The Royal Society Misrepresents Climate Science

The Small Print The Royal Society Left Out

Royal_Society_350_logo_400x175[1]London, 16 March: A new briefing paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation has accused the Royal Society of presenting a misleading picture of climate science.

The briefing, entitled The Small Print: What the Royal Society left out, challenges claims made in the Royal Society’s recently published Short Guide to Climate Science, and demonstrates how the Society has left out many important facts, caveats and doubts on subjects as varied as the causes of climate change, extreme weather and the role of the Sun.

“As an example, the Royal Society addresses the question of why Antarctic sea ice is growing,” says Prof Ross McKitrick, the chairman of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, “but in doing so they present a recently proposed hypothesis as if it were settled science. Failing to admit when the answer to an important question is simply not known does a disservice to the public. We believe that this new paper does a much better job of presenting the whole picture to the public.”

The briefing paper was written by an international panel of climate experts, including two Fellows of the Royal Society. The paper is the latest in a series of exchanges between GWPF and the Royal Society on the subject of climate change and follows a 2013 meeting between experts from the two sides, which was held behind closed doors at the insistence of the Royal Society.

The paper was written and endorsed by the following experts:
Prof Robert Carter
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Freeman Dyson
Prof Christopher Essex
Dr Indur Goklany
Prof Will Happer
Prof Richard Lindzen
Prof Ross McKitrick
Prof Ian Plimer
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Prof Nir Shaviv
Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

The Small Print: What the Royal Society left out (pdf)

Advertisements

141 thoughts on “The Royal Society Misrepresents Climate Science

  1. Generally a good response, though point 2 “the warming effect of Greenhouse Gasses is widely recognised” should have been followed up with the fact that there are reputable scientists that also dispute this. They have had their papers posted on this site and thus should also be mentioned when battling “consensus science” with an organisation that should hold the gold standard in fighting it, lest you yourselves fall victim to it.

    • ”though point 2 “the warming effect of Greenhouse Gasses is widely recognised” should have been followed up with the fact that there are reputable scientists that also dispute this. “

      Indeed, I’ll happily take on any moron who says adding radiative gases to our atmosphere reduces our radiatively cooled atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability. It matters not to me that the majority of those are “lukewarmers” like Willis and Monckton. They got it wrong and [snip].

      • Indeed, I’ll happily take on any moron who says adding radiative gases to our atmosphere reduces our radiatively cooled atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability.

        They put it stronger than that – the claim is that adding radiative gasses to the non-radiative atmosphere actively warms the atmosphere. This is the basis of the ‘green house gas’ and ‘global warming’ hypotheses.

      • Konrad, your lack of understanding of what the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually is and why it happens makes your comments totally out of place. The effect of absorbing gases only results in raising the altitude of the average location of radiation to space from absorbed solar energy. The lapse rate is not significantly changed, so the surface temperature has to increase. The issue is whether the CO2 increase is partially depressed by the effect of cloud change on albedo or increased by the increased water vapor at slightly higher temperature. The lukewarmers, including me, claim either there is no net feedback, or it is the first of the above choices, so the effect of CO2 is small and overwhelmed by natural variation.

      • Leonard Weinstein
        March 16, 2015 at 5:06 am

        The effect of absorbing gases only results in raising the altitude of the average location of radiation to space from absorbed solar energy.

        The question nobody will answer is whether the ‘scattering’ of IR from the ground by CO2 molecules overwhelms the radiation of IR by the CO2 molecules of kinetic energy received from collisions with N2/O2

      • Show me your equations . I’ll implement them in an APL and play around with them to see if they make sense or lead to any absurdities . And be able to make some concrete quantitative experimental tests .

      • Konrad, “I’ll happily take on any moron who says adding radiative gases to our atmosphere reduces our radiatively cooled atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability”

        You have it backwards. CO2 absorbs and thermalizes radiation. That is why the 15 micron range is lower in radiation, the Radiation was absorbed by the CO2, not emitted.

        It is evaporation that cools the atmosphere by expanding it. Boyle’s law and the Ideal gas law.

      • Ian W wrote: “The question nobody will answer is whether the ‘scattering’ of IR from the ground by CO2 molecules overwhelms the radiation of IR by the CO2 molecules of kinetic energy received from collisions with N2/O2.”

        GHGs absorb and emit thermal IR, do not appreciably scatter it. In the troposphere (and up to about 100 km), CO2 molecules collide and exchange kinetic energy with N2/O2 far more frequently than they emit and absorb photons. The vast majority of CO2 molecules in an excited vibrational state (capable of emitting a photon) in the troposphere were excited by a collision, not by absorbing a photon. They are in “local thermodynamic equilibrium”. Their emission therefore depends only on the local temperature.

        Under LTE, the change in radiation intensity (dI) at a given wavelength that occurs passing an incremental distance (ds) through a GHG is given by the Schwarzschild equation:

        dI/ds = emission – absorption = n*o*B(lamba,T) – n*o*I_0

        where n is the density of GHG molecules, o is their absorption cross-section at the wavelength of interest, T is the local temperature, B(lamba,T) is the Planck function, and I_0 is the incoming radiation intensity. (Since I_0 is usually greater than B(lamba,T) for upward radiation, increasing the density of GHG (n) usually reduces the outward flux.) This equation is numerically integrated along a path from the surface to space (and space to the surface) over all wavelengths to calculate the radiative imbalance (OLR-DLR) produced by changes in GHG concentration. There is an online calculator that can perform such calculations here:

        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

        but the results depend the nature of the atmosphere (humidity, lapse rate, surface temperature, clouds) you select for the calculation.

        When needed, terms for scattering are added to the Schwarzschild equation. Those terms are negligible for the interaction of thermal IR and GHG’s in our atmosphere. However, the sky appears blue during daytime because more visible blue light is scattered towards the surface.

        Grant Petty’s “A First Course in Radiation Physics” is a relatively inexpensive text that covers this material in much greater detail.

      • @ Frank, you talk as if 100 km it is still warm. At 10 km it is pretty darn cold and it is hard to breathe. The calculations are off by at least a factor of 10. The function should be as temp goes to 0 C as a part of a multivariable calculus problem involving pressure, gradients, and impendence mismatches. Is co2 causing a refractive index to be increased to reflect thermal heat back?

    • wickedwenchfan

      There are no scientists who dispute the greenhouse effect, only quacks and crackpots, and they give sceptics a bad name.

      Hey, then on cue Konrad pops up

    • wickedwenchfan,

      There are no scientists who dispute the greenhouse effect, only quacks and crackpots, and they give sceptics a bad name.

      Hey, then on cue Konrad pops up

    • wickedwenchfan wrote: “’the warming effect of Greenhouse Gasses is widely recognised’ should have been followed up with the fact that there are reputable scientists that also dispute this’.

      Much of what IPCC advocates is disputable. But, to my knowledge, no reputable scientist disputes the warming effect of greenhouse gases. If there are any, I’d like to know who they are.

