Jan
British government suffers biggest setback since Climategate: Chief Scientist speaks out
Another honest scientist steps forward. Professor John Beddington.
Just as we reported yesterday, the anthropogenic global warming theory is fast falling apart at the seams thanks to scientists of integrity bravely standing up to be counted. Earlier today it was Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver. On Tuesday, it was Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the man who was once a true insider of the elite, having served as a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author in 2001 for the Third Assessment Report.
Today we can update you with the news that the credibility of the IPCC and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken another major blow as Britain’s highest ranked government scientist, Professor John Beddington CMG FRS admits the science for global warming is “uncertain.”
Professor Beddington today makes his stand for skeptic principle in the London Times Online:
“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”
The esteemed professor admitted to the Times that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.
“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”
There is no one higher in the British Government’s pecking order of scientists than Professor John Beddington. He is the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London.Beddington was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2001. As Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government (CSA) Beddington acts as the personal adviser on science and technology-related activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. He has a significant public role as the government’s most visible scientific expert and is a key figure within Britain’s Royal Society.
Two years have elapsed since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Report. In that time Britain’s world famous Royal Society has negligently failed to comment on that discredited report.
Regular readers will recall that I raised suspicions four days ago that something was seriously amiss within the Royal Society for its omission to state where it stood about the IPCC’s Fourth Report.
This will be a story that will fester until the Royal Society follows Professor Beddington’s lead and comes out publicly to stand up for scientific integrity and transparency.
Climategate.com heartily welcomes Professor Beddington’s public stand for the noble principles of scientific scepticism and we applaud him as we do all other esteemed scientists who have the courage to speak out publicly for the greater good of science.
The honourable professor thinks:
“wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community”
This is the best news I have heard since the Climategate scandal first broke. It is a positive step forward and gives us all who fight for truth in science real hope that other esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society will have the courage and integrity to follow suit and protect the age old reputation of this great British institution. Sadly, until there is a clear public pronouncement I fear it will be ever more deeply mired in accusations of political toadyism.
Possibly related posts:
- Royal Society capitulates on climate debate in worst week for global warmers since Climategate
- Former IPCC Leader Says Climategate Scientists “Manipulated data.”
- Top climatologist finds 40% of British government climate costs report “fraudulent”
- The edifice crumbles: top climatologist openly breaks with Climategate conspirators
- What is the “likelihood” that the 2007 IPCC Report, section “the Physical Basis” is exagerrated?
I praise God for your honesty in such a hostile political environment, John Beddington!
Finally, a bit of science is actually being put around the AGW religion! And, on a related note, like I posted in a different thread, the IPCC religion of AGW breaks every single principle of physics it relies on as evidenced in http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161
Note to the Editor….
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Does the University of East Anglia CRU use this site.. (itsfaircomment.com)
Look who uses our site…
Link:http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-university-of-east-anglia-cru-use.html
They know where to look for the correct answers on the blogs….
You have to laugh.
He has a significant public role as the government’s most visible scientific expert and is a key figure within Britain’s Royal Society.
And he has a reputation that he may wish to preserve despite the natural consequences for his advocacy from the beginining to this moment.
This is the same position secretaries are hired for- to run interference and give okie-doke until frustration and attrition kills the complaint.
With the endless list of experts analysts, my god- anals must be very well understood by now.
Nota Bene – he is not claiming to be a sceptic.
He is assuming the persona of pontificator – which should be recognized as admission of failure to fulfill his original brief.
The language he is using is not incisive – it’s eau de cologne rinse.
So true, Igor. If anyone hasn’t yet read our article on the two German physicists’ debunk of the greenhouse gas theory its here:
http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory
Let me second the point Dave McK makes. We rightly welcome with relief the long anticipated return to science of Beddington, Weaver, and others now coming forth. However, and it is a large however; those finding their moral courage at the last moment should not be granted carte blanc forgiveness. Why did they remain silent or cheer the Team on for so many years creating the climate of fear and deceit which allowed the scam to be perpetrated. Most of them hold positions of public trust which they have purposely violated over time. Remember that Weaver certainly and Beddington probably could have released emails and data years ago as potent as climategate. They chose the path of active collaboration with a destructive ideology. That path must in the end lead to well-earned professional humiliation. After years of damaging the public interest it’s a fitting service for them to provide.
