Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AGW is ruining science, as predicted
0 views
Skip to first unread message
og w ash@hogwash AGWHooey
Feb 11, 2012, 2:09:34 AM2/11/12
to
The Royal Society's Joyride
February 10, 2012
In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academié des
Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it? How can
someone such as myself - who lacks any scientific training whatsoever -
imagine that my own misgivings deserve to be taken seriously when such
esteemed bodies have spoken?
Yesterday a new report was released that goes a long way toward
answering those questions. Written by Andrew Montford, the author of The
Hockey Stick Illusion and the Bishop Hill blog, it takes a close look at
the misbehaviour of the world's oldest science academy.
The UK's Royal Society was founded in 1660. For more than 300 years,
Montford writes, it "adopted a position of aloofness from political
debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day."
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the society's journal explicitly
declared that it was not the job of that organization:
to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled
far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room.
This circumspect approach was reinforced by the Royal Society's
longstanding motto: Nullius in verba - a Latin phrase which means on the
word of no one or nobody's word is final.
But in recent years, while few of us were paying attention, the Royal
Society was taken for a joyride. Three centuries of tradition were
impulsively abandoned.
Pronouncements are now issued from the mountaintop about who is right
and who is wrong regarding scientific questions. Moreover, the Society
has become a hive of political activity - releasing press statements,
making demands on politicians, criticizing democratically elected
presidents in foreign countries, and harassing corporations.
It is important to understand that the membership of the Royal Society,
the "1,500 Fellows and Foreign Members, including more than 80 Nobel
Laureates" for whom the Society claims to speak, were never consulted
about this monumental change of direction. Nor were the views of the
broader membership taken into account before the Society began making
climate change rulings in their name.
The Royal Society's first global warming statement appeared in 1989.
Montford reports that it was measured in its language and upfront about
the fact that many aspects of our climate are poorly understood. A mere
ten years later, however, the Society released a new report which
declared:
The CO2 issue is real and increasingly urgent.
If you're thinking that this was an awfully long way for science to
travel in such a short time span, it may be worth noting that the Kyoto
Protocol was adopted in December 1997 and that, in the years that
followed, a great many people went to a great deal of trouble to
persuade additional countries to ratify it.
Fully half of Montford's 40-page report is devoted to describing, in
disheartening detail, the myriad climate faux pas of the Royal Society
since the year 2000. This body now appears to be just another arm of
government (its main source of funding) promoting the global warming
party line.
For example, the Society has made numerous statements about climate
change that are scientifically dubious. One example is a BBC television
show narrated by its current President, Sir Paul Nurse. Montford writes:
A large section of the programmed was given over to a defence of the
global warming hypothesis, with evidence for the 'consensus' position
presented by a NASA scientist named Bob Bindschadler.Bindschadler
embarrassingly claimed that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dwarfed
natural ones, when even the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's] own figures show that the opposite is true.
The error was later acknowledged by Bindschadler. But that doesn't
change the fact that the president of the Royal Society knows so little
about the subject matter on which he was lecturing the rest of us that
he failed to notice this howler.
The Society also now meddles in realms in which it can claim no
expertise at all - for example, economics. When the controversial Stern
Review - a report written by UK government economists - was released in
October 2006, the official launch was held not at a government facility
but at the Royal Society headquarters.
In other words, the Society's then president, Sir Martin Rees, chose to
associate the good name of his eminent, centuries-old scientific
organization with an economics report that would later be called "deeply
flawed" and "well outside the mainstream of published economic writings"
with respect to certain key calculations (see pp. 36, 46, 59 and 60;
backup link here).
By late 2009, some of the Fellows of the Royal Society had began to push
back. As a result of their efforts, in late 2010 a new statement on
climate change was issued that is more neutral. Montford observes:
the Society chose to present its new paper as a development of their
previous papers rather than what it actually was - a radical change.
The fact that a contingent within the Society is now attempting to set
things right is encouraging. But that does not erase the harm that has
been done. In Montford's view, the Society's tarnished reputation will
not be restored - nor trust rebuilt - until this organization openly
acknowledges what has transpired.
For the past 13 years those in charge of this venerated institution have
taken it on a reckless and costly detour.
.
The report was funded and published by the Global Warming Policy
Foundation. Read the entire thing here. It's a stunner.
February 10, 2012
In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academié des
Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it? How can
someone such as myself - who lacks any scientific training whatsoever -
imagine that my own misgivings deserve to be taken seriously when such
esteemed bodies have spoken?
Yesterday a new report was released that goes a long way toward
answering those questions. Written by Andrew Montford, the author of The
Hockey Stick Illusion and the Bishop Hill blog, it takes a close look at
the misbehaviour of the world's oldest science academy.
