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)
Jeff Todd, the "industry" that has financed ambulance chasing lawyers, is insurance.
There is no point persuing any legal claim, if the 'guilty" party has no funds, to pay out. Doctors and engineers, for example, have to have Professional Indemnity Insurance, to cover the financial consequences of being successfully sued. This is normally part of their contract of employment.
Whether climate scientists as individuals, or their employers (frequently Universities) carry such insurance, I do not know.
In English law, Vicarious Liability holds that the employer may be held financially responsible for the employee's actions, BUT does not mean the employee can not be held liable for his actions in his own right. It is just that lawyers will go after the easiest payout.
I am NOT a lawyer, and would welcome correction on any of the above! I do not know if Scottish Law works differently, let alone US law, so should aTTP be employed by a Scottish University, I can not advise on his comments, or whether his employers liability insurance would have any relevance. I am sure he knows best.
So, has our friend Mr. Ward, or our persistent little woodpecker ATTP have any response for the other 42 fellows of the Royal Society also expressing concern about the way in which the science was being misrepresented?
Or are they still trying to learn who they are before playing their games?
As always, when these drive by assassins make their attacks, it's more about derailing the thread than addressing the issues.
Shame that ATTP can't get enough attention on his biased blog, so needs to post here to drum up visitors.
If 43 fellows of the Royal Society have spoken out, you can be very sure that there are many more too scared to do so because of the antics of Ward and his followers.
Describing Ward as scum is an insult - to scum.
Breitbart has covered the issue, but no mention on the BBC yet - they have far more important issues to address.
John Catley, as you point out, aTTP is here to tell us what to think. He knows best. He is an expert. I am sure his employers still share his faith.
Mar 15, 2015 at 1:22 PM | Radical Rodent
Very astute observations, RR. Not least because they're bang on the money.
Lazy Sunday post rugby so thought I'd wander over and see how you were getting on here. What realms of fantasy and conspiracy have you invented since my last visitation.
Climate Science and the Daily Mail finds a rent-a-gob.
aTTP is completely correct. We make no generic difference between an engineer and a scientist. But just as I'd rather walk over a bridge built by engineers (as opposed to one built by say a biologist) so I'd rather trust more to the science here to the climate scientist. And as to the mention above that the climate models derive from engineers....really? Fluid dynamics is only one minor component of models and it is also hardly solely in the realm of engineers. And anyway where do you think engineers get their models from in the first place.....their hairdressers?
The article is a joke (quite apart from it appearing in the awful daily mail). Witness
- he positions the irrelevant GWPF against both the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. Bit like your Millwall vs Real Madrid here. But you lot keep doing it...
- he talks of "mind-boggling costs" given our planned reduction targets. This is kind of important. I seem to recall reading of some similar comments (usually by "non-socialists" - dig at RRs hilarious post - keep taking the medicines mon ami) as being one reason we should not have entered WW2 against Nazi Germany. It is going to cost and the longer you types get your delusions heard the costlier it will be. Get over it.
- refers again tiredly to the pause - a classic giveaway and loose connection to models. Clearly lazy and ignorant of the topic. Yes he has a PhD but in errr solid state physics. I knew many of these guys in my days in research. A good bunch but hardly qualified to talk on these models.
- constant repetition of needing to provide balance. I'm sure that the vast majority of scientists who do give advice don't need to be lectured by this pompous idiot. "Provide balance" is just code for people like him for doing nothing. That is what his advice would be. I say this as I have often found when asking for counter arguments from people even on this site I usually get a wall of silence in this regard (and a volley of abuse in other regards - care not a jot though - every ignored ask just confirms the deep dark pool of emptiness that exists on the "skeptical" side (I use that term as I know that use of the more correct d-word will elicit a magic snip).
- in a similar vein appropriates Richard Feynman to his side. Weak and disingenuous. If Prof Feynman were around I'm pretty sure I know what side of the debate he would be on.
I would not be rushing to quote this man. A man whose advice could be to include the industry funded GWPF in the mix? Surely you have better...(no - don't answer that ;-)
Another vacuous troll arrives.
