Wednesday
May222013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The amazing meeting
May 22, 2013 Climate: Sceptics GWPF Royal Society The Global Warming Policy Foundation has taken Paul Nurse up on his suggestion that they get together with some top climatologists to discuss climate science, and has issued formal invititations (press release and further details here). The proposed agenda looks interesting too:
1. The science of global warming, with special reference to (a) the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and (b) the extent of natural variability;
2. The conduct and professional standards of those involved in the relevant scientific inquiry and official advisory process.
Pass the popcorn.
Reader Comments (72)
I'd go with Pesadia's list - good stuff.
How about starting with a public apology to the Bishop from Nurse - or isn't the RS president coming to the meeting ? If he's not, why not? He's held forth on the subject of CAGW for long enough and his comment about the Bishop verges on libel.
The second question is a political smack. The first is what counts in the sense of finding "truth".
The second is leading to Royal Society statements that can be used to attack Jones et al. If the RS doesn't dismiss the second part, I'd be surprised.
Jack Maloney: Brilliant. Prince Andrew it is then, leading the RS team.
mike fowle:
No way is Lindzen a generalist - he's a top class atmospheric physicist. And I'm not sure how accurate the description would be for any of the GWPF team, except I suppose for Matt Ridley.
Andrew Neil as moderator I suggest. This debate will not happen.
@G. Watkins
Andrew Neill is an excellent suggestion. He can do the Paxman bit, but without being quite so abrasive.
And though you may be right that the meeting will never take place, it is difficult to see how the RS as a body and Nurse in particular can walk away without losing an immense amount of face.
The charge that they challenged Lawson and his team to a debate, but ran away will stick.
We've already seen Schmidt refusing even to sit in the same room as Spencer
(see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/14/climatologys-nutcracker.html)
but that can be dismissed as the immature actions of a teenage prima donna missing the wise and moderating hand of his retired boss Hansen.
But for an entire 'Learned Society' to run scared would be an entirely new phenomenon.
'The Science is Settled so much we can't even discuss it' is not a saleable proposition.
'
The RS is having to support a science that was from the very start, the incorrect aerosol optical physics of Sagan, science fiction. Houghton's text based on three major physics' errors developed it further. The computer modelling, which hides much of the perpetual motion machine by slyly doubling low level cloud albedo compared with reality, gave it credence but is now failing as the real physics produces cooling.
I suspect they will pull out once cool heads intervene against the carbon religionists in their hierarchy.
Like the gods will talk to mere mortals...get real
Latimer Alder - "The charge that [the RS] challenged Lawson and his team to a debate, but ran away will stick."
I think you're under a misapprehension here. Nurse wrote "I am not sure that you are receiving the best advice," and suggested that he could "put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice." RS didn't offer a debate, but a lecture.
This is mere verbal fencing. Entertaining perhaps, but nothing will come of it.
@haroldw
I don't think its as easy as that for the RS to back down.
To paraphrase
'RS: We can tell you all about it, sonny boys'
'GWPF: Oh goodie, come over to our gaff and we can natter about this stuff'
'RS: No, Shan't. And we'll thcream and thcream and thcream till we're thick if you make us'
Doesn't look good for the patronising society.
And I'd back Lawson against Nurse in a game of real-world politics any day.
Academics just play at it by comparison with him.
Latimer Alder --
"I'd back Lawson against Nurse in a game of real-world politics any day." Academics in administration are no strangers to politics, but this is more public relations than politics. Nurse will come back with a complaint that Lawson's second topic is about personalities and not science, and hint darkly again about GWPF's donors. Gleick, when invited to speak at Heartland, made it a precondition that its funding sources be revealed; expect something similar from Nurse.
Pretty much!
I think Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer should chair it.
@haroldw
Too,late for the funding sources ploy from Nurse..he should have done that six weeks ago. Can't backtrack now.
Lawson survived over 10 years in cabinet with Mrs Thatcher. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer for 6. And Energy Secretary for longer than Huhne. He can outpolitick Nurse any day.
And so far, he's played a blinder.
Advantage GWPF
Dr Peiser's invitation to the RS nominated scientists enclosed a position paper. There is a link on Tallbloke's website. Whilst I can agree with most of it, there are some issues which he has classified under the heading "Matters where we agree with the scientific consensus but cannot quantify the outcome" with which I do not agree.
Dr Peiser accepts that feedbacks from water vapour are positive. I find the results of Lindzen & Choi, Spencer & Braswell and Miskolczi that water vapour feedbacks are negative to be very convincing.
Dr Peiser also contends that the most likely reason for the Arctic ice melt is soot. Whilst we do not have good data of ice extent prior to satellite monitoring, there is anecdotal evidence and historical press coverage indicating that Arctic ice is subject to a regular cycle of growth and shrinkage. This would suggest that ocean oscillations are a more likely cause than albedo changes due to soot and that the shrinkage will likely reverse over the next decades.
Dr Peiser also accepts that there would be net economic harm if the global temperature were to rise by more than 2 degC. ( In relation to what base ?) This figure has always struck me as bogus and pulled out of the air. The change is (would be?) so gradual that centres of economic and agricultural activity can simply evolve towards higher latitudes.
I would also like to have seen the position paper address the matter of when the Holocene is likely to end in order to debunk the notion that we should decarbonize the economy under the precautionary principle. If CO2 were the main driver of climate (which it isn't) shouldn't the precautionary principle dictate that we should encourage CO2 production in order to forestall the next glaciation. When the Holocene does end it will make the alarmists' scenarios of a warmer Earth seem as scary as a vicar's tea party.
@David Lilley: I have concluded that the heat engine that controls lower atmosphere temperature to be independent of CO2 concentration means there can be no CO2-AGW or feedback. The effect of change of insolation and cloud cover are also damped. We are now seeing the new LIA reverse the heating of the 20th Century.
To get there you must use proper physics not Houghton and Sagan's mistakes.
Richard Drake.
I take your point. All I meant was from a quick look at the CVs of the RS fellows they all seemed to specialise in very specific areas of climate research.
mike fowle: Not a man to be easily outdone, I take your point too :) Indeed, I hesitated over Lindzen. Starting from great expertise in atmospheric physics he has I suppose become a generalist in order to counter all the different propaganda tacks of the warmies.
Richard Drake:
"...all the different propaganda tacks..."
A propaganda tax! What a great idea! It would make governments self-financing! ;-)
HaroldW: We can always dream :)
Whole lot of off-topic stuff removed.
HaroldW,
"I think you're under a misapprehension here. Nurse wrote 'I am not sure that you are receiving the best advice,' and suggested that he could 'put the GWPF in touch with people who can offer the Foundation informed scientific advice.' RS didn't offer a debate, but a lecture.
This is mere verbal fencing. Entertaining perhaps, but nothing will come of it."
Exactly that.
James, Harold, hush, don't spoil the fun.