Jan
Royal Society capitulates on climate debate in worst week for global warmers since Climategate
All the good news for climate skeptics is coming in a rush. At the end of a most successful week for so-called “deniers” of the global warming theory (no, not a fact, Al), the alarmist environmental lobby has been shifted seismically backwards on all fronts. In light of this week, and all the events since “Climategate” began at East Anglia, what does the Royal Society have to say?
The Royal Society is the prime scientific advisor to Her Majesty’s Government. Through its Science Policy Centre, the Society acts as an advisor to the European Commission and the United Nations on matters of science. But when we search the esteemed Society’s website for their latest pronouncements on the great global warming debate, they do no more than regurgitate the same old tired lies and shameful propaganda in its publication, Facts and fictions about climate change.
Shockingly the prime advisers to the British government draw on superseded and outdated science almost a decade old. Where are the references you’d expect to see from the IPCC’s last Report of 2007? Is the Royal Society in a time warp, blind to where the scientific debate now is, or are they tacitly surrendering to the inevitable skeptic victory?
We have to report that the Royal Society, that once great pillar of Britain’s scientific pre-eminence in the world has abandoned all pretense of furthering the intellectual argument for their once-beloved theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The fact that the Royal Society can find not a single nugget from the more recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Report that won the UN a Nobel Prize, betrays the entire alarmist cause as being weak and backward looking.
In a weak and tepid publication, this once strident alarmist scientific body wastes 9,155 words, 657 paragraphs and 19 pages performing little more than a copy and paste job of the outdated and superceded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report of 2001.
The first paragraph starts feebly and then is followed by capitulating dross,
“It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an exaggeration.”
Just when the global warmers of the green lobby desperately need some heavyweight science for back up, this once revered institution is found seriously wanting. The Royal Society can muster not one single rebuttal. There are just no new bullets to fire; nothing is left in their armory. By not even waving as much as a paltry popgun from the most recent IPCC Report, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, and relying almost exclusively on the 2001 IPCC Third Report, we are left in no doubt that the intellectually bankrupt, battered, and bedraggled best of British warmest brains are beaten.
All in a rush we’ve seen victory upon victory for challengers to AGW. Since the East Anglia CRU emails broke free and introduced climategate to the world, we’ve hadwin after win over the warmers. But, this last week we’ve seen the momentum take on an acceleration I don’t think anyone expected.
We had the Glaciergate u-turn whereby the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to make a humiliating admission that its “evidence” for Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was an off the cuff speculation rather than posited in genuine scientific research.
We then saw the truly shocking U.S. Senate election victory for Republican candidate, AGW skeptic Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) who became the 41st and blocking vote against any U.S. climate cap and trade bill.
The UN then conceded it had dropped the January 31, 2010 deadline by which time all countries were expected to officially state their emission reduction targets accompanied.
But as we reported on yesterday, the clincher for the Royal Society’s abject surrender was the announcement from the UK’s Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee (STC) that it intends to ask very tough questions of British climatologists in its upcoming investigation into Climategate what’s been discovered in over 1,000 embarrassing emails, plus other files, extracted from the UK’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Now seeing the writing on the wall, we can be forgiven for thinking that those scientific generals at the headquarters of British global warming science have capitulated just in the nick of time leaving the politicians alone to defend their own crazy cause.
The STC’s probe will begin with an oral evidence session in March 2010. That very fine writer, James Delingpole has, in his customary fashion, been quick to note:
“This is very heartening news for taxpayers, rationalists, and everyone who believes in the integrity of the scientific process. More encouraging still is Bishop Hill’s suggestion that it might be used by climate realists in the US government to launch a pincer movement against the eco fascists in the Obama administration.”
There is no conceivable wriggle room out of those three highly probative questions that will be asked of climate science (1.) what are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research? (2.) Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate? And, (3.) How independent are the other two international data sets? That must surely have been the final straw to signal the Royal Society’s surrender.
