Chief scientist: fundamental uncertainty in climate science
Jan 26, 2010 Climate The UK government's chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, is the latest rat to flee the sinking ship Climatology, with an interview in the Times in which he comes out of the closet:
The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
Now he tells us. If Professor Beddington really believes this, it's hard to fathom why he hasn't said so in the two years in which he's been in office.
Professor Beddington also thinks that people should be nicer to sceptics.
Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
Again, not a word about withholding data and code until the ship starts to go down. Where has he been?
Reader Comments (50)
"The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists"
Does not appear to be supported with actual quotations from the man. And isn't it true that the impact of global warming has been downplayed by some scientists? Or aren't those guys scientists, or does it simply not matter to 'sceptics' when that happens?
Doesn't uncertainty imply that it could be even worse than thought? Or is it as usual a one-way street with the 'sceptics'?
The "urgent need" appears to be invented also.
Could it be that the impact of Professor Beddington's statements has been exaggerated by some journalists?
Is there a need (urgent or otherwise) for those who claim to be sceptics to actually be sceptical for once?
Or maybe, just maybe, previously strongly held opinions based on (now known to beflawed) 'scientific' assertions are being re-evaluated?
be flawed, obviously.
Which of these assertions are you referring to?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html
Frank
Your comments are usually better than that. One investigates things if they appear unlikely or unconvincing for some reason. Now while Prof B's comments are unexpected, they are not out of kilter with the general change in the tone of discourse over the AGW issue. Why should I doubt that he said this?
Because he isn't quoted as saying so.
All your juicy quotes come from the journalist's narrative. Where they are supported by his words they appear to have been sexed up (hence 'urgent need' rather than just 'need').
It is also contradictory to say there is uncertainty but some impacts have been exaggerated. Either you know the impacts are exaggerated or you are uncertain about the impacts - pick one.
Gotta love his 90 per cent certain line.
There are statistical tests you can apply to experimental data that will give you 90% or 95% confidence levels.
The IPCC idea of 90 per cent is just a form of words: 90 means "very likely" and 80 means "somewhat likely". They are turning adjectives into numbers. The percentages are not based on any statistical or mathematical test.
This is just another appearance of cargo-cult science. They are trying to make their opinions look like science.
"Again, not a word about withholding data and code until the ship starts to go down. Where has he been?"
It's called politics. Never mind the avalanche gets bigger and bigger and is unstoppable.
Now, tell me so, -- is it that Sir John Beddington has a long pointy nose, whiskers and a long naked tail?
If if looks like a rat, if it smells like a rat and if it swims off the sinking boat like a rat -- it must be a duck.
Now so, do I have that right? I believe that is what the good gentleman would hope we think.
Be careful of the barracudas, SIr John -- they love rats -- as well as would be ducks. And of course, there be the sharks known as barristers. Now that is a bunch to avoid, in court and out!
'Tis Irish craic ye know
Fine, so he's a coward; at least he's not a believer.
Frank,
I am not used to posting on fora such as these, mainly because I lack the necessary scientific grounding.
I am also not sure of the point you were attempting to make with your link.
Entrenched positions, IMHO, are what have got us into this mess in the first place. I would like to think that there are both 'scientists' and 'sceptics' out there who will re-evaluate matters as they come to the fore and amend their opinions and actions accordingly.
Think it through. If the release was leaked rather than hacked, then somebody at CRU has changed their mind.
That release, but mainly through blogs like this and many others, have brought this issue to the fore and made a lot of people take a second look at the 'facts' that they thought were inviolate.
I prefer to think that Sir John Beddington is looking again at the science with an open mind. He may well come up with the same conclusion but at least he seems to have doubts that he did not have a few months/years ago. YMMV.
A Scientific Advisor would not last long if he made comments that would embarress the government. See what happened to Prof. Nutt, the Chief Medical Advisor. Two months ago, pre-Copenhagen, he would have hounded from office, with his sanity or financial affairs questioned. The change of opinion is significant and should be welcomed to encourage others.
