Royal Society: It will take another 50 years without warming, before we admit we were wrong


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The new British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd’s plan to win over prominent climate skeptics like Lord Lawson, by setting up a meeting between skeptics and the Royal Society, has dramatically backfired, after the Royal Society admitted that the pause would have to continue for another 50 years, before they admit they are wrong.

According to Breitbart;

“We pinned them down on this hiatus… they were arguing that yes, there might have been a hiatus, but warming might be going into the ocean, or it could be due to volcanic activity. So we asked at what point would you begin to accept there had been no warming. If there is no warming for five years, or ten years?

“Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.

“We asked would that be fifty years from now, or fifty years from 1997, when the hiatus started? They said they wouldn’t change their mind for fifty years from now.

Read more:

The bitterly cold ocean depths have the thermal capacity to absorb hundreds, maybe thousands of years of global warming, even at levels of global warming predicted by alarmist models. If the predicted heat is missing, because it is readily absorbed by the ocean depths, I would suggest claims by the Royal Society that global warming is an urgent problem are already untenable.


291 thoughts on “Royal Society: It will take another 50 years without warming, before we admit we were wrong

    • Bingo. The ice could be half a mile deep over London and they’d still be claiming it’s warmer than ever.
      ~20 years of adjusted, rising temps = certainty, 18+ years of flat temps = no big deal. Post Normal science at it’s worst.

      • I’m picturing Charlie Brown, standing on the pitcher’s mound in the middle of a downpour:
        “Where did everyone go? This is just a little sprinkle! It’ll stop any second now!” 🙂

      • If there was half a mile of ice over London, they would claim that man-made CO2 was responsible for such extremes in climate and in the weather.

      • Quite frankly I’ve been a global warming proponent for over thirty years. It is so cold where I live about a five degree increase would be welcome. Unfortunately, it has never come to pass and I’m left cold. Please do not wish another ice-age upon us. It’s not worth it just to say “I told you so!”.

      • They are saying, in effect, that they are not going to honorably stand down. These are people with neither dignity nor grace. Barring a dramatic upturn in temperature trend, these people are rapidly becoming a laughingstock.

      • I love the “don’t wish another ice age [glacial period] on us” line. Wile E. Coyote never wished to run over the edge of a cliff, but guess what, it happened anyways. Sometimes it’s better to prepare for the inevitable rather then to try to wish it away.

      • Sturgis;
        No, they would say it was “consistent with” their predictions, models, and theory. As would be alien invasion.

    • Was that 50 minus the current “pause” – or is it better described as (peak) PAGW?
      At what point do they start to get nervous? 45 -46 -47? Do i hear any advance on 45?

      • No, they will continue to demand “urgent action” and payment of “climate damages” to all under-performing countries. And then clima-technocratic control of the globe.

    • Yes, what they are saying is that on top of the 18 year hiatus, 49 years of cooling is not sufficient for them (or their successors) to admit that they were wrong and that AGW is false.

      • In other words, they’ll wait until I’m dead, you’re dead they’re dead and the whole shouting match has long since been forgotten by future generations battling REAL problems, then and only then, will they pop out of their graves to say that, on the weight of new evidence, and with hindsight, their earlier position may have somewhat over-estimated the rate and cause of the warming.
        As the saying goes: science advances one funeral at a time.

      • Rationality doesn’t matter. If they’re saying they cannot state they were wrong until 50 years more non-warming then they are admitting that they cannot rule out the null hypothesis without… what would it be then? 68 years of non-warming?
        Hold their feet to the fire on it. Not as ‘falsifies’ or ‘disproves’ but as ‘cannot reject the null hypothesis.’ Force them to proclaim that they are not stuck in a state of pure ignorance on the matter. Force them to cough up the math that shows the odds of natural variability that leads to the 68 year statement. Hound them and all their sycophants until they relent or start putting forward metrics with error bars to show the validity of the duration they’re demanding they be given.

      • “they are admitting that they cannot rule out the null hypothesis without…”.
        But like Kevin Trenberth dangerous human-caused global warming is their null hypothesis

    • They will just claim they ran an ensemble of models out 50 years proving today that it is warming in the future.

    • As long as governments fund these folk, they will never admit they were wrong.
      Stop ALL funding and hidden skepticism in their dark heart’s will manifest.

    • They had 200 years from 1805 to 1998 pretty much. Just that most of that time humans weren’t belching out that much carbon dioxide…….

    • Oh, no, one hot day is warming for them. If we have another glacial period, they will claim it is so hot it feels cold ir that unknown mechanisms from warming triggered this extremely cold climate for 85,000 years. Like God, climate works in mysterious ways, so we have to sacrifice our future and the welfare of our children on the UN’s Alter of Climate Change.
      Remember, they would like the world population to be between 500 million and a billion, which means at least 6 out of 7 of us has to go away.

    • This is only because Karl et al haven’t adjusted (TWERKED) the data to align with ships buckets and engine room measurements of ocean temperatures.

    • “Nothing to see here, move along please” It is neither “mystery” or “miracle” it is simply dud science…
      BTW my 69 yo greenie mate Kevin said it was 100 years…so there..

    • the Messiah Heat will return
      what will you non-believers have to say for yourselves then?
      you should listen to those who read and divine the sacred science

      • “…I’ll still be 102 and a half”
        Me too, hope we make it. I can’t wait to say I told ya so

      • I’ll be 134. Meet you at 9AM for coffee and sweet rolls. Any site in Manhattan, your choice. To prove that the water level hasn’t inundated the place. ; }

      • By 2064, I will have laughed my way to the pearly gates as the warmists get what they wish.

    • In 50 yrs I’ll be 98.9 ………. oh well ……….. just gives me a reason to live that long. ; )

      • I have longevity in both sides of my family going back 4 generations that I know of, mother 90, fathers brother 96, great aunt 106, 20 -30 more in late 90’s, a few distant cousins still alive in late 90’s. Doctor asked silly question, in my case, about how long my parents had lived, I rattled off list of about 10 people without even thinking about it, he then said take no notice of what I say, you’ll outlive me and my children. I’ll be 114, in 50 years, its possible.

  1. Well, we always knew that they would never admit they were wrong. AGW proponents will be standing hip deep in snow in the middle of June and still proclaim they are right. This is and has always been a political battle.

    • But that’s the ultimate catastrophic scenario: the cold summer caused by all the Arctic ice melting! It’s even worse than we feared!

  2. Let me get this straight: a slight waming trend that ran for ~23 years (1975-1998) was enough to proclaim a state of climate crisis and a looming global catastrophe, but we’ll need 67 years of flat or declining temperatures (1998-2065) to be able to conclude that it was actually a false alarm?
    What on earth kind of “science” is that?