      There is a dispute over how much warming will occur, but that is not a dispute over the direct effect of the greenhouse gases themselves, but over indirect effects, such as changes in clouds and water vapor.

      • The fact that the Royal Society ‘scientists’ can’t understand that Antarctica’s ice is growing due to it being COLDER there is crazy. Amending their ‘this is due to warming’ to ‘we don’t know’ is stupid.

        And why is the planet cooling? Obviously, the prime place to look is the sun but then, the warmists believe the sun has nothing to do with warmer or colder weather which to my mind, is pathetic.

    • Leonard,

      I would hate to dispute with someone so reputable, but the problem I have is that the effective radiating height, as regards the CO2 absorption band, is that it is already in the stratosphere. So, moving this to a higher altitude simply means that the radiation is coming from a warmer place, and so radiates more energy to space than before.

      The sort of opposite to the greenhouse effect?

      Is this not right?

      • MikeB,

        The effective radiating height of the atmosphere is about 5 km, well within the troposphere. It can’t be in the stratosphere, since the stratosphere is too cold to radiate enough IR.

      • I don’t think that is right Mike.

        If you set Modtran to look down from a succession of increasing heights you will see temperature at the bottom of the ‘CO2 well’ begin to fall as altitude increases, but then it will start to rise as the radiating height moves into the stratosphere.

        The other give-away is the upward blip in the middle of the CO2 well at about 15 microns. This is an indication of temperature inversion

      • MikeB,

        I don’t understand how you get your conclusions from your graph. Where is altitude in the graph? The apparent CO2 emission temperature varies over a wide range, with higher T in the wings (where absorption is weaker, so emission is from lower in the atmosphere) and lower T in the line center. Even there, the T is about 220 K, corresponding to about 10 km for the standard atmosphere. So the emissions seem to be mostly from well withing the atmosphere.

        “The other give-away is the upward blip in the middle of the CO2 well at about 15 microns. ” If I remember the CO2 spectra I took in undergrad Pchem, there is a P-branch and an R-branch with a dip between them. So emissions will be from lower altitude and higher T in the dip.

      • Sorry Mike, I didn’t see your response earlier, and you have probably stopped looking for mine, but I will reply anyway [even though no one will ever read it]

        When you use Modtran there is a temperature vs. Altitude graph on the right. Use this version….
        http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html
        Using the tropical altitude as an example, you will see that the temperature at the bottom of the CO2 well is 220K, and this temperature occurs both in the troposphere and in the stratosphere . We don’t know which the ‘well’ is in yet.
        Use the model to look down from 10km. The temperature at the bottom of the ‘CO2 well’ is 240.
        Look down from 13km; the CO2 well is now 220K. This is still in the troposphere, so the temperature falls as we go up.
        Look down from 18km and the temperature of the well has fallen to its coldest level, about 200K.
        Now look down from 20km. The temperature at the bottom of the well starts to rise again. And it will continue to do so until the effective radiating level (ERL) is reached. Try it out. It continues to increase because the radiating height is now in the stratosphere. Look down from altitudes above 40km, however, and the temperature stops rising, because the ERL has been reached.
        So, contrary to what most believe, according to Modtran the ERL is in the stratosphere.
        Althought CO2 absorbs over an extended region around 15 microns, the absorption at 15microns is especially intense. Visibility at this wavelength is much less than elsewhere in the absorption band and so radiation at this wavelength is emanating much closer to the observer. An observer is looking down from space sees the ‘blip’ in the CO2 well as coming from somewhere nearer and in this case it is coming from somewhere warmer. Thus, an ‘upward blip’ indicates temperature inversion, i.e. the air is warmer at higher altitude.
        Probably not the clearest explanation but I am sure you can follow it after a few reads (and verifications with Modtran).

    • Mr. Weinstein is correct as far as I understand but given the non-existent positive feedbacks, and possible negative feedbacks, the warming is essentially zero. So, although CO2 warms, it doesn’t.

    • If there were reputable scientists who dispute the widely recognized warming effect of GHGs, you would cite their names and scientific publications*. Given their opposition to AGW alarmism, the GWPF would mention such controversy. Even our host doesn’t dispute the widely recognized warming effect of GHG’s. An article posted on this or other website does not constitute a scientific publication. The absence of statistically significant warming over the last 16 years doesn’t disprove the warming effect of GHGs – it simply demonstrates that the role of natural variability has been underestimated and underpublicized by the IPCC and skeptics. One can learn little about the warming effects of GHG’s by observing the complex behavior of our weather/climate. The physics of absorption and emission of radiation by GHGs has been illuminated by well-controlled studies in the laboratory. When the results of such laboratory studies are applied to our atmosphere, they predict an equilibrium warming of about 1 degC (as the GWPF says). This warming is amplified (or suppressed) by feedbacks that can only be studied in our complicated atmosphere or in climate models that can’t be validated. There is plenty of scientific controversy about the magnitude of feedbacks.

      *You could cite papers by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and Kramm & Dlugi, which correctly criticize numerous poor descriptions of the “greenhouse effect” that imply that the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth (a violation of the 2LoT). However, neither pair disputes the existence of DLR. They simply don’t know enough climate science (as opposed to physics) to recognize that heat (the net flux) always flows flow hot to cold in climate models and summaries like the K&T diagram. If you have read and understood these papers, you would recognize that the GWPF was wise to ignore their existence.

  2. My biggest bugbear is the oft quoted ‘sun has done nothing’ since the 1950s/1970s meaning it cant have had an effect during this time, whereas the increase in solar output from ~1750-1950 could have a delayed effect by several decades afterwards, which is not mentioned.

    • In case you are unaware, alarmist theology states that after several billion years, natural climate cycles ceased in June 1951 and were replaced by man made ones.

  3. I am no expert on this subject, but if I were presented with those two documents…

    The first from the criminally prostrated “Royal Society” and the second from the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”, I would chuck the first one in the bin and read the second one… The GWPF does not seem to be frightened of presenting the Royal Society’s “theories” and then refuting them.

    The Royal Society, produces their “findings” and do not present the opposing arguments.

    I would (as a complete novice) look at those two and conclude that the RS is trying to sell something and the GWPF is trying to warn us off… I always approach salesmen with a jaundiced eye, their product better be damned good… I just haven’t seen any evidence of that though, it never seems to hang right.

    • The Royal Society is a highly prestigious scientific body that has been around for some 350 years. The GWPF has not.

      Another scientist or our policy makers would always accept the Royal Society view of the world because of their past track record.

      We may think that their stance on Climate change is wrong, or that they do not live up to their motto ‘trust no ones word,’ but we need to refute those aspects of the climate change story we believe to be inaccurate through science and by highlighting flaws in such elements as the historic data commonly used to make the case.

      tonyb

      • Dinosaurs were around a lot longer than 350 years, mate.

        Id be careful of equating longevity with functionality and ability to respond to change.

      • tonyb, the Royal Society is doing exactly what they warned against. They have become the authority.

