Fellows of the Geological Society pushback over climate position

Back in 2010, 43 fellows of the Royal Society wrote to its then president, Paul Nurse, to complain about the unscientific tone of the society’s messages on climate change. A few days ago, a group of 33 current and former fellows of the Geological Society wrote an open letter to their president in similar vein. The text is reproduced below. 


The President
Geological Society of London

Dear President

We are writing as a group of concerned primarily geoscientists, half of whom are or were Fellows, (names and affiliations listed below). Our concern is that the Society’s position on Climate Change (aka Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW), is outdated and one-sided, and is distracting attention and funding from real issues of pollution such as plastic and other noxious industrial and domestic waste. To address this, we proposed to Colin Summerhayes that the 2010 and 2013 GSL Position Papers be posted on the Energy Matters blog, so that all sides of the discussion could be aired; and we are very grateful to Colin for effecting and taking part in this (http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-londons-statement-on-climate-change/). In addition, Colin continues to engage in an open and spirited email correspondence with some of us on the pros and cons of AGW.

The GSL position papers state they have been prepared ‘based on analysis of geological evidence, and not on analysis of recent temperature or satellite data, or climate model projections.’ And certainly, a key finding, ‘the only plausible explanation for the rate and extent of temperature increase since 1900, is the exponential rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution’, is not in line with the IPCC claim (in AR5 SPM), that ‘Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960’, and that ‘more than half’ of the warming since 1951 is due to AGW. The IPCC also claim that ‘Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since the pre-industrial era (variously claimed to be between 1750-1880have driven large increases in the atmospheric concentrations of … CO2’, which nobody seriously denies, but they do not claim that this resulted in warming before 1951/60, as the GSL appears to.

The IPCC position matches observations that almost half of the warming that has occurred over the last 150 or so years since industrialisation, had already happened by 1943, well before the rapid rise of industrial CO2. This difference of opinion is critical, for if CO2 did not cause the pre-1943 warming, the claimed consensus that Catastrophic AGW is caused by human CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution, which is supported by GSL, must be mistaken.

While there remain other areas of disagreement over the science of Global Warming and Climate Change (which are not the same thing), we can probably all agree that the 2010 position paper and the 2013 addendum need updating. And as this update will be critical in deciding future climate policy world-wide, we propose that any updated paper should come from a full and open discussion of the science, and not just from the ideas of a small group however well qualified. We suggest that such a process could be achieved by adopting methods of review used by other professional societies, particularly the APS, AAPG, and APPEA copies of which are attached.

We also believe the GSL has a responsibility to refute the exaggerated claims that swirl around the fringes of the Climate Change debate, undermining the real science – such as that CO2 and Climate Change cause:

  • more hurricanes, more rain, more drought, more asthma and now, even more terrorism (through drought in Africa),
  • the exceptional cold and warm recorded over most of the sub-Arctic, Northern Hemisphere during the past winter and spring are what we should ‘expect’ from Global Warming.

As this letter makes clear, it is not true that 97% of scientists unreservedly accept that AGW theory is fixed, or that carbon and COare ‘pollutants’ and their production should be penalised; how can the primary nutrient in photosynthesis be a pollutant? We also note that 700 scientists have made submissions to the US Senate expressing dissent from the consensus and 166 climate scientists issued a challenge to Ban Ki Moon on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 to provide proof of human induced global warming, which he did not do.

Even once respectable journals like the New Scientist, still uncritically peddle such social media nonsense as the infamous Hockey Stick, that seems to have lost the otherwise well documented Medieval Warm period. ‘Global Warming’ is on everyone’s lips with each month/year claimed to be the ‘hottest ever’ – based on IPCC’s ‘adjusted’ land and marine temperature data; however, the ‘pause’ in average temperatures since the 1998 el Niño, as documented by almost all recent temperature data, suggests global warming is no longer happening. Both claims cannot be correct, and, by saying nothing about these differences, the Society is supporting rather than resolving them.

By restricting the review to the geological evidence, independently of IPCC theory and modelling, the GSL signalled an independent scientific approach. But by excluding an evaluation of the modern climate record, the committee has failed to notice or account for these and other inconsistencies in AGW theory.

The Energy Matters blog was a useful first step in focusing on these issues but, as it is not ‘peer reviewed’[i] in the way that scientific papers generally are, we suggest something more formal is needed, such as a 2-day conference to explore all sides of the issues raised, with a strong neutral moderator.

Topics for such a dialogue could examine the evidence that

  1. CO2 alone as the principle driver of temperature, or climate.
  2. Climate Change is largely real, natural, and mostly beyond our control.
  3. Manipulation of climate data has been used to support ‘global warming’.[ii]
  4. Most climate alarms are little more than scaremongering.
  5. CO2 is mainly beneficial, NOT dangerous but blanket decarbonisation is.
  6. Industrial effluents and plastics, deforestation and overfishing are dangerous– and are being side-lined by the focus on CO2 emissions.

The world’s climate system, as defined by the IPCC, [iii] is a ‘coupled non-linear chaotic system”, for which “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible’. This is due to the impossibility of describing precisely the initial conditions, and to instability generated by the mathematics causing cumulative errors in the modelling process, which combine to make a ‘correct’ solution impossible. This alone should make the authors of the GSL statements cautious about their very confident acceptance that CO2 alone has driven temperature and climate since 1900.The IPCC AR documents address some of the uncertainties, and are generally much less biased than the SPMs (Summary for Policymakers) which get all the media attention, which is unfortunate, as it is apparent that they are largely written not by scientists but by an ‘assemblage of representatives from governments and NGOs, with only a small scientific representation.’[iv] Their heavy political bias not only undermines the scientific content, it supercharges the ‘overwhelming consensus for human induced climate change’ which is mindlessly promulgated by the media year in, year out. The façade of consensus, helped by the data adjustments promised in the Climategate emails, negates the ‘creative conflict between theory and data’ which is missing in this debate and which we suggest the GSL can revive. It is to be hoped that the frequent use of conditionals ‘may’ and ‘could’ in the current papers will be reduced, as a document that will affect government policy for years needs to be more specific about the levels of uncertainty in its pronouncements.

We also note the difficulty of publishing anything that does not confirm the IPCC AGW position, again, as promised in Climategate emails; and also, the ‘ad hominem’ attacks rather than data refutation that too often characterises the debate, and we hope that this will not prevent the committee considering data that does not appear to support its position paper conclusions.

We do not expect that all of our concerns will survive the test of time, and we assume GSL would similarly accept that new data may well change the ‘consensus’. Climate models fail to model past climates accurately and consistently overestimate future temperature trends, nor are they able to explain the following:

  • The current hiatus or pause in warming.
  • Why the 285 ppm of atmospheric CO2 estimated for the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is in any way, a desirable benchmark. It coincides with the Victorian Little Ice Age, a period of starvation and population decline, which cannot possibly be a desirable target, unless you want to depopulate the earth.
  • Climate models always predict higher temperatures than actually occur
  • The absence of the predicted tropospheric hotspot – the ‘fingerprint of AGW’.
  • COand temperature were higher than today during the previous 50 million years plus, with no CAGW effects, why not?
  • The natural warming of 8°C and ~100ppm increase in COduring the Holocene up to the 1800s, and the subsequent 125 ppm increase in CO2 after 1950, accompanied by a miserly ~1°C temperature rise.
  • The Holocene enigma of generally falling but fluctuating temperatures from ~3,000BP, accompanied by rising CO2that predates industrial COemissions.
  • How AGW theory relies on radiative transfer only to heat the planet, and seemingly ignores insolation, enthalpy and water vapour.
  • The inability of the science of AGW to sharpen the range of estimates of climate sensitivity (currently between 1.5 oC and 6.4°C according to GSL)
    despite over 30 years of hugely funded effort; surely the science has failed?
  • Earth System Sensitivity concept introduced by GSL, which ‘could be twice’ climate sensitivity’ noted above (2013 Addendum, page 4)

Such rational failures have to be of concern to the GSL as they demonstrate that CO2 alone does not, nay cannot drive global warming, so how can it drive climate change? And if it does not, there is no reason for the uncritical acceptance of the UN/IPCC focus on penalising CO2
emissions?