    • Consensus, post-modern, settled climate science.
      IMO the slight warming cycle dates from 1977 to 1996, ie just 20 years. The trend is flat to down even including the super El Niño year of 1997-98. Other data sets and statistical analyses shorten the warming interval even more.

    • I think we need two or three, well-measured natural cycles before our great great grandkids can make a valid assessment of human influences within natural climate variability. Esp., given that the sensitivity numbers we are seeing are so small.

      • MarkW
        Three sixty year cycles [at least] – to judge by the RS’s apparent need to see another fifty (> 3 x 11) years before concluding they may have fouled their own nest.
        Comfortably beyond the likely lifetimes of any of the ranking honchos of the RS – or their grandchildren.

    • except that Hansen and his ilk were proclaiming the end of life as we know it due to global warming, in the mid-80’s. and that was with less than 10 years of slight warming

    • I think it’s very, very sad. How did ‘science’ come to this? How did the Royal Society come to this? Did we really push religious and supernatural beliefs back for hundreds of years for this?!? I find this statement by the Royal Society extraordinarily crass. To be honest, it has left me rather depressed.
      Many years ago, before the so-called pause, when the annual anomaly kept showing 0.4c on HadCRUt3, I posted a thread on a major forum frequented by some experts. I asked them when would they finally admit that something was up, for how long would the anomaly have to stay around 0.4c. They all agreed on five years! I wish I had kept those thread links.

      • Ghost: I think that it is in human nature to have a need to believe in something. Many will deny any need to believe in something but under our skin, we all seem to need to believe in something.
        As the communists / socialists gained momentum years ago, they were anti-god and anti-religion. So it has come to pass, that all of our claims of being non-believers in a god or in religion, the human psyche has floundered and below the conscious level, there was a need to believe in something – result: global warming / climate change/ gaia and so forth.
        Once this crapola of cc / gw comes to an end, humans will find something else to fill the void for the need to believe in something, anything or whatever is the flavour of the year, be it one year from now, five years from now, twenty or even a hundred years from now.
        It will never end. We humans need or are looking for something and no one knows what it is.

      • The Royal Society’s statement suggests that indeed the world has gone nuts and lost its bearings.

      • Yes, you are right : it is saddening. Their motto ever since Newton was “nullius in verba” which, I think, means that they would never give any opinion just because it is backed by some authority. That motto is now no longer followed. It is indeed sad.

      • It has become its own meme. They repeat it often enough, that they believe it. Like many such memes, it spreads without regard to logic or data, and the adjustment of past data to fit the narrative helps reinforce it to the faithful.
        All the carbon indulgences (credits) and feel-good revivals really accomplish is lining the pockets of those in the hierarchy of the faith whilst pickpocketing others, and establishing a lovely ‘us versus them’ tribal mentality.
        Ultimately, the truth will out. Pushing back the goalposts repeatedly simply reinforces the memeplex. It’s very similar to the Xhosa near extinction, and the various ‘raptures’, and all the various and sundry cults of personality and personal power.
        If you want to see where reason is NOT, look for the side that demands anyone who questions to be punished, via civil forfeiture, or criminal penalty. Truth has always been, and remains self-supporting. Only memes require intentional coercion by law to punish detractors and preserve the status quo.
        Logic and science have always required review and skepticism. Science thrives on challenge, grows stronger as it weathers assaults via logic and mathematics. Dogma, on the other hand, never allows challenge, as it goes contrary to the meme, weakening the position of the belief system. Those behind the meme will forever claim to be using it to the advantage of their ‘more blind’ brethren, whom if they’d only embrace the truth, they’d not be forced to push the unbelievers to convert or perish.

    • I like his idea of waiting another years to evaluate the CAGW situation..
      I think it will take another 50 years for me to believe in CAGW and I’d need to see a lot of catastrophes, migrations and habitat loss etc.
      So, 50 years sounds about right.
      I say we give him the 50 years, eh?

    • Actually, it was only 10 years between the late 1970’s (“the ice age is coming” scare) to James Hansen’s AGW (Apocalyptic Global Warming) testimony to Congress. I think it was around 1988.

  3. Come to think about it, they will all be dead in 50 years so what’s the point. Maye they expect to come back from the grave to haunt the d*niers.

  4. Well, they’re being consistent with Thomas Kuhn’s well-known principle that scientific paradigms are not so much overthrown as that they are replaced when the generation upholding them die out. But they don’t need a budget for that.

  5. Keep in mind, he is reporting the position stated by just two members of the Royal Society:

    Attending a speech on climate change in the House of Lords, the Welsh Tory MP spoke about on his surreal experience meeting two men from the Royal Society …

    This should be revisited with a larger body of members. I can think of lots of things that should cause genuine scientists to change their current positions on global warming. And I can’t imagine the membership of any reputable scientific body would let such a statement stand as the position of the membership as a whole.

    • What I don’t see here (so far) or on Breitbart is the names of the two RSA members who were at the meeting. Nor on what basis they spoke on behalf of their fellow members.

  6. Even if warming were to resume, it does not mean that either the resumed warming or the warming that may have occurred during the 20th Century is or was caused by any human activity.
    Unless we (science) comes up with a way to observe and measure the suspected warming from human CO2 emissions, no matter what the climate does over the next 50 years, The Royal Society will not be able to prove they were right while they refuse to admit that they were wrong.
    It is a good thing The Royal Society is a political group and not a science based organization.

  7. “Finally they conceded they would wait fifty years.” I think they pulled fifty years out of their *** but OK, key word is wait. Blow the whistle, call a time out, all players leave the field and go home. Shut down the IPCC, no more climate panic conferences, put a hold on punitive taxation schemes on carbon and let alternate energy evolve at a natural pace that doesn’t rely on government subsidies. I can wait as long as everyone waits. I may have to pass the baton to my children but I’ve done a solid job of instilling a healthy skepticism of expert opinion so I’m comfortable the fight will be carried forward by strong hands.

    • A few $ Trillion skimmed from the suckers in the biggest scam of the century. They still win.
      But i can sleep at night – with a blanket. My kids will not be hoodwinked either.

  8. Well if the oceans are by some act of magic all of a sudden absorbing heat, then why not conclude that past warming was due to the oceans changing their mind and releasing heat?
    Really, if the issue was “all of a sudden” the oceans are for some unknown and strange reason absorbing heat, then one must conclude in the past that warming was due to the oceans all of a sudden releasing heat – either way, this is not due to our output of CO2!
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  9. It’s just an observation , but from what I understand , deep ocean temperature appears to be quite close to the gray body temperature in our orbit of about 278.6 .

