It all started with a report by Roger Harrabin of all people. On Wednesday, under the headline ‘Society to review climate message’, the BBC website broke the news that the Royal Society was to review its public statements on global warming, and that this had been brought about by what appears to be an uprising within its ranks.
Disquiet led forty-three fellows of the Society to demand that the governing council should conduct a review in order to establish what is widely agreed on climate science, and what is not fully understood. At the heart of the rebel’s concerns is lack of objectivity about uncertainties and derogatory remarks about climate sceptics.
It would be hard to overestimate the importance of what is happening. The Royal Society occupies a very special place in the scientific firmament, not just in the UK, but worldwide. The impact of its very partisan outpourings about climate change is thought to have been crucial not only to the last government’s decision to put global warming at the top of the political agenda, but also in persuading national academies of science almost everywhere to throw their weight behind the warmist cause. The ructions behind the grand facade of 6-9, Carlton House Terrace will be watched closely by scientists everywhere, and there can be little doubt that if fellows of he Royal Society are prepared to stick there heads above the parapet, then others will follow their lead.
Perhaps the most encouraging thing about this news is that no less than three panels at the Society are now considering the problem, and at leas two of them include a number of fellows who have doubts about the current state of climate science. Reaching an agreement will not be easy, and one fellow told Harrabin that it is by no means certain that reaching a consensus will be possible. The message that this would send to the rest of the scientific world would be even more potent than an admission that the evidence has been exaggerated. For years, the orthodox line has been that expounded by Lord May of Oxford when he was the society’s president: the debate is over and the science is settled. It will be very difficult to explain why the fellows of the worlds oldest and most highly respected scientific institution cannot even agree what the situation is among themselves, let alone why they have been misleading other scientists, politicians and the public for several years about the degree of consensus on this subject.
Since the BBC report appeared, the society has put out a statement on its web site claiming that the review has been planned for a long time. This reminds me of the response I received from the BBC Trust recently to a letter about their review of the impartiality of science coverage, and particularly climate change, which is taking place this year. They told me that this has nothing to do with the Climategate scandal or criticisms of the IPCC, it is a purely routine exercise that would have taken place anyway. Such claims do not enhance the credibility of institutions that make them.
Looking at the coverage of this story in the rest of the MSM, it would seem that the Royal Society has only spoken to the BBC, and other reports are based on Harrabin’s original story together with what little information is available on the Royal Society web site. This seems to have been hastily posted in response to the demands of the forty-three fellows. One, headlined, ‘Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change‘ quotes the president, Lord Rees, saying:
Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information. We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand very well.
His statement raises some questions. Has he just discovered that the debate has been ‘clouded by exaggerated and misleading information? If he has known all along, then where was he while that was happening, and why has he remained silent until now?
He also says:
Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence.
He appears to be horrified that:
It has been suggested that the Society holds the view that anyone challenging the consensus on climate change is malicious – this is ridiculous.
Those of us who can remember the Society’s antics when Bob Ward was its press officer, vigorously attempting to cut off funding from sceptics, will not be impressed.
In a report at The Times, Ben Webster identifies 72 year old Sir Alan Rudge as one of the leaders of the rebellion. Apparently the dissidents did not conduct a full poll of the 1400 odd fellows, but just contacted their friends, of whom a third were unwilling to sign the petition. Rudge told The Times:
“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.”
Sir Alan is also a member of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation.
The article ends with a quote from Bob Ward, demanding that the dissident fellows should reveal themselves, presumably so that the warmist PR machine can start the process of character assassination that is their usual response to those who do not toe the party line.
Louise Grey, in The Telegraph, tells much the same tale. She has also spoken to Bob Ward:
But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Institute of Climate Change, feared the public could misinterpret the new guide as reflecting doubt about man made global warming.
He called on the Royal Society fellows who question the science to come forward with their doubts publicly.
“This could end in public confusion if people think as a result of this the Royal Society is somehow wrong or reassessing the evidence because there is no justification for that,” he said.