The discussions in the Energy Matters blog suggests that the GSL position papers do not ‘prove’ that average global temperatures are accurately measured or agreed, or that human COdriven ‘warming’ is real and/or dangerous, or that CO2 is effective in changing the climate beyond natural variability. The position papers would not have included the beneficial effects of CO2 in greening the planet, as this was not widely reported until July 2013 CSIRO study. However, the benefits that cheap reliable electricity can bring in preventing over 4 million annual deaths from indoor air pollution from burning bio and other solid fuels, has been obvious for some time. Even if CO2 did drive some warming, is it more dangerous to more people than this very real pollution faced daily by well over 200 million in the developing world?

We fully support the Society’s involvement in the climate change debate but believe that the apparent failures of AGW theory noted herein, calls for a re-think. Climate is and always will change, but the evidence that this is due primarily to CO2, is not forthcoming. If the strong natural forcings that are so well described in the GSL papers have more impact than CO2, then we should be spending more of our limited resources on finding ways to adapt to negative climate change.

We are aware that the board has duties to the Society, to the prestige of the science and to Fellows, in that order perhaps, but think any formal statement by the Society should at least acknowledge the views of dissenting Fellows. Climate Change (which is only ever portrayed, without any justification, as dangerous) has become the critical issue of our time and informed dissent, cannot be swept under the carpet or dismissed as ‘unscientific’ or ‘denialist’, as it too often is; ‘Rebellion is the deepest root of science; the refusal to accept the present order of things,’[v] but seemingly not anymore in Climate Studies.

The GSL has taken a strong independent position; the Carbon Cycle is a genuine geological concern, but interpretation of the data is subject to increasing uncertainty as one goes back or forward in time, so firm conclusions based only on experimental data (the geological record) are likely to be unsound. As one of my correspondents puts it ‘The Society can make comments regarding the complexity of the physics and mathematics and inevitable uncertainty of predictions of nonlinear dynamical system behaviour etc., and there is nothing wrong with having a debate about this… But … their conclusions are unwarranted and unsound science if based on geological evidence alone.

Science is supposed to use all the available tools at its disposal and by excluding the modern record it would be even more sound to avoid tacit support for the proposition that ‘the science is settled’. And even if everything the IPCC is frightened of looks inescapable, applying the precautionary principle by penalising carbon regardless has shut down debate creating more harm than benefit. Better by far to look at ways of mitigating possible effects until the evidence becomes firmer, one way or the other.

The strength of the Society is that Fellowship is not just open to people who share a current ‘consensus’, what was once accepted has often fallen by the wayside as arguments are overturned; Murchison and Sedgwick, uniformitarianism and catastrophism, Piltdown Man.

We would like to make a presentation of our findings to the board, as much of what is relevant can best be understood with reference to data. However, we have no wish to monopolise this discussion in any way, as we believe the issues need raising before as many interested parties as possible. And it is for this reason we are calling this an open letter and will circulate it through media channels after the forthcoming AGM.

Yours sincerely

Howard Dewhirst FGS,

on behalf of the following:

Active fellows: Geology unless stated
Chris Atkinson Singapore BSc, PhD FGS, PESGB, SEAPEX
Nigel Banks United Kingdom BA, DPhil FGS, AAPG, SPE, PESGB
Dave Bodecott United Kingdom BSc, MSc FGS, AAPG, PESGB, IOD
David Boote United Kingdom MSc, PhD FGS, AAPG, PESGB
Bernard Cooper United Kingdom BSc FGS
John Cope United Kingdom BSc, PhD, DSc, C. Geol FGS (Snr Fellow), GA
Cameron Davies United Kingdom BSc, PhD, DIC FGS
Howard Dewhirst United Kingdom BA, MA FGS, AAPG, SPE, PESGB, PESA
Tim Harper United Kingdom BSc, PhD, MSc, DIC, C. Eng FGS, IOM3,
Graham Heard United Kingdom BSc FGS, CGeol, PESGB, AAPG, PESA
David Jenkins United Kingdom MA, PhD FGS, AAPG,
Chris Matchette-Downes United Kingdom BSc, MSc, C. Geol FGS, PESGB
James Moffatt South Africa MA FGS, GSA, AAPG, EAEG, PESGB
Philip Mulholland United Kingdom BA, MSc FGS, AAPG, EAGE, PESGB
Michael Oates United Kingdom BSc, PhD FGS, GA
Ian Plimer Australia BSc, PhD FGS (Hon), FTSE, FAIMM
Chris Pullan United Kingdom BSc FGS, PESGB
Michael Ridd United Kingdom BSc, PhD FGS
Michael Seymour United Kingdom MA, MSc, DIC FGS, PESGB (former Chair)
Richard Stabbins United Kingdom BSc, PhD, C. Geol FGS (Snr Fellow), PESGB (Hon Mbr)
Barry Squire United Kingdom BSc, PhD FGS
David Warwick United Kingdom BSc FGS, PESGB
Alastair Woodrow United Kingdom BSc (Physics) FGS, EAGE, EI, PESGB
Wyss Yim Hong Kong China DSc, PhD, DIC FGS
Enzo Zappaterra United Kingdom PhD, C. Pet Geol FGS, AAPG, PESGB
Former fellows:
David Bowen United Kingdom BSc, PhD FGS (former); Life Fellow INQUA
Frank Brophy Australia
Gary Couples United Kingdom BS, MA, PhD FGS (former), SPE, AGU, AAPG
Trish Dewhirst Australia BSc, B. Ecom FGS, AusIMM, PESGB (all former)
Henry John Dodwell United Kingdom BSc, MSc FGS (former), currently PESGB
Martin Keeley United Kingdom BSc, PhD FGS (former),
Dennis Paterson United Kingdom BSc, MSc, DIC FGS, AAPG, PESGB (all former)
William J Pyke United Kingdom BS, MSc, MA FGS (former),
Concerned colleagues:
Nils-Axel Morner Sweden PhD P&G, ICG
Tim Ball Canada BA, MA, PhD
Dave Bratton USA Na Na
Doug Buerger Australia BSc, MPhil Aus IMM, MAICD
John Conolly Australia BSc, MSc, PhD AAPG, PESA
Isabel Davies United Kingdom BSc, MSc, DIC PESGB
Paul Dostal Australia BE MIE Aust (former)
Philip Foster United Kingdom MA SMP
Ashley Francis United Kingdom BSc FRAS, EAGE, SEG, PESGB, IAMG, BSSS, MI Soil Sci
Andrew Gillies Australia BSc Aus IMM
Peter Gill United Kingdom BSc (Physics) FEI, Inst P, CEng, C Phys, Eur. Ing
John Graham United Kingdom BA EAGE, SEG retired
Tom Harris Canada B Eng, M Eng, ICSC
Bruce Harvey Australia BSc, MBA Aus IMM
Michael Haseler United Kingdom BSc (Physics), MBA na
Robert Heath United Kingdom BSc (Physics) SPG India (EAGE, SEG & PESGB, all former)
Yvon Houde Canada AAPG, SEG, SPE, HGS, CSPG
Richard Karn Australia BA, MA na
Pamela Klein Portugal BSc MSc ICG,
Richard Lindzen USA PhD MIT, Mbr US NAS
Sebastian Luening Germany Dr habil AGU
Andy May USA BSc AAPG, SPE, SPWLA
Peter McCarthy Australia BSc, M. Geosc AusIMM, MAICD
Robert Merrill USA PhD AAPG, SPE, GSA
Paul Messenger Australia BSc, PhD Aus IMM (former), GSA (former)
Steve Munro New Zealand BSc, Post-Grad Dipl, MBA ASEG
Thomas E O’Connor USA BS, MS AAPG, Houston Geo. Soc
Alex Pope USA BS NASA retired
Gordon P Riddler United Kingdom BSc, MBA CEng, FIMMM
Bill Trojan USA BS, MS AAPG, Westminster College SLC Utah
Mark Wharton United Kingdom na na
Subsequent signatories:
Viv Forbes Australia BSc AusIMM
Peter B Gibbs United Kingdom BSc FGS, PESGB
Roger Higgs United Kingdom BSc, MSc, DPhil AAPG, (FGS, PESGB, GSA, SEPM former)
Simon Kendall United Kingdom BSc, MSc FGS (former)
Carlos Venturini United Kingdom BSc, MSc, PG Dipl FGS, PESGB

 

Links:

APS: American Physical Societyhttps://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdfhttps://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate/index.cfm

AAPG: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/gerhard/index.htm

AIChE: https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2017/july/che-context-members-will-shape-aiches-climate-change-policy

APPEA: https://www.appea.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Climate-Change-Policy-Principles-APPEA-final.pdf

SPE: http://webevents.spe.org/webinar/13400

CAPP: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; https://www.capp.ca/responsible-development/air-and-climate/climate-change