  10. Might not be about science or global warming but a cover for their supported UN agenda to take over Western economies……

  11. Legally, we only have to wait 7 years to have a missing person declared to be dead? if that applied to C-AGW, it would have been dead 10 years ago. The missing heat is a real who dunit? heat trapped by the greenhouse effect, goes missing into the deep ocean, by some unknown means of heat transport, as in no temperature delta is evident to effect this mystery transfer.

  12. So the current members will either go senile or to their grave before admitting they were wrong

  13. Ill go further, it could get so cold that the Thames was freezing over in the winter again and they wouldnt admit it and stop their gravy train, why would they?

    • Scott M
      Admire the rhetoric, but – on a brief practical note – if the Thames ever does freeze over, it will be deuced cold.
      Since the frost Fairs of the Little Ice Age, London has built the two great embankments – the Victoria and the Albert, after our then Queen Empress and her Consort – which have narrowed the river considerably.
      Absent any change in rain on the river’s watershed, it means higher river current speeds, on average.
      At some point, do look at a map of Central London. The thoroughfare ‘The Strand’ was literally that – the beach – before the great embankments. King’s College, the Savoy, Somerset House, and London Charing Cross Station are all built on reclaimed land.

  14. 50 years without warming
    50 rabbits without warming or 50 partridges in a pear tree, or 50 golden rings…
    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009

    “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
    ‘they’ are ‘worried’ by the absence of their catastrophe…instead of rejoicing.
    What kind of unadulterated insanity is that?

    • I would say that the CAGW fanatics have something far worse than a religion. Every religion I am familiar with would rejoice if everyone in the world were saved. In contrast the CAGW crowd becomes angry at any suggestion that we will not all end up in eco-hell.

      • That’s because CAGW fanatics are members of the worst kind of religion – they are Puritans. Incidentally, this might be almost literally true, since the 18th century Puritan sect had such a strong tendency to see God in nature that their world view had elements of pantheism. The protectionist version of the 19th and early 20th century American environmental movement (the origins of modern environmentalism) is rooted in the Puritanism of earlier American settlers.

  15. Lets look at the past climate records for how long the past pauses have lasted . The latest was 1940-1980 or about 40 years . The one before that ran from about 1880 -1920 . During these periods there was no net additional temperature increase in LAND + OCEAN temperature . According to BerkeleyEarth The North America temperatures did not increases between 1820 -1870 and again 1870-1920 and again 1940 to the end of 1980 . So 40 – 50 hiatus have happened before and quite frequently. These are likely to continue unless NOAA continues to corrupt the figures. I have lost faith in any of their data any more .

    • Prior to the satellite era, we didn’t know what the temperature of the earth was to within 5 to 10C.
      And that’s being optimistic.
      From retreating glaciers we can presume that over all temperatures have been increasing, but trying to pin that down to what year and how much, is a fool’s errand. There may have been previous hiatus’s, or there many not have been. The data is just not good enough to tell.

    • Fifty years from NOW will mean that the pause will have to last 68+ years. From what you assert above, that has not happened recently. Two possibilities: the religious outfit called “Royal soc.” knows this and they purposely put a figure of 50Yrs on it…… or they will find the missing heat somewhere….EVER!!

  16. Royal Society: It will take another 50 years without warming, before we admit we were wrong

    …by then those who know now we are wrong will have died. In the meantime, “Damn the pause! Full greed ahead!”

  17. So, 50 years from now, having wasted $trillions on a non-problem, resulting in many millions of deaths they’d say “oops”, we were wrong. How comforting.

  18. “might be”, “could be” – this isn’t science! Pigs might fly.
    Strange how they are willing to believe CAGW after only a few years but to accept they are wrong, we have to wait another 50 years on top of the current 20 years.
    The Royal Society: The Home of Pseudo-science!!!!
    How pathetic!

    • But during those “few years” there have been adjustments to the past 150 years. So of course they have to wait. In 50 years many of us didn’t just die, we froze to death!
      (To keep the anti-smoking crowd happy, they say some of us also smoked Kools.)

  19. These members of the Royal Society are behaving like petulant children told they cannot have unlimited ice cream. They stamp their feet and fold their arms and shout that they’ll hold their breath for 50 years. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  20. Translation: We are going to wait until long after we are dead, before we would admit that we were wrong.

  21. With this kind of admission, is there any doubt these folks wouldn’t hesitate for a second to alter current and past data for the sake of “the cause” ?

  22. If we were dealing with a scientific question, then the length of time of no warming would have some meaning, but since this is a religion/ideology, time is irrelevant

  23. fifty years from now, a number pulled straight out of the air for oddly for the RS it has no scientific basis .
    However it is ‘useful ‘ in that none for those making these BS claims will will be in their profession to be asked why they got it so wrong and secondly most will be dead and so in no position to have to face up to their poor behaviour and worst professional pratice.
    I wonder how these ‘honourable members ‘ would take this type of claim coming from anyone else has to how to define ‘proof’

  24. Manfred-
    They are ‘worried’ because if the truth comes out their gravy train will run out of track.
    Glo-‘bull’ Cooling (remember the ’70’s?) / Glo-‘bull’ Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption morphed from science, to pseudo-science, to a ‘Gaia’-worship religion years ago. Now that the Pope has joined, it is certifiable as Religion, and is definetely no longer Science.
    Funny how, no matter what the supposed problem is, the solution is always the same…. give your freedom and wealth to ‘the experts’ to do with as they wish, and don’t EVER question them!

  25. You will get ten years of steeply declining temperatures, so admissions will be unnecessary. We are clearly into the Landscheidt Mini ice age Now.

    • I start to believe that. Two days ago a record low night temperature of -4.2 oC at Twente – The Netherlands since the 1951 start of the measurements. Somewhere with the definitive decline of the solar cycle I wish it really will become colder to stop this crazy green agenda.

      • See my post here HOW ON EARTH… And the evidence is clear they are getting frozen out. Unfortunately, we are all getting frozen and the worst is yet to come for thirty years.

    • paul, JJM,
      Whilst I would not weep one single tear if the alarmists were obliged to recant their cult, I prefer warm.
      And a shedload of other folk in the UK love warm.
      Cold costs.
      Warm enough – a minimum in the UK of about 1C would be generally bearable. Keep the maximum below20C, whilst I’m at it . . . . .
      Smiling in aspiration,

      • Unfortunately the United Nations World Order Fundraisers want to see warming for their own selfish purposes. Because their appeal depends upon it.
        Yes, more warmth up your way and another 400 Ppm or more CO2, although unrelated, would lush up the Earth nicely. Unfortunately, the Sun is getting stuck at flipping magnetic poles, and without an active sun, cosmic rays make abundant clouds… Shuttering the Earth’s Surface from the Sun’s constant heating radiation.

