Bishop Hill An olive branch
Mar 25, 2013 GWPF Royal Society Well this looks like good news - Paul Nurse has offered to arrange a meeting between GWPF and some (so far unidentified) climate scientists, and Nigel Lawson has accepted.
On behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lord Lawson has accepted an offer by Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the Royal Society, who has offered to arrange a meeting between the GWPF and climate scientists.
In a recent letter to Lord Lawson, the GWPF chairman, Sir Paul suggested that the Foundation needed more mainstream and expert climate science advice and offered that the Royal Society “would be happy to put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.”
In his response, Lord Lawson writes that he is “happy to accept your offer to arrange a meeting and look forward to hearing from you about this.”
“I hope this marks the start of a more productive dialogue with the Royal Society,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the Director of the GWPF.Letter By Sir Paul Nurse to Lord Lawson
Letter By Lord Lawson to Sir Paul Nurse
see also: Lord Lawson’s initial letter to Sir Paul Nurse
The offer and acceptance of talks is welcome. I hope this marks the end of the public war of words and the beginning of something a bit more interesting. I'm slightly concerned, however, that Nurse is going to remain on the outside of that dialogue. I really think he should attend any talks in person - I think his understanding of what sceptics are arguing is a bit of a caricature.
Nevertheless, there is much cause for optimism here.
Reader Comments (181)
Who can Paul Nurse have in mind to coach the GWPF? Can anyone think of any who are at all persuasive or convincing enough to sway the carefully-reasoned positions of such as Lord Lawson?
Nurse himself is out of his depth on the subject - he displayed that to the world on his recent tv documentary. So who could he pick? I can't for the life of me think of any amongst the alarmed ones who could impress anyone above, say, the level of knowledge of a typical mass media Science or Environment correspondent, let alone anyone who has taken a serious interest in science and the environment.
So, here's another tack. A speculation. The Met Office, if RB's posts here are a guide, is stepping back from its role as a cheerleader and world leader on climate alarmism - they can look back on the heady days of Houghton and Napier as if through the wrong end of a telescope, and seek a steadier role to play. This may be part and parcel of others in the 'establishment' realising just how far out on a shaky limb they have gone, and how far they will have to fall if Mamma Nature continues to do so much to diss their instructions and revelations. The distinctly unimpressive people exposed by the Climategates will be of no comfort to them if and when the crunch comes.
They must know that the man-made CO2 reduction calls of such as James Hansen are all but un-hinged and divorced from reality as the people of India, China, and no doubt a good few others, pursue better lives by means of increased fossil-fuel consumption, just as we have done for a couple of hundred years. They must know the simple-minded temperature rise predictions tied to rising CO2 levels are just that: simple-minded. Furthermore they can see at least the possibility of a widespread rejection of their would-be patrician pronouncements on the way the climate is going and/or what we should do about it.
A possibly very angry rejection given the eye-watering wastes of such as bio-fuels and windfarms, and the years of doom-mongering materials presented to the public, the 'scary', 'simplified'. and 'dramatic' scenarios inspired by grossly irresponsible people like the late Stephen Schneider. Children in particular have been treated with a callous contempt that beggars belief.
So, 'they', whoever they may be, are seeing the need at least in the near future (who can see much beyond it?) for a more nuanced approach, one less contingent on melodrama and loopy people getting platforms to sound their trumpets of alarm.
A bit more contact with the GWPF could help them quite a bit.
Maybe this is the best we can reasonably hope for in 2013..
Given Nurse's strange obsession with Lawson, could there be a back story? Lawson could be Nurse's father:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7607690/Sir-Paul-Nurse-Geneticist-inherits-a-mystery.html
I suppose this might serve as an introduction to the scientific method for Nurse. There is a theory and it can be falsified.
John, you attribute to them a level of deviousness and forward planning for which there is no evidence in any recent performance. More likely Nurse is playing at a very basic level. It may even be that he believes a little re-education will sort the GWPF out. However, even if the science were right the policy is still wrong and indefensible.
