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)
RoyFOMR. Mr Montford has increasingly been seen fraternising with some of the most distinguished minds this country has to offer.
'Today we would like to welcome an honoured guest to our discussion on climate sensitivity.
Mr Montford, please choose a number between 4 and 12. Commit it to memory because later we are going to use it to transfer trillions of dollars from ordinary people to the oil, banking and insurance industries. Sorry Mr Montford, 1.3 is an invalid response to the question.
:-)
Ed, here's what you need to know:
(1) The science - learn what is meant by positive feedbacks, and understand why they are implausible.
(2) The 'scientists' - disregard all the disinformation that you don't need to read the Hockey Stick Illusion, you do.
My reading of the Nurse letter is that it is an invitation for GWPF to listen.
SJF:
Ed, here's what you need to know:
(1) The science - learn what is meant by positive feedbacks, and understand why they are implausible.
(2) The 'scientists' - disregard all the disinformation that you don't need to read the Hockey Stick Illusion, you do.
I would love to do all my own research about 100s of things in life but at some point I have to rely on others to do it for me and then trust it but it seems there is a lot of distrust around. Essentially, it seems that the 'science is wrong' according to the majority of the readers of Bishop Hill, which is fine and helps my understanding. Thanks
Ed is a troll.
I am greatly enjoying these events, from the other side of the world. Nurse may well be the bees' knees at herding members of the RS, but compared to Lawson, he is an amateur. It is like the winner of your local tennis club competition taking on Roger Federer.
Lawson's response to this poorly thought out missive was a masterpiece. He has put them in the position of either refusing to have a discussion or agreeing to be slaughtered.
Nurse has got a tiger by the tail.
What is a troll? I'm serious, I don't know...bloggershere is new to me. Just trying to understand different positions but maybe I'm in the wrong place Johanna. btw I'm on the other side of the world too...PNG as it happens
Ed, this site's archives are a treasure trove which provide answers to all your questions, and more. But, you pop up in the middle of a thread and start asking irrelevant, wide-eyed, kindergarten questions. It's called derailing.
If you are not a troll, then you have no concept of blog etiquette. You don't insert yourself into a discussion with questions like "why is the sky blue, mummy?" when there is plenty of information around to answer the question. We are not here to do your basic research for you.
P.S. I still think that you are a troll.
Are you sure this won't be so they can say: "We met with the skeptics and they are wrong!"? They might just want to claim they've had the debate and the debate is settled, you know, along with the science.
Sorry to sound negative, but after years of them lying and cheating and messing with the data, I really can't see a reason to trust them in anything. So if it goes ahead, have the cameras rolling.
Ouch..get her a saucer of milk! Happy navel gazing!
Ed, you were doing fine until you said, "I would love to do all my own research about 100s of things in life but at some point I have to rely on others to do it for me and then trust it."
Someone interested in a topic doesn't do that. If you're interested enough to come in here and read the comments, you would be interested enough - indeed insist on - doing your own research and finding out for sure what the truth is. That is especially true when there is such a clear clash between those insisting we are all doomed and those wanting to see simple evidence and reasoning for such a claim.
It doesn't matter if it CAGW or painting egg shells. People delve into what calls them.
Why are you asking other people to do your thinking for you? Why are you asking commenters what you should believe in?
If you have limited time to read, but want to know, then don't waste your time with comments, go read the scientific papers and other articles that express very clearly why skepicism is growing and why there is HUGE dissatisfaction with climate scientists in government pay.
If you are legit, that's the way to go. It's worth it. The amount of evidence that funded climate scientists are... let's be generous... mistaken and misleading in their research is astounding. The fact that they hide their data highlights that they know it.
It's all there for you to see. It doesn't help you any if you hit out at the regulars for being suspicious of something that, frankly, doesn't sit right. Okay?
My last point...are you telling me that you don't rely on anyone else expertise in your life? Of course we all do for many different things from our health to fixing cars!
"Royal Society “would be happy to put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.”
Where's he going to find them? We have our own resident climate scientists on this blog, and it's pretty clear that they are stove piped into their own disciplines. So he'd need one to prove that CO2 is dangerous, one to prove that temperatures are going to rise dramatically, one to prove that these temperature rises are going to lead to disasters, and one to prove you can foretell the future with models. He clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and believes that people who don't believe in the "cause" are similarly endowed with ignorance. A common problem with those suffering with ignorances twin, arrogance.
