An olive branch

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.

Nurse left licking wounds

Nigel Lawson has responded to Paul Nurse's wild accusations of cherrypicking, accusing the Royal Society president of lying:

You claim that I “would choose two points and say ‘look, no warming’s taking place’, knowing that all the other points that you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case”. That is a lie.

and continuing with a withering put-down

I hope that, on reflection, you will recognise that there should be a difference between the behaviour appropriate to a President of the Royal Society and acting as a shop steward for some kind of scientists’ closed shop.

Ouch.

Read the whole thing.

Update on Feb 27, 2013 by Bishop Hill

Interestingly, Nurse's comments about Lawson appear to have been added at the last minute. This version of his speech, which seems to have been prepared on the day of the lecture itself, does not seem to mention Lawson at all.

Update on Feb 27, 2013 by Bishop Hill

The transcript as broadcast is here.

Nursing prejudice

I have a post up at the Spectator Coffee House blog.

Read it here.

Schooling the Royal

Ben Pile explains the limits of science to Paul Nurse, and asks him to consider if maybe he isn't missing the point rather.

Nurse accuses Lawson of cherrypicking

Paul Nurse has used the occasion of a speech to the University of Melbourne to make an extraordinary attack on Nigel Lawson . Discussing people's concerns over global warming, he suggested that this was causing some to attack the science.

We saw that in Britain with a politician, Nigel Lawson, who would go on television and talk about the scientific case. And he was trained as a politician - you made whatever case you can to convince the audience. So he would choose two points and say "look no warming's taking place", knowing that all the other points that you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case, but he was just wanting to win that debate on television.

Strong stuff. Very strong stuff.

The audio file is here. Key quote at 42 mins.

Update on Feb 18, 2013 by Bishop Hill

There is a transcript of the whole talk here (h/t Tallbloke)

Diary date

Storms, floods and droughts: predicting and reporting adverse weather

• 6:30 pm – 7:30 pm on Monday 04 March 2013
• at The Royal Society, London

David Shukman, Science Editor for BBC News, in conversation with Professor Tim Palmer FRS and Liz Howell. Cynics might suggest that the trick is to place the words "global warming" or "climate change" in every second sentence. I, of course, would never suggest any such thing.

More details here.

A right royal dogmatist

Ed Davey is to speak to a Royal Society seminar today on the subject of climate change. Apparently he will argue that

the science of climate change is "irrefutable" and man is making a "significant" contribution to rising global temperatures.

Irrefutable eh? That doesn't sound like science to me. That sounds like religion.

Funny old place the Royal Society.

Update on Feb 12, 2013 by Bishop Hill

More details of the speech are at Business Green.

Davey will offer fresh assurances that the government's climate policy is firmly based on the latest scientific evidence and call on scientists and researchers to play an even more proactive role in supporting the development of the green economy.

Blimey. Some scientists are already lying to support the development of the green economy. What more does he want?

Tweeting Ehrlich - Josh 202

Click image for larger version

Cartoons by Josh

I'm following Paul

Can I just recommend the Twitter feed of Paul Ehrlich to my readers. Try these choice excerpts from the last ten days or so.

#Climate disruption. Remember this when denier morons claim snow proves no warming. Just the opposite. #greed. http://bit.ly/Xiwu7G

#Overpopulation and idiocy -- more on the WSJ's latest moron. Right wing struggling to find even dumber "analysts" http://bit.ly/WxTdva

#Climate disruption. Arizona pol gives more evidence we'll never run out of morons http://bit.ly/XfuVW9

Friends of Fraud -- #Republithugs on the rampage #plutocracy #greed http://nyti.ms/UkMJTb

Tricky Dick pioneering the techniques of todays #Republithug #plutocrats. Richard Nixon's Even-Darker Legacy http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/15846-richard-nixons-even-darker-legacy …

WSJ gibbing idiocy on #population http://on.wsj.com/Ytfg6p  no accident. Part of Murdoch empire's attempt to murder our grandkids for profit.

#Population. Julian Simon proved by example long ago the ultimate resource, which will never be exhausted, is morons http://on.wsj.com/VBAmmd

For those who don't use Twitter, there is a thing called Friday follow, where you suggest good people to follow to your own followers. I think everyone on the dissenting side of the debate should be recommending Ehrlich. He's a hoot.

You can see why Paul Nurse and the other big wigs at the Royal Society would want to elect him a fellow. The voice of calm rationalism is just the thing don't you think?