      • Spoke to my mum over the w/e. She said the UK, Portsmouth area, was experiencing a heatwave of over 30c. I had to laugh, that’s a cool summer for me here in Aus.

  26. Well it shows the debate about the science is really over. Don’t let logic, analysis, data or even common sense get in the way of a [good] ideological argument. I tend to think the skeptics have lost the argument as it is too easy now for most to trust in fiddled data and propaganda. Those who sensibly questioned the meme did not realise the pressures that would be brought to bear. Welcome to the new orthodox religion. 50 years is a mere blink of an eye for Gaia and heretics beware.

  27. If we got a degree or two temperature drop for a few years that would increase the pause to well over 50 years?
    Basically though, they are admitting that Gobal warming is a Fraud because they aren’t providing a reasonable test.

    • I think one should concede that AGW was a bankrupt idea, an inconvenient truth when temps refused to follow models and the unpredicted pause presented. We all know that out of political necessity, Klimate khange, a term the UN pre-defined to include indirect and direct anthro influences was adopted. All done and dusted. No requirement to disprove any kind of null hypothesis regarding postulated anthro climate drivers….it is included in the kk definitions. The question now remains, how much money may be stolen to abet Ms. C Figueres mantra and her ideological driven UN/UNEP power grab?

  28. I’ll be long dead before 50 years so before then I hope the ice is piled more than a mile high over St Louis!

  29. I think there was a Simon and Garfunkel song about that – “50 Years of No More Warming”. The problem is all inside our heads.

    • 50 ways to leave your lover? I am sure some clever wordsmith could put alternative lyrics to that!

  30. well, first he admitted that science is not settled…they CAN be wrong…really?
    the point is always the same how come can you give a certainty of 95%?????
    where does it come from?

  31. I couldn’t find the quotes of the RS fellows saying they had to wait another 50 years.

    • It’s consistent with what I’ve heard from others, including scientist, who said they would never say warming has stopped so long as CO2 is a lot higher than preindustrial levels. In other words, the definition of “global warming” as given. Increased CO2 means it’s warming – regardless of what thermometers might say.
      Unfortunately for that stance, the definition of global warming is based on surface temperatures, so they are moving the goalposts in order to maintain that position.

  32. the Royal Society admitted that the pause would have to continue for another 50 years” It shouldn’t take 50 years to add 0.12°C to all the ocean buoy data.

  33. 50 years! From their viewpoint a perfect answer. I do not think it was an off-the-top-of-their head answer, I think it was well coordinated agreement arrived between the UN/IPCC and the principal powerful big name anthropogenic apocalypse supporters, now including the Pope. This simple answer says it all and no amount of creditable science need be reviewed for the next 50 years. Most important (and scary) is this 50 year tag allows the momentum to eliminate fossil fuels to continue assuring that trillions of taxpayers/ratepayers dollars spent on solar/wind and storage scams will go on unabated. I fear that the once beautiful California landscape and seascapes will soon be a vast vista of solar panels and windmills with the government providing subsidies electricity to all because no one will be able to afford to pay the true price. And if it is free you can be assured that most Californians will support it…

  34. Did you ask them on what they based that number?
    My answer to all who put out such long term tests without justification is “then expect me to spend money for it in 51 years”.

  35. Hmmm.. 50 years… Isn’t that how long things marked ‘Top Secret’ are held away from discussion?
    Funny how it corresponds to the functional work life of the people in the field. It is hard to hold someone responsible for those Top Secret disasters when they are dead and/or gone.

  36. WUWT: Monckton and Monty – dead parrot parody of IPCC
    This entire post must not be forgotten.

    It’s not Pausing! It’s passed on! This Theory is no more! It is deceased! It has ceased to be! It is on the Other Side! It’s off the rails and in the gulch. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Rigor mortis ’as set in. Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It’s not lost but gone before! It’s six feet under. It’s pushin’ up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now ’istory! It’s off the twig! It’s fallen off its perch! It is at one with the cosmos! It is with Eywa now. It’s kicked the bucket, it’s handed in its dinner-pail, it’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain, lined up its 72 virgins, collected its ’arp and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible! THIS IS AN EX-THEORY!

    • Thanks for that link. It is much funnier than I recall finding it, when I first read it. Very well done.

    • Why is it that we find so many Monty Python sketches that can be used to redicule climate science? Too funny!

  37. See when Freeman Dyson predicts that the establishment herd will accept that they are wrong at.
    Here is a quote
    E-Mail 4/9/15
    Dear Norman Page,
    Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
    I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
    not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
    I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
    with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
    but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
    glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
    all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

  38. In other words, they won’t ever admit that. In 50 years they will all be either dead or retired and will be spared the shame of conceding that they defended a ludicrous theory for decades.

  39. Wow, (using year 2000), it only took them about 20 years to jump onto the gravy train but they claim 65 are needed to jump off? Just wondering why this is so….
    A) It’s a BIG gravy train with gobs of tasty gravy;
    B) The train is now going so fast they might injure themselves trying to jump off, perhaps breaking something that cannot be mended such as their egos;
    C) They are counting on most of them and us being dead by then. That allows them to ride their smugness into their graves, (after writing a book or two about it so future generations will resist any urge to spit on them).
    “C” makes me want to start a “Climate Shame” monument. If they are insisting that they intend to “die with the lie” then we need to insure that history will never forget how their hoax hurt the world and just about everyone on it.

  40. The median age of current RS members is over 70 years old. More than 80% of RS members are older than 55 y/o. In essence, if the RS is speaking for the great supermajority of its current members, this supermajority will be over the age of 105 when the 50-year “temperature pause” test result is achieved, or not achieved: i.e. they will be long dead. At that point, is the world going to have to hold seances to re-query them about their “dangerous/catastrophic” anthropogenic climate change opinion?

    • Actually the good news from this perspective is that none of these Royal Society goofballs plan on living forever.
      Typical judgmental managerial types; anything, even death is better than admitting errors in judgment.
      They’re also a prime example why allowing any of these nutcases into unelected positions of power is just as absurd as age advanced non-scientists demanding an additional fifty years of evidence.

  41. They will admit they are wrong when all the global warming money has dried up and anybody seeking grant-funded science will have to declare that they never believed in the idiotic carbon dioxide religion in the first place.

  42. Wrong question because asking about hiatus contains an assumption that warming due to CO2 has occured but simply simply paused. What would they say if temperature dropped by 0.3 deg in the next 20 years to take us back to 1980 level?

