a lot warmer than clear ones.”
Two different issues. One is blocking radiation from being added to the system, one is insulating radition to keep it in the system negating blackbody effect, etc.
But lets ask this question… does blocking radition reduce energy input more than the insulative value retains it? Intuitively, I’d say yes but I haven’t read anything concerning it.
Retained energy from insulation just keeps the energy in the system locally, and it can be radiated later. The higher the energy level of the system, the more energy it can radiate. Blocked radiation is reflected back into space and is never part of the system at all.
It seems to me that cloudcover reduces the total energy being pushed to the earth, while it merely delays outgoing radiation in a local region.
stevengoddard says:
May 27, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Suggestions:
1) Spend more time writing the original, anticipate sources of confusion, include links to some of those concepts.
2) Learn how trolls work. People who have been here for a while take R Gates and Phil with a large grain of salt, New people figure it out soon enough. Do give them credit for an occasionally interesting piece of information, but I usually skip your discussion with them. It’s no longer possible for me to keep up with everything at WUWT.
3) Realize you don’t need to have the last word in any discussion, even one involving your articles.
In summary – more time at the beginning, less time bickering later, and you’ll have a better product and more time for the next.
—
Writes Gail Combs: “All scientist are supposed to be sceptics so there is something very very wrong with so called scientific bodies that brand sceptics as deniers and worse.”
To which I would add the following remark by H.L. Mencken (from his Minority Report (1956):
—
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them”
Whether they incline in favor of next AGWrs´Cancun and face bankruptcy or …
Climate Change Controversies. A Simple Guide?
Science is not mature enough to distinguish between natural and human- induced climate change. It is for this reason developing policy is very difficult. Many scientists argue that uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. This is a sensible argument, given that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. A suitable policy measure would be to limit the amount of human produced carbon dioxide. An increasing amount of research and literature supports reducing carbon emissions.
However, there are other arguments. In spite of the increasing amount of research and literature supporting measures to reduce atmospheric carbon, large uncertainties remain. Climate science still has very big questions to answer, and it is important that they are answered correctly. There is a danger that science will inevitably be influenced by the policy it defends. If this is the case then it would be better not to have a policy at all.
Julian Flood says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Please forward your letter to as many media outlets as you can think of.
I just don’t do irony well.
We aint a top secret evil organisation anymore, we are now dastardly bastards, paid for by evil aliens who want to suck brains out of nuns and very pretty primary school teachers in summer dresses.
Of course their science problem remains the same Measuement and they are lieing dumb arse salesmen and women not scientists.
Diamond Duke says:
May 28, 2010 at 6:20 am
that uncertainty is not a reason for inaction
Uncertainties? just in your imagination:
Facts about CO2:
CO2 it is not black, but trasparent and invisible
CO2 is the gas you exhale. You exhale about 900 grams a day of CO2
CO2 that you exhale is what plants breath to give you back O2 (oxygen) for you to breath.
CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn´t fly up, up and away CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038 per cent of it, or 3.8 parts per ten thousand.
The atmosphere, the air you know, does not have the capacity to “hold” enough heat, it only “saves” 0.001297 joules per cubic centimeter, while water , the sea you know, has 3227 times that capacity (4.186 joules).
Would you warm your feet with a bottle filled with air or filled with hot water?
The so called “Greenhouse effect” does not exist, see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
But if you have been cheated to the core and still believe in it, think the following:
Svante Arrhenius, the guy of the greenhouse effect, said he thought CO2 acted as the “window panes” of a green-house, but as its concentration in atmosphere it is just 3.8 per ten thousand, you would have a greenhouse with 3.8 window panes and 9996.2 empty holes
It is a big choice: Whether they follow EU’s climate’s mantra and become a dark province of EU or they keep Union Jack at the top of the mast.
I would rather not be termed a “climate agnostic” or even an “AGW agnostic”. I believe the science has been so distorted with political overtones that the science is warped or nonexistent. The term “agnostic” gives opportunity for the opposition to simply say: “Well, come–let us educate (or convert) you”.
As I’ve stated in prior posts, I would rather be called a “climate realist”–someone who takes the anti-intellectual, anti-political, anti-fadist and even anti-populist position based on real, unadulterated science (unfortunately the web site “Real Climate” has helped to obfuscate the meaning of “real” in this context, much the same way the movement changed their slogan from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” once the former became an obvious embarrassment, while the latter lets them embrace the status quo (these people have no scruples or shame)).
Enneagram says:
May 28, 2010 at 6:12 am
“Whether they incline in favor of next AGWrs´Cancun and face bankruptcy or …”
Socialists dont mind bancruptcy. That is exactly what they want, Enneagram.
Didnt you know?
This is the best news I’ve heard out of the Royal Society in years. I could not imagine how the RS could have been so sure of itself regarding Co2 and climate change. I used to believe in AGW, but I became a climate skeptic/denier from reading the UN IPCC Ar4 report and the Royal Society website covering climate change. I had more faith in the opinions of the RS than the IPCC but I figured I must have misread the Royal Society climate change pages because they provided so much evidence which was contrary to AGW. Yet the RS sided with AGW, it made no sense to me. So perhaps I did not misread the RS pages after all, and now they are going to end up fighting over it. Welcome to the club.
I feel I am a typical sceptic of AGW; reasonably well educated, with some leisure time in which I can pursue my interests who knows people whose scepticism ranges from ‘not much’ to ‘ardent’ and I also know a tiny number of people who believe totally in AGW. The common threads shared by the sceptics are; lack of demonstrable proofs for AGW, the obvious religion-like advocacy from proponents of AGW, the terrible downside of killing our industrial society to reduce CO2 emissions and the fact that politicians lie to us as a matter of routine. Organised and well-paid – I wish!
Is it too a hard choice to choose between Politicians’ Invented Science and Science?.
BTW, If Nikola Tesla could be alive again, he should have died once more by laughing watching those silly “Wind-Farms”.