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)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dodgy Geezer
March 16, 2015 5:16 am

@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

cd
March 16, 2015 5:51 am

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.

Sir Harry Flashman
March 16, 2015 6:10 am

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

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Sir Harry Flashman
March 16, 2015 8:03 am

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

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 16, 2015 8:42 am

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.

March 16, 2015 6:34 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Barton Paul Levenson
March 16, 2015 7:14 am

Ah yes, the old Appeal to Authority. That always works.

Sir Harry Flashman
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2015 7:54 am

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.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2015 8:06 am

Whether reality agrees or not!

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2015 8:13 am

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.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2015 2:31 pm

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.

knr
Reply to  Barton Paul Levenson
March 16, 2015 9:18 am

‘ 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 .

Paul Westhaver
March 16, 2015 6:35 am

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)

Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2015 6:46 am

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.

March 16, 2015 6:57 am

Please put some punctuation in the abstract leading into this article. It is extremely frustrating to de-convolute what it says.

Robin Hewitt
March 16, 2015 7:11 am

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”

pat
March 16, 2015 7:39 am

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

HankHenry
March 16, 2015 7:43 am

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.

Reply to  HankHenry
March 16, 2015 8:42 am

It’s the logical fallacy of argumentum ad regium, or ‘argument from royalty’.
http://www.archiefans.com/gallery/d/31229-1/
(Reggie, from the comic series “Archie”.)

Eustace Cranch
March 16, 2015 8:00 am

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”.

Alx
March 16, 2015 8:11 am

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

March 16, 2015 8:32 am

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

March 16, 2015 8:44 am

Reblogged this on "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising… and commented:
Climate Scammers Called Out!

March 16, 2015 8:55 am

{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

Reply to  John Whitman
March 16, 2015 9:02 am

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

March 16, 2015 8:57 am

The GWPF document falsifies many supposed consequences of the greenhouse warming hypothesis Thanks for the good efforts.

March 16, 2015 10:03 am

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.

March 16, 2015 10:37 am

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.

Reply to  fossilsage
March 16, 2015 10:42 am

Come to think of it perhaps every stuffed shirt needs to lighten up and enjoy humor every once in a while!

March 16, 2015 11:41 am

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.

In the Real World
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 16, 2015 2:00 pm

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 .

Reply to  In the Real World
March 16, 2015 6:11 pm

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.

March 16, 2015 11:51 am

Am quite surprises by some of the names under
“The paper was written and endorsed by the following experts:”

March 16, 2015 12:18 pm

GP: How is it possible to have 10s of thousands of scientific papers on this subject without variety?
BPL: I take it you haven’t actually read any of them? The variety is huge.

Reply to  Barton Paul Levenson
March 16, 2015 12:32 pm

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.

pat
March 16, 2015 6:13 pm

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

March 17, 2015 6:30 am

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?

March 17, 2015 6:43 am

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?