From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
![Royal_Society_350_logo_400x175[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/royal_society_350_logo_400x1751.jpg?quality=83){kind=logo}
Obama’s Former Science Official: ‘Climate Science Is Not Settled’
It was presented as shocking evidence of the damage being done by climate change: a species driven to extinction because of a decline in rainfall in its only habitat. Now the “rediscovery” of a species of snail is prompting questions about the role played by the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institution, in raising false alarm over an impact of climate change. –Ben Webster, The Times, 20 September 2014
The Royal Society journal refused to publish the rebuttal, saying it had been “rejected following full peer review”. The journal sent Mr Hambler the reviews of the rebuttal by two anonymous academic referees, who had rejected the criticisms made of Mr Gerlach’s paper. However, the Royal Society admitted this week, after questions from The Times, that the referees who had rejected the rebuttal were the same referees who had approved Mr Gerlach’s paper for publication. The society said it had since changed its policy on reviewing rebuttals… The society has refused to publish the rebuttal because it is seven years old. –Ben Webster, The Times, 20 September 2014
Society should listen to the majority consensus opinion of expert scientists. The emphasis I place on consensus of expert scientists is sometimes not understood by those not fully aware of how science works. –Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, Trust in Science, 26 June 2014
The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future. —Steven E. Koonin, The Wall Street Journal, 20 September 2014
Eric Worral; Had it not been for Operation Paperclip there would have been no need for the Times to apologize. Had we not grabbed the top German war criminals/ scientists it would have been another 50 years before anyone landed on the Moon.
Goddard was not in the same league as the Germans. People such as Arthur Rudolph, Kurt Debus, Walter Riedel, Von Braun and many many others. All of them ardent Nazis.
Nurse is a bureaucrat.
Nothing he bleats about science has any relevance outside the boardroom.
Once the Bureaus gained control of scientific funding, science was done for, cast aside as the minions returned to their favourite pursuits.
Empire building at your expense.
Science today, really is Post Normal Science, a mockery of even lip service to enquiring minds and the peeling back of the curtain of our ignorance.
Instead we have the arrogance of Authority, consensus is all important.
Reality? Not welcome in the committee room, when it so rudely intrudes the “experts” studiously shun it until they believe it goes away.Then they write wordily missives to each other insisting reality was wrong and was never there anyway.
Sort of like their take on persons skeptical of their all seeing certitude, we do not really exist and we are totally wrong as well….Perhaps susceptibility to wetting ones self over an imaginary doom, brought on by exhaling a magic gas, is a true mental disorder, for I could not have invented the Alarmists. nor their defiance of the actual, which they seemingly can ignore by substituting the modelled.
Which brings me back to the Bureaucrats, persons long noted for their ironclad ability to ignore reality and possibly all victims of oxygen starvation of the braincells brought on by their employment conditions.
When you follow the money, you arrive at this same place.
CAGW fabricated, relentlessly pushed and still protected from criminal court proceedings by our bureaucrats,working together through the UN.
Is there one person who is accountable to, us who pay the bills, anywhere in this great facade?
The Royal Society was once a scientific body respected world-wide. It is therefore a shame that the antics of Paul Nurse and his immediate predecessors have turned it into some sort of sick joke. The words of Shakespeare come to mind
The Royal Society acknowledges that science in a political context operates in a universal frame through social consensus. It’s not a coincidence that there is a popular perception that “expert” and “god” are readily interchangeable, and that people will defer to oracles with the proper material inducements.
I might be being unkind here. But I suspect that Nurse et al. thought ‘Damn’
and wished that little snail had never been re-found
In fact, I suspect that if they had a snail-eliminator, they would have made sure it never reappeared
I wonder if we could ask them
Ya know, when you send them a picture of the little guys from your cell phone, that should be all the rebuttal necessary. How else would you rebut it short of sending a few by fedex. There are no statistics or formulae needed. Now, if this “horny” little escargo is a big deal, lets take some of them to other islands that get rain and solve potential problems (like the gang green going there and stomping on them to correct the rebuttal).
@Earthling September 20, 2014 at 8:34 am
“Calling climate science “settled,” is an embarrassment to science.”
I’m afraid that science can no longer be embarrassed. She has lost her good name and is walking the streets down by the docks…
Headline:
“Snail Found: Climate Science Wrong”
Meanwhile, the climate continues to warm (NOAA August 2014 report).
