Why did the Royal Society need secret meetings?
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Recent events underscore problems with understanding climate and how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) achieved their deception. Comments about my recent article appreciated it was a synopsis. The problems were central in my presentation to the First Heartland Climate Conference in New York relating to climatology as a generalist discipline in a world that glorifies specialization. The dictum in academia and beyond is specialization is the mark of genius, generalization the mark of a fool. In the real world each specialized piece must fit the larger general picture and most people live and function in a generalized world. The phrase “it is purely academic” means it is irrelevant to the real world.
A secret meeting occurred between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and members of the British Royal Society. Why the secrecy? It is likely because this collective of specialists is scrambling to recover reputations after being misled.
Claiming they were deliberately deceived in the propaganda campaign orchestrated through the British Royal Society is no excuse. The supposed prestige of that Society was used to persuade other national Science Societies that human caused global warming was a serious and proven fact. The only Society that refused to go along was the Russian. It was a deliberately orchestrated campaign that allowed media to use the consensus argument with focus. I was frequently challenged with the interrogative in the form of a consensus argument that you must be wrong because science Societies all agree.
Climate science is the work of specialists working on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees, amplified when computer modellers are involved. They are specialists trying to be generalists but omit major segments, and often don’t know interrelationships, interactions and feedbacks in the general picture.
Society has deified specialized academics, especially scientists. Consider the phrase “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist” used to indicate intellectual superiority. Substitute a different occupation and prejudices emerge. “You don’t have to be a farmer”. Now consider the range of specialized areas required for success on a modern farm. Then count the specializations included in Figure 1, a very simple systems diagram of weather. (Note that three “boxes” include the word “flux” but the 2007 IPCC Science report says, “Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed.)
Ian Plimer said, studies of the Earth’s atmosphere tell us nothing about future climate.
An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.
 |
Figure 1: Source: After; Climate Stabilization: For Better or for Worse? William W. Kellogg and Stephen H. Schneider, Science, Volume 186, December 27, 1974
It’s an interesting observation that underscores the dilemma. Climatology is listed as a subset, but must include all the disciplines and more. You cannot study or understand the pattern of climate over time or in a region without including them all.
A frequent charge is I have no credibility because I only have “a geography degree”. It’s, ignorant on many levels, and usually used as a sign of superiority by specialists in the “hard sciences”. My PhD was through the Geography department at Queen Mary College because climatology was traditionally part of geography. The actual degree was granted in the Faculty of Science.
Climatology, like geography is a generalist discipline studying patterns and relationships. Geography is the original integrative discipline traditionally called Chorology. In the late 1960s when I looked for a school of climatology there were effectively only two, Hubert Lamb’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia and Reid Bryson’s program in Madison Wisconsin. Neither was a viable option, although I was privileged to consult with Professor Lamb about my thesis.
Unlike most students, instead of going through the sausage-maker machine of education I pursued my studies later and with deliberation. Environmentalism was a new paradigm changing the focus from the Darwinian view of humans as a passive to an active agent in the environment. An undergraduate course on Soils taught me the formula for soil-forming factors included parent material (rock), weather, and the letter “O” for Organic. I wondered why this included everything except humans.
Early German geography recognized the impact distinguishing Landschaft, the natural landscape, from Kulturschaft, the human landscape. Others were considering the differences. George Perkins Marsh’s work, Man and Nature (1864) and William L. Thomas’ 1956 publication Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth influenced me and provided a central theme – the impact of climate on the human condition.
All three theses were deliberately designed. An Honours thesis titled, Some Philosophical Considerations of Humans as a Source of Change, considered the historical and philosophical context. The Masters thesis titled, The Significance of Grain Size and Heavy Minerals Volume Percentage as Indicators of Environmental Character, Grand Beach, Manitoba provided scientific method especially related to energy inputs in an environment. The doctorate addressed two problems in climatology. Lack of long-term weather records, which Lamb identified, and the challenge of linking historical records with instrumental records. My doctoral thesis title, Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850 involved creating a long term record from daily journals of the Hudson Bay Company. It blended daily weather observations with instrumental records through a numerical coding for each weather variable. Once the data was digitized, statistical and scientific analysis was possible.