Is Mr Ward really blissfully unaware that the Royal Society actually is engaged in reassessing the evidence, and that is because a section of its membership feel strongly enough about the Society’s public position to confront the Governing Council? The statements on the Society’s web site makes this quite clear; it is Bob Ward who is trying to create public confusion about what is happening.
I have posted about the genesis of the Grantham Research Institute here, and it is worth taking a glance at this as it shows just where Bob Ward is coming from, and I will be coming back to this and a rather strange series of interconnections between Ward, the Grantham Institute and the Royal Society, which bodes ill for the peace and calm of that august body in the coming months.
For a totally different perspective on the gathering storm, the obvious place to look is The Guardian, which has given Ward a whole page in which to spread confusion, but under the unintentionally ironic headline, ‘UK Royal Society revives confusion as US concludes climate change certainty’. Ward hammers home his supposedly killer argument about the sceptics within the Royal Society making themselves known:
But now, 43 of the society’s 1,489 fellows have written to complain about some of its statements about climate change published over the last few years. It is not clear exactly what the 43 have concerns about.
And because their identities have not been made public, we do not know whether any of them are climate researchers.
He is certainly on safe ground with his demand. No one in their right mind who is actively engaged in mainstream climate researche would own up to such heresy, for the moment at least. To do so would be an act of professional suicide, but if the Royal Society is forced to admit that there are vast uncertainties associated with global warming then that could change very quickly. Reputable scientists might not have to worry what the likes of Mr Ward say any more.
An editorial in Nature follows the same line of attack with the headline, ‘ Nameless fellows attack Royal Society’s climate stance’, but – another irony – the article is not signed. It concludes:
A new public document is being drawn up, but if the BBC report is right, then several sceptics are on the panel, which is making it tough to get anything done. Nevertheless, the society says the new guide will be released later this summer.
Am I alone in feeling that Nature’s reference to sceptics making it difficult to ‘get anything done’ is yet more confirmation that this once revered learned journal has left the days of objective coverage of science far behind, and strayed far into the murky realms of activism?
There is some fairly predicable arm waving from Sir John Beddington in another Guardian article headed, ‘Government chief scientific adviser hits out at sceptics’, which would suggest that his political antennae are far less well tuned than Lord Rees’s. In view of some of the things he has said about his faith in climate science, particularly to the House of Commons Science and Technology inquiry into Climategate, now would not seem to be a very smart time for him attack sceptics. If the Royal Society fails to endorse the level of certainty that he has been promoting when they revise their publications, or fails even to agree an official position because of divisions of opinion among the fellows, Sir John could find that the ground has been cut out from under him in much the same way as the chairman of the IPCC. And If the Royal Society is divided, what price the warmist’s mainstay in the climate debate: the claim that there is scientific consensus on global warming.
On Saturday, Roger Harrabin returned to the fray on his blog, but in a way that will surprise many who have become used to the BBC Environment Analyst’s usual line on climate matters. Here are a couple of excerpts:
After years of accusing the fossil fuel lobby of using anti-scientific arguments to undermine climate policy, scientists are now themselves accused of being un-scientific.
There are signs in the Royal Society’s current review of its climate communications that they are beginning to understand the seriousness of their predicament and have included some “climate agnostics” on the panels.
But it seems that message has not seeped through to all quarters. And one Fellow of the Royal Society said there’s the whiff of “end of empire” in the air as establishments strive to protect their authority as it ebbs away into the blogosphere.
Do I hear the desperate splash of oars as someone else who has become very vulnerable to changing circumstances rows desperately back towards the shore? This is not at all the kind of reporting that we have come to expect from Harrabin but then the BBC is having a ‘routine’ review of their science coverage.
Later in the post, he has something to say that is relevant to both the present crisis at the Royal Society and to the fiasco that is known as the Oxburgh Inquiry:
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Royal Society’s lead on climate change, told me he wouldn’t look outside the realms of the Royal Society for input into the framing of a society review into the UEA affair.
