Bishop Hill French academy shames British one
Apr 5, 2010 Royal Society Much excitement in France over the announcement that there is to be a national debate on climate change under the auspices of the French National Academy.
The move appears to have been prompted by the success of L'Imposture Climatique, a book by the sceptic scientist Claude Allegre, who has sold no less than 100,000 copies so far (a number which makes me extremely jealous).
The striking thing about the story though is what it reveals about the attitude of the French Academy of Sciences:
Noting that the Academy does not take sides on the issue, and that the Academy’s website already reports the views of scientists on both sides of the debate, [Academy president, Jean] Salençon aims to defend the scientific method and the principles of scientific inquiry, not any one scientific position. When asked if sanctions might be in the cards for Allegre, a member of the Academy, or any other climate sceptics, he replied: "Under no circumstances! There is no question of ethical sanctions. Even less of an expulsion. The nomination for the Academy of Sciences is perpetual. It cannot be reversed, not even through a resignation.”
Defending the principles of scientific inquiry eh? Not an approach that would win much favour with the grubby lobbyists of the Royal Society, with their guide to Facts and Fictions About Climate Change.
Reader Comments (47)
I'm sure your book will get there.
Perhaps this fine example of the scientific principle needs drawing to the attention of the Royal Society. It's a shame upon the country that a once fine organisation like the RS should need to look at the French Academy of Sciences to know how to conduct itself.
I think we could do with an enquiry into the Royal Society. But who would do it? The feeble, in practice and in prospect, enquiries re the CRU are not encouraging. Possibly an intelligent and reflective judge or QC, backed up by real scientists (not the motley crew of geographers, programmers, and political activists who have brought such shame to what might once have deserved the title 'climate science') to bring proper penetration and lucidity to the swirl of self-serving politicking that has taken over the Society. I suspect that since so much government-funding goes to the Society, that this enquiry would need to be privately funded, preferably by public subscription around learned societies and private citizens.
An independent inquiry with judges and statisticians/mathematicians is required now.
A French inquiry may be one option, an even better one could be conducted by India, with a proven record of independence.
I don't know, if it still makes sense to spent time to support input for the CRU inquiries, with their unacceptable alarmist cast.
Are you watching RS, are you watching Sir Muir, are you watching, cos we are?
I see nothing on the BBC science and environment news about this, or of the Greenpeace threats, or of the current Arctic ice levels. Nor have I had any response to my formal complaint about the 'Island sinking due to global warming' article. Even allowing time for fact checking they seem to be holding back on this. I'd have thought at the very least the Today programme would be asking the President of the RS why he seems to have a totally different concept of science to his counterpart in France.
Vive la France!
Looking at the website of the Académie des sciences, I found this "educational booklet" on climate change: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/rapports/pdf/livret_environnement_04_08.pdf .
It does not show any version of the classical hockey stick, but apart from that it seems to follow the general IPCC line closely. The tone is restrained but it surely does not present skeptical arguments.
On the other hand, it does have this more recent (last November) booklet which essentially presents questions, with two different members of the acsdemy giving their individual answers:
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/points_vue_25_11_09.pdf
I haven't read it all yet. It does give some space to skeptical arguments and it seems overall more "honest" than other such documents I've seen elsewhere - for instance, it presents the argument that possibly the influence of CO2 has been overestimated and that of the sun, underestimated, as a legitimate point of view.
I will read the whole thing and comment further.
Speaking of the RS, has Lord Oxburgh published any terms of reference for, or dates for submission of evidence to, his enquiry into climate science he is to undertake at the request of UEA?
Finally...an organization that cares about integrity in method and process and has the huevos to stand up and say so. Now, if I only knew French or have my wife read it to me. I hope they plan on translating this guys book.
Seems like the French market is alive. Need to translate HSI into French.
Note though that the political activists in the French climate science community wanted them shut up, they wanted no debate whatsoever, just like the Slingos, Popes, Jones, Briffas etc. A science where there can be no disagreement once you have a majority view isn't a science. It's a religion.
Does the RS site still say carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't increase after warming periods? I mean, whatever side of the argument you're on it is obvious that a liquid containing CO2 will release it on being warmed, yet to push their religion what used to be the pre-eminent scientific society on earth is reduced to pushing CAGW propoganda against the reality of the science.
The Royal Society should be renamed the Royal Propaganda Society.
Once, I had a great deal of respect for Martin Rees.