Ed, you want others to do your thinking for you and you believe that CO2 emissions will cause disasters because they're telling you that? Well here's what they actually said.
” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC TAR, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.
Its a trap!
Entropic Man,
Roy Spencer might falsify some of your statements for you:
"The trend in the imbalance in the Earth’s radiation budget as measured by the CERES instrument of NASA’s Terra satellite that has been building since about 2000 is primarily in the reflected solar (shortwave, or SW, or RSW) component, not the emitted infrared (longwave, or LW) component."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/earths-missing-energy-trenberths-plot-proves-my-point/
Can I suugest Lord Lawson invite the President of the RS to consult Fellows of the Society on the topic, something that has never been done.
johanna,
We'll swap you Ed for Entropic Man :)
(Just kidding EM)
Met Office 3-month Outlook
Period: April – June 2013 Issue date: 21.03.13SUMMARY - PRECIPITATION:
For both April and April-May-June as a whole the uncertainty is large, leaving the forecast largely indistinguishable from climatology.
The probability that UK precipitation will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 20% and the probability that it will fall into the wettest category is also around 20% (the probability for each of these categories is 20%).
Ed,
If you don't have the time to go into the scientific details, then the best place to start is examining the predictions. It is something the general media could also usefully spend more time on.
It is not likely that any one person can really understand all of the science, which is partly a reflection of the enormous complexity. But you don't have to. If the models cannot predict adequately, then arguing over the details is sterile.
The bigger problem them becomes "How do I know when someone is pulling the wool over my eyes with a 'prediction'?" This happens all the time with financial charlatans who might claim to know what the stockmarket is going to do. But the approach should be exactly the same, unless you are willing to place all your trust in complete strangers (or even friends, for that matter).
Ed, here's some expertise for you to rely on. The first two of these are veteran atmospheric physicists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/12/a-letter-to-paul-nurse.html
And you *still* need to read HSI.
Yes Ed, you do come across like a troll. First, your 'introduction and the Marxist-question are red flags already, and secondly your subsequent appeals to 'rely on expertise knowledge' are the typical warmist appeals to remaining ignorant and gullible ...
But no: Nobody takes their health, their car or their surgery to an 'expert' who only has managed to write such things on a piece of paper, how things should be and function and work in the future, who never has managed to also deliver such things also in practice.
It seems as if someone has noted that in the third IPCC-report (TAR) it was stated that:
but believes that this observation has been reversed or negated in the subsequent (more politicized) reports AR4 and AR5.
Amazing 'strategy' ...
[DNFTT]
Ed has apparently succeeded - one or two inane posts and he has successfully dereailed this discussion.
DNFTT!!!!!
Indeed steveta_uk...!
I think the GWPF should insist that the discussions are made a matter of public record and open. I'd pay to see that ;)
I also think it is time for a very public wager. Maturing in 10 years or when the met office temperature numbers break through the 95% certainty lines on the IPCC projections. See if any climate scientists want to put their money where their mouth is rather than putting our money where their mouth is.
David
@Streetcred:
For the record, no!
[Language]
J4R, 3,6,10 and 14 please, and some prawn crckers.
[DNFTT]
Justice4Rinka...my first post just quoted what one respondent told me when I asked the question. I've not stated any of my views on whether climate change is happening or not. Of course there are 101 opinions within both AGW camp and those who disagree..like many other fields, where there is much grey! I think you've made some strong assumptions in your rather long rant! I think, it is clear that some very logical and coherent people contribute to this blog but there are more that are just a bit ranty!
Ed you’ve had a lot of answers including the last one from Justice4Rinka which excellently outlines how wide the scope of scepticism goes. There are no simple answers to AGW questions and nor should there be. Right or wrong it is the biggest question of our generation and no one should sign over their lives to others without doing their own thinking. Ultimately you have to live with the decision you make. An non troll would start a discussion about it.
And nasty with it too.