Agree on the condescending, and small-mindedness of the Nurse-letter. And nowhere do I see any offer to arrange any meeting with scientists. And I am very certain Paul Nurse would want to avoid such at any costs. At most I can see this letter as an excuse for him next time to say that:
'The GWPF even refuses to take advice from the most learned in the field. Nobody should thus take them seriously'
It will only convince those already on board, but maybe prevent or at least delaying some of them jumping shipfrom the CAGW soon to be trainwreck ...
Rhoda
I find it hard to tell if Nurse is really that dim, but you’d think by now that some little corner of his mind might have registered curiosity, if not alarm, that some of the warmist rhetoric could be just that. Doesn’t his ‘scientific’ mind seek a little empiricism, if only for reassurance?
Nurse is trying to play politics with the most experienced politician alive today. I am afraid it can only end in tears for Sir Paul. He may want to call his Nanny and get his comfort teddy out now.
Seems to me that Sir Paul has that exactly backwards.
But it's a start--of what remains to be seen.
How exactly is the President of the Royal Society appointed?
Lawson to Nurse
You have been calling me names behind my back. You'd better apologise or I will bash you.
Nurse to Lawson
I have some big mates and they will easily bash you.
Lawson to Nurse
Bring it on - name the time and place.
@confused,
See the Statutes
which makes reference to the Charter.
Having read both letters I see no obvious basis for an open two-way meeting here.
Nurse has chosen to put his "scientists" forward to 'straighten out GWPF's misunderstanding of the subject' via. some kind of instructive sermon.
Lawson's clever acceptance of a 'meeting' will now put the onus upon Nursey to actually provide one, or look a total wimp. The RS team must be thanking Nursey a LOT for that one as a debate is the last thing they want.
One look at the GWPF Advisory Council members will ensure that no one is going to be preached to in that lineup.
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/
Even though I was aware of Sir Paul Nurse's Dave-Spart-like past behaviour, I was surprised that he could be quite so off-hand and indeed foolhardy in his reply to Lord Lawson. The latter must be congratulated for keeping his cool (and his powder dry) for the future skirmish, which promises to be interesting. Perhaps Nurse has neglected, at his peril, Lawson's upbringing in the hurly-burly of the Commons, and the much more incisive nature of debate in the Lords. Pass the popcorn.
Nurse's letter is, of course, outrageously rude and arrogant. Nigel Lawson could have been very much sharper in his reply, but is doubtless playing a much longer game.
Which Climate Scientists™ are fellows of the RS?
This will turn out to be another trap to spin what was said/offered etc.
Paul Nurse is trying to negate the GWPF. This will turn out badly
as the public voice (concern) will be stifled and the debate will
continue for years ro come with no shift in the RS position. It is just
tactics.
Guys,
Nurse has already lost.
What he's saying here is: "Well, if you don't like my word, why don't you listen to here these ..."
LOL.
Beddington and Nurse on the same day, both putting forward the same line, one accepted unquestionably by Ed Milliband, among a great many other 'useful idiots', that the science is 'unequivocal' and, by extension, that only the deluded and/or bent (because owned by big-oil interests) could dispute it.
In part, it is hilarious and astounding that such self-regarding members of the New Establishment should have set themselves up as Dave Spart Mk.II, parroting the agreed line whatever the overwhelming evidence that they are talking what, in politic society, we call tosh. In part, it is terrifying that this gormless New Establishment should have captured the high ground quite so decisively.
Of course, this doesn't mean that their collapse, inevitable now I'd say, won't be complete and absolute. But in the meantime, these smug, superior half-wits are doing incalculable damage to Britain. What is properly breath-taking is that in their ignorance they are still able to congratulate themselves on their far-sightedness and wisdom.
They would not have been out of place as members of an early Egyptian priesthood demanding more slaves be sacrificed to ensure next year's flooding of the Nile. They are certainly about as 'scientific'.