As Astronomer Royal he held an historically important position with a bright and enquiring mind..
He now typifies the shameful scientific establishment in the UK today.
Politically driven, corrupt and scientifically inept.
What would Newton have thought of it all I wonder?
The French have an inbuilt advantage because of the poetry of their language, with the adjective after the noun, //L'Imposture Climatique//, compelling name....
Hmm, the continentals led us on the way into this egregious scam - perhaps they will lead us out?? Who knows, in a few years the EU might even finally do the world some good?!
</dream mode off>
Hang on Ian, I thought it was Maggie T. that started beating her “scientific” drum about global warming purely to try to impress. She dug a hole so deep the majority had no option but to fall in and have since found it more convenient just to help dig.
There you go your Bishopness I feel a book on the cards.
Another good reason for settling in France! I shall watch with interest. And I, for one, own a copy of your book in France.
I see Greenpeace are now threatening violence. They've lost the argument on climate science so think that attacking us might work instead. They' know where we live' apparently....
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
Folks, can we learn how to use the anchor/attributes tag so that links don't get truncated?
Or maybe the bishop can get the post window to wrap.
Truncated links appears to be a re-occurring issue out here.
I notice an intersting event coming up in Singapore, the second World. Conference on Research Integrity. http://www.wcri2010.org/
Interesting speaker list.
I wonder if they will be discusing you know what?
Bishop
A french edition of HSI might be a good idea. The french public seem hungry for a saner view of AGW.
Editions Plon, Allegre's publishers, say sales have reached 120,000.
Very interesting angle and thanks for this, Bish.
Can anyone with experience outside the english-speaking world tell us where the debate is up to in other cultures?
I'm especially interested in what goes on in schools and the coverage on TV and newspapers. And what the pols think. The French recently abandoned their "carbon tax" ideas.
Errr....hasn't anyone noticed that the linked RS Report is 5 years old?
Still I suppose it says much about this sycophantic organisation that it cannot be bothered to update its calims.
Nous verrons.
And yes, Bishop, you should look for a French publisher. Actually, Stacey International probably should be doing that, but somehow I doubt that they are. I would start with Editions Plon as Dreadnought suggests.
You will have to try and get on BBC's 'Hardtalk' Mr Montford.
Razia Iqbal has been chatting to Ian McEwan all week about his new book ' Solar' which is about a scientist who solves the global warming problem.
Ian is a warmist and asserts that the 'science is settled'. That 'deniers aren't intellectually capable of discussing the issue' and there is 'no doubt that the world was getting hotter'
In true biased BBC fashion Razia sits and nods in agreement and laughs at the stupid sceptics as she sees us but she wonders what 'we can do' to make us see sense. I'm not sure which 'we' she is referring to.
James: "we" refers to UEA graduates with degrees in American Studies, or Creative Writing, or whatever. Good to see the alumni sticking together, although it would be nicer if they declared a conflict and recused themselves. Fat chance!
They really think it is their job to force all the mathematicians, physicists and engineers who post here and on CA and WUWT to accept their ignorant view of the world.
It really is very frustrating watching on as the old men in positions of power close their eyes and pretend that they are running independent inquiries into UEA, climate science, the Hockey Stick, etc. Old men of the establishment are never quick to change their minds and are usually rooted to the things they learned in their salad years, and which probably helped get them into their highly paid positions in the first place. It is going to take a high profile politician with guts and integrity to start pushing the skeptics viewpoint if we are to get institutions like the RS to regard climate science with scientific detachment. The IOP made an effort with their submission to the parliamentary inquiry, but their concerns fell on three sets of deaf ears.
One thing that concerns me greatly at the moment is teaching of "The Greenhouse Effect" in schools. What chance do our children have of obtaining an education when they are failed if they question the government's line on climate change? That is not science, it is indoctrination.
Jack Hughes
What do people in other countries think? My daughter spent last summer working at the Central Europe University in Budapest. She asked whether people were concerned about Global Warming and was met with a blank stare. AGW was not on the radar. At London's UCL she dare not admit that she is a sceptic.
School children here are fed AGW with their morning prayers. And all led from the top by the Royal Society clearly. I was disgusted with their 'Facts and Fictions about Climate Change'.
Kevin "Folks, can we learn how to use the anchor/attributes tag so that links don't get truncated? Or maybe the bishop can get the post window to wrap."