Lack of a “science” degree was a focus early. Immediately after a presentation to Forestry graduates at the University of Alberta a professor in the front row asked, “Is it true you were denied funding by the major agencies in Canada?” This referred to two government agencies, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Sciences and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (SSHRC). I was not denied, I just didn’t qualify, my category of historical climatology was considered Social Science by NSERC and Science by SSHRC. Fortunately, the National Science Museum of Canada, particularly Dick Harington head of the Paleobiology division, understood the problem and provided funding.
I knew as a climatologist I needed to consult with specialists. I obeyed Wegman’s warning in his Report on the Hockey Stick fiasco.
As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used.
Consultation is essential. The challenge is to know enough to ask the right questions and understand the answers. As a climatologist I try to place each piece in the puzzle. If it doesn’t fit I consult specialists for answers.
The claim that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) didn’t exist is a classic example of a piece that didn’t fit. Many knew it existed and Soon and Baliunas provided evidence in their article Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years; it’s why they were so viciously attacked. Statistician Steve McIntyre showed how the infamous “hockey stick” graph was created. The Wegman Report confirmed his findings and exposed a major misuse of statistics and dendroclimatology. The misuse of tree rings was further confirmed by a forestry expert. Few areas of IPCC climate science bear examination by specialists.
The claim that CO2 is greenhouse gas does not fit. I itemized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deliberate diversions to demonize CO2 for a political agenda. Years ago at a conference in Calgary I heard a skeptic challenged by a knowledgeable audience member about the claim of CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG). The reply was troubling. We (skeptics) would lose all credibility if we suggest CO2 is not a GHG. It is better to say it is, but the effect, especially of the human portion, is minuscule and of no consequence.
I pursued my policy asking physicists about the role of CO2 as a GHG. I thought they would agree. They didn’t. It’s partly reflected in estimates of climate sensitivity. They range from the IPCC high through those who believe it is zero to some who believe it is a negative quantity with CO2 as a cooling agent. The conflict appears to be disagreement in how temperature is modified by the physical processes involved in energy transfer. If the physics was known and agreed presumably weather and climate forecasts would work, but they don’t.
Traditional climatology included a mechanism called continentalism. It measured the modifying influence on temperature range of the distance from the ocean. Here are ranges for three Canadian cities at approximately the same latitude.
Station Maximum Minimum Range
Gander, Nfld 35.6°C -28.8°C 64.2°C
Winnipeg 40.6°C -45°C 85.6°C
Vancouver 33.3°C -17.8°C 51°C
Both Vancouver (west coast) and Gander (east coast) are close to the ocean but they are in the zone of the prevailing Westerlies. Gander experiences continental air more frequently than Vancouver. The different specific heat capacities of land and water explain the difference. Water acts to modify temperature range.
The greatest daily land temperature ranges occur in regions with very low atmospheric moisture (hot and cold deserts). Water vapour acts like the oceans to modify temperature range, as a result desert biomes record the greatest daily temperature ranges. It has nothing to do with CO2. Similarly, lowest daily temperature ranges occur in tropical rain forests where water vapour levels are highest. Total modification of global temperature range is achieved by water in all its phases.
Climatology is a generalist discipline that requires incorporating all specialist disciplines. The modern glorification of specialization allowed climate scientists to dominate by claiming their piece of a vast puzzle was critical. IPCC climate scientists misused specialized areas, especially in climate models, to achieve a predetermined result. It is only exposed when specialists examine what was done or climatologists find a piece of the puzzle that doesn’t fit.
=================================================================
For the record, I don’t agree with Dr. Ball’s opinions on CO2, not being a greenhouse gas, the science is quite clear on that issue long before global warming being an issue. The only valid question is climate sensitivity – Anthony
Good morning Dr Ball,
so the IPCC claims that energy fluxes and water fluxes are not well documented. But we have measured the energy fluxes both at the surface and TOA bith are well above that of the energy diagram in AR4. this graphic, by k&T, is a total misrepresentation of reality to fit with their crackpot theories of AGW and the Greenhouse Effect.