Philip: He's not a 'vacuous troll' - he's only here after his 'last visitation': he must be the ghost of the blog! Good job we have the Bish....we can get him to exorcise him!
Harry,
Well, I am a physicist. However, my handle is "...and Then There's Physics", which refers to the discipline and the existence of physical laws, not to me as a physicist. If it was "...and Then I'm a Physicist" maybe your comment would have some validity. Also, if you can find me ever saying anything like "As a physicist...." you could call me out and I would acknowledge the irony. I don't think I have and I would be suitably embarassed if you could find such an instance. However, anything I may have done doesn't suddenly validate Kelly's appeal to his own authority. This isn't about me and him.
Very telling that twice now once aTTP turns up a troll arrives not long afterwards on the same thread. Must be his wingman :)
Oh c'mon, ATTP, stop hiding your light under a bushel. You know - and we know you know - that you labour the point about how you're a physicist. Well, get you! But God help anyone who dare pray in aid any kind of supporting qualification as well. Then you drop on them. Hypocrite. Your knowledge of physics does not make your arguments omnipotent. I've known some extremely intelligent people who have turned out to be the biggest d*heads going when it comes to common sense. It's just that you make a virtue out of being a patronising git as well.
I'll take the likes of Kelly over you - and your right-hand man ObyA - any day.
Harry,
Takes one to know one?
Dont feed the troll...he is achieving his goal because you guys are allowing his pointless dribble to sidetrack this thread.
Mailman
nothing new, but well worth revisiting this talk by Michael Crichton
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html
ATTP makes the case for Mike Kelly
He says above
"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."
"some thing that might turn out to be wrong"
"studying things we don't yet understand."
Mike Kelly would agree I'm sure.
Welcome to the skeptical viewpoint
Mike Kelly ,
That, as published by the Bish, is intense. Well spoken. Thank you.
We have attracted two trolls who have nothing constructive to add to the comments. If they were true scientist then they would be sceptical of the RS document (re Prof. Kellys comments about the obligation to show the weakness of any theory they propose) . Engineers are scientist with their feet on the ground not floating in some atmospheric wonderland. ATTP seems to have very little understanding of quantum mechanics and radiation physics else he would not spout such rubbish. No warming for 26 + years ! CO2 continues to increase. Conclusion principal case of climate change can not be CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. End of.
I find it fascinating that onbyaccident not only believes that Kelly "appropriates Richard Feynman to his side", but is "pretty sure ... what side of the debate [Feynman] would be on."
For my part, I suspect that Feynman, who was not deferential to the establishment, would say some of the same things as Freeman Dyson. But onbyaccident is much more confident of his opinion, so he must be correct.
Quite entertaining!
Has there been any substantial critique of what Kelly is saying from the two?
All I've seen is (at best) meta-argumentation, an awful lot of posturing about this and that, and quite childish attempts to misrepresent what actually is said (possibly due to inadequate comprehension on their part). But mostly just silly word play ...
Oh Mailman....And Then There's Pedantry is not a 'troll' - he's a fizzy-zit - he's told us so! (He keeps bloody reminding us!) But keep in mind a Monty Python architect - but replaced with such a qualified man, knotted handkerchief and all. Got the picture?
All done now. :-)
I think our visiting physicist (aTTP) has passed his test with flying colours and should now be encouraged to go post on Climate Audit.
Many apologies Uncle Steve.
Just BTW Kelly's published on matters climate in peer reviewed journals, so perhaps he's a climate scientist after all?
ATTP has been here and some naughty people have argued with him.
That means the following will happen :
1. A posting on his blog about how he was rudely treated when he tried to talk sense somewhere. I mean just how dare you all, how very very dare you.
2. His friends will crowd round and offer blog hugs in the comments, although none come here or go anywhere else outside "the zone".
3. Probably in a day there will be a blog about giving up trying to talk sense or be polite, you know - the kind that says F**k off to scientists polite in the comments. It will moan about the time spent or the attempts to be polite etc.