This reveals a very interesting series of relationships. Evidently Hoskins is the Royal Society’s big hitter on climate change, and he is also Director of the Grantham Institute, Professor of Meteorology at Reading University, a leading light in the IPCC ,and a contributor to the Climategate emails. Bob Ward was the press officer for the Royal Society during Lord May’s presidency, which was marked by claims about the science of global warming that went well beyond anything that the evidence would stand and has resulted in the present crisis.
It would seem unlikely that tranquillity will return to the Society’s imposing home in Carlton House Terrace anytime soon.
So let’s give the last word to that doughty seeker after truth, and conveyor of certainty where confusion exists, Bob Ward.
In an interview on the BBC’s Friday PM news programme, Roger Harrabin asked him whether he thought that the Royal Society’s guide to climate change was a reliable guide to the science. This is how he started his reply:
I’m sorry, but the reliable guide is the fact that the projections show that the earth is going to continue to warm in the future …
I think that it is safe to say that far more than forty-three fellows of the Royal Society would be likely to find that response either stupid, ignorant, or intentionally misleading, depending on the level of knowledge of the speaker.
The Royal Society story has not received much coverage in the MSM – yet. It may be that it will not do so directly, but within academic circles it is a convulsion of seismic proportions that may severely test the foundations that the whole edifice of global warming rests on. At the moment we can only wait, and watch the shock waves spread.
PeterM
You ask:
Earth, Peter. The one that has warmed less than 0.7C over the past 150 years, but is now miraculously supposed to warm between 2 and 6C over the next 90 years (according to some GIGO computer models, that are apparently from another planet).
How about you? Last time I checked, Oz was also (barely) on earth, as well. Or are you from “never-never-land”, that same planet as the GIGO computer gurus?
You then added:
As I said before, I do not think it is “impossible” to obtain the empirical data to provide scientific evidence for your dangerous AGW hypothesis.
But, since you have been unable to do so after all these many months of discussion, it is beginning to look “highly improbable” that you will be able to do so.
Keep trying, though. As a physicist, it should be easy.
But, while you’re at it, how about reacting to the observed data I cited (173 on the “hockey stick” thread), which tends to invalidate your hypothesis?
Max
PeterM:
I pointed out yesterday how your views on dangerous AGW sound like those of a religious believer. Your #49 confirms it.
A religious believer asserts that God exists.
You assert that dangerous AGW is a fact.
Get it now?
Robin,
Can you now answer my question of why you think it is “impossible to define ” a means of obtaining the evidence you say we should have?
later on I’ll ask about the ‘implementation’ part of your question.
Robin,
Maybe I should just clarify my previous question. You have already said you don’t think it is “impossible” to obtain the empirical data, at least to a standard which you feel meets your criteria, but that it hasn’t yet been produced. OK I don’t necessarily agree with but at least I understand what you are saying.
What I can’t understand, is how this statement is at all consistent with your statement that it is “impossible to define ” a means of obtaining the evidence you say we should have.
Please explain!
PeterM
I’ll let Robin answer your 54 (seems to me he already has, but maybe he can repeat his answer so you can understand).
Let me give you my take on this.
1. It is not “impossible” to come up with empirical data to support your dangerous AGW hypothesis.
2. Therefore, it is also not “impossible” to define the “means of obtaining” this postulated empirical data prior to obtaining it.
This would actually be step 1 in your process of validating your hypothesis with “empirical data”.
Let me give you specific examples (see my 173 on the “Hockeystick – Martin Luther” thread).
Actual physical observation of CERES satellite data (as used by Spencer to determine that cloud feedbacks are negative) is a good example of such “means of obtaining” empirical data.
The comprehensive Argo float system for comprehensively measuring upper ocean temperature is another “means of obtaining” empirical data.
In both of the above cases, the empirical data have falsified the dangerous AGW hypothesis, rather than validating it (as pointed out in my 173).
