Bishop Hill An early leaving present
Mar 15, 2015 Royal Society As Paul Nurse heads towards the exit door of the Royal Society later this year, Mike Kelly has sent him an early leaving present, a withering attack on the society's handling of the climate change issue.
...Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.
Yet the Society continues to produce a stream of reports which reveal little sign of this. The latest example is the pre-Christmas booklet A Short Guide To Climate Science. Last year also saw the joint publication with the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Climate Change: Evidence And Causes, and a report called Resilience. Through these documents, the Society has lent its name to claims – such as trends towards increasing extreme weather and climate casualties – that simply do not match real-world facts.
Both the joint report with the NAS and the Short Guide answer 20 questions on temperatures, sea-level rises and ocean acidification. But a report today by the academic council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes several Society Fellows and other eminent scientists, states the Society has ‘left out’ parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different.
I have personal experience of this selectivity. Last year, at the request of the president, I produced a paper that urged the Society’s council to distance itself from the levels of certainty being expressed about future warming.
I said it ought at least to have a ‘plan B’ if the pause should last much longer, so calling the models into still more serious question. I got a polite brush-off.
Reader Comments (167)
“…it is an established rule of the [Royal] 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.”
What a pity that under Nurse and his green predecessors they didn't stick to this first principle.
The leadership of the RS, like many bodies, has been taken over by the Green Blob and PC. These bodies will do anything and say anything to maintain their taxpayer funding, which the Government hands over to them, providing they support the Government. It is pure patronage - money and titles are at stake here.
I can't wait to hear this on Radio4 or on the BBC news.
And here's the money quote:
'The reason for this lack of nuance seems to be that policymakers say they want ‘scientific certainty’.
I see the Mail is still using that rather shopworn photo of cooling towers to imply CO2.
Someone explain to them what steam is!
An excellent article. He makes the very important point that scientists need to present the evidence that contradicts their theory as well as the stuff that supports it. Not doing so is lobbying.
If scientists feel that the pause is irrelevant they have the right to point that out but they go beyond their remit to disguise the pause (and other problems) because they're worried decision makers would be unduly swayed. Either the scientists need to take responsibility for their output, with suitable consequences if they're wrong or they need to present the whole picture fairly.
Cyclone Pam .
Guess what and who .
Nurse and his two predecessors, along with the past three Government Chief Scientists were chosen for their adherence to Common Purpose and Cultural Marxism rather than Science.
Our friend Bob Ward has already been rubbishing Kelly on Twitter as a mere engineer who, poor dear, doesn't really understand climate science.
Well done, that man!
Perhaps other Fellows will speak out too, though I won't hold my breath. The biased BBC will never report this.
I don't know if it is because he is an engineer, but Bob Ward does have a point.
Very well written, eloquent and to the point.
Kelly has degrees in Maths and Physics. Ward is a poseur.
The "Academies of Science" have also been taken over by the activists. This was written in 2010:
"Controlling the Science: National Academies and Consensus" http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/controlling_the_science.html
"The Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change is a sub-panel of the NAS “America's Climate Choices” panel. The reports are basically a re-hash of IPCC reports, which is not surprising when so many IPCC authors are on the panel, but with few actual climate scientists on-board.
It includes for example Dr Richard H Moss, who is Vice President and Managing Director for Climate Change at the World Wildlife Fund. He is a former Senior Director for Climate Change and Energy, United Nations Foundation. The UNF was founded in 1998 with $1billion from Ted Turner, its President is Timothy Wirth, who helped to launch James Hansen into global warming fame in 1988. Moss has been a member of the IPCC since 1993. He is a Review editor for IPCC AR5 WGII Ch. 14, “Adaptation needs and options" His doctorate is in Public and International Affairs.
The chair of the committee, Dr Pamela Matson is on the Board of Trustees of the World Wildlife Fund and was a Lead Author for the IPCC TAR, WG1 Chapter 4. She is a Biologist.