I don't find any links truncated - is it your browser? Do you see the comment box 'open' on the right hand side on long URLs? That's because your browser is not displaying the whole box. If you drag across the URL from left to right to highlight it, it is all there, so no need to wrap. The comment boxes are extended to the right to accommodate long URLs. At least, they are on Firefox.
Re: link problems
The link is still all there even if you do not see it.
Just double click to highlight the link and then right-click and select to copy it.
ScientistForTruth,
It may be my browser. I am using chrome. I can use firefox, but prefer chrome. I don't see the "open" option.
Alright, so maybe a squarespace limitation. I expect chrome to be up to snuff. It is essentially safari.
Thanks...
Dominic,
Your solution works. Thanks.
That corrupt politician, David Miliband, gave a lecture to the Royal Society on January 12 this year, giving a slap on the back to one of the UK's most corrupt scientists IMO (Martin Rees, President of the utterly corrupt RS). The RS has, under Rees, just become a crude advocacy group and arm of government propaganda and 'diplomacy'. It gives the government the necessary scientific 'gravitas' and 'authority' to underpin and drive home its lying agenda.
"...the Royal Society’s history is also closely interwoven with that of the British Government...The Society has long enjoyed strong ties to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office...today, a defining feature of our world is the tendency towards imbalance and asymmetry, mirroring the world of Quantum Mechanics. Think of...the damaging positive feedback loops that are driving runaway climate change...in the new world of foreign policy – ungoverned spaces, the diplomatic equivalent of black holes, and non state actors, the quarks of diplomacy – are the biggest challenge and in some ways the biggest change makers...First, scientific progress can achieve breakthroughs that diplomacy cannot match. The development of commercially viable Carbon Capture and Storage mechanisms, or advances in the technology for low-carbon vehicles can have a major impact on our ability to forge the green revolution we need to avoid climate change...Second, science can help forge consensus where there is political division...Third, is science’s power to shift debates and catalyse political action. This is critical if we are to protect and promote global public goods for future generations, as climate change illustrates...Just as science can support diplomacy, so too must diplomacy support science...I want to pay tribute to Martin Rees and his staff for the enormous contribution they have made to science diplomacy...through the establishment...of regular meetings between the G8+5 Science Academies which helped shift the political debate on climate change...It is with these two disciplines – science and politics – that I want to end. Because the future of the planet depends above all on politics...Politics and science need to come closer together...The frustrations of the climate change talks show how far we have to go. Here the science is overwhelming. It really is a consensus...the biggest inter-disciplinary leap we need is across the boundaries of politics and science. We need you... I hope this anniversary opens eyes not just to how far science has come, but what we can do together in the future."
As usual, Miliband talks like an idiot, but I'm sure they all lapped it up at the RS, and are now an even more dedicated tool in the hands of this corrupt government.
Climate Science is effectively lost a high tech version of tulipomania.
Unfortunately those who have bought into the tulips in this case are manymembers of the leadership classes around the world.
Scientistfortruth: I suspect they are all being good brown-tongues, expecting their knighthoods or baronetcies and nice retirement, taxpayer-funded, highly paid, part-time job with large expense account, providing advice or chairmanship of some government QUANGO.
Bishop's link takes you to the IPCC News web-site. At the bottom of the article, you can link to the original source, which is the Financial Post site. The comments at the FP site, altho few in number, are worth reading.
Jack Hughes
The French national curriculum includes 'sustainable development'. It all seems fairly worthy: pollution, fair trade, biodiversity etc. However, last year the Ministry of Education participated in the British Council's 'Climate Champions' scheme. Valerie Masson-Delmotte was involved. (Her again)
Christopher Booker has written on the British Council scheme here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231466/British-Council-gets-in-on-the-climate-act.html
First of all hanks to Peter B for the link. I have to give a bilingual French/English presentation later this month and that will provide useful background.
Like him I have read parts of the French document. It seems to be reasonably well balanced, though I notice that they mentioned that the rate of sea level rise is higher than in recent decades without mentioning that it was as high in the 1950s and in recent years it has fallen to the 20th century average. Other links they give to background documents (http://www.academie-sciences.fr/dossiers/climat/climatC.htm) have not been updated since 2007; this in itself is significant - if climate change was a hot topic they would surely have updated more frequently.
On another point. I am co-author of a web site, www.climate data.info, and your software treats it as an illegal web address.