Referring to the physical observations on “global temperature” (Hadley) and atmospheric CO2 (Mauna Loa and ice core data) in order to check the statistical robustness of the observed long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature is another “means of obtaining” empirical data. In this case statistical analyses have shown that the correlation is a “random walk” rather than a robust statistical correlation between CO2 and long-term temperature change, raising serious doubts concerning the case for causation.
In addition to the few examples I have just listed, there are all sorts of satellite observations on net SW and LW radiation from our planet, which could be used to demonstrate whether or not net feedbacks with surface warming are positive (as assumed by the climate model simulations cited by IPCC) or neutral to negative (as assumed by other climate scientists). Is there, for example, an observed “natural thermostat” that keeps our climate near equilibrium conditions (as postulated by some climate scientists) or is our planet’s climate being “whiplashed” from one extreme “tipping point” to another by strongly positive feedbacks (as postulated by some other climate scientists)?
So, Peter, you see that there are “means of obtaining” empirical data. The problem for you, so far, is that the empirical data obtained to date do not support the dangerous AGW hypothesis, which you embrace.
Unlike in (what I will call) the “softer sciences”, such as psychology or sociology,
the scientific method in the physical sciences is rigorous and uncompromising. It may be difficult, but it is not “impossible” to come up with (or, thereby, to “define the means of obtaining”) empirical data to support a valid hypothesis.
Hope this clears it all up for you.
Max
PS Robin and Peter: This whole discussion probably belongs more appropriately on the main thread, rather than here or on the “hockeystick” thread. Our exchange is getting a bit scattered around. Can we carry on on the main thread?
Max,
Robin points out that I have “admitted” that it is impossible, in Climatology, to provide the same sort of evidence that is, say, used in Physics to justify the existence of sub-atomic particles such as Hadrons, quarks, and neutrinos. Yes that is true. It is equally true with other scientific theories also. Such as Evolution, the Movement of Tectonic Plates, and pretty much the whole of Astronomy. In some branches of science experimentation is possible, in others it is just not possible!
Whenever was the Big Bang theory put to the test?
I know that Robin knows this. And he knows that I know he knows! That’s why he couldn’t resist taunting me with the statement below!
“I suspect Peter’s difficulty may stem from a single awkward fact: it’s impossible to define, let alone set up, a means of obtaining empirical evidence supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis.”
But he should have perhaps resisted the urge with a little more resolution. He’s effectively showed that he’s erected what he considers to be the barrier of of an impossible burden of proof to protect him from the arguments of the so-called ‘warmists.’
But you have to ask yourself: what is the mentality of anyone who thinks in this way?
Max,
Yes sorry I meant to post this to the main thread. I’ve no problem with continuing there.
Peter G, #1:
I think that you are right: over the last decade or so, relative economic stability (and low interest rates) in the developed world has led to a period of complacency during which there has been little incentive for close scrutiny of how public funds are spent. In Europe and N. America all that has changed now, with almost daily additions to the list of countries introducing emergency spending cuts. It is highly questionable whether the present arguments for action on AGW can survive this, but unfortunately that does not mean that policy makers who have invested huge amounts of political capital in the crusade will be prepared to back down any time soon. On the other hand, the longer that it takes for the new dispensation to be accepted, the more vulnerable their worn-out arguments for immediately action are likely to become.
Max,#3:
I suspect that the BBC Trust’s review of impartiality in science reporting will be concentrating quite a few minds within the organisation. There is likely to be much more to say about this here within the next week or two as there are ongoing behind-the-scenes developments on this front.
Robin, #4:
I certainly did not intend to sound triumphalist, but I do think that the time has come when sceptics no longer need, or should, behave as though they are on the back foot all the time. The big battalions may still be on the side of the warmists, but they are no longer gaining ground, and we are.
Spelling mistake gratefully noted and corrected.
Geoff C, #5,
Your ‘Doubting Thomas number’ is very welcome and much appreciated here. I started this blog to test my opinions in public and wall-to-wall agreement makes me uneasy.
