Bishop Hill Foundation for SciTech on global warming
Jun 10, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Greens Royal Society The Foundation for Science and Technology is a charity that allegedly promotes science and technology and aims to bring about "the greater efficiency of the industry of the United Kingdom".
A brief glance at some of its council members might suggest a different view, however.
- Lord Rees
- Lord May
- Lord Oxburgh
- Lord Browne (head of BP)
Hmm....
The other day, they had dinner and a discussion meeting. The presentations were by three more-or-less familiar names:
- Lord Oxburgh
- Sir John Beddington
- Lord Jay (head of GLOBE)
The presentations can be seen here. THere is also a summary of the evening's events written by another familiar name, that of Sir Crispin Tickell. This is a good place to start. Here's some excerpts.
[LORD JAY said] There was a need, brought out by the recent (albeit largely irrelevant) fuss at the University of East Anglia, for a clear framework in which science could operate in the future. Scepticism was part of science but did not mean denial.
THE LORD OXBURGH began by quoting the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in Verba - Scepticism deserved respect. Those who questioned the current broad political consensus on climate change often complained of oversimplification, manipulation of data, doubtful evidence, and misinterpretation of climate history. Two particular complaints were an alleged failure to take proper account of unquantified negative feedbacks (particularly over the role of clouds), and of inaccurate modelling (for example over the so-called hockey stick graph which showed a steep rise in recent average global temperature).
TICKELL's summary is the remarkable one though. It says:
Some people, including politicians, remained sceptical about the need for action on climate change. Trust in the science must be restored. This had been damaged by occasional shortcomings in the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and events at the University of East Anglia (here Lord Oxburgh’s enquiry had fully established the integrity of all concerned). Science could not give absolute certainties but could describe degrees of risk. These were now clearer than ever, and had been appreciated, particularly within the business community.
Reader Comments (12)
"Science could not give absolute certainties but could describe degrees of risk. These were now clearer than ever"
They should be easy to quantify then! Or does he mean risk to the AGW propaganda/gravy train..?
'...TICKELL's summary is the remarkable one though'.
Yes, it is at the very least 'remarkable'.
Another fake charity, too! I imagine our new PM could generate a fair bit of income by removing the charitable status (and tax benefits) from all these outfits.
Do they have to roll up a trouser leg and bare a breast?
These were now clearer than ever, and had been appreciated, particularly within the business community.
When has 'the business community' ever thought about anything other than return on investment? Business risk management cannot be compared scientific risk management. That is not a scientist speaking,
Well spotted Bishop. I was assuming the Foundation was of recent devising but no, the 'blog' goes back to 1999. Then there's the board, and I quote
What I want to know is what's wrong with Edmund Wallis of NERC that he's not even a CBE. Come on, chum, you're letting the side down.
Anyhow, compared to the openness brought by the Internet, I don't think they stand a chance. That's if they really want to be seen to resist that openness. Whereas Crispin Tickell's assertion that
is hilarious, you quote Oxburgh himself saying something much more meaty:
These are the two top issues to bring to people's attention. I bet they wouldn't have got a mention at a similar gathering six months ago. That's Climategate on the back of the hockey stick saga. Gradually, ever so slowly, the consensus well, isn't.
Listening to Lord Oxburgh I was struck by the fact how little he knew about actual climate science and the controversies surrounding the matter. I was struck too that lurking behind his limited knowledge of the science was a belief that it would utterly wrong not to do something about curbing CO2 emissions even if AGW hypothesis was eventually proved to be false. Indeed he expressed the worry that the UEA episode would undermine public support for tackling climate change.
With regard Lord Oxburgh's own investigation he admitted in this talk his brief was not investigate the veracity of the UEA-CRU science, but was about investigating the integrity of the UEA-CRU scientists. For all Lord Oxburgh knew, as he again admitted, the science could easily be flawed, but in those few hours he questioned the scientists he was able to determine that Jones, Briffa, etc, were men of integrity.
Now determining integrity can be seen as a subjective exercise.
People can speak falsely if they believe they are acting honestly. Conversely, deliberate falsehoods are difficult to detect, and easily swallowed, if they are tailored for a receptive audience. Finally, people are not completely truthful on all matters. We even lie to ourselves.
We do not know the questions that Lord Oxburgh asked. We do not what answers were given in reply by UEA-CRU scientists.
All we know is that Lord Oxburgh feared that the UEA episode would undermine public support to curb CO2 emissions. His investigation cleared Jones, Briffa, etc, of acting dishonestly in a matter of days. They were men of integrity.
The science maybe wrong, but all you can accuse UEA-CRU scientists of being were Honest Tricksters.
My point also. That why I found Tickell's assertion that the Oxburgh enquiry had "fully established the integrity of all concerned" hilarious. How can that have been fully established - and by such a brief encounter? (Yes, we may need someone of the caliber of Noel Coward to send this up in the end.) And "all concerned"? Who would that include? Lead authors for the IPCC? Their boss Rajendra Pachauri? Pachauri's boss Maurice Strong? Strong's mates on the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange?
The integrity of all these hasn't been fully established by Oxburgh and it really doesn't matter. What matters is whether the science stands up. Oxburgh was at least pointing to the two key areas on that.
The strange thing about this is that I attended a lecture by Sir Crispin Tickell way back in the 1980's and he was already at that time using the line about mankind "conducting a gigantic experiment the results of which we could not foresee" I then heard him speak at the Royal Institution 25 years later and he was still using it.
Crispin has built a career on this simple insight which in the 1980's for all we knew then could have been prescient. It is really strange to find this man with his views preserved in aspic still being influential in such company.
It leaves one wondering how many of the others in this organisation are also old fossils who haven't read a scientific paper in decades.
It is also curious to find that with these bedfellows, Lord Oxburgh comes across as perhaps the least hidebound - and unlike Rees with some glimmering awareness of just how far the Royal Society has strayed from its founder's aims .
Well thank god, the science is settled and the crew can all go back to their carbon credits trading 'futures'.
Aint life cosy in the bubble (and **** the real world), how reassuring Lord Jay is there! Wow, it is not possible to quantify the value of this fellow to the AGW claque, his world expertise on the subject and atmospherical science is world renowned....... or its the way he tells 'em.
"Lord Oxburgh’s enquiry had fully established the integrity of all concerned"
Phewww!
That's alright, then!
BETTER than we thought.........
I've given up counting the heads of the political alarmist hydra. It's also just been announced that Tim Yeo has been elected the new chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7147504.ece
MEP David Campbell Bannerman is recently reported to have commented:
http://www.indhome.com/2009/12/what-planet-is-tim-yeo-on/
I think Martin Brumby has got to the nub of it with his "BETTER than we thought"
I think perhaps Climategate worried them a bit more than it appears but now rather to their surprise they think OxBurgh et al have been effective and they have managed to hold the line.
Ultimately they are probably mistaken, but in the short run I would have expected that at the very least Climategate would have led to a proper look at the drastic inadequacies of the CRU, GISS and other climate data bases.
Fixing these should surely be the first objective for everyone. How can we possibly estimate future warming when no one knows definitively what the current and recent past temperatures really are?