UK's Royal Society to review it's "climate message"...

[Derek]

Hi All,
Thanks firstly to Strogoff for pointing this link out to me.
I will let others here comment far better than my normal ramblings.

UK Royal Society to review climate message
Please note, as it may help stop your blood boiling,
who wrote the above for the BBC.
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Hint - I stopped counting the number of rediculous excerpts once I got past 6.

[Derek]

Rebels in the Royal Society
“Let the tempest rage”
Calders Updates - blog.
Friday, May 28th, 2010 at 16:28

[Derek]

Latest climate climbdown:
the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming
Telegraph.co.uk
By Gerald Warner
Environment
Last updated: May 28th, 2010

[strogoff]

Thank you, Derek. Now this news is all over the place. Let´s see if I can find the original complaint document; Harrabin does not give the names of the people he quotes and, come on!, now they´re not skeptics or deniers: agnostics or "doubters" if they belong to RS.

I´ve attached the "controversy pamphlet" for it might be removed from RS web in a few weeks.

I find quite interesting the connections of this issue with the joint open letter of Rees-Cicerone in The Finantial Times and Science´s "Ursus bogus" editorial "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science", signed by 255 US NAS´"Schneiders".

BTW- The picture of the photoshoped and helpless polar bear has been changed and Climate Progress says "MSM largely ignored it, but unintentionally clever ploy by Science with polar bear artwork got the anti-science crowd to read it"

[Derek]

(05-29-2010 03:01 AM)strogoff Wrote:  I´ve attached the "controversy pamphlet" for it might be removed from RS web in a few weeks.

Kudos to you Strogoff. Very good point.

"Schneiders" - love it..

[Mike Davis]

There are some things at Bishop Hill related to this:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2...eview.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2...llion.html

Better yet in Australia it appears to be happening also:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2...st-up.html

and back to the Royal Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_e...178454.stm

[Mike Davis]

I found a couple of links to the Royal Society thing:
http://playpolitical.typepad.com/issue_a...e-lse.html
http://www.stempra.org.uk/newsletter/06_autumn/06.htm

[Questioning_Climate]

I'd like to think I'm wrong about this but it is probably unrealistic to place too much hope on this review. Whatever comes out of it, the stance will be worded in such a way as to make it look little different to those without insight, i.e. the average person. Once it is released the usual spin will smear over any hair-lines that may be present. You only have to look back to earlier this year at what happened at the Institute of Physics.

This situation will only change gradually over a long period of time ... a bit like climate. The proponents of AGW within these institutions will have to be displaced and some peoples' memories wiped before the world regains some sense.

[strogoff]

Quote:

(05-29-2010 02:28 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  I'd like to think I'm wrong about this but it is probably unrealistic to place too much hope on this review. Whatever comes out of it, the stance will be worded in such a way as to make it look little different to those without insight, i.e. the average person. Once it is released the usual spin will smear over any hair-lines that may be present. You only have to look back to earlier this year at what happened at the Institute of Physics.

This situation will only change gradually over a long period of time ... a bit like climate. The proponents of AGW within these institutions will have to be displaced and some peoples' memories wiped before the world regains some sense.

Your words depressed me somehow. I had nothing to add till now. I give you a link to honour the source (little spanish plenty of english links): http://plazamoyua.wordpress.com/2010/06/...actitudes/

EXCERPTS:

Timesonline begining to give names.

[quote]Sir Alan Rudge, a society Fellow and former member of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee, is one of the leaders of the rebellion who gathered signatures on a petition sent to Lord Rees, the society president.

He told The Times that the society had adopted an “unnecessarily alarmist position” on climate change.

Sir Alan, 72, an electrical engineer, is a member of the advisory council of the climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

He said: “I think the Royal Society should be more neutral and welcome credible contributions from both sceptics and alarmists alike. There is a lot of science to be done before we can be certain about climate change and before we impose upon ourselves the huge economic burden of cutting emissions.”

He refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired.

“One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labelled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”

Uncertain Science by Newsweek (Newsweek!!!):

Quote:The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports—including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.

Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments.

The RS itself (Rees):

Quote:It has been suggested that the Society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous. Science is organised scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence. The Society has always encouraged debate particularly through our discussion meetings and our journals. The Society has held two recent discussion meetings relevant to this area. One on Greenhouse gases in the earth system: setting the agenda for 2030 and one on Handling uncertainty in science. The debate must be open and it must also be based on sound science rather than dogma

I´m sure that you won´t have to read B.S. like this in the future.

I´ve been reading that this figtht, as it is a very time consuming one, has a lot to do with retired gentlemen with a SOUND knowledge of the subject and "strange" people that have not a better thing to do. I belong to the 2nd group: I´m an agriculture engineer, 45, with peculiar family duties which doesn´t allow me to have a normal job. I´m spending my time obsessed with the idea that "they" are cheating us once more. I would like to stop "them".

Please, high spirits and support for the 43 that are hardly trying.

Yours,
Alicia

P.S.: What happened with IOP???

[Mike Davis]

Strogoff:
This will probably end like our EPA whose head said their programs would be based on real science and with her in charge all future work would be open and transparent. There would be input from interested parties.
One now has to wonder what dictionary she was referring to as the decisions appear to be based on Fauxscience. Their work is as open as a locked safe and as transparent as a block of concrete.

The term now is Post Normal Science and it is being referred to as best science principles by the faithful practitioners.