        Sceptics don’t have to present any science whatsoever, though we can choose to, which I often do. The onus is on them to present the evidence. Secondly, we only require observations V prediction / projection.

        IPCC
        Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations.

        Here is another observation:

      • I assume that the ratio of science over politics done by an ‘body’ is inversely proportional to that bodies age. Forming a ‘body’ in the first place is an act of politics and it is much easier to move towards politics rather than science.

        Science is hard, politics is natural. If we are not diligent in presurving science, politics will come in on its own.

      • Climate models predict the future with great certainty. It is the present that they always get wrong.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • America was founded about 240 years ago, which you must agree means they can never get anything wrong.

        But 240 years, 350 years. pfft, a mere pittance, the inquisition was around for 700 years, which means it doubles the infallibility, validity and benefit provided by the Royal Society.

      • What?! I thought they’d disbanded yeehhhhrs ago.

        3 Cheers for Staffordshire! #(:))

        (Brute, you and I, great minds, heh)

      • Reply to Jimbo: Jimbo, more importantly, your chart should show the year the CMIP5 models were created – it would show that the modelers are good at modeling data that is already known and very poor in modeling unknown future data.

      • I enjoyed reading an article in the RS Proceedings of about 200yrs ago in which a chronic alcoholic was found in his home, completely burned up to ashes not far from his fireplace. The author was convinced that it was because of the increasing volume of alcohol in his system that he auto-combusted while warming by his fire. I don’t know how to provide a link to this, but I’m sure someone here can. Probably the poor sod was murdered, burned somewhere and then dumped on his carpet.

      • For Gary Pearse (re: yours of 8:08am today)

        Re: Spontaneous Combustion

        I re-read one of my favorite books, Charles Dickens’ Bleak House, recently and recalled reading this in the “Preface to the Charles Dickens Edition”:

        … The possibility of what is called Spontaneous Combustion has been denied since the death of Mr. Krook … before I wrote that description I took pains to investigate the subject. There are about thirty cases on record, of which the most famous, that of the Countess … Cesanate, was minutely investigated and described by Guiseppe Bianchini … published … in 1731 … next most famous instance happened at Rheims, six years earlier; … the historian in that case is Le Cat … at page 288, the recorded opinions … of distinguished medical professors, French, English, and Scotch, in more more modern days … .”

        August, 1853s

        I hope that you find that helpful,

        Janice

      • Yes, Mr. Pearse, it is not the link you requested, but, perhaps the contents of my comment might help you or someone else to search for it.

      • Re: Spontaneous Combustion:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion
        “where the destruction was extensive, additional fuel sources were involved, such as chair stuffing, floor coverings, the flooring itself, and the like. The investigators described how such materials helped retain melted fat to burn and destroy more of the body, yielding still more liquified fat, in a cyclic process known as the “wick effect” or the “candle effect”. According to Nickell and Fischer’s investigation, nearby objects often went undamaged because fire tends to burn upward, and it burns laterally with some difficulty. The fires in question are relatively small, achieving considerable destruction by the wick effect, and relatively nearby objects may not be close enough to catch fire themselves (much as one can get rather close to a modest campfire without burning).”

      • Weren’t the computer models “tuned” prior to a certain date to match historical data. When did the tuning stop and is it done repeatedly??

    • Yep, tony is correct. The Royal Society has been around far longer and that counts for something… I mean, if you go by credibility alone.

      • Similar to trusting the Catholic Church’s established science in the 15th and16th centuries when it was heresy to say anything other than the Sun revolved around the Earth.

        One of the problems has been that so much of the Establishment’s science has morphed from being objective to just being a support tool of political whims.

        For ‘Establishment’, read the UK’s Royal Society and the US’s EPA.

      • And Kodak, did what it thought was right….

        Not only that, it invented the thing that caused its demise and then failed to capitalise on it. The Royal Society, has built up a peerless reputation, which has been ruined in short order, because they trust the words of organisations that are offering money…

        Honestly, when that little fart that has taken over appears on the television and presents science as “irrefutable fact”, I turn it off… And I used to watch their Christmas specials… religiously…

        They have found a new religion now, and I am not following.

      • Like it or not here is the pedigree of the Royal Society who are an academy of science. Fellowship is highly prized. They have the ear of Governments around the world, the establishment and media and that of other scientists.

        https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

        If you are a policy maker, whether we like it or not , who are you going to believe on climate science, the Royal Society or the GWP?

        They need to be countered with science and to chip away at the historic material-such as global temperatures-that they set such great scientific store by.

        tonyb

      • climatereason March 16, 2015 at 4:35 am

        You and the Royal Society seem to have forgotten the meaning of nullius in verba it means do not take the word of you and them too. The only thing to trust is unmodified observations to validate/falsify any hypothesis.

        The authors of a scientific paper are largely irrelevant it is its content that matters. It should provide a falsifiable hypothesis and demonstrate that so far it is not falsified and provide all the original observations to allow repetition and further attempts to falsify by other researchers.

      • Ianw

        Did you read from the bottom up as I made exactly the same point upthread that the royal society are not living up to their motto.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/16/the-royal-society-misrepresents-climate-science/#comment-1884240

        That still doesn’t get Away from the fact that in the eyes of those who think they matter, such as policy makers, the royal society are considered far more credible than the GWPF

        We have to deal with that by countering their version of science with an alternative but credible view.

        Tonyb

      • “Brute

        March 16, 2015 at 1:57 am

        Yep, tony is correct. The Royal Society has been around far longer and that counts for something… I mean, if you go by credibility alone.”.

        Well, credibility if they were never wrong in that 350 yeas or so perhaps.

        I’m wondering if they have a perfect record.

  4. Let’s be frank The credibility of many, if not most, learned/scholarly scientific societies on the issue of climate change has evaporated with many rays of true sunshine.

    • Indeed, it has. Who would have thought three decades back that “climate” would unhinge the lot? It’s bizarre to a Monty Python extreme.

  5. Time was when when I trusted scientists to be open and honest about their work and it’s limitations, but even the Royal Society has sold its integrity to climate millenarianism. And now here’s Oxford University about to join the dishonourable roll of seats of “learning” that have allowed themselves to be bullied out of investing in coal producers by anti-CO2 jihadis.

    • In this respect at least, the “climate crises” may have had a mission; it removes much of the naive trust so many of us used to have in “pure science”. There has of course always been bias and bigotry in science, but hardly ever in such a huge scale and so exposed to the public as we see it today.

      Not many have illusions about politicians, it is high time people shed their illusions about politicized scientists as well.

      • Thank-you for pointing out what should be obvious–the bias and bigotry (I assume in ideas and personalities) of science. “Scientists” have a moral and ethical code that is highly regarded but often ignored. There should be a place for the collection that records the frauds in science for regular review. Perhaps the costs could be assigned and tabulated as well. I think it is far more common than most people think.