Janice B. Thanks. But the Bishop's link is actually to Lawson's fairly new Global Warming Policy Foundation, a site worthy of adding to favourites.
The Royal Society is far from alone in rashly nailing its colours to the AGW mast. But it must have represented a jewel in the crown for the Environmental movement. Collectively, their membership have only themselves to blame for rashly exposing their hard won scientific reputation. The BBC, political parties, university departments, quangos can all wriggle away in time, but for the RS it will inevitably be an eternal millstone of disgrace.
Well I never thought I would ever admire anything French!!!! Well done the French National Academy.
I wouldn’t get too excited about the news from France.
1) Only 8% of French people read a national newspaper, so this will hardly be a hot topic down your local bistro.
2) Claude Allegre, the country’s only well-known sceptic, is a hate figure for the chattering classes. An esteemed vulcanologist, he was named Education Minister in the last socialist government, and managed to get 2 million students and teachers out on the streets demonstrating, by his autocratic manner. His book is apparently riddled with elementary errors, and his way with critics is to accuse them of being Stalinists.
3) The one positive point is that Allegre has a rival for offensive vulgarity in Dany Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Greens, whose alliance with the socialists led to a resounding defeat for Sarkozy in recent regional elections.
I’m afraid the politics of global warming will be decided in France in terms of which politician the voters dislike the most.
Ron Manley, thanks!
I have now read most of that recent document I mentioned above, http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/points_vue_25_11_09.pdf .
It's presented in a sort of FAQ structure, with more than one answer to each question - by different authors. In the questions relating to the validity of a global average temperature, the predominance of CO2 over other causes, and the uniqueness of the present temperatures, I would say that the skeptical viewpoint is well presented alongside the IPCC viewpoint. I must add that the answers following the IPCC viewpoint are presented in a reasonable manner. There is, throughout, the warning that there is a lot of uncertainty involved,
The best skeptical answers are given by Vincent Courtillot and Jean-Louis Le Mouël. In the answer to the question of whether the observed warming is really man-made, they actually say this: "Enfin, une ré-analyse des anneaux d’accroissement des arbres (Grudd
et al, 2008) confirme que la célèbre courbe en crosse de hockey de Mann est fausse
(à cause notamment d’un biais lié à l’épaisseur de ces anneaux en fonction de l’âge
de l’arbre) et que les températures actuelles et le réchauffement climatique des 150
dernières années ne sont ni exceptionnels ni exceptionnellement rapides"
Which translates as, "Finally, a further tree-ring analysis (Grudd et all, 2008) confirms that Mann's famous hockey stick curve is wrong (mainly due to a bias related to the thickness of those rings as function of the age of the tree) and that the present temperatures and the climatic waming of the last 150 years are neither exceptional, nor exceptionally fast".
There are answers that are sound more CAGW-like; especially the two given to the question related to ocean acidification. But, overall, it is an impressive document that does give more weight to the IPCC views without trying to suppress dissenting views.
Manfred- India perhaps, aren't they throwing satellites up there like crazy on Cooperised Morris Minor thrusters? - , but maybe the elite scientific academies of the Poles, the Czechs, even the Russians, who have suffered and developed immune resistance to propaganda the hard way, and the Swiss, who have magically steered free of it completely. And talking of the Swiss, its the results of the full scale CERN Cloud Project, not the Hadron Collider, that might truly slay the AGW paradigm.
Answering Jack Hughes's question, I can give some insights on what is going in Brazil regarding AGW, a country I know well and where I have some connections. Yes Brazil isn't exactly a world power but it was one of the so-called BASIC countries that, under China's lead, derailed the Copenhagen conference.
AGW is essentially out of most Brazilians' radar screen simply because it's not something they'd think they could or should do something about. When climate change does pop up on TV or newspapers or magazines, they usually follow the IPCC line. As in the UK, the most vocal skeptical voices are from columnists who are independent enough to say whatever they want - most notably a guy called Diogo Mainardi, perhaps Brazil's most influential columnist. He sees the consensus AGW views as sheer nonsense.
People of some education and interest in such issues will assume that the IPCC line for AGW is correct. However, they would unanimously scoff at the suggestion that Brazil should take any action whatsoever to prevent a warming of a few degrees Celsius in 100 years, especially if it would mean sacrifices in economic development and/or energy prices: if anyone should do anything, it's the more developed countries, they'd say.