Tom, you are perferctly right on the ethical points. I would add though, if looking from a pragmatic legal perspective what we are witnessing is the break down of a conspiracy and generally those who capitulate first are invariably the less guilty with less to fear. The ring leaders, who warrant the stiffest penalties under law will sweat it out the longest as the evidence against them, once revealed, has more chance of gaining a conviction on the quantum of ‘beyond all reasonable doubt.’
Just to extend on what John O said, it is still possible for at least some of the scientists involved in this whole thing to come out better, by say, admitting that they were not as critical of the science as they probably should’ve been, but they have learnt their lesson now and so on. This approach, however, involves either having your cake or eating it, but some seem to prefer to unable to make their mind. It’s not like we’re saying put your hands up and admit it, what we are saying is use science to back up your claims and if it happens that you were not as careful with the science but then found the error of your ways, then yes, questions will be asked of you, but this situation is nowhere near as bad as being caught with the proverbial pants (underwear if you are stateside) down…
Besides, there’s much more doom-like things to worry about than the climate like, erm, the Apophis asteroid…
I know this is off topic – sorry! – and most of you have already seen proof of the connection of oil, WWF, and other corporations promoting climate change for their own profit. But I thought – since I found this link in the Twitter Scroll on your site, being pushed by a propagandist w/ Twitter name fruitcakefringe – you may like to see what BP, Shell, etc. are saying about climate change:
http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/
Excellent point, Michele. It’s necessary to keep touching back on the evidence that the biggest oil corporations are pushing the hardest for cap and trade. Many people are still unaware that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, the hub of Climategate, was set up by former British Prime Minister, Thatcher, and funded by Shell and BP. The leaked CRU emails refer on numerous occasions to CRU’s ‘big oil’ connections.
I hate to admit this, but I didn’t know Thatcher’s involvement at all. Considering Lord Monckton – who worked under her – and her conservationism, what were her intentions? Seems obvious that having oil companies fund the CRU is a problem waiting to happen – unless she wanted one outcome and environmental activist took over and gave us another. It’s wrong either way.
Is this why Lord Monckton speaks out so loudy?
Michele, Thatcher broke the back of British trade unionism in the ’80′s and her biggest success was defeating the National Union of Mineworkers. Part of her strategy was to undermine the UK’s reliance on coal and to this end she funded universities to find environmental concerns that would give her the moral imperative to curtail Britain’s coal output. Thus she enlisted oil giants BP and Shell to help set up the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
John,
Thanks! I should have searched this out myself. I appreciate the info.
I couldn’t agree more John. The edges crumble first and there are degrees of complicity. It’s hard to hold back though after being compared to a racist and a holocaust denier for asking some questions.
Glaciergate
A relatively tame Hitler parody video
“As chief operating officer for the cabal of Billionaires who control the global warming scam, Hitler quickly realizes the long range implications of “Glaciergate”.”
Glaciergate: Hitler’s Last Straw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b-6U5MwyDM
Somethings Happening Here, what it is, ain’t exactly clear…..yet , that is a line from the Buffalo Springfield song For What its Worth….Kind of ironic I think.
IPCC – Pachauri – credibility in review
CRU – Jones – credibility in review
Prince Charles – according to article by Delingpole – Job well done CRU…. credibility…. ???? Very important to hear what the “job well done” comment was for.
Anyone who talks to plants the way His Royal Highness does, has an obvious credibility issue. He is also abusing his position – constitutionally he has no right to comment on political issues.
[...] Chief scientist speaks out, UNIPCC insider speaks out, The billion dollar hoax [...]
“Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men’s efforts than good by their own.” (Bacon)
The full text is in translation here: http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm
Just something to reflect on.
Bacon’s words are just as apt in today’s world as they were back then
Our long desired moment of clarity will come if we all continue to work toward it. In the space of a few months we have turned the tide against very long odds. Here in the US we should consider encouraging our legislators to use this golden opportunity to shift blame from themselves onto the UN. Both good politics and good policy since giving them an out may bolster their courage to take the offensive.