Today on the Royal Society

BBC radio's flagship Today programme also covered the rumblings of discontent coming from within the Royal Society. The audio is here, starting just after 54 minutes.

Comments

[martyn]

Harrabin says, “The RS won’t actually confirm the review officially.”

So currently this is presumably an unofficial review that will eventually be shot down by a Committee of, as Will Carling once put it, old farts.

[Mac]

Harrabin sounded very concerned that the AGW consensus was to be denied.

Perhaps, finally, the society is to live up to its motto: " Nullius in Verba - on the word of no one"

[Messenger]

If global warming is apparently such an important subject to the future of the world, how surprising that this significant item by Roger Harrabin is tucked away early in the morning, and, although online, is not included in the printed edition of the Times.

[Bishop Hill]

I think 7am is probably pretty close to peak listening time isn't it? And you don't mean the Times do you?

[Pete Hayes]

So the AGW mouthpiece of the BBC finally admits there is "Huge uncertainty in the modelling".

Methinks people are running for the trenches! Why on earth have the 43 waited so long to challenge the R.S? It would appear they are still to gutless to come out in public about it!

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

Bishop

I think 7am is probably pretty close to peak listening time isn't it? And you don't mean the Times do you?

It is for me, but then I have cats who demand to be fed at sunrise. :)

But your point is well taken. Most people haven't had their morning tea or coffee.

[MacTheKnife]

I think this is an interesting development. We have heard stories of scientists who disagree with the AGW "concensus" who are scared to speak out publically and there are those who post "incognito" in the blogesphere. Perhaps the chain of events starting with UEA climategate has perhaps opened the door for these scientists to be prepared to come forth without fear of reprisal.

The "northern lad" in me would advise them to grow some testicles and say what they need to say.....and quickly before this ecomomy recking madness continues.

[DR]

The Royal Society have put this up today:

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change

Of course, they'd planned it all along...

The new guide has been planned for some time but was given added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of Fellows of the Society that older documents designed to challenge some of the common misrepresentations of the science were too narrow in their focus.

[artwest]

There's going to be a piece on this subject on PM on BBC Radio Four in a few minutes.

[artwest]

Last message timed at 17.30

[Stirling English]

Radio 4 PM

A guy called Bob Ward spoke and eventually grudgingly admitted that the range predicted by the models was between +1C and +10C. He was very grumpy about not being able just to say that it was between +3C and +6C.

I thought he was a typical shifty and patronising cove from the warmist camp. Did not like at all being put under a wee bit of pressure from Harrabin.

Harrabin had previously payed an old tape from May repeating that 'there is no room for doubt' about climate change...and referred to his 'colourful language' when discussing anyone who had expressed such doubts.

Overall, the listener was left with the impression that the RS hadn't known its arse from its elbow and was trying to play catch up.

[Jonathan]

Nigel Calder points out a fascinating notice that he says was printed in all issues of Philosophical Transactions until the 1960s; I have found a copy from 1837:

It is likewise necessary on this occasion to remark, that 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. And therefore the thanks, which are frequently proposed from the Chair, to be given to the authors of such papers as are read at their accustomed meetings, or to the persons through whose hands they received them, are to be considered in no other light than as a matter of civility, in return for the respect shown to the Society by those communications. The like also is to be said with regard to the several projects, inventions, and curiosities of various kinds, which are often exhibited to the Society; the authors whereof, or those who exhibit them, frequently take the liberty to report and even to certify in the public newspapers, that they have met with the highest applause and approbation. And therefore it is hoped that no regard will hereafter be paid to such reports and public notices; which in some instances have been too lightly credited, to the dishonour of the Society.

[artwest]

Throughout the PM piece it was implied that the only controversy was over the amount of warming that CO2 causes. It was unquestioningly assumed that there would be overall warming over the century.
No one sceptical about warming was interviewed.

[dave ward]

It seems that the "Catch Em Young" brigade are still active in our schools. Have you heard of Schools Low Carbon Day?

http://www.cooltheworld.com/

[Jack Hughes]

Climate change is one of those subjects where you have to be brave to take any kind of stand against it in any setting - at work, socially, at your child's school.

So much easier to fake concern like everyone else.

It's probably very hard to "speal truth to power" in a university - they seem to be very vulnerable to rent-a-mob activists.

[Cumbrian Lad]

I'm pretty sure in the PM interview Roger Harrabin mentioned the issue of feedbacks, and that this was an area of most uncertainly. Despite a lot of 'Bob' and 'Roger'ing going on, it was clear that Bob Ward was wriggling uncomfortably.

[James P]

It sounds almost as if Harrabin is growing some cojones, although I did hear him reporting from the Heartland conference, where he referred to the CRU 'hacking'. I wish he'd make his mind up, but I suspect he tailors his warmism to suit the intended audience.