  6. I found the source of the problem. There are some who believe, campaigns of aggressive, irrational naming calling, will change the fact that the majority of warming in the last 150 years has due to solar changes. There are some, how believe that manipulating the past temperature record and ignoring the urban heat effect will change the fact that the planet has not warmed for 18 years.

    There are some, who how believe as they have repeated something a hundred thousand times, on every continent and with great emphasis, and their friends really, really believe what they have repeated a hundred thousand times, therefore it must be true. They do not understand how science works (witch hunting does create witches, incorrect theories do not become correct as a result of repetition or name calling).

    They do not understand the ‘nature’ of this scientific problem. It appears they are unaware of the paleo record and hence have never asked the questions: What causes cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record? What causes abrupt cooling in the paleo record? 3) What causes the glacial/integlacial cycle? The answers to those questions is the key to understanding why the planet warmed in the last 150 years.

    Observations, analysis, logic and reason (i.e. ‘the scientific method’ which requires the formation of hypotheses, falsification of incorrect hypotheses, and so on) can be used to determine which theory is or is not correct. If they had the correct theory/mechanisms and a understanding of what is happening to the sun a prediction could have been made. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, there has been an abrupt change to the sun, the challenge would have been to figure out what is happening to the sun and how solar changes modulate planetary climate and why the GCM climate models are incorrect. We are however past the point of predictions, the changes have started, the wait is over.

    There is a race going on, what will be the first announcement? 1) there is an anomalous, unexplained, rapid change to the sun (‘opps’ there has been a paper issued concerning this fact) or 2) there is sudden, unexplained global cooling (scientific papers not required: media and ‘skeptics’ will take the lead on announcing the end of global warming).

  7. There is one more question that needs to be asked.
    “With the current data that is being collected, and with the current models that are being used, is it possible to predict climate?”
    After reading Freeman Dyson and Christopher Essex, I think the answer is an emphatic no.
    Furthermore:
    “Can the data being collected be augmented and the models improved so that they can forecast climate?”
    Again the answer appears to be not only no, but that it is an impossibility.

    • I held that position a few months ago and wrote an article explaining why many perceive patterns or trends where there are not: Natural Habitat of 1/f noise errors.

      However, just because some (notably academics with no real-life experience) are particularly psychological predisposed to misinterpreting 1/f noise, it doesn’t mean that just because we have 1/f noise and apparent patterns, that those patterns are necessarily noise.

    • Hmm. That of course is the burning question…

      I suspect the answer is ‘better, but not good enough to satisfy political forces’

      Now in a more ideal political world, with politicians fulfilling the correct role, that would lead to an orgy of cost-benefit analysis wherein the cost of unreliably trying to predict climate and forestall its effects would be compared with the cost of simply dealing with unstoppable change.

      And the answer would be, of course, that any money spent on trying to stop climate change is a total waste.

      If all the billions spent on windmills had been spent on dredging..and bunds..and a few nuclear power stations…etc etc..

  8. 16 March: Scoop NZ: Expatriate physicist slams UK’s Royal Society
    Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
    Distinguished expatriate physicist slams UK’s Royal Society for its lack of science on climate change
    Acknowledged as one of Britain’s leading physicists, expatriate New Zealander, Professor Michael Kelly has written a devastating critique of the UK’s Royal Society, of which he is a Fellow, over its lack of science in dealing with climate change.
    Professor Kelly, born in New Plymouth, migrated to England after earning his first degree at Victoria University of Wellington. He is now the Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University. As well as being a Fellow of the Royal Society, he is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
    Professor Kelly has just written for the UK’s Daily Mail what that paper calls a “devastating critique” in which he accuses the Royal Society of ignoring the science and becoming dogmatic on climate change.
    Here’s what he wrote:….
    (final para) Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1503/S00064/expatriate-physicist-slams-uks-royal-society.htm

    • “Acknowledged as one of Britain’s leading physicists…” As of now he will never be referred to as one of the leading physicists because the CAGW crowd and their media hacks decide who the leading scientists are and they will not like what he has just written.

    • Personally I thought Professor Kelly had clearly taken St Patrick’s Day to heart and fallen victim to his Irish whiskey gene.

      At least, when writing, to forgot any evidence or citable research outside of his own opinions.

      And don’t tell me that a professor of his eminence cannot get his research published. Oh, what’s that? He is not a climate scientist at all? Well, raise my rent!

      PS Being Irish, and the day that’s in it, Irish ethnic jokes are allowed.

  9. Listening to one group of academics criticise another is rather like listening to a debate between Labour/Tory (US: Democrat/Republican) on how much politicians should be paid. The fundamental issue is not how much they should be paid, but why on earth are they the only people who are part of this debate.

    The simple fact is that the climate models have failed. Almost no predictions have proven true. And the overall confidence in their own abilities has INCREASED at a time the evidence is proving those models and all the “understanding” on which they are based to be utterly rubbish.

    It’s time the academics realised that they do not have the appropriate skills or ethos to be in charge of this issue and let those who do have these skills start running the show – such as engineers who know how to use science in complex ill-defined problems – basically the people who are sceptics.

  10. Fellows of the RS do not necessarily agree with or have a say in the opinions published in the name of the RS. That is the problem in the case of the climate change publications.

      • Agreed, a mass walk-out should shock some sense into the administration. The Fellows clinging to the hope that if they look the other way the Royal Society will eventually (somehow) go back to the way it was before need to wake up too. They need to get together and take a stand and take control of what the RS means. Is it about science or isn’t it? Are they going to be a part of it, or aren’t they? Time to choose. Time to act. Either walk away or, better still, kick out the current administration and make the RS their own again. A few members have shown some backbone and refuse political “science”. Where are the rest?

  11. Challenging a political movement with science is not going to work. Politics is much like the climate. It oscillates around a central value taking the occasional plunge into the mire. (e.g Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc) and then recovers to it’s central value, quickly swings past and heads for the opposite pole. I would say we are just about at the furthest point of the current political swing towards religious socialism. There are signs that the fervour is cooling much like there are signs that the planet is cooling. Humanity seems to have a periodicity of about 60 years (More research needed send grants and funds). It may even be that the periodicity of the human swing is aligned with climate. ( More research needed send grants and funds)
    Anyway, I am off to the garage to pick up my gas guzzling diesel SUV. (More repairs needed send grants and funds)

  12. Could it be that it’s just getting colder around Antarctica? The jury is fighting amongst themselves, police have been called.

    “As an example, the Royal Society addresses the question of why Antarctic sea ice is growing,” says Prof Ross McKitrick, the chairman of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, “but in doing so they present a recently proposed hypothesis as if it were settled science.

    Here is what the IPCC said:

    IPCC SPM – 27 September 2013
    Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of natural internal variability in that region (see Figure SPM.6). {10.5}

    Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades. {4.3, 10.5}

    Now here is a paper published by the Royal Society.