Good post J4R, but off topic. Let's not try to educate Ed.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." Robert Heinlein
Back on topic. Having read his letter the expert he's referring to seems to be Julia Slingo and the Met Office. Julia recently told the BBC, I think it was, that she wouldn't have expressed the current hiatus in warming as such, but would describe the last ten years as the warmest on record. Now for me, a great believer in climate change like everyone else on this blog, it would seem that a scientist who observes no rise in temperature for 15 years should say so, and not try to spin it as though there was still a problem. There is a problem all right, but it's with the climate science community who have not the remotest idea why the warming should have stopped. Only yesterday the ex-Chief Government Scientific Officer ( don't you yearn for the days when these chaps smoked pipes, had pens in the top pockets of their coats and kept their politics out of science?) told us we can look forward to years of climate chaos, not global warming, climate chaos, seemingly unaware that the climate is, and always has been, chaotic.
The only way he'll get climate scientists to meet with the GWPF is if there is no dialogue, because whenever there is, the paucity of the science behind this awful scare story is so weak and the uncertainties so great the warmist lose any debate by miles.
but there are more that are just a bit ranty!
You should check out CiF at the Guardian for ranty, especially when the SS mob are posting there.
As a man to represent the interests of the British people, Lord Lawson could only be bettered by George Washington, Lord Haw Haw, Kim Philby, Martin McGuiness or Paul Nurse himself. The demolition of the British economy, the creation of mass welfare culture, the drug addicted sink estates and the massive rise of the criminal underground typified by the City of London all happened while Lawson was Chancellor.
Lawson's interpretation of that role was to take dictation from a man in the USA who gave him instructions on an economic policy referred to as 'Monetarism' that even Margaret Thatcher repudiated and declared she had never believed in. The only other country to follow that path was the CIA installed military dictatorship of Chile.
Simply put, Nigel Lawson is a traitor to this country.
"Children won't know who "Dr" David Viner was!"
I think that in line with all the other forecasts that we believe to have "failed" that Dr. Viner's new position is that we misunderstood him, and he was referring to the fact that our children won't know what snow in July is. Given the Met Office's record, it would probably better if he didn't actually articulate that publicly because we'd almost certainly see snow in July.
An excellent comment, J4R (9:53 AM). I think it is relevant to Nurse, not because he is an eco-fascist - I give him the benefit of my doubt and think that is too strong a term for him so far - but because as far as I can see, he is a victim of such 'logic'. If he is not being devious, and that is quite an 'if' when dealing with a socialist worker who has accepted a knighthood from Her Maj, then I think his offer to be a broker with scientific advice is to help the GWPF realise that climate changes, and that human actions contribute to that. In other words, he wishes to locate locksmiths to deal with an open door and thereby help his pushing against it have more effect.
Anyway, I think your comment is the best formulation I have seen to expose this widespread sophistry of the climate alarmists plus their dupes, their stooges, and their victims.
@Big Oil She was nasty to me first!! Cherry picking comments! Right, it's a bit rough in here!
[DNFTT]
[DNFTT]
@ John
I actually compiled that off the top of my head a couple of years ago; one can probably find further nuances to go beyond a list of 14 views.
The point I think is really that among ecofascists there is exactly one permissible view. This intolerance for a plurality of opinion, coupled with shouted demands that dissenters fall silent, comes from politics, not science. You do not, for example, get palaeontologists who think Spinosaurus was bigger than Giganotosaurus telling other palaeontologists, who disagree, to shut up because the palaeontology's settled. Only climate "scientists" would think to speak in this way.
There is no single uniform opposing sceptic view, nor is there any sceptical construction of the world. All sceptics have in common is scepticism. We don't think the case for blowing trillions on managing the sky for rich people 100 years hence has been properly made.
I'm a 6 (it's impossible to predict technology, population, and energy price 100 years into the future) and a 9 (mitigation will be more harmful economically than warming) on that list myself.
Back to the topic of the thread, after its successful double derailment by Ed and Zed.
The RS's document Climate change: a summary of the science, September 2010 was produced by the following Fellows. Which of them would Nurse nominate to correct the mistaken views of the GWPF?
