![Royal_Society_350_logo_400x175[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/royal_society_350_logo_400x1751.jpg?quality=83){kind=logo}
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.
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.
WUWT: Monckton and Monty – dead parrot parody of IPCC
This entire post must not be forgotten.
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!
See when Freeman Dyson predicts that the establishment herd will accept that they are wrong at.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/04/climate-and-co2-exchange-with-freeman.html
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.
“
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.
Exactly.
We have been waiting 65 years since the proclamation of imminent problems due to global warming.
Old-timers might recall http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/who-knew-rachel-carson-climate-change-expert/
What about 50 years of cooling ?
They are fools and the data strongly suggest they are wrong already.
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.
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?
Cut off their heat.
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.
Maybe they will die within 50 years, but their legacy will live on.
Putin is adding how many ICBMs this year?
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.
The king walks stark naked amongst believers.
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?
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…
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.”
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.
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
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.
Regards
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.
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.
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.
So the RS is just shoveling out BS.
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
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.
Richard
Those are some mighty fast goalposts.
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.
Thanks
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.
Richard
I’m surprised they didn’t say “till hell freezes over.”
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.
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!
As a ‘scientific’ statement it actually beggars belief. Is this a fatal blow to the credibility of the RS?