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.
Rats leaving a sinking ship comes to mind…
Tilo Reber says:
September 29, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Begin quote:
Theo Godwin:
“The 43 fellows who demanded this new report have restored science to its rightful place in the Royal Society.”
Unfortunately, it’s also 43 guys that we won’t be seeing in Nature in the near future. Nevertheless, it does my heart good to see that there are still some heroes in the world.
End Quote
I do not mean to pick on Tilo, many others wrote the same.
I said that the sun is rising. I did not say that it is noon. The 43 have restored standards of science in the debate. So, we have a prestigious organization that has returned to science and published the fact in a guide for laymen. Maybe the 43 will be blackballed, but maybe they will be paid richly to testify in US courts against Lisa Jackson and her minions at the EPA. If so, the 43 will serve the winning side. Ordinary Americans know enough science to judge that the 43 are speaking from within science while Climategaters are speaking from policy concerns and shaping the science to serve those concerns.
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
Ouuch. Some people must have said that through gritted teeth.
For those unable to find the original Royal Society report, it is here
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
tonyb
“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 don’t think you need the scientific method to get to a position of skepticism.
Part of the previous problem was the insistence on taking a strong stance in the absence of a complete alternative theory. That position also skirts the scientific method and relies instead on the well known formal fallacy a form of reversal of the scientific method that because you cannot demonstrate y, x must be correct.
Now that those shenanigans are behind us maybe we can get back to doing real science.
Mods: Ref my comment at 12:43 am
I did not intend my term to be perjorative but as a counterpoint to the use by Rees of the term ‘sceptics’ in his comparison to disbelievers of evolution and on which I was commenting. However, you are quite correct & I apologise to WUWT which I hold in high regard.
What will the HuffPo do now? Last year, having published me by “accident” (see below), the august publication unleashed the hounds of hell. One ad-hom piece was titled “When It Comes to Climate Is it the Royal Society or Harold Ambler?” That becomes a more complicated question now.
Here, by the way, after undue delay is the final correspondence between Arianna Huffington and myself prior to her directing that my piece be published. (She had, by this time, read and responded to several e-mails and prior submissions, all of them overtly skeptical.)
Many thanks, Harold. I’m CCing our blog editor, David Weiner to
coordinate. All the best, Arianna.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Harold Ambler
Date: Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Subject: Mr. Gore: apology accepted
To: Arianna Huffington
Hi Arianna. Happy New Year! I have written my a 2,000-word piece on
why Al Gore is wrong about climate. May it increase your enjoyment of
the new year so much that you feel compelled to publish it!
All the best,
Harold Ambler
I surmised when Arianna disavowed me and my piece that her left-liberal funding had been threatened over the article. At any rate, one wonders what the Royal Society’s position on climate change will be twenty years from now.
“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.”
Yeah? Well, my question is just this: WHY the hell did it take THEM so damned long?
You see? So far as I’m concerned, the so-called ‘leadership’ in that organization sure as hell jumped onto the bandwagon with such great zest, zeal, and gusto, as to give any reasoning, thinking, human being pause as to the cause, if you know what I mean.
If their bank demanded that they pay 300% more on a loan than what they’d borrowed, would they have enamored themselves of the idea in the same way as they embraced an entirely corrupt and deceitful proclamation?
Science is ~supposed~ to be critical and NOT political, yet there they were prancing and dancing in the streets like a pack of inebriate pixies, proclaiming doom and gloom.
Hell, even a drunk leprechaun saw through the whole charade!
Well, what the hell happened? Did the money and carbon-come stock options all of a sudden dry up, and now they relent if only because they have egg on their faces and NOTHING to show for it?
Do tell: What is it that weather getting colder all of a sudden causes the charlatans to get a clue?
The previous RS statement (from 2007/8) is here:
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/
and an even earlier one (2005) is here
http://royalsociety.org/Facts-and-fictions-about-climate-change/
Lets just hope there not realising more hot air into the atmosphere.
To me this is not a climbdown but simple window dressing.
“The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”
This indicates to me the view that “increases” are certain and only their size may be open to question, and even that doubt perhaps pertinent only to regional aspects.
Then we have:
“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”
It looks to this layman that the existence of unknowns is a certainty, not a mere possibility.
They are a long, long way from saying, “mea culpa”.
This is good, however it won’t make any difference unless the “Regulators” (EPA, etc. ) are convinced to abandon their current path of regulation of human activity. That will have to be driven by those who have profited by such regulation; either financially, politically or both. They will not voluntarily give that up. Would you?
Richard S Courtney says:
September 30, 2010 at 3:55 am
I cannot post Kiehl’s Figure 2 here.
——–
Here you go.
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Caption under photo at The Guardian article:
¨Polar bears have become a threatened species since the Arctic sea ice has been retreating. The Royal Society’s guide explains the physical science behind the environmental change. Photograph: Juniors Bildarchiv/Alamy¨
Keep up the good work, Anthony.
Not exactly sure why this is being called a concession to skeptics. Here is the first paragraph of the conclusion:
57 There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
Report is exactly same as IPCC4 ; body of report states that surface temperature rose non-linearly with rapid rises between 1910-1940 and 1975-2000, while CO2 concentration rose linearly, from 1850 to 2009. It concludes from these observations that temperature rise correlates with CO2 rise, even though they just stated that it does not, and then they attribute causation to the ‘correlation’.