The "Committee on America's Climate Choices" has more interesting names, this time in the form of Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund-US. Another of “America’s Climate Choices” committee members, Fred Krupp, is head of Environmental Defense. Both WWF and Environmental Defense receive funding from US hedge fund billionaire Jeremy Grantham’s Grantham Foundation."
Both Roberts and Krupp are on the Advisory board that oversees both Stern's LSE Grantham and Hoskins' Imperial Grantham Institutes, http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/about/about-the-institute/advisory-board/
Paul Nurse is also on that Advisory Board, so what comes out of the Royal Society is what is fed into it by the environmental activists. Sam Fankhauser and Brian Hoskins are both on the Grantham Advisory Board and on the UK Climate Change Committee. Fankhauser is also on the mitigation sub-committee.
He is co-director of the LSE Grantham Institute with Simon Dietz, who is a Principal at Vivid Economics, (http://www.vivideconomics.com/index.php/meet-our-team), where Fankhauser is a director. Dietz was seconded to Stern's "Review" team from the Tyndall Centre and has never looked back. Vivid have done work for the World Bank where Fankhauser once worked, as did Stern. They say "Our clients are industry leaders, developing and OECD governments, international financial institutions, think tanks and opinion leaders. We work with outstanding clients globally, focussing on the top-five by size, growth rate or quality."
Fankhauser was previously a Senior Advisor with Nicholas Stern at IdeaCarbon, a company providing advice on carbon investments. The UNFCCC's Christiana Figueres was also a colleague, as a senior advisor of the IdeaCarbon Ratings Agency.
Fankhauser is also Deputy Director of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, a conglomerate of LSE, Leeds University and ESRC, (http://www.cccep.ac.uk/whosWho/Staff/management/SamFankhauser.aspx), in addition to his position of Chief Economist at Globe International, where CCC Chairman, Lord Deben, is (Honorary) President.
Where to stop, the network is endless.
If I was Grantham I would be getting rid of Ward because he's now become such a figure of fun that anything he says now is counterproductive. Everyone knows what a despicable creature he is.
Sadly, the bandwagon will roll on. Yesterday, BBC Radio 4 was running a claim by some mendacious UN functionary that Cyclone Pam was attributable to 'global warming' and part of an 'increasing' pattern of such events. That the former was unknowable and the latter simply untrue clearly didn't trouble the editors at all.
Still, congratulations and thanks to Professor Kelly and as for that hack Ward, given the choice between an engineer and a 'climate scientist' I know whose calculations I would rather trust!
I don't use twitter: Has Bob offered to debate Mike to show him his errors?
You need to understand that those that rise to head such organisations have a skill set which is not the same has those that produce good science. Politics and administration, with an ability to sit in endless meetings , are the skills you need along with the ability to know where the knives are kept and whose back you can get away with stinking one in.
The other people who end up in these roles are in effect 'honorary' in other words those that are at the end of their careers looking for a last few years of easy living , whilst retaining some connection with their old university etc In this case the real power lies in those never publican seen who have the skills above .
Expect the new head of the RS to be similar
Meanwhile most members have little interest in the boring day to day stuff and often regard having such memberships has good for their careers or a nice place to have lunch but not something , apart for paying their fess , they are much involved in.
It is worth noting that like the RS all those organisations which have come out in unquestioning support of CAGW , none of them have actual asked their members to vote on it , rather it is their 'leaders ' who have come up with such ideas. So far from the infamous 97% we can say that in no case have the majority of the members of these organisation said they support CAGW, despite the often made claim by the alarmists that this is the case.
Re Bob Ward, as Nurse is on the Grantham Advisory board, (see my comment above on Science Academies), it's no wonder Ward leaps into the fray.