Water fluxes are more difficult but again the K&T graphic guesses the effect of latent heat without any acknowledgement of how much it actually is. (They forget that it takes 7.6 times as much heat to convert 1Kg of water at 100C to vapour as it takes to heat that same mass of water from 0C to 100C). Latent heat use contributes to the cooling of rainforest compared to hot dry deserts at the same latitude. The GHE would have deserts cooler than rainforest during the day which is observably untrue.
Thanks for your post. It is far more realistic than those outpourings from the IPCC.
well thought out and makes sense
Please add maths and statistics to the list of disciplines needed as an understanding of those helps one to know when specific techniques can be reasonably/justifiably applied.
With that list of requirements.
I am sure a try, would be in the making.
I was intrigued by your statement about physicists’ comments about CO2 and the ‘evil gas’ being a neutral or even a negative influence on temperature.
Can you elaborate on this as it could be a useful way to help beat the BS out of the climatology/global warming/CAGW cult?
some people use the phrase…climate change science…
In my career in science, I have come across a curious social phenomenon which is relevant to your discussion.
Certain agencies I have worked for are charged with studying a subset of a particular field within science. Within such agencies, some individuals have a strong tendency to promote the particular field or subset which is central to the agency they are associated with, above all other, broader subsets of the scientific field, with which it is a part. They do this almost instinctively. In other words, they make their particular speciality more important, or dominant over, other specialities, but without any real justification to do so. Instead of seeing their particular field or speciality as a subset of datasets within a broader field, sometimes more important sometimes less so, they see their speciality as always DOMINANT over others.
This tendency is entirely psychological, and more to do with a particular personality type, than with science. The individuals who tend to promote their particular speciality above others but without justification, tend to also be careerists who are limited in their scope and understanding of science. They tend to be good social organisers, and technically competent, but lacking in imagination and creativity. They often fail to fully appreciate the significance of natural variation, change, and uncertainty in science. They rely on models, but they are not good modellers. They generally don’t like speculation and uncertainty. They gravitate to areas of uncertainty where they think they can impose their particular field to solve problems, but they usually muddle things up by trying to create more certainty then there actually is. They prefer models that are simple, static, have high levels of certainty, and are generally unchanging. The idea that a model can change significantly with new information, and that there are always inherent uncertainties which make models at times barely even useful, and subject to the modellers bias, is barely understood.
The way they organise science and science research is also relevant. Opinions and conclusions outside the agency’s central field is not given a hearing. Reports at all times must adhere to the agency’s central agenda. Statements and conclusions within such reports that do not fit the agencies agenda are routinely changed without consultation, and research into any area not central to the agencies central field is discouraged. Individuals within such agencies which do not fit into the central field and agenda of the agency are generally excluded and their work denigrated, especially if their conclusions are at variance with the agency’s importance and agenda.
In such cases, ‘the agency’ has replaced science as the arbiter of information about what is true and proper in the real world. I think these concepts are relevant to your above discussion.
Absolutely spot on Mr Ball. People should study climate science, not climate change science. Climate change science pre-supposes an outcome, just like the existence of the IPCC pre-supposes a condition. I have tried to get my local politciian in Oz to get the climate change scientists to sit down with him and the separate specialists such as statisticians and geologists and thermodynamicists and heat transfer specialists and state their case – then he would see just how little the climate scientists know about the bigger picture. Unfortunately my local MP has no clue about anything scientific and obviously can’t ask any probing questions. I’m a mechanical engineer. Nothing is more irritating, and dangerous, than an engineer who thinks he can determine a solution to a complex problem on his own without the input of specialist engineers from the various disciplines involved. I am sure the same applies in all aspects of science including climate science.
Dear Dr Ball,
May I ask if you have any regrets about having contributed to the book ” Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” ?
Regards
Martin A
Excellent post, Dr. Ball.
“A secret meeting occurred between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and members of the British Royal Society”.
If it was secret, how do we know? Has there been a leak , is this a leak, was there a tactical disclosure or is this speculation or what?
It’s interesting that from the list of specialties give above, the only areas where I don’t have published papers are astronomy, solar physics, paleoecology, meteorology, ecology, and history. One paper did dabble a little in astronomy and history and I’m now moving into an area where meteorology is important. Yet I’m not normally considered “expert” in climate science. I do, however remember how to use a slide rule, which gives one a great sense of the scale of things and definitely improves the workings of one’s own internal BS detector. And ever since I first saw the original Hockey Stick (TM) graph, mine has been ringing very loudly.
