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.
Gee they say that there is so much uncertainty and there may be entirely new things to learn but not so much that it will switch the trend to global cooling. Nah it still isn’t recovered enough to be seen as a scientific institution. We better get out there and photograph the titles of government offices, departments and institutions for posterity. They are going to be investing in new signage, letterheads, mission statement, museum science displays…. I’m serious. The main clergy will also be born again as sceptics at the forefront climate science. I personally am cancelling my appointments for overcoming climate denialism with my shrink.
Mike says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:04 am
Please explain your accusation and the basis for your “spin” comment that Anthony has supposedly fomented from this article.
———-
“Wednesday, 29 September 2010 22:09 Ben Webster, The Times
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.”
———-
Yea Mike, and to use the surfer vernacular: some of us are somewhat “stoked” to see this ‘concession’, the action taken by the RS after yielding to 40 of its fellows who are apparently more informed of the facts concerning CO2′ role in “anthropogenic climate disruption”. How many concessions have ever been made to date, and at this level? Not many. We’ll take this one, if maybe with a grain of salt on the side for the very reason you stated.
No substantive changes in their assesment? Ok, so what? Bringing down an a pyramid scheme starts with the ‘capstone’, which I will equate with Mann’s hockey stick deconstruction and subsequent annihilation. Then the thankless job by Anthony, et al (thank you BTW) on the condition of the surface stations ‘stone’. Then the “smoothing” and “adjustments” made by GISS, NASA, etc, etc, exposed by Goddard and many others, another ‘stone’, then the climategate stone…and on, and on.
One stone at a time until the edifice is removed and real science is restored. Ya see Mike, it’s not that we don’t believe…really. What we can’t believe is that (our$/your$) billions are being spent to mitigate/adapt to a problem that MAY not exist at all. We can’t believe that upper level decisions are being made and policies implemented that may well negatively impact the well-being of entire populations (already impoverished populations at that) on such shoddily contrived theories based on corrupted science. All over a trace gas that we contribute to the tune of about 3% to 5%.
No I don’t think ALL of the AGW are bad people, some true scientists I am sure. But some of them are very bad scientists. Are they ALL involved in a global conspiracy to install a global government? No, I don’t think so (at least I hope not), but somebody is. I think John Holdren is: just look at his PPP at the Klavi Symposium. I think as a general rule anyone espousing CAGW might very well be a conspirator.
There are too many contradictions, too many tactics such as Holdren’s ploy to regionalize the effects of a warming planet. How does that work? As mentioned above: now any anomolous/extreme weather events can be blamed on global warming (which, in reality, is already being practised: Russian heat and Pakistani floods for example). Why would somebody do that??? For power, control, and money, period.
I guess after all my rambling (apologies) it boils down to this:
Mike says:
September 30, 2010 at 8:04 am
———-
“Wednesday, 29 September 2010 22:09 Ben Webster, The Times
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.”
———-
Yea Mike, and to use the surfer vernacular: some of us are somewhat “stoked” to see this ‘concession’, the action taken by the RS after yielding to 40 of its fellows who are apparently more informed of the facts concerning CO2′ role in “anthropogenic climate disruption”. How many concessions have ever been made to date, and at this level? Not many. We’ll take this one, if maybe with a grain of salt on the side for the very reason you stated.
No substantive changes in their assesment? Ok, so what? Bringing down an a pyramid scheme starts with the ‘capstone’, which I will equate with Mann’s hockey stick deconstruction and subsequent annihilation. Then the thankless job by Anthony, et al (thank you BTW) on the condition of the surface stations ‘stone’. Then the “smoothing” and “adjustments” made by GISS, NASA, etc, etc, exposed by Goddard and many others, another ‘stone’, then the climategate stone…and on, and on.
One stone at a time until the edifice is removed and real science is restored. Ya see Mike, it’s not that we don’t believe…really. What we can’t believe is that (our$/your$) billions are being spent to mitigate/adapt to a problem that MAY not exist at all. We can’t believe that upper level decisions are being made and policies implemented that may well negatively impact the well-being of entire populations (already impoverished populations at that) on such shoddily contrived theories based on corrupted science. All over a trace gas that we contribute to the tune of about 3% to 5%.
No I don’t think ALL of the AGW are bad people, some true scientists I am sure. But some of them are very bad scientists. Are they ALL involved in a global conspiracy to install a global government? No, I don’t think so (at least I hope not), but somebody is. I think John Holdren is: just look at his PPP at the Klavi Symposium. I think as a general rule anyone espousing CAGW might very well be a conspirator.