Does anybody know if the APS Statement went out for membership review yet? This is from 2014:
//
The APS Council will review the statement in November, followed by the APS Board of Directors. Consistent with APS by-laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period. The Climate Change Statement Review is a deliberative process. As a membership organization of more than 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
//
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/
KnR
An excellent analysis. The situation in climatology (not uniquely) is that 'those who can, do; those who can't teach' only in this case it is more akin to 'those who can't sit there and pontificate'. And organise and network. The "climate change" bit is just incidental. When this scam dies the death there'll be another along in a minute to keep the ball rolling.
I would be more than happy never to mention climate change again if all the other people who are not immediately and directly involved on relevant research were also prepared to keep their mouths shut.
I have no problem with genuine climate scientists advising governments and industry on the science of climate. I do have a problem with other scientists, non-scientists,and environmental activists in their NGOs passing opinions on the subject while at the same time telling me that I am not allowed to.
Especially when I have taken the trouble to examine the science (more intently because I had to start from scratch!) and it is patently evident that they haven't, or if they have they choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit their belief system.
And I'm happy to keep on learning while these self-opinionated prats think they know it all.
"Our friend Bob Ward has already been rubbishing Kelly on Twitter as a mere engineer who, poor dear, doesn't really understand climate science."
Mar 15, 2015 at 9:46 AM | Arthur Dent
===========================================
As opposed to Ward, who is a ***t who knows sod all. What a sad excuse for a human being. Needs to be locked up with Lewandowsky, and the key thrown away.
I don't like to feed the troll, but does anybody have any idea what the purpose is of aTTP, other than to disrupt the thread by making inane and stupid comments?
'Kelly is only an engineer'. Wrong!
As Kelly hints in his article, engineers have an ethical responsibility to get it right and be honest about uncertainty. The idea that an engineer is not a scientist, is wrong. Engineers are those who apply science in the real world. They are responsible for making sure planes don't fall out of the sky, and that bridges and buildings don't collapse. For too many scientists, their main responsibility is simply getting their next paper passed peer review, or getting a nice set of slides together for the next conference.
I hope he's sent a copy to Alan Rusbridger at the Guardian, who is oh so sure he's sitting on the moral high ground.
I thought everyone was doing an excellent job of not feeding the troll Phillip. Let's just leave TTP to his own thoughts.
'Kelly is only an engineer'.
That didn't stop Pachy from being 'the most senior figure at the world's leading authority on climate change' when it suited certain people to lay such a claim. People like, oh, Bob Ward.
Attp is the only sort of thing the warmish can come up with (one line slogans, character assassination, sentiment spreading, all the dirty tricks in the book as marxists would have it)
Their own boards and blogs are hermetically cordoned off , of course.
I suppose it comes down to, who would you prefer to design and engineer the aircraft (say) in which you are flying, Ward PhD (seashells: lapsed) or Kelly FRS FREng?
Ward (amongst others trolling bhere) probably thinks engineer means someone in an overall with an oily rag in his back pocket and a hammer in his hand. It's unfortunate that the British misuse the word Engineer.
"Our friend Bob Ward has already been rubbishing Kelly on Twitter as a mere engineer who, poor dear, doesn't really understand climate science."
Bob Ward is an expert is he? And declaiming to the deluded, how much could you learn?...........
Anyone see Red Ed, the weird one receiving the adulation of specially hand picked equality audience all categories catered for and shiny happy faces - or was it something a bit more sinister? Kim Jong un himself, doesn't earn
biggermore hollow applause and I think some of thelabourCommon Purpose loonies were about to swoon in competition trying to show how much more they cared compared to the muppet sitting right next to them - swooning for their great leader. And I thought, that is mass hysteria.Paul Nurse and the green advocates called the RS are without doubt: pandering to mass hysteria and groupthink pscience.
The RS, now belongs in the Edinburgh Fringe.
"The RS, now belongs in the Edinburgh Fringe."
What a fine Speakers Corner punch line !