As the whole CAGW fiasco unravels, we can probably expect to see a plethora of backpedaling, “I never said such-and-such”, finger-pointing, and other CYA activities, particularly with those in the forefront of the climatist religion, and a dearth of mea culpas. But yes, the primary game will be to place the blame elsewhere. Egos are at stake.
Ed Davey – The man who can’t say ‘climate’ without saying ‘change’.
Facts count. Great job you get to the matter correct and use your wisdom fine. We here accept you total as one of us. Your words will help many more outside herein
But take care not to get a gig at a Earth First conference say in San Francisco Calif. you just might get a rather hostile reception there for many many years to come. Safety First.
Peter Miller………….
Check out Dr Ball’s site;
http://drtimball.com/
There is plenty there to keep you busy.
Also, thanks Dr. Ball for an enlightening article.
Seems a committee will be set up now. They will select the ones who will be labeled with the scarlet letter and thrown over board or allowed to fall on a dull sword in the public square.
Who will be required to mop up the blood on the floor will be settled between the msm and the elected ones.
Fault lines will appear soon.
Dr Balls
I have noticed that people do try to demean your qualifications. I think this is shocking. As far as I am aware climatology, in the traditional sense, was always a major focus of physical geography. Culturally speaking, I think the relative demotion of geography is in part down to how that discipline has changed over the last few decades. It should be a largely descriptive science, charged with finding ever more reliable methods of measuring and describing the Earth’s surface, rather than explaining why we get these changes/features; that should be left to other disciplines such as geology, meteorology etc. I think geography had a bit of an identity crisis in the mid-20th century which distracted it from its key objectives.
I think there is a move now toward its more descriptive roots with the emergence of computational methodologies such as GIS, geostatistics and remote sensing. In short, when other disciplines want to know how to map something or derive some meaningful information from spatial data, they should consult a geographer. This is not the case at the moment because most geography degrees still focus on the processes rather than the descriptive methods.
I appreciate your comments on specialization vs generalist, and agree CO2 effects are not a dominate factor in warming or heating. However, you are wrong that CO2 BY ITSELF is not a greenhouse gas. It is the water vapor variation and other feedbacks, along with natural variations (long period ocean effects, solar effects, cloud variation, etc.) that dominate what net effect changing the CO2 and Methane concentrations have. If you do not understand that any greenhouse gas (one that absorbs the outgoing IR) does have an effect on average temperature unless feedbacks and natural variation dominate it, you will not be taken seriously. While the people supporting ” Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” include some very smart individuals, many in that group simply do not understand the greenhouse effect. I have tried to explain the facts to some and get responses that show lack of understanding. I do not disagree with the possibility that water vapor feedback essentially totally cancels added CO2 effects, but that is not the same as saying CO2, by itself, is not a greenhouse gas.
Thanks for this, Dr Ball. For my part, I refuse to lose sight of the fact that the UN’s quango the IPCC, stands for Intergovernmental Panel for Climate CHANGE – not Intergovernmental Panel for Climate RESEARCH (i.e. – ‘we think mankind is affecting the climate. Prove it for us…’)
This may be next.
The U.N./Governments world wide will claim ownership of all CO2 then sell it to each country as a allocation of plant food (tax the use of CO2). Greed for power will remain notwithstanding the winner of this current struggle.
Martin A says:
November 29, 2013 at 4:31 am
Dear Dr Ball,
May I ask if you have any regrets about having contributed to the book ” Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” ?
Regards Martin A
===============
Are folks only allowed to speak what they think is the truth in certain places? Preachers sure would be limited in getting the word out if they could speak where the sinners hang out.
Leonard
Yes, I have to say I am bit skeptical about the points raised in the post that relate to expert opinion on the whether CO2 is GHG or not. It seems quite clear, and stated as such by molecular physicists and physical chemists and very often qualified with comprehensive reasoning, that CO2 is a GHG.
Should have said “could not speak where”. Tablets!
Leonard Weinstein says:
November 29, 2013 at 5:38 am
“…very smart individuals, many in that group simply do not understand the greenhouse effect.”
============
Please feel free to enlighten us.