Nevertheless, there is much cause for optimism here.
Not sure where you found 'cause for optimism' your Grace. Nurse doesn't appear to be offering much of anything beyond a tongue in cheek offer to help Lawson back to the path of 'right thinking'.
"It does not help that you will not reveal who funds The GWPF [...]"
Well I'm not sure upon whose advice Nurse included this rather infantile remark. I believe it demonstrates just how unprepared the RS is for its move into 'Politics'.
Even if the GWPF were funded by 'big energy' (very unlikely given the actual 'voting record' of big energy), isn't that the way a 'democracy' operates? Would we be shocked to discover that an organisation lobbying for bigger wind farm subsidies was funded by wind farm subsidy miners? What's next on the list of 'revelations' for the RS? Unions attempting to influence the labour Party?
Naivete on the part of Nurse that does not bode well for the RS should the political landscape change for some reason.
The issue over whether successive decades are likely to be warmer or cooler than the preceding decade is an interesting one. There is an ongoing Climate Bet where opponents have already staked sums of various amounts on whether the decade 2011-2020 is going to be warmer or cooler than the preceding decade 2001-2010 (with any winnings going to charity).
Now the average HADCRUT4 temperature anomaly for 2001-2010 was 0.4767
and so far we have had data as follows
2011 0.399
2012 0.433
so no year so far has exceeded the average of the preceding decade.
Now unfortunately it is too late for Sir Paul to join this bet, but with the Met office not being too confident that the remainder of this decade is going to be very much warmer than it is at present, I am sure that should Sir Paul wish to lay a small stake on the warm side (all in aid of charity of course) he would find many takers.
Perhaps if you have Sir Paul's ear, you could draw his attention to this worthy cause.
The clue to the next step is in the last paragraph of nurse's letter.
He will ponder for a while then eventually say that he can not have discussions with gwpf because the lack of transparency about funding.
This is exactly what gleick did when invited to talk with heartland. (the similarities also extend to their positions - gleick was president of a charity asking another charity to reveal confidential information that he knew it could not reveal, nurse is a former president of a charity asking another charity to reveal confidential information that he surely knows gwpf can not reveal).
Hopefully nurse will not then follow the next step in the gleikian path, and i don't believe that he would, but nevertheless, if I was Nigel lawson, I would advise my secretary to be.careful about adding new email addresses to mailing lists!
Copner. I think you may well be right and that may well be the way things develop. it is important to remember that Lord Lawson never claimed to be a climate scientist and has always argued that the predictions may well be correct. BUT as a former energy secretary and chancellor of the exchequer he has a pretty good grasp of economic policy and what is sensible and what isn't. That's why Paul Nurse is out of his depth.
People like nurse can become so entangled in the devoutness that they do not see the devil approaching. It is possible that he may fall into his own trap but I doubt it. He has neither the guts nor the savvy to go against Lawson et al.
The important thing, if such a meeting takes place, is (as rhoda has commented) that the GWPF have scientific experts of their own at the meeting. Lord Lawson is not best placed to discuss the details of the science with scientists.
As for the tone of Nurse's letter, it simply confirms my extremely low opinion of him.
Nurse reveals that he has barely immersed a toe in climate science. He trots out the old saw that the most recent decade was warmer than the preceding decade and so on. Of course, exactly the same is forecast by those who believe that twentieth century warming is best attributed to natural variation. Lawson's response is excellent.
What strikes me as important is that Lawson is in the process of arranging a discussion and, dare I say it, a debate with some climate scientists and he has obtained the blessing of Nurse. As I recall, climate scientists have adamantly refused to debate their science with skeptics. Any such debate can only bring the Alarmists to grief over the matter of natural variability. It seems to me that Lawson is on the verge of a huge success.
Martin A
'Which Climate Scientists™ are fellows of the RS?'
Don't know. But its quite amusing that fifteen members of the GWPF are Professors and three advisors are actually Fellows of Nurse's own cherished Royal Society.