@Vincent
The change of opinion is significant and should be welcomed to encourage others.
Precisely.
Lot's of scientists not only knew they were wildly exaggerated - they knew they were outright lies. Here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down
I demonstrate conclusively that the scientific community knew about these Glaciergate errors by their being exposed in a peer-reviewed journal in 2005, which was essentially the substance of a chapter from a book published in 2004 by an authority on the Himalayas. Syed Hasnain's pronouncements are shown to be myths, and worse. The paper appeared in Himalayan Journal of Sciences, entitled
"Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies."
In light of that, I find it almost certain that Pachauri and a lot of others knew that these were lies years before AR4 was published.
And while I am enjoying my new found confidence in posting, can someone please answer this?
Why is there no seperation between global warming and anthropogenic global warming?
I find it easier to accept the first than the second, but both seem to be treated as the same.
Again, IMHO, the difference is crucial. The trillions of dollars/pounds that we will spend on trying to prevent the second could, and should, be spent on trying to alleviate the first.
Perhaps there is some battle weariness creeping in but as I read the article I felt a significant tide change from the normal science is settled we are right because we say so argument.
Dennis,
"I would like to think that there are both 'scientists' and 'sceptics' out there who will re-evaluate matters as they come to the fore and amend their opinions and actions accordingly."
I would like to think there are sceptics that would modify their opinions in the face of evidence but I've yet to encounter even one such person. There are extreme sceptical positions which are based on nothing more than logical fallacies and conspiracy theories - no amount of evidence will change such people's minds. Evidence against the conspiracy is simply claimed to be fraudulent and thus becomes part of the ever expanding conspiracy - that's how such theories maintain their hold on people.
For example, some 'sceptics' claim that data have been fiddled to show warming. In almost the same breath, some of them go on to use the same data to argue that it is cooling. And then we have the ones who say the influence of increasing CO2 - known to be a greenhouse gas - is very uncertain and yet assert with complete confidence that it's safe for us to ramp it up as fast we like. All these claims simply can't be true at the same time. Do you find such people credible?
"That release, but mainly through blogs like this and many others, have brought this issue to the fore and made a lot of people take a second look at the 'facts' that they thought were inviolate."
I wish you would be more specific or at least look a little more closely, and more sceptically, at your *own* position. What facts exactly do you think 'climategate' calls into question?
Why is there no separation between global warming and anthropogenic global warming?
I find it easier to accept the first than the second, but both seem to be treated as the same.
Dennis, you are asking the important question. Really you are. There is a difference and not one in this group can tell you exactly what is what. That is our concern -- that one has become the other and may not be related at all.
For example, has anyone talked about about Solar Warming? I live in California where El Niño and La Niña effect my winters every year. Both are due to ocean temperature in the Pacific and have little to do with the amount of CO2 produced in China, or by cows' methane. And there is the Atlantic Conveyor which warms my house in Co Kerry. Again an ocean current call the Gulf Stream. It is driven by the Caribbean sun, not car exhaust from Detroit.
And then there is the Inconvenient Fact that that Earth itself produces more heat than the Sun does. Just go down a 1000 ft shaft in a diamond mine to find out how fricking hot it can be. Or have you seen a volcano go off? How much gas and heat do those produce in a day? Probably more than all the cars in China and the US, but nobody has actually calculated it.
Yes, you asked the right question, and so far we have not had any honest answers. Nor will we until science returns to climatology. That is what this fight is all about.
Dennis,
"Why is there no seperation between global warming and anthropogenic global warming?"
A slovenly contraction like "nuclear power" and "nuclear", but one leading to a confusion which is convenient for certain parties. As you note, apparently small changes in wording can steer the pattern of thinking. There is also a school of thought which accepts there is anthropogenic global warming but that resources would be better directed to living with it than preventing it. It seems to be regarded as a heretical deviation from orthodox climate alarmism..