4. Then some sniping on twitter.
5. And then it will repeat.
Bored now Ken, try something new please.
From his lofty perch in the academic ivory tower - Anders gives us a lovely whiff of the essence of smug condescension that only years of taxpayer-funded, inflation-proof pensioned, nine-to-five navel gazing can provide.
It's impossible for him to understand that applying scientific theory & principle to the manipulation of physical objects in the natural world is actually the most demanding scientific discipline of all.
In less tolerant era, I was once unceremoniously fired from an engineering job for neglecting to check a junior colleagues decision which put the lives of others at risk.
I wonder whether Anders, or any other academic scientist, has ever lain awake at night wondering whether he could have made a mistake with serious consequences. Engineers do that all their working lives.
(If true) That Paul Nurse is on the Grantham Institute board and so pays Bob Ward is important.
It would mean that Ward is not being open about his paid shilling. It should be exposed.
The article in the Mail is important because it reminds us of the scientific method. Pseudo-scientists create hypotheses that can never be falsified and then protect their faith in a veneer of "sciencyness" and scorn. The Royal Society was formed to weed out the fakers and find the ways to test hypotheses. That has been abandoned. It must be rescued.
The trolling on this thread shows that the use of scorn and "the science is settled so ignore the heretic" no longer suppresses the debate. That is important. No longer can someone say that climate science is a certain as gravity - they have to justify why their solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations over 100 years are correct instead of just sneering "and then there's the physics" <Ta Dah>!
The climate establishment is now on the defensive. The paradigm is breaking up. And many careers will crumble with it.
And they know it.
The blaming of us lefties for the corruption of the Royal Society is unproven prejudice and so unimportant.
Show me a green policy that has been implemented that transfers wealth progressively - from the rich to the poor. There are none because Green is not Red.
Onbyaccident:
As this is a blatant admission that your chosen moniker is a lie, why on God’s good Earth should anyone believe anything else that you say? Yet you do insist on saying it, ad infinitum. Do us all a favour (including yourself), close your mouth and open your mind.@ Jonas N
" Has there been any substantial critique of what Kelly is saying from the two? "
But he hasn't said anything of worth to critique! Planted lies and half truths. So that is what I addressed. Talking head saying nothing other than planting seeds of doubt. All empty seeds of doubt. All he did was to continue to implant rubbish into the heads of DM readers to go along with their usual jingoist and bigoted daily read..... Sooooo I was rather hoping you guys could but predictably a big fat zero again. You attack aTTP for being a fizzy-zit (ho ho) .... probably more worthwhile attacking Kelly for not being one. Or is this an adoption by you (am assuming in the main) Brit "skeptics" (again see no D-word) the recent oft used US "skeptic" meme of "I'm not a scientist...".
@ HaroldW
Feynman not deferential to the establishment? Nope and on that we can agree and loved him for it. But that is utterly different to not being deferential to the truth. He would be laughing at you luddites invoking him as support.
It seems that it is the fashion on this site to be non-deferential to science (no matter how you use conspiracy theories to back up how weak your arguments are).
@ RR
Stop rambling man! What blatant lie? I once tried to get through your longer post to understand what it was you might be trying to say. Failed. But seems your short posts are as clueless as well....:D -d does it have anything to do with climate science and global warming or is it just some comment re my coming on the board? Shakes head in disbelief...I've only just gotten over laughing about your earlier "socialist" "non-socialist" post - utterly fantastical. ;D
Onbyaccident you can be deferential to your god , your parents, your teacher or your manager .
You should be questioning to 'science' becasue that is how it progressed in the first place , that is what 'CRITICAL analysis ' is .
Given the tack record of climate 'sciences' it has more than earned the scepticism show toward its claims.
@ KnR
You seem to live in that world where you assume that scientists (especially climate scientists) do not quesstion the science of their peers etc?
lets cut through your faux bluster. Humour me then. Quote me an article where a climate scientist makes an assertion re global warming (i.e. that it is happening and largely human driven). Then show me a source where another scientist (and pray lets quote scientists here - nothing by the likes of fakes like Monkton counts here) critiques it.