I'm relieved to find that everyone seems to read this as cynically as I do.
They will proclaim that skeptics won't listen to reason, and a series of Guardian articles will follow.
I think it is also worth noting that Nurse has ducked dealing with the accusation that he had lied.
What a straight up guy he is, eh?
So will Sir Paul also accuse Lord Lawson of being a Quack Charlatan peddling fake cures to needy desperatly sick people like he did with Dellingpole.
Sir Paul Nurse get a Knighthood for Cancer Research.Good for him.
Then on some propagandist BBC Horizon Documentary hes wondering why the public has lost faith in Scientists .Is it that really surprising when he representing the Scientific community then happily goes on to use the suffering of Cancer Patients and other sick people to score cheap political points.For what exactly ordinary peoples using their democratic right to question the Current Orthodoxy
Sir Paul Nurse what a nasty .....t.
I lost both my parents to Cancer and i wouldn't want to be in the same room as him.Unless i was asking him if he was going to apologize to James Dellingpole.
"the Royal Society “would be happy to put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.” Would that include participants from this event?
http://royalsociety.org/events/2010/age-stupid/
“Tate (gallery) and the Royal Society collaborate by bringing together scientists and artists to imagine the social and psychological impacts of climate change. On 19 and 20 March, Tate and the Royal Society collaborate to bring you a screening of the film The Age of Stupid following, (sic) by a discussion and a public symposium about the social and psychological impacts of climate change.
Imagination is a wonderful thing.
The director of the Age of Stupid, Franny Armstrong, was the director of the 10:10 climate campaign “snuff” movie, “No Pressure”, which “blew up” dissenters. So much for the science of the 300 year old Royal Society and its friends.
At least we have final acknowledgement that Nurse has read the Bishop's demolition job on the Royal Society's foolish liaison with environmentalist dogma (would have loved to watch him reading it). Instead of repairing damage to their hard earned reputation, he does the Eddie the Eagle jump, finding himself facing up to Deadeye Lawson at high noon desperately seeking reluctant hired guns armed with pop-corks.
OT but worth a look
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/25/uk_energy_crisis_illustrated/
I fully agree with those who suggest that Nurse's letter could well have been ghost-written by someone of a BobWardian bent!
To my eyes it appeared to be bloated with self-important arrogance, highly insulting and patronizing. And his dismissive depiction of Bish's well-documented NIV as an "attack" - if Nurse has in fact read the essay - was almost beyond belief.
That being said, however, to my (bridge-playing) mind Lawson has called him out (in spades!), scored a trump-coup - and an elegant finesse. And more power to him!
In my earlier comment about the Royal Society and The Age of Stupid, I didn't mention the members of the Symposium at that RS/ Tate Gallery event. Speakers for the symposium included: Professor Brian Hoskins, Lucy Orta, Robert Bloomfield, Tomas Saraceno, Professor Steve Rayner, Agnes Denes and Professor Corinne Le Quere.
Professor Brian Hoskins of Oxburgh fame, IPCC lead author and a member of the Royal Commission that first proposed a 60% target for reduction of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, could well be on the list to educate Lord Lawson. He also acted as a scientific advisor to the Stern Review and is Director of the Imperial Grantham Institute. Stern is Chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, where attack dog Bob Ward is employed.
Lucy Orta
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/artist-lucy-orta
With her nylon coffins and refugee fashion, this British-born artist fuses ecology and art into sculptures for a world on the verge of apocalypse
Dr Robert Bloomfield
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/11/biodiversity-year-of-international-biodiversity
Dr Robert Bloomfield is the coordinator for the UK International year of biodiversity, which features talks, exhibitions, public dialogues, art work and citizen science experiments encompassing both science and the arts.