By taking any position on any scientific matter the Royal society removes itself from the scientific arena and into the political arena. Also by taking a position on a subject they effectively restrict debate on that subject as they have made up their minds or they would not have released a "Position Paper".
If the Royal Society and the other so called scientific bodies in all the countries were to proclaim neutrality and withdraw any position ppapers today they would be taking a first step towards regaining respect that they have lost.

[Questioning_Climate]

Strogoff,
I'm sorry to have depressed you. Basically, the IOP made a statement prior to the CRU (Climategate) inquiries. Within a very short space of time they were forced to make another public announcement to appease the Warmists:

Quote:IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now.

The IOP like many other formerly prestigious institutions will find these statements come back to haunt them.

Anyway, I think you will pick up the story from these links:

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-568.html
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965
http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html

I fully support those brave people within the Royal Society. It would be great if they achieve some balance and I hope they do. However, as I said, the outcome is likely to be smeared and spun.

As a final thought, I leave you with this:

Quote:Philosophical Transactions: “...it is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject, either of Nature or Art, that comes before them.”

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/05...-alarmism/

---

I have just been alerted to the following link:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/RS_s...e_2010.pdf

It is a letter from Rupert Wyndham to the Lord Rees, President, The Royal Society. Mr Wyndham has a way with words. :-)

[Derek]

Excellant pdf Questioning_Climate, it has to be posted on this thread.
Rupert Wyndham writes with a clarity that I / many can only envy.
I have paraphrased his third paragraph in the first letter below.

Rupert Wyndham writes,

In any event, certain questions seem to follow.

1) From what sources does the RS derive its own finances?

2) Having initiated a public debate, does it have the right - morally but, more importantly, legally
- to deploy arbitrary silencing tactics in the face of contributions which it just happens to find discomforting?

3) Is the RS collectively a corpus of scientists or of propagandists?

4) Is it independent, or is it hopelessly under the thumb of politicians and
outside lobby groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others similarly of the enviro-fascist tendency?

[strogoff]

Many thanks for the links, Questioning_Climate. I agree with you and Derek about Wyndham (...at least I´m learning a lot of english! :-P)

This open letter from Fred Singer to the IOP came to my mind when I read your post #8:

http://sppiblog.org/news/a-physicist-sup...te-physics

It looks as if IOP is beating around the bush with their statement; there´s a lot of ambiguity in it and what is said around it, so they could change it when the wind blows from other direction. If you dissect it you find:

* The basic science is well established

Oh, really?. So, why are people talking about the "Imaginary First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics" and a greenhouse effect on the moon? I don´t think that dendrochronology is basic science, and it is quite ill understood.

* There is no doubt that climate change is happening

Everybody agrees with that.

* we should be taking action to address it now

This one... It is OK as long as they don´t say what needs to be done.


They don´t use the word "antropogenic", good news, but use "global warming" which may be rhetorically distorted as next future would require.


It seems that IOP´s position is not a position at all.


Mike Davis,

There´s quite an issue with EPA, though I think that Royal Society has a bigger global disappointing power. The "father of green engineering" looks to me more dangerous than L. Jackson. The first one pretends to be unbiassed...

[Questioning_Climate]

Strogoff,

Thanks for the link to Singer's letter. He is correct, the attacks on the IOP should have been ignored. The submission was entirely in-keeping with IOP constitution. I was amongst those supporting the IOP on the Physics World article.

Unfortunately, like most other scientific institutions the IOP let their guard down and left science to take a back seat. It is now in a difficult position from which it will struggle to recover.

Your analysis with regard the three bullet points is sound. You seem to have a mastered how the consensus 'science' works. :-)

[Mike Davis]

Strogoff:
I did not know about that one but all the so called science positions in this administration are inhabited by people with an agenda and the agenda has little to do with science.
The Royal society will take down the rest of the global scientific groups with it and I do not think they will make a positive statement or withdraw any position paper which would be the best path they could take. There is now to much at stake for them to back down!
It is scientists like Singer that provide a logical position on the Climate Change issue!
She only wants people to think she is unbiased when everything she does is biased. Just like POTUS!

QC:
Thanks for the link to the paper at Ilovemycarbon. I had it put up at climate realist to get a little more attention. I think that should be on all the front pages.

[strogoff]

Good news!!

From GPWF:

Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

Quote:Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

The new guide can be downloaded from HERE.

A comment from Lubos Motl:

Quote:If you think that the new document will cause a substantial cooling of the atmosphere itself, you are probably wrong. As commenter Henry chance of WUWT has figured out, Joe Romm will blow a gasket. The fireworks and steam vent from that alone will warm the winter.

[Sunsettommy]

Then they have reduced their warmist dogmatism.

[Questioning_Climate]

I downloaded the document this morning but have not had time to read it. From comments elsewhere, it is a small step forward but there is little doubt that the spin doctors will ensure it is a tiny step. There still appear to be no evidence supporting the human influence ... what a surprise!

RS like most of the other institutions is going to look rather lacking in credibility in the future and their political sway in all issues will be tarnished by their stance on AGW.

[Questioning_Climate]

I've still not had time to read through it all but within the first few pages, this caught my eye:

From paragraph 8:

"A positive climate forcing will tend to cause a warming, and a negative forcing a cooling. Climate changes act to restore the balance between the energy
absorbed from the Sun and the infrared energy emitted into space."

The fact that climate changes act to restore the energy balance implies negative feedback. This means that CAGW is extremely unlikely since negative feedback is required for a stable system.

Is it a revelation too far?

---

Rupert Wyndham has sent an open letter to the Royal Society in response to the document:

  Rees+letter+post+RS+AGW+scientific+reassessment+30+Sept+2010.doc (Size: 37 KB / Downloads: 3)

As you will know, Rupert has a way with words.