Thanks for the Guardian link. When I go away I usually try to schedule fairly anodyne posts, and I didn’t expect this one to attract much attention as the subject had already been dealt with elsewhere. In fact quite a lot of other blogs picked it up and Benny Peiser reprinted it at GWPF, so I was horrified, when I returned, to see how busy the blog had been. Warmists do come here, but they seldom comment. I suspect that is because you lot scare the pants off them!
I think that Andrew M has done a superb job at Bishop Hill since Climategate by providing a real-time UK based news service, in some ways similar to WUWT. It is the first site I look at each morning, but there is no point in us both doing the same thing. I prefer to wait a bit and then try to put developments in context, for what its worth.
Sceptics are now often described by warmists as being ‘well funded and coordinated’. This is so far from the truth that the only response can be laughter. Just before I went away, David Holland obtained over three hundred emails from Reading University, under the FOIA, which were delivered in the latest Outlook Express format. Only Steve M had the software to open it and the rest of us spent many futile hours (days?) trying to find a way to view the data without making Microsoft richer. In the end the redoubtable KevinUK rode to the rescue out of the kindness of his heart. Your suggestion that there should be some kind of centralised coordination is timely, and it is being talked about.
If you have time, links to the May/RS/Ward posts you mentioned would be very useful I think. I understand that someone is working on a book about how the RS got caught up in the warmist hysteria and there is every reason to think that what is happening among the fellows now will remain topical for months to come.
Alex C, #8:
I think that your analogy with erosion is spot on. Just compare what the blogs, on both sides of the debate, were saying last June, and the state of morale on the sceptical side, with the situation now. There is no question of going back to those days, but before the walls come tumbling down the foundations must be undermined, and that is not likely to be a quick process.
Peter M, #10:
I used that link that you give in the header post. The question is not whether they will come up with something ‘radically different’, but whether they can persuade outsiders that there is consensus position at all. They are certainly not going to be able to say that the science is settled, or even overwhelmingly persuasive, unless they are prepared to risk ridicule.
Generally:
I’m having to do a huge amount of reading just trying to catch up after a relatively short break, and I still haven’t caught up on all the blogs yet. One of the things that I have noticed so far is that there now seems to be some evidence of a shift in the way that government is briefing the press on AGW related topics, and particularly energy. It certainly isn’t a radical change of direction yet, but it is far more cautious. My feeling is that preparations are being made for some radical cuts to the funding of sacred cows of environmentalism in the spending review.
So far as my header post is concerned, I stick to what I said. There is general agreement among commentators on both sides of the debate that the RS under Lord May led the charge when national academies of science worldwide were persuaded to back AGW regardless of the uncertainty of the science. Governments thereafter relied on this spurious authority to make policy.
Looking back, May’s pronouncements during that period were demonstrably ridiculous. There is good reason to suppose that, if the RS have difficulty in coming up with a consensus position on AGW during the next few months, they will be equally influential in leading the retreat, even if this role is inadvertent.
I have been having a further look around the web in case any new “get rid of the MWP” info had turned up and spotted this thread.
Jonathan Overpeck has denied sending an email to David Deming both in climategate email
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
and in the Arizona Daily Star in December 2009
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_e5078cae-6655-5139-aa6c-3f7f33a670a8.html?mode=story
In my opinion the attribution to Jonathan Overpeck is an internet myth started by speculation by a poster called Andre in 2005, promoted by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit and converted into a “fact” by Steve Milloy in Dec 2007 and by Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen in 2008.
My own speculation is that in June 2009 David Deming had all but named the real author of the email but the widespread preoccupation with Jonathan Overpeck had diverted attention in the wrong direction.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming3.html
For reference purposes it should be pointed out that David Deming had his paper cited in Chapter 3 of the 1995 SAR wg_I_full_report now available for viewing
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Jonathan Overpeck is listed as a contributer to chapter 9 but did not achieve lead author status until later IPCC reports.