With very rare exceptions, Brazil's politicians - starting with the current president - are far more ignorant of scientific matters than any British MP. However, they all understand that to do anything that would restrict economic growth or lead to energy shortages or increases in energy prices is to commit political suicide.
To sum it up, I can't imagine Brazil changing its Copenhagen stance of doing nothing, unless they think that they will be hugely bribed. And whatever they promise in that area, will not be followed up.
Thanks for the replies. We had a chinese student staying with us for 5 months last year. We often discussed politics and economics and world affairs in general - but she never brought up the subject of climate change.
When I asked her about it she repeated the pro-AGW view. She spoke in a detached way as if describing Jupiter's moons - not a here-and-now problem and really nothing to do with her or China.
When we did the table-top AGW experiment she was caught in a dilemma: her science background said the opposite of her "PC" training in saying the right thing. She voted for the PC option (wrongly).
The table-top experiment is great if you want to be banned from science fairs and schools.
Re-create the arctic in a pyrex bowl. A big sheet of ice floating on water. Get the kids to add plastic polar bears, ice-cube igloos, flags, all kinds of stuff. Mark the sea-level with a marker pen on the glass.
Now get the kids to decide one by one what will happen to sea level when the icecap melts. Get the teacher to choose as well.
Come back after a few hours. I will try this week to microwave the whole experiment and see what happens. This would make it shorter and more fun.
Sadly, they also shame the science academies in the U.S., too.
geoffchambers:
Thanks for the details but I like others I think was rejoicing in a national science academy, unlike the Royal Society, that refused to slam the door, as a matter of principle, on a very public sceptic. Mind you, as I typed 'Vive la France' I was also thinking yes, this is for the people who rejected the European Constitution, so against the wishes of the elite, that still yearn from time to time for the Enlightenment principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Yep, they voted against a EU presidency, just as I'm sure we would have done, if our elite had had the courage to ask. There are still things to admire in France, the country and the people. I've added the National Academy to the list.
Some precisions about Claude Allègre and the situation in France:
Allègre is a géochemist, not a vulcanologist. He has a very respectable scientific carrier:
From Wikipedia (OK, I know)
"the Crafoord Prize for geology in 1986, along with Gerald J. Wasserburg; # the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London;# the Golden Medal of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; # French Academy of Sciences, elected member on 6 November 1995; # United States National Academy of Sciences (foreign associate) "
His main quality is that he is not afraid to go against mainstream opinions, well before this AGW or Climategate affair. On the other hand, he is involved in the carbon capture business so one has to be careful when listening to him. Anyway, he is the main contributor to the slow build-up against ecological cults and their clergé (no offense to the bishop here).
Someone much more efficient, respected and articulate against AGW is Prof. Vincent Courtillot from the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris. He successfully thwarted several attacks by warmists these past few month at the Academy, in the press and on TV.
I repeat: The guy is extremely articulate and I would not be surprised if support for AGW took a 2% fall each time he goes on TV... and he is invited a lot! He published a book on the subject too.
Also, since a few weeks, proponents of AGW are much less vocal and even go back on some of their previous statements. For exemple, Jean Jouzel (vice-president of IPCC ) said:
"we never said CO2 was at the origin of global warming" (!!!!!)
The whole quote is from http://blog.lefigaro.fr/climat/2010/03/-cest-lautre-auteur-sceptique.html#more :
"C'est d'autant plus vrai que ce sont des travaux de Nicolas Caillon auxquels j'ai été associé qui l'ont démontré. Mais on n'a jamais dit que le CO2 était à l'origine du réchauffement?"
Jean Jouzel was commentating on yet an other skeptical book by Benoît Ritaud "Le Mythe Climatique".
Most influencial blogs in french language on this subject:
- http://www.pensee-unique.fr/ a very large compilation of scientific facts on the climate.
- http://lemytheclimatique.wordpress.com/ B.Ritaud's blog
- http://skyfal.free.fr/ Most virulent blog against AGW although it was down this past 2 months.
- And of course the numerous conferences by Courtillot that you can find on youtube or Dailymotion.
Last but not least. I've seen people here praising the hated frenchmen for their firm stand against AGW in order to shame british press. Well, on this side of the channel we do the opposite. We say: "look at all those yellow journalists in french newspapers. They should be ashamed that they don't have the courage to stand against green propaganda unlike their anglo-saxon colleagues !"
Sorry, but Allègre is a farce. His book is full of errors and data manipulation, no sceptic can take him seriously.