    Paper – 2 June 2014
    “…Over the last few decades, the two polar regions of our planet have exhibited strikingly different behaviours, as is evident in observed decadal trends in surface air temperature shown in figure 1. The Arctic has warmed, much more than in the global average, primarily in winter, while Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased dramatically. By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula and Patagonia . Moreover, sea-ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased….”
    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2019/20130040.full

    Paul Homewood observed in 2013: “Study Finds Antarctic Sea Ice Increases When It Gets Colder”

    Abstract – Qi Shu et. al. – July 2011
    Sea ice trends in the Antarctic and their relationship to surface air temperature during 1979–2009
    “Surface air temperature (SAT) from four reanalysis/analysis datasets are analyzed and compared with the observed SAT from 11 stations in the Antarctic……Antarctic SIC trends agree well with the local SAT trends in the most Antarctic regions. That is, Antarctic SIC and SAT show an inverse relationship: a cooling (warming) SAT trend is associated with an upward (downward) SIC trend.”
    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2012.pdf

  13. There is evidence that during the Holocene climate optimum the Arctic ocean was ‘ice-free’ in summers for a millennium or more. No excursion of methane from the ice cores has detected. Here is the Royal Society on the matter:

    Royal Society
    As another example, Arctic warming could destabilise methane (a greenhouse gas) trapped in ocean sediments and permafrost, potentially leading to a rapid release of a large amount of methane. If such a rapid release occurred, then major, fast climate changes would ensue.

    Such high-risk changes are considered unlikely in this century, but are by definition hard to predict. Scientists are therefore continuing to study the possibility of such tipping points beyond which we risk large and abrupt changes.
    https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-19/

    Why put an alarmist statement right next to something that’s highly unlikely this century, or the next, and is hard to predict? If it’s hard to predict then look at the Holocene Climate Optimum when the Arctic ocean was ‘ice-free’.

    Nature
    Conclusions:
    Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years.
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790

    Nature puts methane hydrate fears to rest – says it will be 1,000 years before they make any impact
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/nature-puts-methane-hydrate-fears-to-rest-says-it-will-be-1000-years-before-they-make-any-impact/

    • Even Gavin Schimidt chimes in on methane and the Arctic. Even during the warmer Arctic eemian methane did not make any major excursion from the ocean bed.

      Live Science
      Arctic Methane Claims Questioned
      …..”The paper says that their scenario is ‘likely.’ I strongly disagree,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

      An unlikely scenario
      One line of evidence Schmidt cites comes from ice core records, which include two warm Arctic periods that occurred 8,000 and 125,000 years ago, he said. There is strong evidence that summer sea ice was reduced during these periods, and so the methane-release mechanism (reduced sea ice causes sea floor warming and hydrate melting) could have happened then, too. But there’s no methane pulse in ice cores from either warm period, Schmidt said. “It might be a small thing that we can’t detect, but if it was large enough to have a big climate impact, we would see it,” Schmidt told LiveScience……

  14. Well-thought, clear, concise, calm, logical, respectful and in all ways professional argumentation from Global Warming Policy Foundation. Thank you. Hopefully the Royal Society et al listens and responds accordingly.

    Now everyone has a chance to step back, relax, study the mistakes of the past e.g. the League of Nations and start by using d-words like decency, dignity and diplomacy.

    In my opinion much is at stake now: if the Royal Society, UN, US/EU political leaders et al are perceived to defend the indefensible by all means possible (and beyond), what is left to uphold a civilized society? Is Global Warming Policy Foundation enough?

    • Sorry to be such a realist, but IMHO the d- word now is ‘Dollars.’ It has well and truly trumped decency, dignity and diplomacy on a global scale when you have unlimited billions to back your cause.

      • No doubt. It must take TONS of pounds to prop up such a scientifically rickety facade.

        Won’t last. Windmill “investors” (their main source of cash) are going to be pulling only lint out of their pockets before long, heh, heh, heh. Windmills are failing by the day.

        DOOMED! You are doomed, I say!

  15. One of the things it’s very hard for those of us who don’t live there is just how genuinely powerful the English Monarchy is – and how pervasive its influence.
    For example, to those of us who live in Republics or Democracies a ‘knighthood’ may appear to be a quaint, ceremonial title…but don’t be fooled…a knighthood will put a zero on your income.
    The next King of England (if there are no upsets) will be Charles.
    He is a truly dense specimen but his belief in Global Warming and all things Green and Organic, will be reflected in the opinions of his servants, followers, hangers on and lackeys.
    The ‘Royal Society’ is simply falling into line with the ideology of its masters, not really a big surprise!

    • I hate to keep nitpicking, but for “English” and “England” above you should read “British” and “Gt. Britain”.

    • Those of us who live in the “non-democracy” or “non-republic”, know that the Queen is a constitutional monarch who “acts on the advice of her ministers”, which is a polite way of saying that she does as she is told.
      Knighthoods and other honours are essentially the gift of the government of the day, and more particularly of the Prime Minister.

  16. In the UK’s Radio Times this week, the Royal Society’s new Professor for Public Engagement, a certain Professor Brian Cox, decides to have a swipe at ‘Climate Change Deniers’…in an article primarily about Friday’s Solar Eclipse!

    He says “When you look at climate change denial or parents turning down the MMR jab, it’s often the sense that they don’t like being preached at that’s at the core.” ‘It’s like, who are these scientists and why should we listen to them?”

    And then goes on to say….”The motto of the Royal Society is ‘Take nobody’s word for it. Scepticism has value.’ But if you get an infection you go to the doctor….With climate scientists you have people collecting data and building models to explain it. That’s what they do.”

    I don’t think anyone would seriously deny climate change…it always has and it always will! I guess what the ‘sceptics’ question is by how much and what are the causes? Surely the Royal Society ought to be encouraging some real debate and seeking to better understand climate?

    He’s right on one count though….we don’t like being preached at!

    • The motto of the Royal Society is ‘Take nobody’s word for it. Scepticism has value.’

      Well maybe that’s the motto of the RS, but for climate science, skepticism has been suspended until further notice.

    • “With climate scientists you have people collecting data and building models to explain it”

      Except that the models do not explain the observed data… And any observed data that disagrees with the models is liable to be tortured until it does.

    • Ever wonder why doctors get an MA and not an MSc , that is becasue they work in an area where the inexact is the norm.
      Which is way when you go to a doctors with a infection they ask a series of question which cannot be answered with empirical data ,such has how do you fee,l has part of the diagnoses process.
      They cannot simply take a temperature measurement to find out what is wrong .
      Meanwhile if you wonder why their is so much time and money spent on medical research, that is becasue there is still much unknown.

      The idea that medicine is a standard bearer for exact science is hilarious and shows the person simply does not know how the area works .

  17. One of the things it’s very hard for those of us who don’t live in the UK to understand, is just how genuinely powerful the English Monarchy is – and how pervasive its influence.
    For example, to those of us who live in Republics or Democracies a ‘knighthood’ may appear to be a quaint, ceremonial title…but don’t be fooled…a knighthood will put a zero on your income.
    The next King of England (if there are no upsets) will be Charles.
    He is a truly dense specimen but his belief in Global Warming and all things Green and Organic, will be reflected in the opinions of his servants, followers, hangers on and lackeys.
    The ‘Royal Society’ is simply falling into line with the ideology of its masters, not really a big surprise!