Climate Change Tutorial; District Court of California, 10/3/2018. http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Happer-Koonin-Lindzen.pdf

GWPFhttps://www.thegwpf.org/state-of-the-climate-report-reveals-23-year-temperature-pause-in-the-stratosphere/

Letter to Scott Pruitt EPAhttps://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/06-07-18%20EPA%20Pruitt%20NIPCC%20Submission.pd.pdf

 

Selected Blogs:

http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-londons-statement-on-climate-change/

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/03/State-of-the-Climate2017.pdf

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/the-geological-society-of-londons-statement-on-climate-change/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/30/what-are-in-fact-the-grounds-for-concern-about-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-2730698

Covering email sent to GSL President 1st June 2018

Dear President,

Attached is an open letter to yourself as President of the Geological Society of London, together a series of referenced attachments. The letter is written in the spirit of scientific enquiry, not political correctness and has been prepared on behalf of a group of colleagues, whose names are included in the letter, to raise the possibility of a new edition of the GSL’s position papers on climate change. We wish to raise awareness of the seriousness of our concern by making this an open letter, and plan to issue it to the media after the Society has had an opportunity to consider it. We do this not to pressure the Society in any way, but because, as we note in the letter, a new GSL position paper ‘will be critical in deciding future climate policy world-wide’, hence ‘any updated paper should come from a full and open discussion of the science, and not just from the ideas of a small group’.

We are particularly impressed by the thoroughness of the American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review Workshop Framing Document and the Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee, 20 December 2013, copies of which we attach, together with examples from other societies and other relevant publications which we hope you will find useful in any approach a review.

The issue of Climate Change is too important for it to be the preserve of a small group of Fellows, no matter how well intentioned and qualified. Despite what you might read in the media, and as this letter shows, 97% of scientists do not accept the IPCC Theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and we don’t believe the GSL should do so quite as unquestioningly as they have done heretofor.

We have no special agenda but to seek the truth lost in what has become a hugely political issue, where open dialogue has become almost impossible. We are sure this is something the GSL would be concerned with and would want to take a lead in restoring the balance.

Yours Sincerely

Howard Dewhirst

 


[i] Peer reviewing is only of value if the reviewers are without bias, which is increasingly rare in politicised sciences such as climate change; the web, like Guttenberg’s press, has opened up new vistas of thought and expression.

[iii] Chapter 8 of the 2000 IPCC report titled “Model Evaluation”

[iv] https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

[v] Carlo Rovelli: The Order of Time.2017


Note: the original title had the word “Royal” in it, as in “Royal Geological Society” the author of the letter, Howard Dewhurst pointed out the society is not “Royal” and the word was removed from the title.

There’s a “Royal Geological Society of Cornwall”, also in England. Hence the confusion.

Advertisements

167 thoughts on “Fellows of the Geological Society pushback over climate position

  1. Wow! Geologists fight back! I wish I’d known of this so I could add my, albeit unimportant, signature to this. Further, taking up the point made by NorwegianSceptic, we should all copy this, edit carefully as appropriate for the circumstances, and send it to all those public and private bodies (eg the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England), investment management houses (eg Legal & General) and so forth who have taken infiltrated by the Green Blob and openly make “climate change is a crucial issue that we have to address so we are spending your time and money on it etc” type statements on their websites, with all the ensuing management policies.
    The warmunist supertanker isn’t going to be halted, leave alone turned around, any time soon, especially in the EU and Britain, but in the battle to raise awareness of the real science, every little helps.

    • But why is that the Pope knows none of this and lets himself be used to promote fundamentally flawed propaganda that surely makes him a bit suspect on the God
      business ?.

    • The warmunist supertanker isn’t going to be halted, leave alone turned around,…

      Sink it then, like the ‘Bismarck’ before. Confidence matters and courage, as these FGS and affiliates have shown.

    • Another fine Churchill quote. Along with, “never in the history of humanity, has so much money been wasted by so few, and in such a futile manner etc etc”, their uses are endless.

    • Well, it’s definitely past the end of the beginning, and thus, by extension, somewhere near the beginning of the middle….

    • I don’t want to be picky but you lost me at exponential carbon dioxide concentration increase. The range of 280-410 ppm does not even equal 10^ 1 power?? I guess geologists don’t study math (sarc).

      • “The range of 280-410 ppm does not even equal 10^ 1 power?? I guess geologists don’t study math (sarc).”

        ex·po·nen·tial
        [ˌekspəˈnen(t)SH(ə)l]
        ADJECTIVE
        (of an increase) becoming more and more rapid.
        “the social security budget was rising at an exponential rate”
        mathematics
        of or expressed by a mathematical exponent.
        “an exponential curve”

        In other words, a cumulative one percent per year increase over a substantial period of time would be an exponential increase.

        You can tell how effective a post here is by noting how many trolls show up in the comments attempting to denigrate and obfuscate the information provided. By that metric, noting all the trolling below, this article has been identified by the opposition as having a high threat level to their CAGW narrative.

  2. It is a great and brave attempt well argued and backed by a very solid list of fellows and signatories. And it is flattering to see one of my articles as a selected blog reference. I wish them the best luck in such a noble enterprise.

    However the money is flowing only in one direction, and nearly all scientific societies have aligned with the flow and ignored members protestations and even resignations. As it saddens me to admit, this battle can’t be won on scientific arguments alone. Until a time comes when climate change is no longer a public concern, and the money flow greatly decreases, the situation cannot be reverted.

    ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’ Upton Sinclair.

    The current climate establishment will resist change literally unto death.

    • “this battle can’t be won on scientific arguments alone”

      You are 100% right. Cowards predominate in the academies, and so any battle that requires personal bravery will be lost there. That’s the importance of figures like Trump.

  3. “Fellows of the Royal Geological Society pushback “

    There isn’t a Royal Geological Society. This is the
    Geological Society of London. And unlike the RS, fellowship isn’t something awarded after a long career of outstanding achievement. It is the nomal grade of membership. There are over 12000 of them. You have to pay the membership fee:

    “Fellows will have a degree or equivalent qualification in geology (or a related subject), or have not less than 6 years’ relevant experience in geology or a related subject (e.g., membership of another learned society, either in UK or overseas).”

      • So 33 members out of 12,000 in total object to the Society’s position on AGW. That’s .3%. BFD.

        • So. How many members besides the authors supported the original statements? I suppose you are not trying to count those that have not expressed a position.

        • They probably weren’t even asked, but in any case, most wouldn’t dare take a position that contradicted the “official” or “consensus” position.

        • So, between yourself, Nick above and Phillip below (and Mosher), there are 4 of you posting here on a fairly regular basis that buy into the (C)AGW meme out of more than 4000 regular posters. 4 of 4000… that’s .1% BFC

          • Hey Bryan, this is skeptic central. So your math is completely irrelevant. I’d say nice try, but to be honest it was rather pathetic.

          • Percentages of opinions don’t mean squat. The Glowbullcrap warmers are wrong. That’s the only thing that matters.

          • Matters to who? To the true skeptic believers here? Sure, I’ll give you that. But not to anyone that matters, with the exception of the current US President. Thankfully American companies are not listening to him at all.

          • Hey Chris, the Geological Society is climate junk science central. So your wibble about Bryan’s math is completely stupid. Your “pathetic” slurs are as usual for people like you pure projection.

          • it sure is sceptic central chris. whole different ball game than say the arctic sea ice forum ;).

          • cephus – It’s not stupid if you want to have an impact on what happens. You can trash talk the Geological Society all you want, I couldn’t care less. They and other scientific organizations affect policy and decisions.

        • Gotta love consensus fanboys…how’d that bloodletting go for the poor souls suffering from cancer back in the day?

          • Nope, no ignorance. I just don’t rely on how the world was 150-200 years ago to try and prove my point. Gee whiz, scientific tools and in particular the ability to share and review scientific research has advanced a bit since then. So using it to prove your point shows the weakness of your argument.

          • Translation: I don’t allow something as trivial as data influence what I want to believe.

          • “Nope, no ignorance. I just don’t rely on how the world was 150-200 years ago to try and prove my point.”

            Nor, Chris do you rely on the fact that “several” means more than two. But then that’s because you hadn’t a clue just how recent bloodletting was advocated as a practice among medical professionals to cure common ailments.

            But the larger point is history doesn’t matter to you, and therefore neither do the mistakes of the past matter do they? Those mistakes were for that generation.

            Because we know enough about every part and parcel of the universe now don’t we? We understand what we need to understand don’t we? Because we’re the smartest generation that ever lived aren’t we?