  43. Perhaps a more productive approach would be to ask how many standard deviation would be required to reject a computer models? Then if you reject the model there is no evidence for CAGW…

  44. In any case, by the time 50 years rolls around, the Royal Society will have destroyed completely any integrity it may have had and nobody will care less what it has to say about the climate or anything else.
    In March the Royal Society had come under a blistering attack by a fellow for jeopardizing its purpose and integrity by becoming a pressure group for the climate change lobby. Professor Michael Kelly said Britain is now guilty of “leading the world in climate change hypocrisy” and that the Royal Society had published a key document on climate change which was biased and left out parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different.” Professor Kelly said: “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 jeopardize their purpose and integrity.”

  45. It’s the typical response of a bureaucracy faced with career-threatening embarrassment. Say that more study is needed and kick the can down the road until everybody involved is safely retired. Change in attitudes will only come with change in personnel, which means that when it happens it will probably be quite sudden.

  46. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
    Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize winner for his THEORETICAL work

  47. How F..king Arrogant they are, is the simplest way to put it. Their credibility has equalled the likes of William Connolly of Wiki fame. All their utterances and papers will have to be examined microscopically.
    Climate Heretic

    • It wold save you a lot of time and anquish to simply ignore their papers. After all, you don’t really expect them ot be correct do you? Everything they write is suspect from the get-go. Don’t waste your time.

      • Yes but the people who are wasting their time, and taxpayer grant money, are the politicians who create policy that effects us all. If only these “policy makers” would ignore establisments like the Royal Society.

  48. And we only need 50 more years of open-border immigration policies, before the then predominantly Muslim population of Britain decides to end open-immigration by banning the entry of non-Muslims.
    I hope that the future Islamic State of Britain knows what to do with several thousand off-shore wind turbines and a sophisticated nuclear weapons system.
    It’d be a shame for all that investment to go to waste.

  49. Don’t all of you understand? The meetings and pronouncements have stopped global warming in it’s track. If they keep up the money flowing, and the meetings, it will stay stopped. Please send money.

  50. This “politicisation of science” is in fact the original purpose of the society. Because it was originally founded by the monarch with the intention of taking control over the new manufacturing technologies of the industrial revolution which were undermining the power of the monarchy and monarchists.
    The way this was done, was by creating a system of “royal patents” allowing the monarch to decide who could and who could not use new ideas.

    • Scottish Sceptic
      You say

      This “politicisation of science” is in fact the original purpose of the society. Because it was originally founded by the monarch with the intention of taking control over the new manufacturing technologies of the industrial revolution which were undermining the power of the monarchy and monarchists.

      Please explain the pertinent “new manufacturing technologies of the industrial revolution” you think were happening when the RS was founded in the 1640s.
      And in what way was the “power of the monarchy and monarchists” then being undermined?
      The monarchy had recently been reinstated with the acceptance of Charles II as king following the end of the Commonwealth ruled by Oliver Cromwell which took power when Charles I (father of Charles II) was beheaded.

    • jquip
      Thank you for referring Richard s. Courtney to read further in yesterdays article concerning plants and negative effects of nitrogen uptake account of increased co2. Please see the post from Dahlquist at 7:29 PM today, 16 June 2015 at that article.

      • Dahlquist
        I see you are still feeling hurt that I exposed your lies in another thread yesterday. If I were your sort of slime then I would suggest you were “creeping” into this thread to do it.
        In the unlikely event that anyone wants to know your lies, my exposure of them and your resulting childish temper tantrum, then the matter starts here.

  51. In 50 years, most of them will be dead, so effectively the answer is “never.” A half century from now, there will have been 50 years worth of new university graduates with degrees, some of whom will laugh at how stupid and gullible this generation turned out to be.

  52. I spent some childhood years 2 miles from the ocean in Culver City, CA. I also lived in San Diego and San Juan Capistrano. I experienced average annual temps around the 17-deg C mark for 15 years. Let’s see: you could wear shorts and short sleeves 330+ days/year, never need more than a light jacket.
    Massive influxes of people occurred from New York, Chicago, and other cold places. Why were people swarming to warm places? The average 2014 global temp was 14.6-deg C. Anyone who thinks 14.6 is too hot is a lunatic.
    Let me give some context. I have lived, actually lived, with a high temp, no A/C, of 55.5 C. And a low of -36 C, with indoor heating. The outoddorheat with no A/C was more survivable than the cold with no fossil-file burned heat. And bear in mind that the 55.5 C hot temp was 30.9 C above current global average temp, and the -36 C was 52.6 C below the current global average temp. I choose the hi over the lo temp. So would most people.
    I lie with tent over my head, I’m naked. I survive 55.6 Deg C. I lie with a tent over my head, I’m naked, I’m dead at -36 Deg C.
    The IPCC/UNFCCC’s warning is, “If we don’t stop warming, the Average Global Temperature in 2100 will be San Diego, California’s. Ewe!

  53. As a ‘scientific’ statement it actually beggars belief. Is this a fatal blow to the credibility of the RS?

  54. All it will take to end this charade is sea ice returning to the Arctic. The alarmists have made this their canary. If it significantly expands the scam will be over no matter what they may have claimed. Fact is, they will probably deny they were ever supporters.
    This could happen in as little as 5-10 years.

    • They also claimed sea ice would decline in the Antarctic. It has grown instead, but the alarmists haven’t missed a beat. They are as shrill as ever.

    • But then they will quibble that the ice isn’t as thick as it used to be – say 100 years before anyone was up there to measure it.

  55. Unfortunately for them, they don’t get to decide when people stop believing what they say.

  56. 1- Should be 42 years as this is the answer to life, the Universe and everything.( source Douglas Adams).
    2- What legacy will they leave to their great-grandhildren , with their ancestors having run the family business of AGW theory, with no green taxes to wean their hungry future climate scientists? It’s worse then we thought. Those kids will never know what a grant cheque is.

  57. The arrogance would embarrass a Spanish Inquisitor. He could point proudly to their record.

  58. The famed Royal Society is so mentally constipated they have become a society of dinosaurs. Fortunately the passing of the current generation in charge in a few years will probably change attitudes.

  59. Can we get Tony Abbott the Australian PM on a transfer to clear all these troughers out
    What the hell happened to common sense

  60. If they feel that another 50 years of a pause in global warming (without the unscientific. thermodynamic laws being broken assumption that the “missing heat” has disappeared into the oceans) is a viable proposition; then their weakness was demonstrated,by stating that the hiatus “may” have occurred. The other warmunists are saying it hasn’t because they cherry picked the data, the Royal Society would not do or condone this, because they would be finished as a scientific body
    .The logical answer is to do nothing, until global temperatures (as measured by satellites) start to rise again, whether this will happen or not is open to debate! I hope and invite the Royal Society to debate it!