Because surely if you have a doubt about global warming and doubt that anthropgenic sourced CO2 is a significant driver there would have to be some reason for that (merely by dint of it being contrary to science 101). I'm prepared to accept in theory that could happen as there would be some negative forcing that may not have been taken into account. Now that critique would have to be published somewhere (and here I state that that somewhere is not say "The Chinese Proceedings of Plumbers"). Just links would do. I've asked this before but gotten nowhere.....
Le clock is ticking ....
Onbyaccident: “Man”? Why, thank you kind sir…
Erm, you choose to say you are “on by accident”, to judge by the clue in your self-appointed moniker, yet admit to intentionally visiting this site (“… thought I'd wander over and see how you were getting on...”). Ergo, you are admitting to lying.
If you could indicate what points of my longer post you do not understand, I will gladly endeavour to explain it in simpler terms… However, you seem to be lying about that, too: “I once [only once? Not very tenacious, are you?] tried to get through your longer post to understand what it was you might be trying to say. Failed.” (Your loss, I feel; I am sure that others might agree that I do not present overly-complex concepts.) Soon to be counter-argued: “I've only just gotten [sic] over laughing about your earlier "socialist" "non-socialist" post” thus indicating that you HAD read the longer post as it is the only longer post I have submitted to this thread. As there are such admissions on your part that you have lied, and are lying, why should we consider that you might not continue to lie in the future? Sorry, guv’nor, but you have lost any credibility I might have held for you.
The Grantham institute is paid for by an investment firm that became rich selling "index funds"
Not exactly the most ecologically and politically correct take on investment.
@ Mar 15, 2015 at 10:36 AM | Registered Commenter dennisa
=====
Your post should be widely published. Please deliver to any relevant media and other parties in the USA.
That web/interwoven crew needs to be publicized. The "big green scam" is in shambles and it is time for the grand collapse. Western economies can't take much more of this BS from the left.
Incarceration and confiscation keeps ringing in my mind. True science and physics have been raped.
"...If there was any room left in the bowels..." --Dung
Those who have studied Chemistry or Medicine have learnt what a Physic is and where it goes.
Rud - thanks for the update. When/if a draft statement is put to the membership for consultation, I hope it reaches the blog audiences too.
Onbyaccident Mar 15, 2015 at 9:51 PM
"Because surely if you have a doubt about global warming and doubt that anthropgenic sourced CO2 is a significant driver there would have to be some reason for that (merely by dint of it being contrary to science 101). I'm prepared to accept in theory that could happen as there would be some negative forcing that may not have been taken into account."
I'm glad to see you are willing to admit that this issue might be more complex than your initial bluster suggested. The science is also more complex. I doubt any serious players question that ceteris paribus CO2 warms the climate, its just those pesky "other things".
Given that you want to find out more about the subject there is extensive literature on climate sensitivity to CO2 and the various estimates of that (you should be able to easily locate that) and then there is the literature that deals with the role oceans play in the thermal behaviour of the surface temperatures (and how little is actually known about that). Again you should be able to easily find that literature. There is also quite a bit of literature dealing with the performance of GCMs and their weaknesses often written by the people that build those models - I'm sure you can find that too.
There are a number of hypotheses about what occurs in the climate and they continue to be debated, but I doubt there would be many other than a handful of advocate scientists who would claim it is all down to CO2.
Start reading and enjoy the complexity of the world you live in. Simple solutions are for simpletons.
Kelly's remarks seem quite moderate. He could have gone a lot further.
onbyaccident (9:06 PM): "you luddites"
"Luddite" is an interesting term. Are you aware of its meaning and origin? Or are you merely tossing out pejorative terms? It is as far from my point of view as I can imagine. There are neo-Luddites today. While I've seen a fairly widespread range of views expressed here, I don't think any of the BH denizens have expressed opinions which would qualify.