  18. multi-purpose study, published by Royal Society, funded by European Research Council! PR for LEDs?

    16 March: Fiona MacRae: Cancer warning over lights in the bedroom: Fit blackout blinds and ban gadgets to avert disease, say experts
    Britons should fit blackout blinds and ban electronic gadgets from the bedroom to avert the risk of diseases such as cancer, experts say.
    Cutting out all light sources while we sleep could halt damaging interruptions to our body clock, they believe…

    ***Writing in the journal Philosophical Transactions B, published by the Royal Society, Dr Stevens (Breast cancer researcher Dr Richard Stevens, Uni of Connecticutt) warned of the huge dangers of keeping streets and homes artificially lit.
    He said children, including babies in the womb, may be particularly vulnerable because they are still developing, adding: ‘Excessive lighting of the night sky is as important an issue as climate change.’***…

    Researcher Dr Fiona Matthews said street lighting and the intensity of home lighting had grown enormously over the last few decades. ‘We urgently need to reverse this trend,’ she said…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996391/Cancer-warning-lights-bedroom-Fit-blackout-blinds-ban-gadgets-say-experts.html

    15 March: Science2.0: Light Pollution’s Impact On Food Webs Quantified
    Artificial night time light from sources such as street lamps affects the growth and flowering of plants and even the number of insects that depend on those plants for food, a study published today confirms…
    Researchers from the University of Exeter simulated the effects of street lighting on artificial grassland plots containing a community of invertebrates at night, exposing them to two different types of light treatment – a ‘white’ light similar to newer commercial LED street lighting systems and an ‘amber’ light simulating the type of sodium street lamp still found in much of the UK…
    The experiments investigated both top-down (driven by predators) and bottom-up (food or resource limited) effects of the lights on the population density of a species of pea aphid, and in the presence and absence of predators including ladybirds.
    The low intensity amber light was shown to inhibit, rather than induce, flowering in greater bird’s foot trefoil, a wild relative of peas and beans that is a key source of food for the pea aphid in grasslands and road verges…
    Professor Kevin Gaston, Director of the Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI) said: “These are the first findings from major long-term experiments being funded by the European Research Council, and already reveal how profound the impacts of artificial night time lighting can be on even simple communities of organisms.”…
    Citation: Jonathan Bennie, Thomas W. Davies, David Cruse, Richard Inger and Kevin J. Gaston, ‘Cascading effects of artificial light at night: resource-mediated control of herbivores in a grassland ecosystem’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
    http://www.science20.com/news_articles/light_pollutions_impact_on_food_webs_quantified-154025

    16 March: Belfast Telegraph: Switch off the lights for bats
    The study found that bat activity was generally lower in street-lit areas than in dark locations with similar habitat.
    The scientists said the findings had important implications for conservation – overturning the previous assumption that common bats benefited from street-lights because they could feed on the insects that congregated around them.
    The research, which was carried out by scientists from the University of Exeter and Bat Conservation Ireland, found that the activity of soprano pipistrelle, noctule and serotine bats was similar or lower in areas with street lighting compared with dark areas…
    The only species for which lighting appeared favourable was Leisler’s bat, a species common in Ireland but rare in Britain…
    Dr Fiona Mathews, from the University of Exeter, said: “People rarely see bats, and when they do it is usually because they are silhouetted by a light…
    “Over recent decades, the number of streetlights, and the brightness of lighting, has grown enormously.
    “We also use increasingly powerful lights to illuminate outdoor areas around our homes. We urgently need to reverse this trend.”…
    (LINK EASY TO FIND ONLINE)

  19. Point 1: Is the climate warming?, is not well handled. How can one discuss “climate warming” if CLIMTE is not defined in the first place? The Royal Society says: “Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased…”. The Small Print restricts the reply either to temperature warming and cooling. But air temperature is only air temperature, and only one of as many dozen weather indicators. The problem shows the Glossary of the American Meteorological Society that distinguishes between: The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions, with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. http://www.whatisclimate.com/b206_need_to_talk_July_2010.html.
    One or several weather conditions do not “make weather”, and one or several weather statistic remain statistic and are neither present weather, nor past, or future weather.

    • First question does Earth’s average surface air temperature actual any meaning , second question do we actually meet the parameters to take this measurement in scientifically meaningful way in the first place?

      If both are not yes , they the idea means little to begin with , it is mere speculation.

  20. The issue at the heart of this debate is that ALL climate claims made by Hansen to U.S. Congress in 1988 were modelling artefacts, multiple mistakes in radiative and IR physics. Because these have been taught in U.S. Atmospheric Science for about 50 years, in the UK for perhaps half that time, Climate and many other Scientists are UNABLE to self-correct. It takes Engineers like me to do that, in particular to identify the 4 basic mistakes made by Carl Sagan in the 1960s which caused this mess.

    The most basic was a boundary condition error; to fail to understand that if there were the claimed thermalisation of ‘surface IR’, there would be substantial temperature drop, surface to local atmosphere. A decade ago, Hansen admitted NASA had tried to find it but “decided to model it”.

    This ‘Science’ is deceased, has popped its clogs, left this mortal coil. If it were not nailed to its Royal Society Perch, it would be lying upside down at the bottom of its cage.

  21. Great document. It reads like the Suma. by Thomas d’Auino. Objection: Reconciliation, Objection: Reconciliation, Objection: Reconciliation.Very professionally done.

  22. Once again, there is no such thing as climate science. There is only climate history, a branch of geology.

  23. @Brute et al

    Yep, tony is correct. The Royal Society has been around far longer and that counts for something… I mean, if you go by credibility alone.

    “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

    Clarke’s First Law

  24. This is non-news.

    Would we pay any attention to a press release from Greenpeace taking Shell to task over its continued exploration of fossil fuels and reserve estimates. The GWPF – justifiably – taking the Royal Society to task over some of its statements is viewed in much the same light.

  25. The attached PDF reminds me of those websites where they explain how evolution is a hoax, illustrated with drawing of humans walking with dinosaurs.

    • Says the one who can only parrot talking points, throw insults, and has never “explained” a damn thing.

      • I’ve frequently linked peer-reviewed academic papers refuting many of the claims made here. Normally they’re dismissed as part of an imaginary conspiracy, a surefire way to kibosh any legitimate debate. However if it suits your narrative and your need for self-esteem to believe that I “only parrot talking points, (and) throw insults” I am willing to be the bigger person.