            Like they were?

          • Nice try, Sy. I did not say history doesn’t matter. I said that in matters of scientific research, we’ve made dramatic progress in the last 100 years. So pointing to accepted practices from a time before we had microscopes, computers, lab analysis equipment, etc as proof that scientific consensus then is identical to scientific consensus now is not valid.

          • Chris, it wasn’t that long ago we were jamming ice picks into people’s brains and calling it “medicine”. We do still regularly electrocute people in the same name.

            The consensus said that a full frontal lobotomy was a great idea….

          • … and the originator of the practice, Moniz, received a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

            The primary pusher of the practice in the USA, who would lobotomize anyone with a perceived problem, did not receive a Nobel Prize (but having more integrity than Micheal Mann, he did not claim that he shared the prize with Moniz).

          • “So pointing to accepted practices from a time before we had microscopes, computers, lab analysis equipment, etc as proof that scientific consensus then is identical to scientific consensus now is not valid.”

            Because the prevailing consensus belief of the scientists of that day, who employed the best instruments of their day, is different than the prevailing consensus belief of the scientists of today, employing the best instruments of today?

            Because we’re the smartest generation that ever lived?

            Like they were?

          • Nope, because the tools available today are much, much better. It’s much easier to share and review information. And there is a lot more research going on – countries like China, Japan, Korea and India, which were not economically strong then, have become so now and can afford to fund research.

          • “Nope, because the tools available today are much, much better.”

            You mean the tools described below by a consensus opinion of IPCC scientists (emphasis added)?

            “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

            http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

          • “So pointing to accepted practices from a time before we had microscopes, computers, lab analysis equipment, etc as proof that scientific consensus then is identical to scientific consensus now is not valid.”

            Chris, consensus then, as now, is when the majority have confidence in, and agree with the results achieved by, the minority. It has more to do with human nature than the tools of science. And no, it is not the same now as it was then. If anything there is far more pressure to agree with the current paradigm now than then, whether right or wrong.

            I invite you to read “The Truth Wears Off” by Jonah Lehrer in the Dec 13 New Yorker. It’s available on line, with a simple google search. It is a good expose of the problem of human nature in today’s scientific process. The origin of consensus is just one of the areas explored. It is a problem in nearly all soft sciences.

            One tidbit of particular relevance: “The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.”

          • thallstd – on any statement made by a group such as the Geologic Society, or the AMA, or other groups, there are going to be members who object. A perfect example are vaccines for kids. There are practicing doctors who disagree with the idea of mandatory vaccines for kids. So should we take that path? There are many examples already of outbreaks of measles due to vaccine skeptic parents not getting their kids vaccinated. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/measles-outbreak-minnesota-caused-vaccine-skeptics-n756246

          • Chris – You appeared to be arguing that consensus now is momre reliable than in the past due to better tools. The article I cited explores many aspects of the establishment and maintenance of a paradigm – a consensus – in various branches of science. The one common thread is human nature in response to the way we conduct science. The tools have little if anything to do with how reliable a consensus is. This is not just a problem with climate science, which is never mentioned in the article. It is an artifact of the way we conduct science.

            I think we should always take whichever path the science dictates. In the case of vaccines that would be the case for, not against. Not because the majority of doctors agree (ie there is a consensus). Not because the majority of published papers reach that conclusion. But because the imperial evidence is overwhelming. In the case of climate science, there is no empirical evidence, current or historical, that CO2 is anything but a minor contributor to climate change.

          • “One tidbit of particular relevance: “The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.””
            Yes, of course. Those that didn’t find what they were looking for probably didn’t find anything useful at all. And while it’s all very well to say that negative results should be published, the fact is that journals are businesses, and publishing negative results just doesn’t pay. That isn’t the fault of scientists.

          • Nick – “Those that didn’t find what they were looking for probably didn’t find anything useful at all. ”

            Unless they were trying to replicate a study supporting the current paradigm. In which case there inability to replicate should be newsworthy and of interest to objective journals.

            “And while it’s all very well to say that negative results should be published, the fact is that journals are businesses, and publishing negative results just doesn’t pay. That isn’t the fault of scientists.”

            Exactly. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Neither I or the article placed much blame on the scientists. It is the process, the need to get published, the need to sell journal subscriptions that insures most published articles will reinforce the current paradigm not challenge it. One aspect of several in the process of science that is susceptible not just to intentional bias by gatekeepers, but unintentional bias as well. How many scientists question there own results when they don’t reach the same result as the current paradigm and never even attempt to get their results published?

    • Ah, right on time here come the logic deniers. Amen, amen, dear Gaia we give our tithings to your CO2 goddess. In the name of the Gavin, and the Mann, and the Holy Hansen

    • @Nick “There isn’t a Royal Geological Society”

      So, it is a different sort of peerage. A society of geological peers.

    • It’s a good sign that Nick Stokes, Chris OR Philip Clarke can refute the CONTENT of the letter – but can attack the status and number of people who wrote it. Well done lads – there’s nothing like good honest scientific debate – and your comments are nothing like it

      • Hey Mr. Bliss, some of us in this world believe in doing analysis, making decisions, and taking action. Others want to analyse things forever, or until some mystical 100% consensus is reached. It’s clear where you stand.

        • And where does your religion actually promote doing analysis? Is that what you mean by adjusting raw data, hiding the decline, refusing to provide the data because others would attempt to tear it apart, feeding models upon models to verify the original models that can’t hindcast or forecast ten years out, etc? Or wait, maybe it’s analyzing interesting ways Mike’s nature trick isn’t fraud.. Or, wait, I’m missing something big here, maybe like that tropospheric heat you’ve been looking for, where is it now? The oceans?
          Hmm, I better go to a parking lot and lift up it’s skirt to see if it’s hiding there.

          You folks are something. Reminds me of the song by Cake, Comfort Eagle.
          “We are building a religion, we are building it bigger” great song. How prescient

          • Hey Honest, 15 points for Gryffindor! You’ve managed to trot out all the usual cliche attacks on climate science. OMG, adjusting raw data – you say it like it’s embezzlement. Tell me this. when the sample time for a particular weather station is changed from say, 10am to 2pm, precisely what do you suggest doing?

          • Chris: And you “adjust” the subject, confirming your tr0ll credentials. I’ll be glad when you stay on topic to advance the discussion. First time for everything, they say. Still awaiting an application of your finer math skills to Cook/Lew.

          • Paul: 1) Cook/Lew is not the topic of the post, so why are you changing topics? 2) The last time I checked, I don’t work for you. If you want to have a go at it, go right ahead.

          • Anyone else notice how Chris never actually argues about data or science.
            He just insults anyone who doesn’t worship as he does.

          • Chris, seriously, you can’t figure out how to fix it when the “sample time” is changed? Truly this is unbelievably stupid. Maybe try sampling more often.

            Maybe that’s too much data? We sample our signal at 65 MSamp/s, 32-bits/sample, and 32 channels. And we can handle it.

            Who are the idiots in climate science sampling at such a low rate? Key here for those unable to process data correctly: sample and filter. Change from 10am to 2 pm? Easy: sample at both times; or, better, sample once a minute. How hard can it be? If we had a complete data set it would be easier to see issues like UHI, methinks. But perhaps someone wants that hidden.

          • “Truly this is unbelievably stupid. Maybe try sampling more often.”
            No, this is pretty dumb. Chris is talking about historic data. That isn’t an option. Current data is sampled very frequently.

        • That’s right, Chris! You tell ’em boy!

          What’s the matter with you, Mr. Bliss?!?! Don’t you get it?!?!

          “Big Oil” got yer tongue?

          Away with Galileo! Bloodletting for all!

          Thus saith, TheConsensus!

        • If you believe in doing analysis, why don’t you.
          Instead you just attack the messenger again.

        • Pris says:
          some of us in this world believe in doing analysis, making decisions, and taking action

          There’s a 97% chance that you are a public-money-paid rent-seeking troll, so you need to decide, analyze & take action to show you’re not.

          • No, I don’t. There is a 97% chance that you are a puffed up, self important buffoon. No need to provide proof that you are not.

      • While the people who wrote this letter make some valid criticisms the following ones, for instance, are just bollocks and ruin their credibility:

        The absence of the predicted tropospheric hotspot – the ‘fingerprint of AGW’.
        Hotspot is not a “fingerprint of AGW”.

        How AGW theory relies on radiative transfer only to heat the planet, and seemingly ignores insolation, enthalpy and water vapor.
        This is grossly false, of course .