Tomás Saraceno
http://www.situations.org.uk/commission/tomas-saraceno/
Tomás Saraceno’s installations look to the sky to see the possibilities of rethinking how we live in relation to one another and how we might re-organise the built environment and the cities we live in. One of his ongoing projects Air-Port-City envisions networks of habitable platforms that float in the air creating an aerial city, which is in constant physical transformation.
Professor Steve Rayner
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/people/13
James Martin Professor of Science and Civilization
Research interests include: the relationship between nature and society as mediated by science and technology; management of environmental and technological risk; climate change and sustainable development; governance of emerging technologies. Prof Rayner is also Co-Director of the Programme on the Future of Cities and Co-Director of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme.
James Martin School
Sir Crispin (Tickell) has played a pivotal role at the James Martin School as the Director of the Policy Foresight Programme which hosts seminars on issues of science, technology, and the environment to convene wide ranging expertise and identify ways to influence policy.
Agnes Denes
http://greenmuseum.org/content/artist_index/artist_id-63__nosplit-z.html
In a prolific career spanning the history of the environmental art movement, Agnes Denes has consistently pushed the boundaries of ecologically inspired art.
Professor Corinne Le Quere, now Director of The Tyndall Centre, replacing Kevin Anderson.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/corinne-le-quere
Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Lord Lawson has much to learn......
I can see tomorrows headline now: 'Nurse hoping to treat ex chancellor Lawson with some approved climate remedies.'
Nurse is thanked, but Lawson confirms a preference for science over homeopathy.
There is another possible interpretation of the Nurse letter, namely that he is seeking an accommodation to get the RS off the hook on which it, and the politicians it advises, off the hook on which they are pesently impaled. There are two hints of this. First he refers to the "possibility" of further global warming this century not, note, the certainty. He also appears to want to disassociate himself from the extreme views of the "catastrophists". He also concedes the role of the economic case as an important ingredient in the policy solution, and acknowledges Lord Lawson`s role and experience in this respect.
Lord Lawson believes in adaptation as we acquire experience and in the avoidance of stupid measures that make no sense. No doubt his aim is to neuter or achieve the repeal of the Climate Change Act. So why not talk? Lord Lawson knows how to look after himself, knows his way around Whitehall as does Turnbull. So why not meet up and explore what the other side has to say? I would not go so far as to be optimistic, like our host BH, but it is definitely worth watching. In my view, Lord Lawson`s objective here is primarily political and economic, not scientific.
A former New Zealand Prime Minister once warned about the perils of inviting myxomatosis into one's burrow.
The GWPF needs to be very, very careful and watch their backs.
Great comment oldtimer. Not having had time to more than glance at this I imagine you've pulled the really interesting stuff out. Of course they should talk. It depends if Nurse wants to.
The stench of the age-old pseudo-aristocratic arrogance of the elites permeates the entire letter penned by Sir Paul, in which I can discern not even a faint whiff of an offer of a meeting. Nurse makes it crystal clear that he and 'his side' own the truth of the science with respect to climate and the upstart Lawson needs to be taught by his betters who are wholly aligned with Nurse.
Nobody fights harder or dirtier than the newly-minted aristo to retain recently-achieved status, hence the totally irrelevant and unprincipled attacks about the GWPF's sources of funding. Reading Nurse's family background is illuminating indeed.
This is all about ego and status for Nurse and has little to do with actual science.
I know I'm not the sharpest but I'm trying to understand the position on climate change by the majority of Bishop Hill readers. I've asked before and I got the answer from one reader that climate change policies being adopted by governments are driven by left wing/Marxist ideology and massive business interests to make lots of money out of climate change. Is that the case for other readers as well. Thanks
Ed - like climate change, scepticism is complicated and not a yes/no answer. Consider starting a discussion if you want serious answers.
Nurse’s letter is typical. He can’t get his head round the idea that climate catastrophe isn’t obvious to everyone. He and those like him come up with such naff snippets of proof you can’t help wonder if they’ve never read a single serious dissenting word. Why can’t they recognise that their arguments are weak?