  26. The paper was written and endorsed by the following experts: Prof Robert Carter Prof Vincent Courtillot Prof Freeman Dyson Prof Christopher Essex Dr Indur Goklany Prof Will Happer Prof Richard Lindzen
    Prof Ross McKitrick Prof Ian Plimer Dr Matt Ridley Sir Alan Rudge Prof Nir Shaviv Prof Fritz Vahrenholt

    I note, for completeness, that Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist, nor is Ross McKitrick, nor Ian Plimer. Plimer, I believe, is the guy who thinks the sun is made out of iron (Heaven and Earth, pp. 110-120). Not sure who some of the others are, but I would be more impressed by this list if the signers were climatologists. Lindzen used to be an impressive climatologist, but he’s still clinging to his “tropical infrared iris” theory as if it hadn’t been shot down repeatedly. He’s becoming the Halton Arp of climatology.

      • Whichever side you choose is an appeal to authority, unless you’ve personally sifted through, processed, and understood several decades of climate research in multiple scientific disciplines. That being the case, I prefer the side where the actual climate scientists are sitting.

      • I prefer to STAND on the side which is humbly observing and learning, without the baggage of preconception and bias, and arrogant notions of superior intellect.

      • Sir Harry wrote:

        That being the case, I prefer the side where the actual climate scientists are sitting.

        Yup, same here. Spencer, Curry and Soon are three that come to mind off the top. Lots more if you care to get into it.

    • ‘ I would be more impressed by this list if the signers were climatologists. ‘

      Given the poor of scientific pratice and worse levels of behaviour , climatologists are the last people you should be putting on a pedestal. But go on tell us what is ‘wrong ‘ with the paper , after that is what matters .

  27. Sir Paul Nurse’s Attack on James Delingple,

    I watched a vicious smear piece televised on the BBC, hosted by Sir Paul Nurse, wherein he orchestrated a one sided, false metaphoric, heavily edited conversation with James Delingpole.

    I suggest you watch how this dishonest putz records a conversation with James, crops it to his liking, then narrates over the conversation emphasizing as many negative attribute as he can, while the conversation was taking place. It was sort of like Michael Mann’s Nature Trick except applied to AGW skeptic talking points. (I am taking liberties by classifying Delingpole as a skeptic, he may well be a AGW hater, activist and meat grinder)

  28. The question “Is the climate warming?” is a red herring. It’s a trick question meant to deceive, not illuminate, and it’s the type question Climate Liars love. We can never know what the climate is doing, only what it did do, and even that is dependent on what time period. Now, Climate Liars conveniently cherry pick the past 30 years, due to an uptick in temps during the 80’s into the 90’s.

  29. There is a reason the Royal Society doesn’t want to tick our cost cutting, budget squeezing, austerity based Government off…

    “Between 2011 and 2015, the Government will invest £189 million in the Royal Society”

  30. i posted a “Lights” study published by the Royal Society, funded by the European Research Council, earlier in the comments.

    WUWT linked to a study reported by Scientific American, headlined “Mass Deaths in Americas Start New CO2 Epoch” in the “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #172″ yesterday, which didn’t include funding info, see below.

    11 March: YubaNet: Human-dominated geological epoch known as the Anthropocene began around the year 1610
    “We humans are now a geological power in our own right – as Earth-changing as a meteorite strike”
    By: University College London
    Colonisation of the New World led to the deaths of about 50 million indigenous people, most within a few decades of the 16th century due to smallpox…
    ***Funded by the European Research Council and a Philip Leverhulme Prize (SL) and a Royal Society Wolfson Merit Award (MM).
    http://yubanet.com/world/Human-dominated-geological-epoch-known-as-the-Anthropocene-began-around-the-year-1610.php

    hate to think how much of the funding below will result in more and more insane CAGW headlines:

    from European Research Council: ERC Funded Projects
    Since 2007, more than 4,500 projects have been selected to receive ERC funding throughout the EU Member States and the associated countries. The ERC has received over 43,000 project proposals for its calls.

    from Wikipedia: European Research Council
    The ERC budget is over €13 billion from 2014 – 2020 and comes from the Horizon 2020 programme, a part of the
    European Union’s budget. Under Horizon 2020 it is estimated that around 7,000 ERC grantees will be funded and 42,000 team members supported, including 11,000 doctoral students and almost 16,000 post-doctoral researchers…

    a study that made sense:

    11 March: UK Independent: Chistopher Hooton: There are too many studies, new study finds
    Science is drowning in studies, and it took a study to expose it.
    In a paper entitled ‘Attention decay in science’, professors from universities in Finland and California conclude that “the exponential growth in the number of scientific papers makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep track of all the publications relevant to their work…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/there-are-too-many-studies-new-study-finds-10101130.html

  31. Who in this day and age would think that “Royal” anything makes it special? The operations of a Royal Society are not bound by the laws of nature to be reputable. The Royal Society is passé. Big Science is where it’s at.

  32. From the RS: “Does the recent slowdown of warming mean
    that climate change is no longer happening?”

    This is a patently ridiculous and rigged question. I absolutely reject the use of the words “climate change” as propaganda shorthand for “human-caused warming”.

  33. Your comment reminds me of Alfred E. Neuman of Mad magazine except not as entertaining.

    “You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train.” – Alfred E. Neuman

  34. The motto of the Royal Society is: ‘Take nobody’s word for it …’

    I’m nobody. Take my word for it.

    Sir Dr Prof Maxwell C. Photon of Vectorboroughshire

  35. {bold emphasis mine – JW}

    From the 16 March GWPF briefing paper accusing the Royal Society of presenting a misleading picture of climate science,

    “ [. . .] In a time of universal , to be willing to state what is not known is an essential, albeit controversial, duty of scientists.

    This report attempts to give a more accurate picture of climate science and to add in the caveats and to explain the gaps in our knowledge over which the Royal Society guide drew a veil.

    The Royal Society, quite properly, does not draw policy conclusions from the meager science they present (and misrepresent), but they, most assuredly, know that others will.

    [. . .]”

    Succinctly put.

    John

    • Oops, left out the word ‘overconfidence’ in the GWPF quote.

      So here is an edit to correct my error in quoting GWPF from my comment John Whitman on March 16, 2015 at 8:55 am ,

      GWPF wrote,

      ” In a time of universal overconfidence, to be willing to state what is not known is an essential, albeit controversial, duty of scientists.”

      {bold emphasis mine – JW}

      John

  36. Janice Moore
    March 16, 2015 at 8:58 am

    “For Gary Pearse (re: yours of 8:08am today)

    Re: Spontaneous Combustion”

    Janice, you never cease to amaze me with your findings and commentary both serious and raucously funny! It was an actual pdf copy from the “Proceedings” or was it “Transactions” of the Royal Society. I’m sure the scientist like many climate scientists today with their theories, believed without doubt that this compelling theory of spontaneous combustion of heavy drinkers was “incontrovertible”. Hey, if you poured 3 quarts of alchohol on the outside and lit the guy, he would probably be quite well done at least.

  37. Didn’t the Royal Society stand on the wrong side of the “fluxion” calculus debate? Wasn’t it the openness and transparency of Liebnitz as opposed to secretiveness of The Royal Society’s President that settled the argument? As an institution it deserves a lot more of the kind of treatment that Janice gives it than the ring kisses reserved for bishops and popes.