Frank answers will no doubt heap huge disgrace on those who run the world’s oldest and proudest scientific society. For they have shamelessly thrown their hats into the warmist ring for so long and left them there even when the junk science was exposed as flim-flam. We can only hope there will soon be a clear out from that crumbling edifice and new blood will take their cue in earnest from the STC and endeavour to rebuild Britain’s scientific integrity. The Royal Society must explicitly come out and urge all climate scientists to speak up and show transparency, integrity and commitment to the scientific method and ensure hard lessons are learned from Climategate.
We ask the Royal Society to co-operate fully with the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee and expose the snake oil salesmen of the IPCC who shamelessly and fraudulently promoted the theory of man made global warming. This should be taken as the first step towards developing a new and more transparent methodology in the way climate science is directed and funded by governments.
The Science and Technology invites written submissions from interested parties on any of the issues by noon on Wednesday 27 January.
Possibly related posts:
- British government suffers biggest setback since Climategate: Chief Scientist speaks out
- Royal Society of Chemistry backs 36,000 physicists in condemning Climategate
- Royal Statistical Society join Chemist and Physicists lecturing the University of East Anglia on non-disclosure
- Penn State decision on Michael Mann due on this week
- IPCC member admits not reading IPPC Report, yet wants to change your lifestyle due to what’s in it
Do you think the white flag is being waved by an embattled Dr Pachauri ?, I hope it is….. he just has to realise the game is up.
“At the same time, Dr Pachauri has personally been drawn into a major row with the Indian government, previously among his leading supporters, after he described as “voodoo science” an official report by the country’s leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain’s claims as baseless. Now that the IPCC has disowned the prediction made by his employee, Dr Pachauri has been castigated by India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, and called on by Dr Raina to apologise for his “voodoo science” charge. At a stormy Delhi press conference on Thursday, Dr Pachauri was asked whether he intended to resign as chairman of the IPCC – on whose behalf he collected a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago, alongside Al Gore – but he refused to answer questions on this fast-escalating row.”
Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
Like Churchill and Roosevelt at Casablanca we need to demand unconditional surrender. The damage that AGW lunitics have done is deep and will take many years to completely undo. Let us spare the truly stupid who are with us always but the ringleaders require a full measure of justice. Prosecution for those who have either stolen or mis-directed public funds, loss of employment for all those who violated professional ethics codes, and unending ridicule for those who have earned that fate. Taking Madoff’s property may have discomforted the old swindler but jailing him set the example for others. AGW has been politics played raw and out of bounds by our opponents. While we are not them we should also not parse the importance of this “teachable moment”
Prosecution will be unlikely as evidence of fraudulent intent will be hard to prove. What can be done is focus on the professional ethics breaches and ban the most blatant culprits from public funding. I like the ‘unending ridicule’, however, that demeans the parties involved and with a ban on funding, the perpetrators would be reminded daily of their guilt.
The Royal Society were the ones who forced Keith Briffa to publish his raw data set for Steve McIntyre to study. I suspect there are a few crusty old British gentleman who still remember how science is supposed to be done.
What a nice epitaph for the royal society.
WE believe in the wickedness of CO2 ,and condone the factless data and acertain India will be waterless in 25 years time.
John O’Sullivan is a terrific and knowledgable writer.
I hope that all his input is used at all the climategate inqueries.
Keep up the good work John.
I have always maintained that an organisation which relies upon ‘Parliamentary Grant in Aid’ fro 68.2% of its funding is anything but ‘Independent’.
Yet the Royal Society has repeatedly claimed to be so, blindly (it seems) following the AGW party line to appease its paymasters!
It now deserves every bit of ordure coming its way!
Sorry but this needs to be pointed out. The Royal Societies, A guide to facts and fictions about climate change, was issued in 2005, how is it ignoring the 2007 IPCC report when it hadn’t yet been compiled?
That’s a fair comment Dan, but the offending document is still on their website and is tagged as having been updated in September 2009. Time they got themselves up to date, although things are moving so fast we are all having trouble keeping up.
[...] readers will recall that I raised suspicions four days ago that something was seriously amiss within the Royal Society for its omission to state [...]