Josh 6

Comments

[MinB]

Love the cartoons, Josh. Thanks for your contribution.

[Kevin]

lol

[Bernie]

Funny cartoon, but at RC they are trying to suggest that the IoP carries no weight. Can someone point me to some indicator as to how signifcant a player the IoP is?

[Frugal Dougal]

Josh, that is brilliant!

[pat]

this is more appropriate for your previous post (richard tol's piece) but will put it here. it's unusual for the MSM to critique the myth of 'green jobs'. this piece is from an 'insider' and uses the generic 'climate change' which the MSM must stop using (or risk continuing to sound ridiculous) but it's a start:

26 Feb: WaPo: The green jobs myth
by Sunil Sharan
For the purpose of creating jobs, then, a "clean-energy economy" will not offer a panacea. This does not necessarily mean that America should not become green to alleviate climate change, to kick its addiction to foreign oil or to use energy sources more efficiently. But those who take great pains to tout the "job-creation potential" of the green space might just end up inducing labor pains all around.
(The writer, a director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, has worked in the clean-energy industry for a decade)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022503945.html

[boballab]

Well Bernie according to IOP website:

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute of Physics is committed to the principle of academic freedom and aims to implement this principle in all our activities:

•In the Institute's international relations programme, we aim to establish and maintain open and constructive relationships with academic institutions and learned societies from all countries
•IOP accepts applications from individuals to its conferences and meetings irrespective of race, religion or nationality
•Equally, IOP Publishing accepts submissions from all individuals irrespective of race, religion or nationality; uses international referees; and is always vigilant for bias in the peer review system.

http://www.iop.org/aboutus/index.html

They are the result of a merger between the IOP and the Physical Society (which dates back to 1873) in 1960. At one time the Royal Meteorological Society was part of the IOP but left it just prior to its merger with the Physical Society in 1960. You can read the full history here:
http://www.iop.org/aboutus/History/page_1816.html

[pat]

just posted the green jobs thing and suddenly saw this:

1 March: UK Times: Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
Using fossil fuel in vehicles is better for the environment than so-called green fuels made from crops, according to a government study seen by The Times...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece

[Steamboat McGoo]

A lot of people have been waiting a long time to hear the words of the IOP.

The IOP people are everything the climate science folks are NOT.

[John Silver]

"and is always vigilant for bias in the peer review system."

Such poetic beauty!

[Sean Houlihane]

i don't think that the IOP have any authority, but I'd guess that have some respect. Remember that they are not saying that AGW is untrue, all they are saying is that the process has not been sufficiently transparent or rigorous. It is not clear if this is a change in their position about AGW - plenty of people see a need to react regardless of the precision of the science.
The responce from RC (which I haven't read yet) may indicate a reluctance for the science to be examined in more detail, which is telling given that we are 5 years further on in terms of datasets etc.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I hope that tank is using bio-diesel?

[Ian E]

'plenty of people see a need to react regardless of the precision of the science.'

And I bet plenty of people do not understand the enormous cost already entailed - let alone the astronomical sums needed to carry out the warmiste agenda.

The 'precautionary' principle in this context is NOT a low cost insurance (like putting some blankets in a car before a long journey in winter) policy. It is a vastly expensive business indeed.

If we really needed to act (looking increasingly unlikely) and if we could really do something effective against AGW (virtually impossible without China, India etc) then the costs might be worthwhile (though adaptation looks likely to be cheaper and much more likely to work). Without satisfying those 'ifs', spending further, and yet further damaging a pretty sick world economy has to be insane!

[ScientistForTruth]

The Institute of Physics is the professional body for physicists in UK and Ireland, incorporated under Royal Charter. It grants Chartered Physicist status, and, under licence from the Engineering Council, Chartered Engineer status, normally requiring a Masters degree and relevant professional experience.

Fellows of the Institute of Physics include:

Sir Geoffrey Allen, Chancellor of the University of East Anglia from 1993–2003. Vice-President of the Royal Society from 1991–93.

Professor Sir Michael Warwick Thompson, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1980-86

Professor Norman Edward Cusack (deceased), Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia 1981-85. Taught physics at UEA from 1965.

[Gareth]

Bernie,

The Institute of Physics doesn't carry any weight. It carries mass.

[Hans Erren]

WRT the cartoon,
Canada did beat the US with hockey...
Go Canada Go!

[Jack Hughes]

Next cartoon should show the beer review process - where you get your mates to OK your stuff.

[Richard Drake]

Looking at the Times article on green fuels that Pat pointed to, the change in Ben Webster since last year seems extraordinary. The fourth weighty article I've spotted covering either the science or the economics from a realist perspective, including the full expose of Pachauri's dishonesty over Glaciergate on 30 Jan and the savage University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ on Saturday. I was particularly heartened by the report on Drax giving up on biomass on 19 Feb. I probably missed some but well done, Ben.

[Bishop Hill]

I don't think Lambert's campaign is working is it?

[Phil Clarke]

"Although these details are important and more
research needs to be done before the
uncertainties are resolved, the basic science is
well enough understood to be sure that our
climate is changing – and that we need to act."

http://www.iop.org/News/file_38336.pdf

[Sean Houlihane]

@ Ian E, i am not justifying the precautionary principle, just pointing out that the IoP's contribution does not preclude their currently supporting a precautionary approach. All they are saying is that the 'standard practice' in the climate field of not allowing critical replication is wrong. The precautionary approach is debatable (cost/risk balance) but the 'secret data' approach is untenable (or maybe just childish). Win the easy points first, ask why the data and methods are still so sensitive, and maybe the more intangible questions become easier to discuss.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Next cartoon should show the beer review process - where you get your mates to OK your stuff.

After that, the twelve-step beer review process please.

[Acai Berry]

Wonderful post... Very informational and educational as usual!

Acai Optimum