The other example is "climate change denier" and "climate denier", both of which are silly and describe almost no one. I haven't seen the term "anthropogenic climate change denier".
Dennis
There are many of us that are reasonably happy with GW, less so with (catastrophic)AGW. Frank seems to have only a binary view of the GW world - 'us and them'. My experience of sceptical blogs is that you will find a full spectrum of view, including the weird and wonderful. You will find the same in the Pro-AGW blogs. The eye opener to me in reading (carefully and with discernment) blogs like Climate Audit, Real Climate, our own Bishop Hill, the Pielkes, Jeff Id and others of the same kidney is that there you see the science dissected, analysed, probed, tested and argued. That is very very stimulating and means that though you may not pick up all the detail, you can watch 'science' being done - live! This type of debate is exactly the sort of scientific debate that happens around coffee tables in Universities. The wonder of the internet is that the postman, milkman, and taxidriver as well as the scholars and professors can take part. And what do we see - surprise! Scientists are human! They bicker and disagree, and get jealous and throw tantrums. They make mistakes too! With a nod to our esteemed ecclesiastical host, I'm on the last chapter of his book, and it gives a very good feel for the personalities within science. There is politics in science as there is everywhere else, and what is happening now is that it is being seen for what it is. Once that blows over, hopefully we can enjoy a real period of discovery and investigation, without all the moneymaking powergrabbing political schemes taxing us all to blazes.
I wish you would be more specific or at least look a little more closely, and more sceptically, at your *own* position. What facts exactly do you think 'climategate' calls into question?
Frank -- all of the BS published by the AGW crowd. Is that explicit enough?
I have a Ph.D. from Cornell -- a real university. I had a real Noble Laureate on my graduate committee. I was trained by real scientists to be a real scientist and I can tell you that I have seen nothing from the AGW crowd that comes close to real science. Do I need to go further? I have also been a statistician and software engineer. Others have already poked a dozen holes in both the AGW software technology and statistical procedures, which are patently bogus.
What do you have that is real? Drowning polar bears? Please show me the bodies.
Frank,
I fear you are preying on my innocence. :)
I will be your tethered goat, just for tonight.
What should we deal with first, my own position or the release of CRU data and code?
Let's take me
Why should I look at my own postition? Are you making an assumption here?
I have absolutely no problem in accepting that the earth's climate is warming and, given the recorded data, it would be perverse to state otherwise. I do, however, lean towards cyclical warming. We are an arrogant species and tend not to think in geological time - why would we? Nevertheless, the earth keeps turning and the climate changes in it's own time.
BTW, you have now met your first person who will change their mind given solid evidence..
What are the facts that Climategate called into question?
No 'facts' at all. I define a 'fact' as something that is irrefutable. What has emerged, and even you must concede this, is that the policy decisions are being made on 'science' that is, at best, flawed. The trillions of dollars that are being earmarked to 'combat' global warming would be better spent in 'alleviating' global warming.
Frank O'Dwyer: "What facts exactly do you think 'climategate' calls into question?"
Well, that climate science is based on transparent accessible data for starters.
There is very little solid evidence in AGW. Certain things are accepted by most skeptics such as about .7c warming in the 20th c. Additional CO2 produces warming, better growth (viz greenhouses). So much of the rest is just PREDICTIONS based on climate models which often don't concur with actual measurements and did not predict the temps of the 2000-09 decade.
"For example, some 'sceptics' claim that data have been fiddled to show warming. In almost the same breath, some of them go on to use the same data to argue that it is cooling. And then we have the ones who say the influence of increasing CO2 - known to be a greenhouse gas - is very uncertain and yet assert with complete confidence that it's safe for us to ramp it up as fast we like. "
Some AGW people have said we have 9 months (G Brown) or 5 years (Gore) or 5 weeks (individual nutty people) to save the planet. "Do you find such people credible?" Of course not.