Still, it remains a misrepresentation (to which you did not reply) that Kelly invoked Feynman in support. You might want to re-read his article. The fleeting reference to Feynman was not to opine "which side" he would support -- by the way, that's another interesting choice of phrase on your part, in addition to your unwarranted claims of knowing what Dr F. would think. Rather, Kelly noted that the RS is not following the excellent advice of Feynman regarding the degree of certainty which this infant science can have.
ALL claims made by Hansen to U.S. Congress in 1988 were modelling artefacts, multiple mistakes in radiative and IR physics. Because these have been taught in U.S. Atmospheric Science for about 50 years, in the UK for perhaps half that time, Climate and many other Scientists are UNABLE to self-correct. It takes Engineers like me to do that, in particular to identify the 4 basic mistakes made by Carl Sagan in the 1960s which caused this mess.
The most basic was a boundary condition error; to fail to understand that if there were the claimed thermalisation of 'surface IR', there would be substantial temperature drop, surface to local atmosphere. A decade ago, Hansen admitted NASA had tried to find it but "decided to model it". This 'Science' is deceased, has popped its clogs, left this mortal coil. If it were not nailed to its Royal Society Perch, it would be lying upside down at the bottom of its cage.
"And then there's a blogger" who isn't a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Sad.
The joke is that the biggest sceptic is mother nature and the fanatics can only ignore her for so long. All us mainstream sceptics are doing is reminding the fanatics that their paradigm was far too simplistic in the first place and that scepticism was fully justified. It really doesn't matter how many people believe in something that brings them generous funding because if mother nature tells them they are wrong then they are wrong. With the BSE affair they were wrong 3 times in a row and we definitely dodged a bullet there because nature turned out to be both more ingenious and more resilient than the simplistic 2-variable, linear-thinking scientists gave it credit for. At some point the media and the politicians will smell what is under their noses but the fanatics will then just latch onto some other anti-capitalist meme and the pathetic circus will begin again.
Just listened to Prof Tim Palmer on Radio 4 Today. I think Bish has referred to Prof Palmer as moderate or neutral on CAGW in the past so was surprised to hear him say that the recent cyclone hitting Vanuatu had unprecedented (never before been measured) wind speeds directly as a result of global warming. He also pinned record Australian heatwaves firmly on climate change. In mitigation he did also point out that models indicate cyclone frequency should decline and that models need to be improved using ever more powerful computers.
The problem with Ridley is that he is an articulate lukewarmist, but still a lukewarmist:
"We should also invest in research on ways to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, by fertilizing the ocean or fixing it through carbon capture and storage."
Let's face it: that is nonsense on stilts. There is no earthly benefit to be derived from "carbon capture" and Ridley is perfectly well aware that the very terminology is dishonest, so why does he use it? Ridley is a world away from the eugenicists in the climate army, so the idea of taking plant food out of the atmosphere is particularly jarring when it is enunciated by him.
There is no conceivable benefit from storing CO2. There is a lot of expense (profit, for the lucky few) and unnecessary danger; the only way to make CO2 dangerous is to put it all in one place.
Didymous - I heard that too and noted the lack of testable references. I also noted the repeat of the unchallenged claim that increased computing power will lead to better models.
Owen - I agree. Unless things have changed, the problem with Ridley is he hasn't got fundamental references for his view of the "science" and is expounding on matters outside his expertise. I think he should take Mike Kelly's advice of humility in the face of the unknown.
Do not feed the troll Ken Rice who posts as ATTP. He is a hypocrite.
Longterm financial public funding advantages, closed up inbred culture research institutes and vested outside interests with crony capitalist pseudocompanies , all arent very "conducive" to doing proper science.
We saw that in Galileo's time, and we see that now with imbeciles in the Royal Society and Grantham Institute
The Grantham institute to Imperial College is like Kdaffy to LSE..Shameful corruption.
Credit for Sir Paul who got his knighthood for his Cancer research work.
Question so how many ex Animal Rights Activists have also jumped on the Enviromentalist ,Anti Fracking ,Climate bandwagon.