Why would funding for GWPF be an issue up amongst grown ups? What kind of a person believes that Lord Lawson would accept money to lie about catastrophic climate change? We’re not talking about the opportunity to make a quick profit here, we’re talking about major influences on the future. Where does Nurse think the Kochs and Lawsons of this World plan to take their wealth if the planet is truly going to burn? Or does he think that successful people are chronically stupid?
Ed - Personally I'm looking for some actual evidence that we are affecting climate via CO2 emissions. I haven't found any yet.
In the meantime we are creating and executing expensive policy which, as far as I can tell, has no benefit whatsoever to the public at large. Quite the opposite in fact in terms of ineffective and inefficient spending of public funds which could be much better used for quality in schools, hospitals (yes, my local is under threat again) or even tax cuts.
On top of which we are seeing the really unpleasant reality of propaganda replacing reasoned opinion which in my opinion is just as corrosive for public wellbeing as the financial mismanagement.
I don't know what your area of expertise is but if you can present any evidence to the contrary please do - I think many here would be grateful.
**************
As far as GWPF debating Nurse goes - I've not read the email exchange but I would agree with those say treat with utmost caution. My view is that the shysters at the top of the pile would knife anybody whilst smiling.
Lord Lawson has done a good thing by questioning the policies that UK Gov. are currently pursuing, but from having seen him in action at the HoCSTC, I don't think he is that confident on the science and the associated numbers. I think that the GWPF should look for an A team to debate the science and FWIW I would say that BH readers such as Paul Matthews, Paul Dennis, Jonathan Jones, Nic Lewis, Don Keiller would make a formidable line up.
**********
I've not followed this thread so apologies if I am repeating other comments - it was Ed's enquiry that caught my eye. And as far as solid evidence re: CO2 induced warming (that is what it is supposed to do right?) if anybody has some, especially with any verifiable consequences, please feel free to pass it on.
Ed,
I see elements of the things you mention, pursuing a left wing (big state) agenda under false colours and huge scams, as well as all sorts of other things such as a scare and romantic primitivism. It makes for strange bedfellows.
People with right wing views tend to mistrust government and distrust climate change politics because it invites a big state solution. People with left wing views tend to see things the other way instinctively. You'll find plenty of exceptions to that general rule.
But as TinyCO2 says, the motivations of sceptics and CAGW advocates is a complicated question, likely to lead to a lengthy discussion and somewhat O/T here. His suggestion of starting a discussion thread on it, if you are interested, is a good one.
Showdown at OK Corral !
http://youtu.be/_EOctfH_NA0
Andrew Montford has been displaying more and more signs of Stockholm Syndrome over the last few months.He believes he can negotiate with pathological liars who haven't moved their position one millimetre in all these years. They never will because every business and every government supports them.
"Ed - Personally I'm looking for some actual evidence that we are affecting climate via CO2 emissions. I haven't found any yet."
Mar 25, 2013 at 11:22 PM | not banned yet
Just a quickie.
There is a correalation between temperature changes since 1900 and CO2 concentration. Look at Slide 1 of Don Keiller's set.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/PlantsandClimateChange.pdf
There is a mechanism linking them. Examine the outward longwave spectrum. There is a considerable drop in the black body radiation at 13 micrometres. This is the same wavelength as the main absorption spike observed in laboratory measurements of the absorption spectrum of CO2. Examine the top graph here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
The area of the absorption spike represents black body radiation retained in the climate system. It wold have been radiated to space if the CO2 were not present.
EM - I think you should try and get a little bit deeper into the science before you jump to conclusions based on your last post.
not banned yet
Please falsify my statements, with evidence.
"Andrew Montford has been displaying more and more signs of Stockholm Syndrome over the last few months.He believes he can negotiate with pathological liars who haven't moved their position one millimetre in all these years. They never will because every business and every government supports them"
ES - The Bishop runs a very wide church that attracts an ever increasing and diverse congregation. Naivety is not one of his traits!
Thanks for the responses.