        The natural warming of 8°C and ~100ppm increase in CO2 during the Holocene up to the 1800s, and the subsequent 125 ppm increase in CO2 after 1950, accompanied by a miserly ~1°C temperature rise.
        Nobody ever claimed that the CO2 is merely the cause of Holocene warming and deglaciation.
        Idiocy, ignorance and/or hypocrisy at work, I guess

        • Reply to gammacrux,
          The theory of global warming AWG depends on the predicted tropospheric hot spot .This hot spot has never been identified and with out this the theory fails .Some scientists have claimed they have identified the hot spot with computer models but at this time it remains unproven .
          Without this ,no proof has been brought forward that the small amount of warming that has occurred since the weather satellite era is not natural variation .
          As for Nick please address the science and stop hiding behind the consensus with the emphasis on con.

          • The theory of global warming AWG depends on the predicted tropospheric hot spot

            Nope.
            It doesn’t.
            Physics illiteracy and/or hypocrisy at work, I guess

            The only (big) uncertainty is in amplitude of the CO2 warming effect.
            Will it turn out to be small (and possibly even beneficial) or will it be large and potentially catastrophic.

            Period.

          • So you’re saying that the IPCC are wrong then? AR4 specifically points to the tropical tropospheric as a consequence of AGW and a result peculiar to it. AGW theory predicts a warming of the tropical troposphere at roughly 2.5 times the surface rate. This increased warming has not occurred, hence the prediction is falsified.

            What are you supposed to do when the theory gives wrong predictions?

            http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_5GH_IPCC_GHG.htm

          • JohnB

            Global warming whatever the cause ( Sun, CO2 etc) is expected to increase tropospheric water vapor content and this in turn to diminish the lapse rate in particular in the tropical zone. It’s rather a detail not so easy to establish unambiguously and yes global warming seems to be less than what many of the models predict. But this doesn’t falsify AGW . All it says is that models are not really good as to the precise effect of feedbacks .

          • “Global warming whatever the cause ( Sun, CO2 etc)…”

            Well it’s a start…

            “…and yes global warming seems to be less than what many of the models predict. But this doesn’t falsify AGW . All it says is that models are not really good as to the precise effect of feedbacks .”

            If models aren’t good “as to the precise effect of feedbacks,” what then makes them good at predicting the climate at all, since that climate is presumably at least partially made up of the result of the inter-workings of those feedbacks?

            And if the models aren’t reliable, and the models are all you have, doesn’t the following statement (emphasis added) hold true? If so, why should anyone take any action to reduce AGW right now when your side is unable to produce reliable evidence that any action is required?

            “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

            http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

          • sycomputing

            If so, why should anyone take any action to reduce AGW right now when your side is unable to produce reliable evidence that any action is required?

            Where did I ever claim that anyone should take any action to mitigate AGW ? That’s technically impossible anyway and such things are out of control of pretentious homo sapiens sapiens whatever his hubris.

            Yet it’s certainly not because we do not and actually can not seriously take any action that AGW must be wrong !

            Let’s hope you grasp the fallacy of your logic.

            “There are more things in Heaven and on Earth than you might imagine.”

          • “Where did I ever claim that anyone should take any action to mitigate AGW ? That’s technically impossible anyway and such things are out of control of pretentious homo sapiens sapiens whatever his hubris.”

            Indeed? Well I have to admit that’s a new and interesting take, since AGW means, “Anthropogenic (a.k.a., “Human Caused”) Global Warming.” Or do you have a different definition?

            Furthermore, just to understand you, if it’s technically impossible that humans are capable of mitigating AGW because “such things are out of control of pretentious homo sapiens sapiens [sic] whatever his hubris,” then why is it possible for humans to cause global warming (if we do in your view, that is) when it must also be true that “such things are out of control of pretentious homo sapiens sapiens…”?

            “Yet it’s certainly not because we do not and actually can not seriously take any action that AGW must be wrong !”

            Oh I don’t deny Anthropogenic Global Warming because we can’t do anything about it, rather, I deny Anthropogenic Global Warming because in my mind there’s no logical reason to believe it, other than by faith.

            “Let’s hope you grasp the fallacy of your logic.”

            Alas, your hope is in vain! But even the dogs feed on their master’s crumbs that fall under the table…do be gracious and instruct me in my error?

          • if it’s technically impossible that humans are capable of mitigating AGW because “such things are out of control of pretentious homo sapiens sapiens [sic] whatever his hubris,” then why is it possible for humans to cause global warming

            Here again it’s not because we cannot technically mitigate AGW (at appropriate scale) that we cannot cause AGW.
            Just further idiotic false logic at work.

            Alas, your hope is in vain!

            Yes, that’s quite true for once.
            Hilarious.

          • “Here again it’s not because we cannot technically mitigate AGW (at appropriate scale) that we cannot cause AGW.
            Just further idiotic false logic at work.”

            Right, you said that already…

            Hey thanks anyway for trying!

    • @Nick Stokes:
      “Fellows of the Royal Geological Society pushback “

      I’ve searched the article and comments, and didn’t find that quote anywhere.

      Unless it has been changed without notice, the title reads “Fellows of the Geological Society pushback over climate position”

      The first line of the subheading about the Royal Society, and is correct:
      “Back in 2010, 43 fellows of the Royal Society wrote to its then president, Paul Nurse, to complain about the unscientific tone of the society’s messages on climate change. ”

      The next line is about the Geologic Society, and is also correct:
      “A few days ago, a group of 33 current and former fellows of the Geological Society wrote an open letter to their president in similar vein. The text is reproduced below.”

      Nowhere does the article state that there is a Royal Geologic Society.

      • “Unless it has been changed without notice”
        It has been changed. Read the following comment by Howard Dewhirst, the author of the GSL letter. Or another below. Or check the URL, which preserves the original headline
        ./2018/06/15/fellows-of-the-royal-geological-society-pushback-over-climate-position/

        Here is the Wayback Machine version of the original.

      • Au contraire, the Monarch has yet to bestow their approval upon the London Geological Society. With the Queen having failed to do this for more than half a century it is unlikely to be done by her, and with plant whisperer and all round greenie Charles coming up next, this sort of activity is unlikely to be helpful to attaining such an honour (sorry, honor).

    • The article doesn’t mention a “Royal Geological Society of London”
      It refers to the Royal Society in one sentence, and the Geological Society in another, but nowhere are the two combined.

  4. I am astonished that everybody missed the significance of the last sentence in the conclusion of the latest report on Antarctica melting in another article on this site.

    “We suggest that variations in Antarctic ice volume in response to the range of global temperatures experienced over this period—up to 2–3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures4, corresponding to future scenarios involving carbon dioxide concentrations of between 400 and 500 parts per million—were instead driven mostly by the retreat of marine ice margins, in agreement with the latest models.”

    What that last sentence says is that their own models are predicting no significant non – natural (CO2 by man ) melting of Antarctica due to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 to 560. What this means is their very own models are not predicting any disastrous effects from Antarctica melting. Don’t forget the 3C is the IPCC average sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. That sensitivity average hasnt changed in 30 years . If their very own models (over 125 worldwide) are saying that the cause is natural for Antarctica why wouldnt the cause be natural for Greenland as well? They actually said “driven mostly by the retreat of marine ice margins”. Well what that means is; they dont know the cause but they are saying that CO2 is a minor player. If CO2 is a minor player in ice sheet melting for a doubling of CO2 then it is a minor player in everything for CO2 doubling. Don’t forget that the models cannot tell them what % is by man and what % is natural.

    That is the reason that the IPCC has always refused to put a number on it. Since the models can’t split out the effects of man vs natural, when they ran the simulations both forward and backward ; the forward simulation effects of the future of the ice melting must have ended up to be exactly the effects of the models running backward as well. Since the variables data are the same for both simulations the same results were obtained. That in itself is remarkable given the models propensity to become chaotic when running simulations. They in effect have had to fine tune out these chaotic simulations by flattening out the parameterizations for very long term predictions.