The people that YOU should find not credible are the ones that brought us: the glaciers will melt by 2035 (or 2030 (NASA), or hurricanes increase as result of global wamring, sea level will rise by 20 feet., etc etc.
"For example, some 'sceptics' claim that data have been fiddled to show warming. In almost the same breath, some of them go on to use the same data to argue that it is cooling."
Skeptics clain that the data has been fiddled becasue they can point to in peer reviewed papers such as Briffa's Yamal studies and Mann's Hockey stick and Steig's Artic paper and the Harry read me file to see that it HAS been fiddled. (That as many especially Steve McIntyre have always said, does not prove that there is NO global warming. Just that those studies have data flaws.) Other studies are used - such as satellites to show flat temps/no cooling...cuz it is the land temps that have been mucked about with most....And CRU has 'lost' the original data.
"yet assert with complete confidence that it's safe for us to ramp it (CO2) up as fast we like." Strawman. No one except for those individual nutty people do.
Sorry to jump in dennis....
Dennis, It is my view that once the UN IPCC folks had passed a Cap-n-Trade law based on AGW "science", the next step would have been the New World of Global Sustainability Science... This, to force mankind to evolve to the next level. At least that's what Chez Watt thinks:o)
Yimmuy --
Frank tasted good. I wondered who else will come along for us to chew up? :)
Meant "Yummy" -- need new glasses, I am afraid. :(
Amazon now has your book selling for $16.12 from The Book Depository.
Apropos of the new renaissance you can now ask the shadow environment secretary some questions, courtesy of The Independent
Nick Herbert MP, Conservative Shadow Environment Secretary, is the next subject for our You Ask The Question series. Click here (actually below) to mail your questions (please state which town or city you are from).
myquestion@independent.co.uk
Frank O'Dwyer, to paraphrase you, I would like to think there are global warming supporters that would modify their opinions in the face of evidence but I've yet to encounter even one such person.
It's a fun show you provide in accusing Webster of lying in his report of the interview with Beddington without a shred of evidence for that, then prattle on about the importance of evidence yourself...
Mike N
It shows USD71.78 for me!
Beddington has not actually come out in favour of the deniers.
What he is saying is carefully worded for the political situation. He is sounding as if he agrees with the deniers (so that if they win he can claim he supported them 'from the start'), but his words can also be interpreted as just a call for 'better science', so that if the warmists win he can present himself as a warmist who called for science to silence the deniers...
Frank
I was a believer in the parable of CAGW until asked to lecture on the subject. When I started doing my own in depth reading so that I could present real evidence to my students I quickly changed my mind. I'm sure that many people who visit this blog have similar stories to tell. Perhaps if you approach the subject with an open mind you may have a similar road to Damascus moment. Why not start with http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf which I have printed but not read yet! The title alone should attract the attention of any physical scientist, or politician.
Ed
Ed - what happened to the lecture? :-)
Even more important than Beddington "jumping ship" is for the BBC to stop airbrushing sceptic views from its TV, radio and website reports. The only BBC journalist consistently questioning Met Office men and global warming fanatics is Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics show. I'm not suggesting the Beeb should cross sides, but at least it should reflect the growing polarised views within its proper remit, which is to report neutrally.
Ditto the Met Office, which by default assumes (or more accurately presumes) warming to be an established paradigm.
These two institutions are the keys to galvanising the lazy, non-critical electorate being made aware that global warming is far from being a closed subject.
Dennis,
"Why is there no seperation between global warming and anthropogenic global warming?"
There is.
"I find it easier to accept the first than the second, but both seem to be treated as the same."
They don't seem to be treated the same. And argument from personal incredulity is not impressive.
"I do, however, lean towards cyclical warming."