The climate models are actually derived from fluid dynamics models pioneered and developed mainly by engineers. However we engineers know their limitations and never trust them until they have been properly validated because lives can depend on the decisions we make. Climate scientists are a mixed bag of course; some like Annan and Schmidt know about the computations but little meteorology, some know meteorology but little maths. All misuse statistics and all exhibit confirmation bias. None of them care whether the hypothesis is correct or not it seems because if they did they would admit that it has already been falsified.
Jeremy,
After you emailed and threatened me, I had assumed you were a nasty piece of work. Nothing since then has changed that view.
oakwood,
Sorry, but in my view this is just insulting nonsense. There's nothing special about engineers, just as there's nothing special about physicists, chemists, biologists, climate scientists. Yes, engineers do work in a field that has more relevance to our day to day life, but that doesn't suddenly mean that have a better grip on reality . If we could rerun our planet many times, go back in time to collect more data, or to do it more accurately, maybe climate science would be as certain as some areas of engineering. That we can't is one reason why a complex science like climate science has less certainty than some areas of engineering. Replacing all climate scientists with engineers would not change that - well, unless they did develop a time machine, and build a large number of other planets on which we could run controlled experiments.
Why don't Paul Nurse and the other office holders in the Royal Society consider the possibility that "the Consensus" may be mistaken? That would, after all, be the scientific thing to do. After all, they should know from history, assuming that they have any knowledge or interest in the history of science, that consensus views have frequently been wrong in the past. If that were not the case then the state of science today would differ little from its state several centuries ago.
Phillip Bratby
ATTP is getting worried about the climate scientists, who may have to seek alternative employment, should the Royal Society for the protection of climate scientists, remember something, possibly anything, about why the Royal Society was created in the first place.
Obviously with a UK election coming up, the US President deflecting in the changing wind that has already started to blow through Australia, Canada and India, the conditions for a perfect storm to disrupt the climate Panic in Paris have been set.
Climate science may have made its first ever, correct prediction.
"Nullius in Verba" has come to mean "Hear no dissent" under the Marxist rule of Nurse and his immediate predecessors.
Sooner or later, sooner I hope, real science will catch up and these pompous, Government-approved activists will find themselves in the trash-can of history.
And to think I was proud. many years ago, when I had a paper presented at the RS!
.and Then There's Physics
if engineers get it wrong there is a price to pay by somebody because they work in 'reality '
If climate scientists get it wrong the worse thing that happens is there is call for more funding , which given often they get it wrong is a good thing for them .
Doubt me , they tell what price any climate scientists has paid for the failure of their models to reflect reality ?
And the funny thing is when they where selling 'settled science' and smearing any who dare suggest otherwise , I can't remember them tell us about any uncertainty in their work.
If there was any room left in the bowels of Christ; I would be willing to nominate someone?
One big, big problem that we have to acknowledge is that those who could be described as “right-leaning” in their thinking and ethos do have a serious disadvantage when confronting the “left-leaning”. I disagree with the terms “right wing” and “left wing”, so will refer to them as “socialist” and “non-socialist” – the “non-socialist” tend to be free-thinkers, with no desire to control others but to inform and enlighten, to openly argue and debate, in serious attempts to get at the facts; the “socialist” are those who have their own agenda, and the desire to control and manipulate others, for many and various reasons, the most common being acquisition of power. The “socialists” see that the only way for them to gain their desires is through control, and are eager to form groups to establish common goals and methods to achieve them – a Common Purpose (and it is interesting to note that many on the “right wing” of British politics are fully paid-up members of Common Purpose). Being more tightly-knit, they willingly exchange communications whose principle topic is NOT the science, but of methods to control the science. The “non-socialists” are loosely-linked, rarely forming solid groups, prepared to accept that others might have different views and beliefs, and have little professional interest for anything other than the science in question; because of this, they have little contact with those in the communications industry, many of whom are devoutly “socialist”, thus will have little interest in allowing such “non-socialists” public voice. All we can hope is that the general public will eventually see through the whole charade. History shows that reality will disappoint us, the best we can do is to ensure that we can metaphorically keep our own little lamps burning such that when the dreams of the “socialists” are brought to bear, we can be pools of light in the darkness that descends. Sadly, history also shows that Stalinistic pogroms and Pol Pot’s fields of death may be what we have to face.