    For the researchers to have admitted this in other reports is also astonishing . What this paper means is that there is no disaster syndrome. They are in effect admitting that RCP8.5 is impossible because RCP8.5 is a business as usual scenario with emissions continuing to rise. I am making the statement that in this case of Antarctica melting there cant be any CO2 effect if the same effects happened with the same input variables with the only difference being CO2 levels. If there isnt any effects on CO2 doubling there cant be any effects on CO2 quadrupling or more. RCP8.5 says that 5C increase happens only after 2081 to 2100.
    Even the IPCC admits that 3C difference in the RCP8.5 doesnt kick in until after 2065 ; 47 years from now . If the doubling of CO2 doesnt produce any greenhouse effect on ice melting then all bets are off. The AGW house of cards falls flat on its face. Dont forget that Dr. Pierre Robitaille has proved that CAGW is impossible because of the fact that CO2 and H2O decrease emissions of back radiation with increase in temperature. Dr Michael Modest has also stated that in his bible of Radiative Heat Transfer.

    I am sure the researchers will be getting a nasty call from both Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann.

    1) Since melting of the Arctic would only add 20mm and melting of all 200000 glaciers would add 400mm and if you take Greenland and Antarctica out of the picture then what do we have to worry about?

    2)A measly 3C for a doubling of CO2 to 560PPM . We are way below the target of 3C anyway based on the past 70 years and it looks like it will take another 70 years to get to 560ppm. Is anyone in the world going to die of heat prostration from an increase of 3C especially since we got 50 -70 years to warn them ? What else is there to worry about?
    3) Since CO2 is NOT responsible for extreme weather events. We know this since every government agency in the world that tracks these stats shows no increase in extreme weather events. Come to think of it Trump should protect the American extreme weather events databases from possible tampering by NASA, NOAA, and NCAR. I am astonished that I am living in a world that I would ever have to make the previous suggestion.

    4) So the only other possible detriment to CO2 is that study that found some decreased levels of vitamins from crops that were grown with doubled CO2 levels. Well the amounts were small and there wont be malnutrition caused by that.

    SO I FEEL LIKE ALFRED E. NEWMAN (fictional character) with his famous saying. “Whatttttt me worry?

    Epilog: I would be happy except my PM Trudeau in Canada wants to bring in around $74 to $112 billion extra greenhouse gas taxes over next 5 years. All of that money will have been collected to decrease the world’s average temperature by 5/1000 of a degree C and that will only be 82 years from now. We in Canada unfortunately are living in the World of Oz and desperately need Toto to learn how to pull back the curtain.

    • CO₂ does not have an effect on Antarctica. This has been known for a long time and was the cause polar amplification was dumped in favor of Arctic amplification. There are hypotheses attempting to explain this anomaly.

      The bottom line is that the reading you are making into Antarctica’s past lack of melting, reported by Shakun et al., 2018, is not shared by the climate establishment and should not cause any problem to them. Warmists see any warming in Antarctica as being due to increased heat advection from global warming, while any cooling is seen as regional effect. They just can’t lose.

      • CO2 is a well mixed gas. It’s downward back radiation is directed everywhere. If the warmists are going to argue that because Antarctica is so dry it cant be warmed because of any help by H2O then they will have to argue the same thing for all the deserts in the world. Since the deserts are the hottest places, then we dont have to worry about any heat records to be set from AGW. That only leaves Greenland as the battleground. Since Greenland temperatures dont get close to 0 except for a ~400 km patch around 3 sides of the coasts, you cannot have forcing of water vapour helping out the puny CO2 forcing. If the CO2 by itself forcing doesnt work for Antarctica then it cant work for Greenland either. So they are hoist by their own petard. But of course they wont listen. It is a religion.

        • “…they will have to argue the same thing for all the deserts in the world.”
          All the more reason for climatologists to start paying attention to temperature and precipitation changes in all the climate zones, and not rely on a single global average to understand what is happening.

      • The coming fight now is Earth System Sensitivity. It has its roots almost as long as AGW. Back in the 80’s was when it really got started. 50 years later Michael Mann and his followers have decided that the IPCC is doomed and that they dont need it anymore anyway. They are losing control over its alarmist message and it is becoming more conservative as we skeptics are forcing it to tone down. Witness the IPCC RCP8.5 which doesnt really look scary as far as temperature is concerned.
        The ESS Education Alliance was formed in 2000 and has ~50 institutions signed up with over 3000 teachers. Their plan is to take over the geology and paleontology departments of every university in the world just like have they done to the Atmospheric science faculties. In their minds they have to because then they can control the past. Eric Blair aka George Orwell has unwittingly written their manifesto. He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Orwell should have reversed those 2 sentences. The recipe is simple. The thesis is that long term changes of the earth caused by short term changes caused by CO2 will dwarf the measly temperature changes of CO2. To do that they need to control the past with different climate models because only with the past can they control ( model) the slow processes needed so that they will project far into the future 500 years if necessary. To do that they have to take over the 2 faculties that are standing in their way.

  5. The great thing about this letter is that it’s written largely in plain English.

    Instead of going overboard and including graphs, charts, tables etc. etc. it simply points out what we are all saying, in a straightforward manner.

    The beauty of its simplicity is that whilst the scientific community is important in convincing people of the doubts, 80%+ of the worlds population aren’t scientists. So whilst appealing to scientists is important, they only represent 20% of the votes the (democratic) world has. Therefore, whatever one does, even if every scientist were convinced AGW isn’t real, the greens and the MSM still capture 80% of the population with tales of calamity and unscientific distortions.

    More of this type of communication is vital if the journalists (not scientists either) are to start telling the 80% about the nonsense peddled by politicians to feather their own nest’s.

    Politicians always harvest the low hanging fruit first. Once they have more than 50% the rest can rot on the vine as far as they are concerned. 20% of the population only represent 20% of the available votes and no matter how clever scientists are, they only have one vote each. Just like laymen like me.

    The science is indeed settled, insomuch that every responsible scientist agrees that it’s never settled, ever. And the route to popularisation of that concept is to produce simply presented arguments that journalists can understand. They in turn influence the politicians, and if they see there are easy votes to be gained, they will rapidly turn that to their advantage.

    And what we all must bear in mind is that there are young ambitious politicians coming through the ranks all the time. The status quo will not be maintained. There is always one talented upstart prepared to make a name for him/her self by upsetting the apple cart. That’s all we need.

    Sorry for all the metaphors.

  6. It’s the Geological Society of London, and not “Royal”. It declares itself: “the UK national society for geoscience … Founded in 1807, we are the oldest geological society in the world”. As a professional society, it controls various professional accreditations. Not to be confused with the Royal Geographical Society, nor the Royal Society of London, which says “We are the independent scientific academy of the UK and the Commonwealth, dedicated to promoting excellence in science” and “The Royal Society is a Fellowship of many of the world’s most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.”

    A public lecture I attended at the Geological Society earlier in the year contained standard AGW party line narrative, so good to see some of its Fellows (FGS) pushing back.

    I can only wish them good luck however. When 43 Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS) complained in 2010 to their own President as in Anthony’s preamble, some petty edits resulted but the propaganda continued. Some grumpy Fellows (typically retired) continue to grumble sporadically but if they are active in their careers they are quite smart enough not to speak out. One FRS known to me was one of the “43”. Another admitted behind closed doors that AGW “is being challenged by some very credible people” but refused to sign the same complaint. I predict the same behaviour patterns will result from this initiative in the GSL.

    When I started to take serious note of this subject I thought that the learned societies were indeed the correct forums for discussing, clarifying, researching etc. It’s what they were founded for. But they don’t want to do it, because their presidents and functionaries know which side their bread is buttered. That’s why WUWT and other internet forums have to take over.

    Initiatives like this are brave attempts to bring such societies back to their original function, but virtually all seem to have been captured by ideologues to the extent that very few will dare to rock the AGW boat.

    The Royal Society is far more prestigious and influential than the Geological Society, even though the latter may have arguably more concentrated expertise in earth sciences. Our idiot politicians (if they bother to take any advice at all) will run to the Royal Society first and then last, because of its standing. If just one society (like the GSL) starts acting properly as a forum for actual scientific discussion, then others may have to take note. Some of those FRS’s really are quite smart; they just have gags on.

    • The clearly expressed fact based energy science of Sir David MacKay FRS,when Chief SCientist to the DECC 2008-2014, was roundly ignored by both politicians and effectively disowned by the butter side up disembler for the establishment RS medic Paul Nurse, a well known enrgy science denier and promoter of dubious IPCC science as the fact it is not and can never be, for fundamental reasons well understaood by phycists – and his disgrace to science academic cronies of a similar bent – not ad hom really, they are eminent, know the truth, and spead the lies. AS a professional physicist and engineeer, J’accuse! Prediction?: Follow the money. While Billions flow through the utterly corrupt and physically regressive renewable energy subsidies, they will support the governments laws, based on irrational and unproven on the actual data and science fear of CO2, used to falsely justify renewable enrgy subsidies and carbon taxes claimed to maximise CO2 reduction that in detrministic science fact it does not deliver, very expensively, to save us from something that clearly isn’t happening at a rate beyond which we can affiord to wait to respond to, with targetted defences, if it is PROVEN a problem.