True but NOAA had to seriously fiddle the numbers to get the result. Their data now diverges from all the others, though I am sure some of the others will now “correct” theirs to catch up.
Abbot, I am afraid that you have been duped again, my friend. Gavin Schmidt of GISS fabricated the whole thing. Check the satellite (RSS or UAH) to get the truth. And Abbot, you need to stay away from those global warmer types. They are all in a state of chronic denial. It will rub off on you. So be careful who you associate with.
The reviewers should be outed and shamed, too. Why is the process in secret anyway. I’m sure Gerlach knew who else had even heard of ‘Rhachistia aldabrae’. I think we need a society that follows these clowns around and falsifies their science on the spot. Now at least the ‘Rhachistia aldabrae experts know the pointy little fellow can take a little dry period. The rest of us know because he wouldn’t be here in the first place if he hadn’t been forged in the natural variability of its weather.
Ya know, ecology is another corrupted discipline that needs a makeover. Professors spend too much time teaching soshulist dogma and hatred for their fellow humans. Comon’ you guys, jettison all this political stuff and stick with the biology, biochemistry, botany, soils and the like. This may be why nothing revolutionary has been discovered in the musty science since Darwin.
@James Baldwin Abbott September 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm
“..Meanwhile, the climate continues to warm (NOAA August 2014 report)…”
Yes, it’s amazing! The ‘climate’ can continue to ‘warm’ while the actual air observations show it to be slightly cooling. Isn’t post-modern science wonderful?
Dodgy Geezer
No, the surface temperatures show continued warming. Maybe you have been reading too many dodgy graphs.
Try these:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201406-201408.gif
James Abbott
You keep peddling that ridiculous made-up NOAA data which is refuted by every other data set for global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
And, yes, others have explained to you that the NOAA data is fabricated from nothing.
I link to the explanation provided for you by ‘Anything is possible; yesterday.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/18/open-thread-17/#comment-1740644
But, as you always do, you ignore reality and seek anything which supports your superstitious belief.
Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago. You need to come to terms with it.
Richard
Now do as some others have done and check their current data for up to JUN with their data for the same period as reported in JULY, you will see they CHANGED THE NUMBERS TO FIT THE HYPOTHESIS!!!
Richard
You will run out of road when all the data sets show the same. NASA GISS LOTI will likely show 2014 to be in the top 3 or 4 warmest years, but more importantly, a record high 5 year running mean, albeit marginally.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Sea surface temperatures are at record levels – as confirmed by Bob Tisdale who stated
“We’re not just talking a record high for the month of August…we’re talking a record high for any month during the satellite era.”
So it looks like in order to maintain your position you will need to somehow, as per your opinion on the NOAA data, claim that each time a data set shows a record high, it is
“fabricated from nothing.”
If that proves to be the case, can I suggest its not me that needs a reality check.
Someone should point out that we are looking at “preliminary” data. I believe that most of the time, what NOAA provides as “preliminary” data ultimately is higher than the final data. Maybe someone could verify this?
And duped once more my friend, because SST is due to insolation and not GHG and certainly not CO2, unless you can figure out a way to get CO2 to warm H2O.
Abbot, the above was for you. Will you dodge this one too?
James Abbott,
You keep posting those zero baseline graphs. They are propaganda; they fool the eye by making it falsely appear that temperatures are accelerating.
Instead, use a trend graph. NikFromNYC posted a good example, which shows how your zero baseline graph fools you into believing something that isn’t true:
http://s16.postimg.org/54921k0at/image.jpg
The first graph is a zero baseline. It makes it appear as if temperatures are accelerating. But using an honest temperature trend graph like the second one, we see that temperatures are only trending up from the depths of the LIA; they are not accelerating.
NASA/GISS, NOAA, NSIDC and all the other government agencies use zero baselines. They do it delibeatately, because they show [non-existent] acceleration in temparatures.
Use your head. Think! There are motives at work, and your wallet is the target.
James Abbott
You say this idiocy to me
If and when the data sets show a trend at 95% confidence then I will accept that a period of warming or cooling has initiated. Until then all that can be said is that
GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED.
I am not interested in your choice of processed data. Anybody can find a method which will alter the data so the alteration shows whatever they want. Take your smoothed data where there are gullible fools who will take notice of it, but don’t try to peddle it here.
And you need to learn the difference between ‘warm’ and ‘warming’.
A “record high 5 year running mean” says absolutely NOTHING about warming.