Harry,
Except, anyone who thinks
is the correct way to interpret uncertainties, doesn't understand uncertainties.
Not banned yet: nothing has come of the committee review of the APS position yet. It is perhaps telling that Prof Koonin, who was leading the review committee, has resigned that position. He published an op-ed in the WSJ rather repudiating the APS position he was reviewing. Curry communicated with Koonin about this at the time of his op-ed. Simce the previous APS position was that the science is settled, one can image how difficult a walk back would be. The alternative will be worse as the pause comtinues.
"Less certainty", "Uncertainty": I'd settle for less pedantry. But still, Kelly's words have yet to be re-butted. That's for certain.
Right, take only the word of the certain ones. Yep, I certainly will.
===========
This is all very interesting....... BUT when will I be able to get my claim in for being miss-sold CO2 based Bull-poop VED totalling to a now £730 annually for two older vehicles which under long term ownership will contributing far less pollution than any electric vehicle. Who's going to be the first enterprising firm of solicitors to start the ball rolling ?
"Who's going to be the first enterprising firm of solicitors to start the ball rolling?"
That is when you know the AGW/CAGW/ClimateChange/ClimateDisruption/NewNormal/WhateverNameThisWeek has finally died; I can see the TV adverts already as the ambulance chasers see a new revenue stream developing.
Unfortunately however the real scummers like WWF, Greenpeace, IPCC etc will remain untouchable; has any enviro group ever been called to account and punished for scaremongering which cost honest folks money and jobs?
Black Pearl, unfortunately climate science doesn't run on bull poop. Climate science relies on other peoples hard earned cash. Unfortunately, nothing runs on climate science poop either, as it is the most destructive toxin yet produced.
Mr Physics, you deliberately or naively misrepresent what I said about engineers. I didn't say they were special or better. My comment, and toungue-in-cheek comment about scientists, were to counter the common assumption (eg. by Ward), that scientists are special compared to 'only' engineers.
We need both scientists and engineers. The difference is that there is typically a much closer link between the actions of engineers and the consequences. (You could equally compare medical researchers and doctors). There are many examples where if an engineer makes a bad judgement, lives are directly at risk. For scientists, this is relatively rare. The risk from scientists is indirect, and relies on how engineers and policy makers apply their findings. (by scientists, I'm referring to research scientists. There are, of course, many scientists (like me), applying science more directly in the real world. )
oakwood,
I certainly wasn't deliberately doing so. If I did misunderstand you, then I apologise.
Well, this is just a strawman. There is no common assumptions that scientists are special compared to anyone. We are talking about an article written by someone who had the gall to write "As an engineer,...". This is just an appeal to his own authority, something that would normally be regarded as an indication of an unjustified level of arrogance. The more common theme (here in particular) is that engineers have a better understanding of the real world than these scientists with their heads in the clouds, as the latter part of your comment seems to be implying.
The idea that engineers qualify their statements and scientists don't (as this clearly implies) is utter bollocks. The reason engineers are sometimes legally liable is because there are occasions when there is sufficient knowledge to generate standards that they are expected to follow so as to minimise risk. In areas of science where you are studying something that is still being understood, expecting scientists to be legally liable for something that may turn out to be wrong is not only nonsensical but completely at odds with the idea that scientists are meant to be taking risks and studying things we don't yet understand. Implying that scientists studying a complex system like our climate should somehow be held as legally liable as an engineer who designs a car with dangerous road handling is ridiculous.
ATTP,
What point, pray tell, would Bob Ward have in your opinion, and how is do you mean that point, if any, is relevant to or even invalidates the critique of Kelly?
Jonas N, it might be an idea to completely rephrase your comment, as it makes little sense – well, to me, at least, thus (possibly) to others.