  61. Statements like this only serve to further alienate the public from science and bolster the natural climate variability belief. Making outrageous claims from a point of authority is catching up with the AGW pushers.

  62. The guy who wrote “Who Moved My Cheese” can finally answer that question. The Royal Society wut dun it.

  63. So…….What happened to the Warmers’ ’30 year’ Jibber-Jabber?? Must be they’re getting a bit nervous now that there has been a pause for almost 20 years….eh?

  64. Well, look on the bright side – 50 years from now is still 35 years before carbon will be entirely outlawed. Maybe those 35 years will suffice for the truth to filter down to the brainwashed political classes, and the decarbonization can be called off.

  65. They have been lying from the start, their statements prove climate change is ideological not scientific. Lying, scheming types NEVER admit wrongdoing. I oppose them as much as possible at every opportunity.

  66. It is not just that it is not getting warmer. GHGs, especially CO2 have been increasing in the absence of increasing temps, the correlation between temps and GHGs is not as the Global Warming Industry falsely advertised.

  67. I’m a world-class procrastinator, but 50 years is outside even my bounds.
    Not to mention my lifetime.

  68. I think what they wanted to respond with was…”until hell freezes over.” We know that’s how they feel.

  69. “Royal Society: It will take another 50 years without warming, before we admit we were wrong”
    And after 50 years they would say not before another 150 years. You see, they are not about science no matter you might think is their purpose. They are a faith based society and they always have been. There was no “golden age” when they were “good”. Science does not advance via “societies”, but rather one renegade at a time.
    The CO2 scare will someday be laughed at by even schoolboys. One hopes they laugh at the Royal Society too.
    ~ Mark

  70. 50 more years of no warming will prove that government intervention worked and we need much, much more taxation and elitist control.

  71. This same royal society have in the past been very adamantly wrong. ex. A heavier than air machine will never fly. This about five minutes before the Wright brothers proved them wrong. My whole life I have taken what they declare with a pinch of salt.
    The ego’s involved prohibit the poor dears from admitting mistakes. Scientists not, deluded egotistical fools in charge.

  72. Wrong about what? AGW or CAGW?
    I buy the former, but not the latter. So far it has been BAGW (beneficial).

  73. “Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.” Max Planck
    Hence the present Royal Society is adopting a correct approach. In 50 years time they will all be dead and off the hook of their own making.

  74. These people are idiots. What they’re saying absolutely is that they will ignore global cooling that could lead to an ice ball Earth tipping point for 49 years, all the while making recommendations to curb global warming. This is what passes for science?

  75. The last warming phase ended in 1940. In the 75 years since then it has warmed for 22 years and these boofheads want 103 years of cooling or pause out of 125 to admit they were wrong.

  76. The ones waiting 50 years, of course, would be stone cold dead before they would be called to account.
    What they meant to say was that they (themselves) would never change their minds for any reason. A pretty outlandish assertion for alleged “scientists”.

  77. The Royal Society also recently made a public announcement that they were still opposed to the removal of silt from the man-made drainage channels on the Somerset Levels a.k.a dredging.
    They propose that we should allow the channels to fill with silt over time, such that the channels lose their capacity to carry water from the uplands.
    The result of such a policy after 20 years was severe and worsening annual flooding.
    By recreating severe flooding the RS and the BBC were able to inform the general public that they were witnessing the effects of climate change.
    If these guys can’t find a suitable disaster, then they seem to be intent on manufacturing newsworthy disasters to meet their own demands.
    Local farmers and drainage engineers know exactly how to maintain the somerset drainage system, but they have little say in the matter. Unfortunately for them, the Royal Society want to see them exposed to great misfortune, so that more off-shore wind turbines can be constructed to protect us all from a fantasy weather ghoul.
    I’m not kidding. It really has got THAT bad:

  78. We’re witnessing the death of Objectivisim, reason, logic and the Scientific Method, at least in realm of climatology and in many respects, in various aspects of Western culture.
    Under the rules of the Scientific Method, if hypothetical projections exceed reality by a statistically significant disparity (usually 2+ standard deviations), for a statistically significant duration (USED to be 15 years, until it wasn’t….), then the hypothesis is either disconfirmed or is modified until there is no statistically significant disparity between reality and hypothetical projections….
    In climatology, these Scientific Method rules no longer seem to apply…..
    According to satellite and weather balloon global temp data, CAGW projections are already 2 SDs off from reality, and if current trends continue, they’ll likely be off by 3 SDs in just 5 years, for a total of almost 25 years of no global warming trend, despite 1/3rd of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made over those 25 years…..
    The recent Karl 2015 paper clearly shows CAGW zealots have absolutely no intention of modifying the hypothesis to reflect reality, but rather prefer to modify the RAW DATA to keep the subjective data within 2 SDs of hypothetical projections…. CAGW is no longer about science, it’s clearly a political and social construct to obtain grant funding and achieve various political and social agendas….
    It’s sickening to watch… Historians will not treat this generation of political and scientific hacks well; and rightfully so.
    The disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis is becoming the disconfirmed Eugenics hypothesis of the early 20th century, which directly lead to the genocide of 10’s of millions of humans throughout the world…. I don’t wish to see history repeat itself, but it’s beginning to look like “déjà vu all over again”….

    • Your approach is exactly the same as mine in concept and very close in prediction .I simply use the obvious 60 year cycle in the temperature data – which as you say zeros out over time and modulates the quasi- millennial 960 -1020 year cycle . This latter cycle is skewed with about a 635 year down phase and a 365 +/- up phase which latter you quantify with your sunspot integral. My assumption then is that the 1000 -2000 trends will generally repeat from 2000- 3000.
      For the cooling forecasts and full discussion see.

      • Dr. Page – Thanks for the link. I share your issues with GCMs and discuss some more at .
        The R^2=0.97+ since before 1900 does not leave much wiggle room for other factors in that time period but does not directly address millennial time scale which I am very pleased that your work does. An important discovery is that CO2 has no effect on climate in spite of it being an absorber of 15 micron terrestrial radiation. This finding is corroborated by extant estimates of Phanerozoic global temperature and CO2, and understanding of what a forcing is.
        Have you looked into planetary synodic periods as a possible cause of millennial-scale solar cycles? (Ref. 7 & 8)
        Keep up the good work.

  79. Because, fifty years from now, the current membership will all be dead without ever having had to admit that they were wrong.