No evidence for that on the timescales we are talking about - oribital cycles could explain the magnitude of the change but the rate is too rapid. Also (like solar and other straws sceptics grasp at) it would be expected to warm the atmosphere as a whole which is not seen, whereas CO2 caused warming predicts cooling of the stratosphere which is seen. And not least of all, the warming doesn't appear to be cyclical in the least.
Don Pablo,
"For example, has anyone talked about about Solar Warming?"
Yes (why don't you know that?). Again, solar warming would heat the entire atmosphere, which is not seen. Furthermore when we look at solar over the period a slight cooling would be expected, if anything. So it cannot explain the recent warming.
"And then there is the Inconvenient Fact that that Earth itself produces more heat than the Sun does. Just go down a 1000 ft shaft in a diamond mine to find out how fricking hot it can be"
And that explains the trend does it? Have we been burrowing into the earth since the industrial revolution?
"Frank -- all of the BS published by the AGW crowd. Is that explicit enough?"
So climategate calls into question the UAH record? And we don't know that the Himalayan glaciers won't be gone by 2035 (after all, that is the consensus, the IPCC WG2 document merely failed to reflect it)? On what basis could we know this if not somebody's model of the future climate in that region? And if we do not know this on what basis do you say the IPCC was wrong to say they could be gone by then, hmm?
"need new glasses, I am afraid"
No doubt. Though I'm not sure new glasses will fix your hallucinations of chewing people up.
Carrick,
"It's a fun show you provide in accusing Webster of lying in his report of the interview with Beddington without a shred of evidence for that, then prattle on about the importance of evidence yourself..."
Where did I say he lied? I merely noted that the quotations given don't support his interpretations and asked a question.
Is Professor Beddington the same "rat" who said the only habitable place on Earth at the end of the century would be Antarctica? And mankind might survive if a few breeding couples settled there?
No that was apparently another UK Chief Scientist Professor Sir David King in 2004 "Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King"
The UK does pick its Chief Scientists carefully. Professor Beddington has been described as a "latter day Nostradamus"
Talking about Sir David King - I came across this: "Sir David King condemns green scaremongering; Herod condemns child abuse; Osama Bin Laden condemns Islamist terrorism; etc "
Science conference chairman Alexander Illarionov in Moscow in 2004 after King's dismal performance at the conference:
“In our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100015354/sir-david-king-condemns-green-scaremongering-herod-condemns-child-abuse-osama-bin-laden-condemns-islamist-terrorism-etc/
@Frank:
' "Why is there no seperation between global warming and anthropogenic global warming?" There is.'
In that case, what proportion of the warming from 1850 to the present is down to human activity?
As for glaciers - read the science. It simply is not possible for the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035 (or 2030 as NASA claimed). That's why there is a tiny bit of scandal over it. Jeez, even the IPCC guy says they only put it in for dramatic effect & to put pressure on politicians.
Perhaps you will cease your hand waving in the face of the evidence.
Sebastian,
"In that case, what proportion of the warming from 1850 to the present is down to human activity?"
Ranges for the different forcings natural and otherwise are given in the IPCC WG1 report. So work it out yourself - you're the one who seems to think you know better than they do.
The point is that nobody claims the two are the same and AGW theory involves both. Do you seriously dispute that?
"As for glaciers - read the science. It simply is not possible for the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035 (or 2030 as NASA claimed). "
And suddenly there is certainty and consensus.
Why isn't it possible? Are we able to predict the climate in the Himalayas in 2030s now or something? You got a model for that? Can I see it?
In case it is not clear I am not arguing that they will be gone. I am just pointing to a contradiction which should be blindingly obvious. See, it seems like that climate models have predictive power and the climatalogists suddenly know what they are talking about - but only when it suits you. If you were consistent - and dare I say intellectually honest - you would all be saying that nobody has a clue what will happen in the Himalayas by 2035. But then you couldn't bash the IPCC, so you can't help yourself.
"even the IPCC guy says they only put it in for dramatic effect & to put pressure on politicians"
According to a newspaper report, but not according to "the IPCC guy". Check your facts.