Science, advocacy and the Royal

Eleanor Beal, writing at the Royal Society's In Verba blog reviews the debate at the University of Sussex earlier this week over what counts as good evidence for policy. It's an interesting report, and one bit in particular struck me as worthy of comment:

Should there be a separation between scientists and campaigners? Is such a separation possible? Richard Horton pointed out that for a public health researcher, not being an activist is the exception. However, Pielke pointed out that for climate science, experts being activists can actually lessen their credibility.

Perhaps this helps explain Sir Paul Nurse's keenness to take the Royal Society into the policy realm and the concerns some of have about the wisdom of such a move. Personally, I find the idea of public health researchers using my money to tell me how to behave no more welcome than anyone else doing so. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Nurse joins the EU referendum battle

Paul Nurse has weighed into the EU referendum fray with an article in the Guardian outlining why he thinks we should stay in.

There's a lot of spurious verbiage to get through, but at the end of the day he seems to be saying that because we get some science funding from the EU we should stay in (he makes a subsidiary point that being in aids collaboration). Having cut through the stream of words in this way, one can see that his argument is extraordinarily thin.

I assume Nurse is clever enough to understand that the concerns of the scientific community are only a minor side issue in the arguments over Europe. In reality, we have the considerable issues of taxation, self-determination, democracy and openness to the world to consider.

Money grubbing by scientists should not weigh too heavily on the views of politicians or of the voters in a referendum.

Phil Trans B says end of world nigh

The Royal Society's elevation of Paul Ehrlich to the ranks of the fellowship last year was a surprising development, given the great doomsayer's predeliction for being entirely wrong about everything. Many noted at the time that Ehrlich shares Paul Nurse's interest in the global population figures and wondered whether Ehrlich's election as a fellow was connected to Nurse's election as president. As I understand it, however, new fellows are appointed after a vote of the existing fellowship, so presumably there was in fact broad support for Ehrlich's candidacy. There is no accounting for taste.

Anthony Watts recently noted the publication of a new Ehrlich paper in the Royal Society's Phil Trans B, in which full vent is given to the tale of environmental doom that he has been getting so badly wrong for the last 30 years. Is this kind of millenarian nonsense new for Royal Society Journals? I certainly have no conception of their stable of publications as being particularly full of woo in the way that, say, Nature is. Have I missed anything?

Standing up for misconduct

The Royal Society has just published Sir Paul Nurse's annual address to the fellows. His speech this year focused on scientific advice to policymakers, focusing on two issues in particular - climate and genetic modification of crops.

His conclusions are rather good in places:

Scientific advice should be based on the totality of observation and experiment, be based on rational argument, and reflect the consensus views of expert scientists, views which have been rigorously peer reviewed by other independent experts. If there is no strong consensus or if knowledge is still tentative, then these uncertainties should be reflected in the advice.

Click to read more ...

Nurse raises eyebrows

The New York Times carries a profile of Paul Nurse, and mentions my GWPF report in the process.

Of late, too, conservative critics have attached themselves like barnacles to the society’s hull. The Global Warming Policy Foundation treated the society as a nest of alarmists in a recent report, “Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change.” (The Latin expression is the society’s motto; it translates roughly as “Take nobody’s word for it.”) James Delingpole, the waggishly influential conservative blogger for The Telegraph, lampoons Dr. Nurse as “easily my favorite Nobel Prize winner after Yasir Arafat, Al Gore and Barack Obama.”It’s fair to say his mortar shots have not rattled the windows of the Royal Society. Dr. Nurse hiked his eyebrows and shrugged: “We can’t sit by without exposing bunkum.”

I can't actually think of any occasion when the Royal Society has "exposed bunkum" on the subject of climate change. There was obviously a certain amount of covering up for those implicated in the Climategate affair and those very silly and unscientific papers that went out in the bad old days. But apart from that they have just acted as cheerleaders.

Diary dates

The Royal Society is organising a conference on uncertainty in weather and climate:

This meeting follows on from the 2010 Anniversary Discussion Meeting on “Handling Uncertainty in Science” but with a focus on weather and climate prediction and downstream applications. How is uncertainty represented in weather and climate prediction? How reliable are representations of uncertainty? How can decision makers in weather and climate sensitive sectors make useful decisions in the light of uncertain input? Are current ensemble weather and climate prediction systems useful for decision making across a variety of application sectors?  How should probability forecasts be presented to the public?

Speakers include Judith Curry and Peter Webster.

Details here.