  80. Because, in fifty years the current membership will all have died without ever having to admit that they were wrong.

  81. Even God only required the rebellious Children of Israel to wait 40 years before allowing those who remained to enter the promised land. These people, on the other hand, are hoping to continue to worship the golden calf of government funding for another 50 years. They’re willing to repent and reconsider their ways only after they are dead.

    • Louis Hunt
      There may be more truth than you intended in your sardonic comment saying

      Even God only required the rebellious Children of Israel to wait 40 years before allowing those who remained to enter the promised land. These people, on the other hand, are hoping to continue to worship the golden calf of government funding for another 50 years. They’re willing to repent and reconsider their ways only after they are dead.

      The Biblical period of “40 years” means “a period of time too long for people to register how long it is”.
      I suspect the RS period of “50 years” means “a period of time too long for people to register how long it is”.

  82. “If the predicted heat is missing, because it is readily absorbed by the ocean depths, I would suggest claims by the Royal Society that global warming is an urgent problem are already untenable.”
    I got a huge belly laugh out of this truth.
    What kind of a catastrophe/crisis could it be, if all that heat is absorbed in the ocean (deep or not)?
    These are REALLY scientists saying such drivel?
    Oh, man, my opinion of the Royal Society just went down from a 6 to a 2.
    Hooke and Newton must be turning over in their graves.

  83. It is just another example showing that global warming is about an agenda other than science. If global warming is shown to disappear, we need to be ready for the next big thing to try to achieve their agenda.

    • KiwiSceptictoo commented: “The fraud may become law in Paris in late November.”
      Kind of like Kyoto? A law that only uses shaming to uphold it?

  84. So why 50 years ?
    Why not 42 or 37 or 63 ?
    It did not take most of a lifetime to jump onto the AGW bandwagon so why 50 years to jump off ?
    When I was studying geology in the UK in the late 70s economics was the imperative so papers would published with titles like “On the Silurian graptolites of Darkwood Forest….and their economic significance”.
    Now it would be something like “On the Silurian graptolites of Darkwood Forest….and their implications for climate change”.
    You have to know where the research grants are coming from.


  86. I can just see the Hudson River Glacier – Thames River Glacier, demolishing New York/London, will they believe it, probably not. Maybe somewhere in the future, in the warmer parts of the Planet we will have to reduce the refugees from all that warming ice. I can just see Australian immigration, “have you ever supported global warming, with money, or protests” yes or no. We know who you are, starting with Al Gore. Stay and enjoy all your nice white global warming, good luck

  87. They won’t last the 50 years. If the flat/slow increase in temperature continues, the divergence in the temp observations and the GCMs will make them a laughing stock long before that. Unless someone can come up with a reason to make a 0.5C step change in the satellite data.
    I wouldn’t count this as out of the question however.

  88. Would the Royal Society purchase/recommend my Y10K insurance? There’s an additional rider for Y100K insurance at only an extra 100 pounds per year.

  89. So, it will take 70 or so years of no warming to convince them that their selective opinion based on a prior 20-year trend (in the midst of a selected period beginning in the 1950s) and a fraudulent hockey stick is wrong? Well, isn’t that royal?

  90. Once a scientist veers from science into opinion, it takes a whole lot more science to get them to saw the limb off that they’ve climbed out on.

  91. “Where the money is to be made is through the REC subsidy. A 3MW wind turbine that generates (at most) $150,000 worth of electricity a year is eligible for guaranteed subsidies of $500,000 a year. A ridgeline hosting 20 or 30 turbines generates very little power — but an awful lot of free cash for those lucky enough to get their snouts in the trough.”
    They will never concede while they are making $3million+ a year for doing almost nothing.
    Stop the solar and blowhard subsidies and the warming scam will die almost overnight.

  92. Friends, these folks will never admit to being wrong. Their quest has never been about the truth; instead, they will continue their carping lies in some form or another until their tyrannical jackboots are squarely on the necks of all the burger munching rubes all over the world. It has never been about truth–it has always been about power.

  93. Again most of the ocean heat is by absorbed through direct sun light not by convection. Radiative heating is the main means of heat transfer to oceans. Readily seen by anyone who has a pool outside the tropic of both Cancer and Capricorn. The temperature of pool is always hotter during time when sun is highest in the sky, which implies more radiation. Convection is very slow as compared to radiation.

  94. How convenient that these climate change charlatans are able to keep moving the goal posts in defence of their flawed human activity CO2/global warming doctrine. First, we had Dr Phil Jones in a BBC interview in 2010 following the climate-gate scandal stating there had been no discernible warming in the previous 15 years and it needed a 17 year trend to confirm there was no problem. Now we have the RS extending that to 50 years. It truly is astounding.

  95. Surely by even the most tolerant assumption, since the climate scientist sold the idea of us having a hundred months to act the error has forced a hugely expensive and pointless exercise of renewable energy using that fear they should be held legally and financially liable. We now have ugly expensive primitive and unreliable sources blighting the countryside rather than develop a workable solution. Shame there does not appear to be the equivalent of a class action in the UK to take against the universities involved like UEA for the thousands each of us could get in compensation.
    This error has cost ten Pounds for every one the banking crisis has cost the British taxpayer and they are still getting more government support for this now clearly overt fraud.
    Now they are telling us we had fifty years to come up with a better answer than wind “farms” and solar “parks” not a hundred months.

    • The thing that really horrifies me about the stupidity of believing that wind, sun (in Britain??) and for god’s sake, or Gaia’s, biofuels, can halt the calamitous melting of the mountaintop and polar ice, is that the folk who deny that the latter matters, and that it’ll go away on its own, find supporters for their views among the people offended or actually injured by wind turbine and solar environmental and financial cost.
      There is exxactly one source of energy that settles a disagreement between two renowned Presidents of the Royal Society. Neither Kelvin nor Huxley knew about radioactivity, and Huxley knew that the Earth must be more than 100 million years ole, for Natural Selection to have reached the level of producing vertebrates, or oak trees, or insect-eating plants.
      Kelvin very brilliantly computed as a pretty definite higher limit, that with known data on heat flux in deep mines, and estimates of the thermodynamic properties of rocks and metals, the Earth could not be older than 100 million years
      Brilliant man that he was, he even recognised that nevertheless, the knowledge available to him was scarcely enough to account for the “horsepower” of the Sun, and its known persistence even through human historical time.
      But Huxley, Darwin, Lyell and Hutton were right, and Kelvin, justifiable as his skepticism was, was missing vital information.
      Now, the vital information to which the Royal Society should attend, and the German party that calls itself ‘green’, and Senator Barbara Boxer who badgered the NRC to shut down BOTH San Onofre nuclear plants on account of a trifling leak in one of them (it’s a long story) — is that there existed in April 1986, BEFORE the Chernobyl meldown, a meltdown-immune reactor that used ALL of the energy in the uranium fed to it and its successors, by breeding from the non-fissile uranium isotope 238 enough fissile plutonium to replace what it had consumed. Its is all destined to be consumed, thequantity of the waste is less than a ton per gigawatt-year, and its longest half life is 30 years.