Professor John Pethica FRS (Chair)
Physical Secretary of Royal Society
Ms Fiona Fox
Director, Science Media Centre, UK
Sir Brian Hoskins FRS
Director Grantham Institute for Climate
Change, Imperial College, UK
Professor Michael Kelly FRS
Professor of Technology, University of
Cambridge, UK
Professor John Mitchell FRS
Director of Climate Science, Met Office, UK
Professor Susan Owens
Professor of Environment and Policy,
University of Cambridge, UK
Professor Tim Palmer FRS
Royal Society Research Professor,
University of Oxford, UK
Professor John Shepherd FRS
Professorial Research Fellow in Earth
System Science, University of Southampton, UK
Professor Keith Shine FRS
Professor of Physical Meteorology,
University of Reading, UK
Professor David Spiegelhalter FRS
Professor of the Public Understanding of
Risk, University of Cambridge, UK
“would be happy to put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.”
Doesn't sound so much like a meeting as inviting the GWPF to attend a lecture. I hope the GWPF will record it (easy on audio more complicated with video) and put it online and extract an assurance that they will not be prevented from making equal length replies.
Please can we get comments back on topic. There's a discussion forum for people who want to talk about other things.
I think Nigel Lawson's response puts Paul Nurse in some difficulty. The latter's intention was to give an appearance of being cooperative without offering much at all. One can almost see the barge pole being deployed in his phrase " happy to put you in contact with distinguished active climate research scientists". The intended insults here are manifold ; that Nigel Lawson is untutored in the scientific arguments on Nurse's side of the fence and that any dissenting scientific views which he might have embraced come from scientists of a dubious pedigree or those who might have once had some standing but are now out to pasture and not au courant .
Nigel Lawson has, quite rightly, ignored these particular barbs and responded to the offer but with a slight change in the wording .The Royal Society is now cast as a body offering to arrange a meeting between the GWPF and scientists who advise the RS. Paul Nurse might now protest that an offer to put GWPF in contact with climate scientists on his side is not tantamount to an offer to arrange a meeting, but he risks looking both pedantic and peevish in any attempt to sustain that distinction.
If a meeting is arranged under the aegis of the RS then it represents a small victory for the GWPF and the wider sceptical community.The mantra of "the science is settled' takes a further, deserved, knock. As a consequence the debate about policy options, particularly those on energy, becomes much freer.
If Paul Nurse gets huffy and walks away from this prospect then GWPF and that wider community have a different, and, in the long term, a bigger sort of victory. The British public begin to notice when the proclaimed champion hangs on to his title by the expedient of never getting back into the ring. Their suspicions are increased by their inability to recall when and how he acquired the title in the first place.
Actually, it appears to me as though the Royal Society - under Paul Nurse at the very least - is the institution that has 'lost its way':
Buried in the Royal Society website:
Nurse has spectacularly turned this on its head. His letter was nothing short of an attempt to dominate Lawson with an appeal to the authority of the Royal Society. Under Nurse the Royal Society now effectively represents the 'dominant authority' it was founded to reject. It has indeed lost its way.
In another upside-down reflection of the wrong direction the Royal Society has taken under Nurse's stewardship, is in its willingness to stand behind political position statements that represent its members. Conversely, the GWPF reports stipulate on the front pages of their reports:
In this regard it appears as though the GWPF is founded upon 'Nullius in verba', its members provided the protection of an institution of integrity, protecting them from the domination of authority by affording them the right to disagree with it.
I think Lord Lawson should start a motto for the GWPF: 'Nullius in verba' would fit.
GWPF needs to go armed.
This should give them a start:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6467&linkbox=true&position=10
I wonder if Nurse is going to try to do a hatchet job on GWPF, as he did, with some careful BBC editing, on Dellers. Take care, Lord Lawson.
A common thread of AGW fanatics is an inability to debate skeptics. Astronomers, biologists, geologists, all find themselves to be able to debate even ardent young Earth creationists. Yet here we are, with AGW fanatics claiming to have the one true understanding of climate science to prove cliamte apocalypse is at hand, and conveniently have the one true cure for the apocalypse, and they find themselves either hiding under rocks, like Mann, committing petty (or not so petty) crimes like Gleick, hiding declilnes, erasing e-mails, and denigrating any who dare disagree.
These behaviors do not demonstrate a great deal of security or confidence.
The inability to debate only gives credibility to the impression that the AGW fanatics do not debate because they know they cannot debate: They must hide themselves or the data.