![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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
I’m still wondering how positive water vapour feedback is going to work in the deep oceans ???
This exactly corresponds to Plank’s (Dr. Max Plank) dictum..
“Science advances, one funeral at a time”
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.
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.
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.
50 years. Well of course.
That will get two more generations of gravy-trainers through the CAGW system.
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.
now that’s steady state –
born brainless, doctrin
‘well-all-be-dead-before-climate-change-orgs-admit-theyre-wrong-says-mp’.
____
their descendants happy go lucky feastering ruined heritage.
Brave New World.
They probably won’t change their minds then since they all are likely to be dead! Could be why they picked that end point.
Bill
I often ask here “What will it take for you to change your position on AGW?”.
I guess I finally have an answer.
How reliable is the quote from Royal Society?
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.
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.
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.
How convenient. No one will be alive to say otherwise!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
they don’t have to admit they’re wrong, we know they’re wrong. time a few people went to jail.
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.