And it does not matter if it turns out that “2014 to be in the top 3 or 4 warmest years”: 2014 is among my top 3 or 4 tallest years but I stopped growing more than half a century ago.
Richard
What is seen in the plot, adjusted as it is, is still 1910-1945: about 0.6 degC, 1970-2006: about 0.6 degC.
There is no change. The trend established coming out of the LIA is the same as it has been, and is not a product of rising CO2 levels.
“..Meanwhile, the climate continues to warm (NOAA August 2014 report)…”
At half or less the predicted rate.
Dr. Spencer already highlighted the best most likely reason for the ocean warming … wind.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/SSMI-wind-speed-thru-Aug14.jpg
So let me get this straight, according to the Royal Society, this snail is extinct, yet they will neither publish a critique of the paper, nor publish a correction. (They could paraphrase Mark Twain’s observation that rumors of his demise were premature, that would be a sufficiently British way to admit they blew it.)
Does this mean they will reject any contemporary studies of this snail? (You submission has been rejected because your snail is extinct and we’re getting damned tired telling all of you that.)
Can someone submit a paper documenting a new species of snail noting that a similar one has been document as extinct, so it can’t be that one?
Ah well, it’s good job security for Dellers.
@James Baldwin Abbott September 20, 2014 at 2:03 pm
“..No, the surface temperatures show continued warming. Maybe you have been reading too many dodgy graphs…”
Don’t be silly. Present real data. It’s not difficult – a lot of people have told you how.
I too think the Koonin piece in today’s Wall Street Journal is a pretty big deal. His credentials are impeccable, which makes it hard for the warmists to use the ad hominem attack. His style is measured but relentless, so he can’t be accused of an intemperate or half-coherent rant. His substantive points are devastating to the modelers and all those who use the models’ projections to declare catastrophe and demand blind obedience. Little by little the tide may be turning.
I am not impressed by the Koonin piece who is peddling the sos about water vapor being a positive feedback. That notion is responsible for the egregious modeling we have seen. My take on Koonin is that he is slick and trying to hoodwink us.
dbstealey
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The plots I have presented show anomalies from means over defined periods.
It is an absolutely standard way of presenting data, particularly climate data. Climate, as I am sure you know, is defined as 30 year means of physical parameters such as temperature and precipitation.
So the zero line is clearly not arbitrary, it represents the mean, which is defined.
I wonder if you actually read and understood the comparison of plots you show – moving the zero line makes no difference at all to the trend – anyone who understands those plots can see the trend is the same – warming !
richardscourtney
if you are
“not interested in (my) choice of processed data”
and I have consistently used the recognised global data sets, please tell us which data set you believe to be acceptable (apart from how tall you are) ?
If you cannot accept that a 5 year running mean reaching a record warm position, on a data set going back over 130 years is of note then you are just in denial.
Dodgy Geezer
So you don’t think NOAA is “real data” ? You take the same approach as richardscourtney – any data which shows warming/ice melting/sea level rise, etc must be false, any data which shows cooling/increasing ice/sea level fall, etc must be true.
That is just anti-science.
But that’s the problem isn’t it – so many people that claim they know about climate science don’t appear to know much about the scientific method full stop. Its the most basic principles of science taught to school children that you have to measures things fairly, cannot cherry pick your measurements, cannot prejudge your findings.
If the NOAA data was showing cooling I would say so – but its not, its showing warming and that is instantly objectionable to climate sceptics.
The NOAA data is fixed. It has been cooked, you poor dupe. Abbot, you need to learn to recognize propaganda.
“Climate, as I am sure you know, is defined as 30 year means of physical parameters such as temperature and precipitation.”
Says who? There is no such definition. It is merely a convenient cherry pick of intervals over which to make comparisons.
And, the reason for that cherry pick is obvious: 30 years was the exact interval needed to maximize the ersatz AGW signal in the latter third of the 20th century, as it covered the upswing of the natural ~60 year cycle. We are now roughly 1/3rd of the way into the downswing of that cycle. In 20 years, when you have the full downswing of the natural cycle in view, I doubt you will be so keen on this definition.
@James Baldwin Abbott says:
If the NOAA data was showing cooling I would say so – but its not, its showing warming and that is instantly objectionable to climate sceptics.
—————————–
I think you maybe overestimating while saying “objectionable”, seems more like “questionable” to me, in no contradiction at all with what a sceptic means.
I read some of your comments and replies here, and I could not see your point made [you tried to make]………till I read the above.