  38. This whole CAGW fiasco has made three important major contributions to advance society.

    1) The vast number of scientists (a large majority it seems) who still cleave to this falsified theory after 18yrs of no warming have self branded. They might just as well put on black and white wide striped suits for easy identification. They have advertised that they will do anything to fight off cutting off funds. Precious few have changed their minds in the face of the evidence of the pause – James Lovelock who invented the theory of Gaia – the earth as one organism and was a poster person for CAGW, recanted finally saying that the idea of CAGW was too overblown. He certainly would be the most illustrious of the tiny group. A fringe group of adherents have shown they have a conscience by becoming mentally ill with the pressure on them from their own D*nial. Their own minds have accepted they were wrong but they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge it – it has prevented them from working though. This is textbook “being in D*nial” that was written into psychology tomes before CAGW was even invented. I guess they could wear padded striped suits so we will be kinder toward them
    2) No other means of getting the truth out comes to mind on the sad dilution of science which, in an earlier age would not have accepted 90% of them as lab technicians. A combination of “industrial democracy” in higher education and government funding of institutions according to the size of enrollment resulted in a chopping down of minimal standards for entrance and a throwing open of the doors to let in the hordes. Many years ago, a prof of the old school lamented to me that they now offer pre-courses in remedial English and mathematics to bring the hordes up to some minimal communicative level. They also invented a host of new sciences (science lite) that could absorb those that had zero chance of making it through even the new cotton candy courses. Ultimately many become school teachers, bank tellers, insurance salesmen….Climate science and the birth of the idea of post normal science were made in heaven for this problem. Except for the few percent that have always occupied the elite level in science, this science gets on well with statistics for Psychology 101, doesn’t need to try to prove or support anything – just speculate on what WILL happen after they have been told what will happen by ideologues.

    I’ve come to accept as true the 97% of scientists proposition even though the methodology of the consensus “discovery” is totally ridiculous. I accepted it when I discovered it was based on some 12000 (twelve thousand!!) papers written and published in the last 10yrs. Another clue is they have only one mathematical formula for climate warming theory and it was written down decades ago. All the many 10s of thousands of papers written on the subject since, have not found one modification to this “forcing equation” (the pause has stirred a few sleeping neurons to be sure). How is it possible to have 10s of thousands of scientific papers on this subject without variety? Science is becoming like music. You have a few genius composers a century and the rest are all fiddlers.

    I, for the longest while, resented the damage that was being done to science. Now, I embrace it. It is already terminally damaged without some revolution in how we do education and we rightfully should disparage it they way it’s being done. Even the ordinary working citizen, whose money is being wasted on all this knows about it!

    3) Sceptics, unfortunately are diluted by ideological types, unthoughtful contrarians and the like that activists like to characterize the nay sayers by, but interspersed with these are a precious (as it turns out) intelligent, thoughful, knowledgeable few (is it as much as 3% that Cook has calculated), who are the real scientists and a solid resource for moving humankind forward, solving its problems improving its lives and maybe bringing back the joy and hope that the space age brought us and pushing out the self loathing and deep unhappiness that has afflicted this species. Hopefully, when the edifice collapses as it surely will, we will find a way to revive science and bring it back to something that can be respected again.

    • The reason that Cooks 97% concensus has been totally rubbished is that , although he started out with 10,000 plus scientific published papers , his final total of scientists that believed in man made global warming was just 75 .
      This point has been covered many times , even the IPCC stopped quoting it as they realised it was so badly wrong .

      So it is only the CAGW fanatics who still try to quote it .

      • Yeah, I get it, too, but I still say science is seriously broken. Do all these 100s of thousands of lab coats and horn rimmed glasses really think they are colleagues of Einstein, Planck, Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Bacon, Mendeleev, Avogadro and couple of dozen others? No, I’m sticking with the 97% without Cook’s goofy analysis.

    • The formula of warming is the same and the range from 1990 is the same as now. They mechanically lowered the lower limit a bit in face of the uberwarming of their models for the present, but they left the high ‘possibility of 4.5C by 2100. I guess you also missed the nuance of just the impossibly large number of papers churned out in a decade on a static subject and these weren’t all, these were just those that apparently did say the same thing. Papers that say something different have only been allowed into print in any numbers since climategate. However, if you’ve read all the papers and found huge variety, I’ll take your word for it. I’m puzzled though that this variety hasn’t touched the debate on stainless steel climate theory.

  39. for the record. Royal Society in 2004 as proponent of a European Research Council. interesting to read:

    PDF: 12 pages: 2004: Research Area: the Royal Society response to the Mayor
    report
    This document sets out the Society’s views on the importance of fundamental
    research for Europe, the need to improve European performance at the highest
    levels while safeguardingits current underlying strength in depth within
    many of its Member States, and the potential role of a ***European Research
    Council. It was prepared by a working group chaired byProfessor Julia
    Higgins, and has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society…
    2. However, there are six overlapping reasons for fundingfundamental
    researchto solve problems – eg to underpin solutions to societal problems
    such as those in the health, social, economic,environmental areas…
    10. Funding of the ERC
    The budget needed for the creation of the ERC should come from the European
    Union…
    https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2004/9720.pdf

  40. the Global Warming Policy Foundation doesn’t represent a World Goverment nor a World leading Scientistic Society.
    The Royal Society has contrary to the interest organisation long experience of Theories of Science.

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation better beware:
    * Facts from reality not fictions from politicians and non-science theory so called scholars rules!
    * Consensus is a political term – not existing in the world of Science.
    * Purpose and Tendency shines in the Global Warmin Policy Foundation propaganda!
    as does
    Fallacies in argumentation where the Foundation continues using Ad Hoc, Ad Hominem as well as concrete desinformation!

    When will they ever learn?

  41. Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
    If it walks like a dog and barks like a dog,
    I suggest we call “it” a dog.
    the Global Warming Policy Foundation is not a World Goverment nor a respectable Science Society. For the later it takes understanding that reality rules, consensus is a political not a scientific term. The foundation lack all knowledge of and doesn’t respect of Theories of Science

    People and Foundations are allowed to be stupied. I don’t think it’s wise to show off being stupied….. do you?

  42. Royal Society: “The observed warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling higher up in the stratosphere is the result expected from increases in CO2 and decreases in stratospheric ozone. Natural factors alone cannot explain the observed changes.”

    Nonsense. RS Fellows, check out the radiosonde data (HadAT2). Cooling in lower troposphere 1958-1979. Check out the satellite data (RSS). No warming trend in lower troposphere 1979-1997. See the super El Nino warming in 1998. See the “pause” 1998-2014. CO2 cannot explain the observed changes.

    The whole briefing paper is idiotic and an insult to the intelligence of RS Fellows. If Newton were still the President of Royal Society, he would send the author to the gallows.

Comments are closed.