      Someting is rotten at the Royal Society, and many other butter side up professional institutions, who seek funding and a voice from and with power by validating pseudo science that justifies fraudulent laws on the science fact, by repeating political chatecisms on science issues that are being exploited for a fast buck by law makers lobbysists.

      In particular “70% validation is OK statistician medics” giving factually false support to pseudo scientists on the deterministic facts and laws of energy physics, that are clearly too far beneath their ego levels to consider. Facts are that the idea of powering the UK with renewables is “an appalling delusion”. Per Sir David MacKay FRS, former DECC Chief Scientist for most of its existence. Also right, because that is what the engineering and proven physics of energy supply say. Google David’s last interview with Mark Lynas where he provides a 15 minute master class on this. Perhaps Paul Nurse should watch, he might learn something about energy physics, as well as the then clear fiscal fraud on the science fact that connects climate warming with renewable subsidies? It’s called malfeasance, and the RS and IET give it regular succour. And the GSL it appears.

      As above, money, ego and power has increasingly dominated the output of learned institutions, including the easy corruptibility for honours and funding of their mostly salaried leaders and management. It has also happened in my own IET, as the last presidential address made clear, from someone who had the clear formation to know what they said was at best deceitful – to the very people who know the difference best. Bad science (BS).

      As others have observed, perhaps sceptical science was only possible when its great contributors were of private means, and its societies privately funded, socould afford independent thought, and challenge political deceit with honest and independently verifiable science? The people should be told. By the people best qualified to understand. Not deceived for personal advancement and security, or with their science spun into dodgy dossiers for political use as the IPCC’s final reports are, more extreme that anything Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair were guilty of. IMO. The age of political science for profit as religion is upon us, with professional Institutions as its churches and its leaders and menbers expected to be its priests, unable to practice outside the faith. Except the guys above, of course, I bet many have are “financially secure”. Not like Peter Ridd or Roger Pielke, for example. I could go on……….. but gardening to do.

      • A small correction. Paal Nurse received a Nobel for Medicine but he is a geneticist and not a medic.

      • Anthony Standen, Science Is a Sacred Cow, 1950:

        “Physical scientists probably deserve the reputation they enjoy for incorruptibility and unswerving devotion to pure truth. The reason for this is that it is not worthwhile to bribe them.”

        • You cannot hope
          to bribe or twist,
          thank God! the
          British journalist.
          But, seeing what
          the man will do
          unbribed, there’s
          no occasion to.

          Humbert Wolfe

    • As I commented above, the article doesn’t mention a “Royal Geological Society of London”
      It refers to the Royal Society in one sentence, and the Geological Society in another, but nowhere are the two combined.

  7. The problem with all these scientific societies has been their delegation of investigation of AGW to “a small group” of volunteers. These will always—in any environmental-related matter—be primarily zealous, world-saving greenies, who have an inborn alarmist bias regarding man’s impact on nature.

    In the future, to get an unbiased group, such investigatory groups should be randomly selected, with selected members being given the ability to nominate others to take his place if he is very disinclined to serve. (Perhaps retired members would mostly have the time to serve and should constitute the pool from which members are drawn.)

    • The problem with random selection … is that it takes power away from the heads of these organisations who usually select members of investigative groups who will deliver the answer they want to hear.

    • I note that this is precisely the same problem with bureaucratic organizations. They’re mostly staffed by individuals who really like telling other people what to do. So their institutional DNA is necessarily inclined towards creating ever more rules and regulations, regardless of whether they’re needed, or not.

      Unfortunately, the people who don’t care to constantly interject themselves into the lives and business of others, those very types who we’d naturally want running things, are the most disinclined to do so.

      And thus we have an explanation for why governmental workers are predominantly left leaning, and why it’s so difficult for right leaning initiatives to gain and hold ground. (According to my “expert” analysis…)

      rip

  8. “… in preventing over 4 million annual deaths from indoor air pollution from burning bio and other solid fuels, has been obvious for some time. ”

    Misquote! The claim is that it lead s to 4.2m premature deaths, not ’causes over 4m deaths’. They should get their alarmism right.

  9. “•Why the 285 ppm of atmospheric CO2 estimated for the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is in any way, a desirable benchmark. It coincides with the Victorian Little Ice Age, a period of starvation and population decline, which cannot possibly be a desirable target, unless you want to depopulate the earth.”

    That’s exactly what they want. Progressives hate people but love power and control.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/berkeley-declares-climate-emergency-worse-than-world-war-ii-demands-humane-population-control.html

    • Being vindicated on this topic is bittersweet. I knew this all along but to see them finally test the predictive programming waters is a clear indication of the true intent. The look people gave me when I said, plain and simple, this is about long term, slow kill off of the population. Eugenics 3.0. Now I show them proof and they say, “so?” It is hard to place any faith in the bulk of humanity, and for their own stupidity, ignorance, and childish naivety I am fine with reducing the population to 500 million, in concert with the Georgia guide stones.

      Hopefully, the few of us with logical capabilities will make it through. But for the rest of the chattle… Peace. You have reaped what you have sewn.

    • We watch the behemoth roll on, fed by an endless supply of money and ego-boosting awards, grants, accolades, and media political bias. We observe brave groups and individuals sniping at the ogre and we hope change will spring from these squirmishes, but for now, the years of planning, indoctrination and infiltration hold firm, allowing it to currently still roll on. Power is never voluntarily relinquished, and as Leonardo da Vinci said: “nothing strengthens authority so much as silence”. Keep fighting the good fight, guys.

      \

  10. Perhaps this will lead to a formal debate—and that that in turn will lead too others. Two, three, many …!

  11. Why the 285 ppm of atmospheric CO2 estimated for the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is in any way, a desirable benchmark. It coincides with the Victorian Little Ice Age, a period of starvation and population decline, which cannot possibly be a desirable target, unless you want to depopulate the earth.

    Bingo!

    Depopulation has been the goal of environmentalist from day one.

  12. Where do I sign?

    David H. Middleton – BSc (Earth Science/Geology Concentration), 37 years OJT – SEG, AAPG, HGS, occasionally SEPM and DGS.

  13. I wonder how many on that list are employed in the coal and oil industries. My guess is 97%.

    • On the other hand, anyone employed by the government is assumed to be pure and untainted.
      Trolls are nothing if not consistent.

      • Mark, isn’t it incredible? Imagine being a grown adult by age but still willfully and purposefully remaining the intellectual equivalent of a toddler. Seriously. People like Nick, Ivans, zazove, and the many new passer by’s who eat up this religion as if it were from Gaia herself. It is disturbing, the power of cognitive dissonance.

        Interesting that most CACA believers are atheists, which is hilarious to me. These same people hurl vitriol at Christians for believing in a virgin birth (albeit understandable IMO), yet they simultaneously hold steadfast to the same type of faith, mostly based on models and adjustments, with no real perspective regarding historical climate evidence. To me, they are even more hypocritical than the average Christian-in-name-only, because they vehemently despise them and attack people of faith, yet fail to recognize the very foundation of their own worldview rests on an equal amount of faith… Right down to the belief this is all by accident rather than created by a universal intelligent energy. Add on top of that they genuinely hate humanity, and that isn’t some BS I made up. It’s a consistent self loathing. Clearly borrowed from that other group well known for it.

        It’s like trying to have a conversation with a cockroach. It can’t possibly recognize that it doesn’t have the capacity to recognize, do you just want up talking at it.

        They are an embarrassment to the human species

        • Foundational faith that this is all unplanned, accidental, and nothing to do with a supremely more powerful force. I should have clarified.

          Still faith, still unprovable. All the rest flows from this original belief

        • “hurl vitriol at Christians”

          “they genuinely hate humanity, and that isn’t some BS I made up. It’s a consistent self loathing.”

          Speak for yourself.

    • I wonder how many more signatories there would have been, if there was not a fear being blacklisted by HR staff.

      How many existing government employees are there that can’t sign such a document for fear of reprisals?

    • Sorry, I overvalued this one at $5.25. Down to the bottom shelf with zazy, to join Alley and Chris. Guessing? Well, you liked the result so it passes for CliSci.

    • zazove,
      Your guess would be wrong. The retired ones aren’t employed at all.