There are too many contradictions, too many tactics such as Holdren’s ploy to regionalize the effects of a warming planet. How does that work? As mentioned above: now any anomolous/extreme weather events can be blamed on global warming (which, in reality, is already being practised: Russian heat and Pakistani floods for example). Why would somebody do that??? For power, control, and money, period.
Please explain your accusation and the basis for your “spin” comment that Anthony has supposedly fomented from this article.
Gaylon writes:
“No I don’t think ALL of the AGW are bad people, some true scientists I am sure. But some of them are very bad scientists. Are they ALL involved in a global conspiracy to install a global government?”
Well, since you raise the question, climate science is dominated by people who are policy advocates first and scientists afterwards. They have the cart before the horse. They are willing to bastardize science to serve their vision of Green Gaia. According to that vision, world government is necessary to exercise the level of control necessary to prevent humanity from causing suffering to Green Gaia. From Gore and Pachauri on the bottom rung, through Oppenheimer and his modellers in the middle, to some unknown actual scientist on the top rung, everyone of them puts policy before science and harms science. The harm they have caused to science education throughout the world is incalculable.
Pesadia writes:
“They have now compounded the situation by trying not to deviate from their original position, whilst appearing to suggest that they have moved.”
My guess is that inside the Royal Society they are fighting like cats and dogs. We must do what we can to support the dogs.
Gaylon says:
“Wednesday, 29 September 2010 22:09 Ben Webster, The Times
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….”
———-
Yea Mike, and to use the surfer vernacular: some of us are somewhat “stoked” to see this ‘concession’…”
The scare quotes are probably well placed, given that the 2005 Royal Society Guide to Fact and Fictions about Climate Change included this statement:
“The IPCC 2001 report openly acknowledged uncertainties in modelling climate change in the future.”
Any change in the latest Royal Society statement seems to be more a matter of emphasis than concession, but I guess you could interpret it both ways.
More importantly, if sceptics and warmers can agree that this statement is a fair representation of the current state of the science, many areas of disagreement can be laid to rest.
Like a great ship turning, the evident change in course is measured in degrees and compass points, rather than entire quadrants. Despite the confident notes still sounded from the bridge, the RS may be avoiding the fate of the Titanic. It’s far too much to expect the command “hard left rudder, all engines astern!”
Mike Jonas said:
September 30, 2010 at 1:03 am
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” (Confucius?)
No, this is a quote from Lao-tzu, Chinese philosopher (604 BC – 531 BC)
often quoted by Mao Zedong in reference his long march.
Richard S Courtney September 30, 2010 at 3:55 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/#comment-495197
Very good analysis.
I am in total agreement, except with “But evidence for these “forcings resulting from human activity” is no more than the evidence for witches.“.
I think you have misunderstood the process: (1) they run the model without human forcing, and it is out by x deg C. (2) they calculate that x deg C is equivalent to y Wm-2 forcing. (3) they insert human activity at y Wm-2 into the model. (4) they run the model again and get a very good match with measured temperatures.
This process obviously must differ from the process used to blame witches for things. It’s called the scientific process. Nowadays.
Actually, I would also take issue with you over the use of the term “fiddle factors”. This is not proper scientific terminology. The correct term, as used by the IPCC, is “parametrization“, as in “Although the large-scale dynamics of these models are comprehensive, parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes such as the formation of clouds and precipitation,[…]“.
In this context, parametrizations work the same way as human forcings in the models (or aerosols), except that they don’t match any observations of cloud behaviour or precipitation.
—–
alan : thanks for the correction re Lao-tzu. Now all I have to do is remember it somehow …
It’s the end of the beginning.
Bill Illis:
At September 30, 2010 at 5:54 am.
Thank you.
Richard
Mike Jonas:
Thank you for your response at September 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm to my earlier comment.
I lack the wit to put the matter in the words you have, so I am especially grateful.
I enjoyed the laugh, and your use of humour may make the issue more intelligible for many than I could.
Richard
Why do you act like uncertainties are new to climate science?
The Royal Society document notes that the uncertainties in climate science were noted in the IPPC Report:
“This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties.”
The Royal Society also states:
“Climate change: a summary of the science describes how and why the earth is currently warming and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding.”
Snapple:
At October 3, 2010 at 12:38 pm you ask:
“Why do you act like uncertainties are new to climate science?”
But the important issues are not the uncertainties but the certainty that claims of AGW based on climate models are wrong. Please see my post at
September 30, 2010 at 3:55 am.
Richard