Was your intention and your point in showing that by swiftly injecting the “objectionable” instead of “questionable, as it should have been, you are arguing and imposing again the old mantra “the sceptics are wrong because they are deniers” ? Is it that where you were driving at? I fail to see any other point in your arguments about these latest NOAA real data, you brink to light.
If I am mistaken and there was or is any other point you were making or trying to, please let me know if you can…
cheers
James Abbott
Your misrepresentation of data sets is bad but your misrepresentation of me is despicable. I can only assume you have done it because you know you are wrong so are trying to hide the fact that you are wrong.
Your reply to my pointing out your misrepresentations of the data says in total
Which data sets you used – be they “recognised” (by whom?) or not – has no relevance. At issue is that YOU HAVE CHANGED THE DATA. Your processed data has no interest to anybody with more than two brain cells to think with. As I said
I would accept any data set so long as it is measurements and not imagined numbers (such as the NOAA data set you cite) and is not altered by you.
I don’t deny that your 5-year running mean has a high recent value and I said I don’t. I fail to understand how that puts me “in denial”. I SAID YOUR RUNNING MEAN IS NOT RELEVANT TO DISCERNMENT OF GLOBAL WARMING. It is not. As I said
GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED NEARLY TWO DECADES AGO. BE PLEASED.
And you say to Dodgy Geezer
How dare you!? You nasty little oik! You accuse ME of being “anti-science” because I promote use of real data and proper data analysis, and that I – not you – am ignorant of the scientific method whilst you alter data to make it look like what you want it to say!
You cannot choose one mostly fabricated data set and ignore all others then alter data and claim “you have to measures things fairly, cannot cherry pick your measurements, cannot prejudge your findings”. Well, you can and do, but it is outrageous that you assert I am guilty of your faults.
I told you how to analyse a GASTA data set to determine if global warming has stopped without any cherry picking or prejudgement: i.e.start from now and assess back to determine when there is a linear trend different from zero at 95% confidence. You have ignored that and asserted I am guilty of your behaviour.
Richard
James Abbott says:
dbstealey
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I’m not surprised. But no one else seems to be confounded like that, so I assume the mental barricade is on your end.
Simples: a zero baseline chart shows imaginary, non-existent acceleration of global warming. A trend chart does not. Both use the same data.
It is as easy to lie with charts as it is to lie with statistics. That’s what these government agencies are doing. In your case, it looks like they convinced you that global warming is accelerating.
But it’s not — as even the IPCC now admits. Is your belief so ingrained and impervious to reason that you actually believe that global warming is accelerating? Really? In that case, there’s nothing much to say. Your mind is made up and closed tight. Reason can no longer enter.
In Australia at least, the procedure for how a journal responds to criticism of a paper that it had published is to publish the critique, and ask the author of the original paper to respond, which is then also published, etc., etc. AFAIK, there is no role in this process for “peer review” after the publication of the original paper – nil, zilch. Does anyone know what procedure is normally followed by the R.S., or elsewhere? If different, why would it make an exception now?
Nurse is a tragedy for the future of science. His statement that “Society should listen to the majority consensus opinion of expert scientists” is beyond belief. Nobel Laureates are obviously not what they used since Feynman’s most memorable wisdom was “”Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”.
Sad day for science when someone like Nurse, through his statement, is able confirm the transformation of the once esteemed RS from being a scientific society into a politicized society in line with the notorious tradition of Lysenkoism.
The Royal Society is 350tears old. The last 20 in total oblivion and denial.
I meant to type ”years”.
Maybe I was correct the first time.
Most real scientists, of whom Nurse is one, do not base their science on models.
They do not base their forecasts on artificial constructs.
Most do not make forecasts at all but might come out with testable hypotheses.
Do not therefore blame Norse for actually believing that “climate scientists” are basing their forecasts on the observation of data rather than reconstructing the data to fit their hypotheses.
James Delingpole has a good write-up on this:
Snailgate: The Slime Trail Left By the Royal Society’s Vanishing Credibility
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/21/Snailgate-the-slime-trail-left-by-the-Royal-Society-s-vanishing-credibility
“Snailgate”!
Another blight on those who leave science and promote the CAGW meme.
“Nullius in verba” is the motto of what prestigious scientific society???
I hear that the restaurant at 6-9 Carlton House Terrace is to be renamed the Gastropod……
Richard Feynman warned of this in 1974 when he talked of ‘Escargot Cult Science’….:o)
I’ll get my coat……..
Thank you for that.