      Actually, now days, the younger fellows are more likely to be practicing in the fields of hydrology and environmental geology, and paid by various governments.

      You might want to become acquainted with a topic, and think about it, before putting in your 97 cents.

    • Why not deal with the science instead of attacking the messenger?
      That is, assuming you can.

    • Comment for Zazove ;
      Attack the messenger and not the message that is what all you TROLLS do.
      Debate the science ,but that’s your problem you believe all that you read on sceptical science and as you think that 97% of scientists agree it has to be true .
      20 years ago it was quoted that 2500 scientists cant be wrong .
      I suggest that you take the time and read this letter and try and comprehend it (if you can ) then come back with some valid comments .

      • I did.
        And before long this sort of strawman bs rears its head:

        “…a dialogue could examine the evidence that:

        1. CO2 ALONE as the principle driver of temperature, or climate.

        and

        “…This ALONE should make the authors of the GSL statements cautious about their very confident acceptance that CO2 alone has driven temperature and climate since 1900.”

        (My caps)

        Alone? Who says it is?
        BS strawman. Etc, etc.

    • zigzag sez:
      I wonder how many on that list are employed in the coal and oil industries. My guess is 97%

      Dontcha know? Goobermint/academentia have 97x more money to dish out to sycophants than coal/oil industries, the latter which actually produce useful products.

  14. As talk goes on about CO2 which is interesting ,but all in vain because it is not the climate driver ,it is the climate follower.

    In the meantime all the globe continues to cool thus far for year 2018.

    As I have said this theory will be rendered obsolete by 2020 except by the most fanatical supporters.

    They will be in the minority.

    I also have pointed out slow gradual climate change is old school. The climate when it changes to another regime does it abruptly in decades at most if not years.

    The climate only changes gradually when it is in the same climate regime which it has been since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended, and can fluctuate plus /minus 1c under this scenario.

    A climate regime change is another ball game and I think we are transitioning to this if my theory is correct on what governs the climate.

    The sun modified by the geo magnetic field.

    Most of the transitions in the past happen near the top of the previous climatic regime which is opposite to what the new regime will be, when one looks back at climatic history.

  15. There is a realm of study called, “decision-making under uncertainty.” One of the basic steps is to analyze the “do-nothing scenario.” The fact that CAGW alarmists actively disregard the do-nothing scenario proves that they have no place in policy discussions as we talk about what actions we should take, based on what we know.

  16. “The absence of the predicted tropospheric hotspot – the ‘fingerprint of AGW’.”

    no. stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint.
    found.
    the hotspot can result from any warming..also found.

    geologists..

    • … geologists …. failed english major turned marketing “expert” …

      Who ya gonna believe.

    • Stratospheric cooling occurred only when there were very big volcanic eruptions, otherwise it is a FLAT trend.

      Tropospheric hot spot as Projected to exist based on the AGW conjecture, never showed up.

    • If the Patriots had the goal posts moved on them as much as you CAGW religious type, they’d have three less Superbowls and Tom Brady would not be considered the goat.
      I don’t know who had now fraud, that organization or the climate industry…
      Too close to call

      • Wow the trolls are increasing. This is good. That means this traffic and exposure is actually working to help people think.

        This is actually very good when you think about it. Comparing the message section against all pro CACA websites illustrates a clear delineation in the quality of debate and interaction. Even our jabs are of a higher class and significantly less aggressive.

        The casual passer by will notice

  17. This kind of behavior by professional org administrations has the appearance of putting office politics ahead of any notion of science and science process.

  18. It will be a miracle if this letter doesn’t end up in somebody’s trash can. Such a conference would torpedo the entire Global Warming “settled science” and, worse yet, scuttle Al Gore’s dreams of becoming even richer.

  19. Anthony,

    Judith mentioned that she felt the APS Workshop represented the best summary of our knowledge of climate science to-date. I think it was held in January, and she was one of the participants. The complete transcript is available at APS link that you provided. I downloaded it yesterday, but at 573 pages, it will take a while to get through (at least for me). I’m glad to see that there’s some desire on the part of certian GSoL Fellows to do something similar. One can only hope that these efforts lead to a more robust and open climate debate.

    rip

    • It is refreshing to read of scientists with open, questioning minds, which is what science is supposed to be about. It is also good that they don’t shy away from the politicization of climatology. They mention that the IPCC summary is written by politicians for alarmist headlines. They didn’t forget the allegiance to the Great God Carbon Dioxide that every climate paper must acknowledge and they pointed out that freedom of speech is incompatible with the climate change religion.

      I am convinced that the tide has turned. We still see papers that are desperate to generate alarmism or claim that it is worse than we thought. However, there are also numerous papers that challenge the accepted wisdom. Most importantly, there is also a growing realization that the oceans and the sun control our climate and that carbon dioxide is a minor player.

      Sadly, it is also true that politicians are still riding the green bandwagon in the belief that pledging zero CO2 will deliver votes. Cynical money makers are still milking the taxpayers of every subsidy and green price rise. Those with political agendas will fight back against honesty and genuine science.

      My conclusion is that we are a long way from overcoming the Global Warming Exaggeration. However, for three decades objections were swept away. The Geological Society initiative is massive for several reasons. It challenges the accepted wisdom. It recognizes the political element and it challenges the option of turning a blind eye to what has become obvious. There will be resistance but there will be no going back.

  20. “Even once respectable journals like the New Scientist, still uncritically peddle such social media nonsense as the infamous Hockey Stick, that seems to have lost the otherwise well documented Medieval Warm period.”

    That should be read out loud before and after every manniacal presentation. And perhaps tattooed onto the foreheads of manniacal’s religious believers; backwards so they can read it in the mirrors, solar cell surfaces and puddles.

  21. Back in 2010, 43 Fellows of the Royal Society wrote to its then President, Lord Rees (not Paul Nurse)
    Lord Rees and the present members are a shame to the oldest scientific organization and its past glorious members:
    Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Edmund Halley, Henry Cavendish, Joseph Priestley, James Watt, William Herschel, Humphry Davy, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, Isambard Brunel, Robert Stephenson, George Stokes, Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Lord Kelvin, James Joule, James Maxwell, Lord Rayleigh, William Crookes, J. J. Thomson, Lord Rutherford, Arthur Eddington, Paul Dirac

  22. The world’s climate system, as defined by the IPCC, [iii] is a ‘coupled non-linear chaotic system”, for which “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible’. This is due to the impossibility of describing precisely the initial conditions, and to instability generated by the mathematics causing cumulative errors in the modelling process,
    _____________________________________________________

    climate, as universe itself, is “a coupled system of nonlinear functions with chaotic behavior”.

    La Places daemon shows:

    Even if one could reconstruct to the point the state of a system:

    Climate, Earth, the whole universe,

    one could not predict the state of the system after given time.
    ____________________________________________________

    In other words:

    – restarting from exactly a year before

    – would not deliver exactly this discreet day.

  23. Sorry, – I’m an FGS (Fellow of the Geological Society), and was never asked to sign this letter. Whyyyyy????

    Anyway, this is great news to all of us. Copy this to all your Facebook accounts and spread this great news to the whole world. At last, we are fighting back to corruption of western science…

  24. The fact that “The GSL position papers state they have been prepared ‘based on analysis of geological evidence, and not on analysis of recent temperature or satellite data, or climate model projections,’” and its failure to be updated, indicate to me that there is no proof whatsoever that “CO2 [must] drive Climate!”

    The Warmists’ own “Holocene Conundrum” involves the fact that the peak of each of the previous Warm Periods, starting from ~8,000 years ago, successively decreases, while CO2 concentration steadily increases.

    And the “Modern” period’s exclusion by the GSL is not only a bit too convenient per se, but it also ignores the fact that empirical data since the “Modern” period began demonstrates the falsification of each of the Warmist’s CO2-critical Predictions, or at least way too many of them, that is, more than the 1 fail it takes to begin doubting their hypotheses.

  25. honesty in science. no as bad as dishonesty in the media. a lot of brilliant people out there fighting the tide of global warming caused by man, kudos to you all and whatever the lies you must face please give the world the facts, as hard as that is at times. i admire you all!

  26. Nice to see a point-by-point listing of the problems.

    (But they could do with an English teacher to help with their commas.)

  27. “… finding ways to adapt to negative climate change.”

    What the heck is negative climate change?

  28. The world needs more geologists to stand up to the political fake science of so called “climate change”. Good work, keep it up! As a former member of the Society, add my signature to this list.

Comments are closed.