  96. now that’s steady state –
    born brainless, doctrin
    their descendants happy go lucky feastering ruined heritage.
    Brave New World.

  97. They probably won’t change their minds then since they all are likely to be dead! Could be why they picked that end point.

  98. I often ask here “What will it take for you to change your position on AGW?”.
    I guess I finally have an answer.

    • The quote about 50 years is taken from a speech by David Davies, a member of the British parliament, who was present at the meeting. It seems very unlikely he would make such a specific statement if it was untrue.

  99. If that’s what they said, then clearly they are banking on the fact that most of them will be dead in 50 years and so not around to be embarrassed by their abuse of science.

  100. Who cares how long committed activists say it will take them to change their mind. We all know how trustworthy and shameless they are anyway. All that matters is that the majority of voters will not mind at all if climate science funding is gutted and all climate agreements are cancelled after the next POTUS election. They will still whine and complain, but only the diehards will bother listening to them.

  101. Let’s see now, $5 trillion in developed country carbon tax revenue times 50 years with a compounded growth rate of 5 percent is enough to…….make excuses, arm wave, use scare tactics, attack fact checking science, undermine institutions, turn heads at the Vatican and the UN. Money is indeed a basic force in physics and psychology. It’s the unified force that eluded Einstein.

  102. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    If the “pause” lasts another 50 years, or we dip into a thirty year cooling cycle, as many prominent scientists are predicting, The Royal Society will simply claim then that the ‘oceans ate the global warming’.
    Warmists will never admit they got CO2 sensitivity wrong. Ever. AGW is a religion, where facts and data come a distant 50th to belief … and denial.

  103. They will just move the goalposts again in 50 years. I am 100% positive I am 100% sure I remember RC claiming 10 years about 10 years ago.

  104. We’ve had dates before – the Club of Climatism keeps changing them. Sitting back and waiting to see them fail yet again is not the answer. We should insist there be no alarmism, no action and no funding for mitigation until we’ve had 50 years of warming from today.

  105. Another 50 years? On what basis?
    Already reality and models are so far apart it’s embarrassing.
    This thing does so much harm for their own agenda it’s not funny.
    The next La Niña period will be longer than the last so will go well past 20 years.

  106. they don’t have to admit they’re wrong, we know they’re wrong. time a few people went to jail.

  107. Who reads this utter tosh? Most of what is on this web site is a shameful distortion of the facts. Get a life you lot, instead of propagating pathetic conspiracy theories on the web.

  108. So that settles it then and we can all roll over and go back to sleep as we’ve got 50 years to believe in this new kid on the block theory. Sounds fair.

  109. So I’ll see you all at COP 2065 then, where we can review all the science and come to a consensus about it and decide if anything needs doing policy wise and in the meantime anyone who says the science is settled is a denier of the scientific method according to none other than the the esteemed Royal Society.

  110. A step that would have to be taken in converting global warming pseudoscience to global warming science is to identify the unit events (things on which probabilities are defined) and sampling units (things on which the corresponding relative frequencies are defined) underlying the climate model that was slated for use by a world government in its regulation of the climate. A unit event (and the corresponding sampling unit) has a duration in time.
    A detail not yet nailed down is the duration. In effect, the Royal Society is proposing that it shall be 50 years, starting today. This is a silly proposal for the Royal Society to be making as this duration would result in the existence of only three statistically independent events stretching back to the beginnings of various global temperature time series in the year 1850. Three is too few by a factor of at least 50 for the purpose of developing a statistically validated model. For this purpose the duration can be no greater than a year. Otherwise, the model lacks statistical significance.

    • “A detail not yet nailed down is the duration.”
      Let’s not get too picky here with the Royal Society and we’ll all meet in 50 yrs time and discuss this new theory of theirs like gentlemen.

      • observa
        For statistical significance of conclusions we’ll need at least a couple of hundred independent events so there’s no point to a gentlemanly meeting with the Royal Society in the next ten-thousand years.

    • I figure if we take them at face value and not confuse them too much with messy statistics, they’ll have dropped off the radar or the mortal coil by then anyway and I won’t be around to care. Always be pragmatic with ambit claims in negotiations is my motto 🙂

  111. More proof that AGW is religion, not science. They don’t want to be confused with facts, instead deciding to cling to their cherished beliefs for the rest of their lives.

  112. No matter how deep the capacity is for absorbing the excess warming, the assertion that “We’ve got enough cold stuff somwewhere (now where did I put it) to absorb it, is an ADMISSIOn that the warming exists. If you picnic basket ice is melting, then there is not a perfect balance between the heat getting in and the heat being radiated back out, even if the beer is still cold enough to drink.
    The facts are, of course, that the Earth’s ice IS melting.
    And whether the Royal Society has noticed it or not, IF it’s a problem, solar based “renewable energy” will not solve it. Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking reckon that civilization is doomed anyway, and I don’t know if theythink so because of human overpopulation, or energy shortages.

  113. If they had understood the effect of declining solar wind pressure/density since the mid 1990’s on increased negative NAO causing warming of the AMO and Arctic, they would have changed their minds already, as increased GHG’s should in theory do the reverse and increase positive NAO, and have inhibited the accelerated AMO warming since 1995. There is a measure there for how feeble CO2 forcing is in comparison to non TSI solar variability, as the recent AMO warming is nearly as fast as the post 1910 AMO warming.

  114. And of course to be consistent, they should agree that AGW skeptics should wait until there are 50 + 18 = 68 years of steady increase in global temperatures before they admit they are wrong. Right?

    • By “steady increase in global temperature” I imagine that you mean the change in global temperature along a linear trend line. This change is called the “global warming” by some of our colleagues. However, as I have proved elsewhere in this blog, to call it the “global warming” is mistaken for the “warming” is multivalued. The skeptics are right and they are wrong, violating the law of non-contradiction.

  115. The Royal Society is part of a cosy group which incudes the Met Office, the UK government and the EU. The Uk government’s legally binding commitment to EU CO2 emission reductions means that in 50 years time it won’t matter what the Royal Society thinks. The UK will be covered in windmills and the forests of North Carolina will have been cut down to supply wood pellets for burning in converted (from coal firing) power stations such as Drax. This conversion of coal fired stations to wood burning to prevent them from being closed down by the EU legally binding encyclical must be the single biggest act of lunacy in the whole global warming saga.

Comments are closed.