Also throughout the report, data output from theoretical computer models is called evidence and its reliability is related to how complex the models are, not on how well their conclusions correlate with accurately predicting real world data.
Finally, after stating there is uncertainty in the models in the body of the report, they conclude there is strong evidence for AGW and we need to be concerned about ‘changes in precipitation’ (read ‘Floods in Pakistan’) and ‘coastal communities’ (read ‘British Coastal Preparation Program’) ; ie any weather worry on the mind of the public is still being caused by CO2.
looks like Business as Usual to me…
I regret to say that the Royal Society review has tempered alarmism a bit, but doesn’t [f]all on the side of “neutrality” in any way. It speaks of values of “climate forcing” and “climate sensitivity” as if these values were known and as determinate as the acceleration of gravity.
There’s no mention of the probability that the MWP and Bronze Bronze Age were at least as warm as the modern period, no mention of the variable causes of sea level rise, no mention of snow and ice depletion by sublimation to an atmosphere of low humidity.
The document states that it is “drawn heavily from the IPCC report” and they don’t challenge a thing IPCC says. I’m not happy that there was no mention that there is strong disagreement over IPCC conclusions, including “there is strong evidence human activity has altered the recent climate.”
I am not sure why everyone is so excited about the new report when one of the concluding paragraphs (67) states:
“There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems”
The report’s concluding remarks also go beyond science by advocating action in paragraph 69:
“Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.”
I submit that these two paragraphs are sufficient for ANY politician to take any action to curb human emission of greenhouse gases. (Would this include water vapour too?)
Until the concluding remarks of the Report are significantly altered, the body of the report is mere “window dressing”
“para 30, it may be that past CO2 variation was driven by temperature rather than vice versa”
That para alone is worth its weight in gold to me, though with all the evidence the “may” bit seems somewhat grudging! Still, its a start and for the first time in hell knows how long, I will be able to quote the R.S.
Nearly the weekend, lets see what Monbiot comes out with
.
That will have to be driven by those who have profited by such regulation; either financially, politically or both. They will not voluntarily give that up. Would you?
Yes, if I was aware how badly this regulation was hurting people, especially people who couldn’t afford pay for it
Harold Ambler says:
September 30, 2010 at 5:06 am
“At any rate, one wonders what the Royal Society’s position on climate change will be twenty years from now.”
Probably something along the lines of: “We told you it was going to get cold”.
[REPLY: Let us try to avoid terms like “warmista”. Pejorative slurs do little to advance discussion. Try CAGW supporter. … bl57~mod]
Aww! I hope we all don’t have to start being politically correct! 😉
I appreciate Piers Corbyn’s skepticism — and evidence — re the Royal Society’s change of “heart”. This smells to me like repositioning by the same elitists who chose to demolish science and the scientific method. Has there been any political change within the Royal Society suggesting that scientists are now in charge — or is this mere backpeddaling for appearances sake in order to remain “in power”? That’s my yardstick. I want the rule of law which includes punishment (loss of office and affluence) for “demolishing science and the scientific method”.
There does appear to be dissension among the ranks regarding the wording of a RS pamphlet called “Climate Change Controversies”.
“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.”
“…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.””
Of course, the alarmist spinmeisters like The Guardian and others are, and will be hard at work spinning this and doing damage control, but the CAGW/CC/CD fraud is finally, bit by bit, coming undone. The science that “we think, maybe, something is happening with our climate, and that man has had something to do with it (whatever “it”) is still seems safe, though. What the heck, they can have that.
AllenC says: “I am not sure why everyone is so excited about the new report when one of the concluding paragraphs (67) states: … ”
Allen, you could well have made similar comments on board the Titanic regarding “a bit of ice on the deck”. Like big ships, large organisations take time to change direction (or sink), but once they start changing they keep changing and changing.
The change is almost imperceptible … but because the momentum for change is so massive in large organisations, even a very modest change in direction is very significant because it signals:
1. The end of a period of increasing alarmism by the Royal society
2. The beginning of a period of increasing scientific scepticism.
The global warming boat may only be tilting at an almost imperceptible angle so that all most can see is the ice of the deck, but please bare with us a while even if right now we seem to be overly interested in a few bits of ice scattered around the deck!
Pig walks on two legs
30 Sept 2010
A pig which can walk and do handstands (hoof-stands?) on two legs has become a local celebrity in China.
The 10-month-old porker is known by villagers as “Zhu Jianqiang” (Strong-willed Pig) after it was born with only two front legs and learned to balance on them well enough to walk. According to its owner, Wang Xihai, it was one of nine piglets born in a litter this January. He said: “My wife asked me to dump it but I refused as it’s a life. I thought I should give it a chance to survive and unexpectedly it survived healthy.”
Several days after its birth Wang decided to train the two-legged piglet to walk by lifting it up by its tail. He said: “I trained her for a while each day. After 30 days she can now walk upside down quite well.”
Wang said since the birth of the pig, which currently weighs 50kg (110lbs), his home has been besieged by visitors. A circus even offered to buy for the pig for a large sum but Wang refused to sell. He said “She proved to us that no matter what form life is it should continue to live on. I won’t sell it no matter how much the offer is.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8034669/Pig-learns-to-walk-on-two-legs.html