The UK's Royal Society was founded in 1660. For more than 300 years,
Montford writes, it "adopted a position of aloofness from political
debates, refusing to become embroiled in the controversies of the day."
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the society's journal explicitly
declared that it was not the job of that organization:
to give an official ruling on scientific issues, for these are settled
far more conclusively in the laboratory than in the committee room.
This circumspect approach was reinforced by the Royal Society's
longstanding motto: Nullius in verba - a Latin phrase which means on the
word of no one or nobody's word is final.
But in recent years, while few of us were paying attention, the Royal
Society was taken for a joyride. Three centuries of tradition were
impulsively abandoned.
Pronouncements are now issued from the mountaintop about who is right
and who is wrong regarding scientific questions. Moreover, the Society
has become a hive of political activity - releasing press statements,
making demands on politicians, criticizing democratically elected
presidents in foreign countries, and harassing corporations.
It is important to understand that the membership of the Royal Society,
the "1,500 Fellows and Foreign Members, including more than 80 Nobel
Laureates" for whom the Society claims to speak, were never consulted
about this monumental change of direction. Nor were the views of the
broader membership taken into account before the Society began making
climate change rulings in their name.
The Royal Society's first global warming statement appeared in 1989.
Montford reports that it was measured in its language and upfront about
the fact that many aspects of our climate are poorly understood. A mere
ten years later, however, the Society released a new report which
declared:
The CO2 issue is real and increasingly urgent.
If you're thinking that this was an awfully long way for science to
travel in such a short time span, it may be worth noting that the Kyoto
Protocol was adopted in December 1997 and that, in the years that
followed, a great many people went to a great deal of trouble to
persuade additional countries to ratify it.
Fully half of Montford's 40-page report is devoted to describing, in
disheartening detail, the myriad climate faux pas of the Royal Society
since the year 2000. This body now appears to be just another arm of
government (its main source of funding) promoting the global warming
party line.
For example, the Society has made numerous statements about climate
change that are scientifically dubious. One example is a BBC television
show narrated by its current President, Sir Paul Nurse. Montford writes:
A large section of the programmed was given over to a defence of the
global warming hypothesis, with evidence for the 'consensus' position
presented by a NASA scientist named Bob Bindschadler.Bindschadler
embarrassingly claimed that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dwarfed
natural ones, when even the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's] own figures show that the opposite is true.
The error was later acknowledged by Bindschadler. But that doesn't
change the fact that the president of the Royal Society knows so little
about the subject matter on which he was lecturing the rest of us that
he failed to notice this howler.
The Society also now meddles in realms in which it can claim no
expertise at all - for example, economics. When the controversial Stern
Review - a report written by UK government economists - was released in
October 2006, the official launch was held not at a government facility
but at the Royal Society headquarters.
In other words, the Society's then president, Sir Martin Rees, chose to
associate the good name of his eminent, centuries-old scientific
organization with an economics report that would later be called "deeply
flawed" and "well outside the mainstream of published economic writings"
with respect to certain key calculations (see pp. 36, 46, 59 and 60;
backup link here).
By late 2009, some of the Fellows of the Royal Society had began to push
back. As a result of their efforts, in late 2010 a new statement on
climate change was issued that is more neutral. Montford observes:
the Society chose to present its new paper as a development of their
previous papers rather than what it actually was - a radical change.
The fact that a contingent within the Society is now attempting to set
things right is encouraging. But that does not erase the harm that has
been done. In Montford's view, the Society's tarnished reputation will
not be restored - nor trust rebuilt - until this organization openly
acknowledges what has transpired.
For the past 13 years those in charge of this venerated institution have
taken it on a reckless and costly detour.
.
The report was funded and published by the Global Warming Policy
Foundation. Read the entire thing here. It's a stunner.
Surfer
Feb 11, 2012, 4:37:03 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:09:34 +1100, "AGWHooey" <h og w ash@h og w ash>
wrote:
>The Royal Society's Joyride
>February 10, 2012
>
>In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
>joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
>
>To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
>science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
>causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
>Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academié des
>Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
>
>How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it?
>
They don't. They check the data and arguments for themselves.
Eg the following graph shows that average global temperature was
higher in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
And the following graph shows that since 1998, the amount of Arctic
sea ice measured in September each year, has declined at an average
rate of MORE THAN 12% per decade.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_plot.png
Also:
"A study funded by climate change skeptics confirms that global
warming is happening at the rate questioned by “Climategate.”"
http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/21/climate-change-not-exaggerated/
And:
Swiss Re, which is the 2nd largest company in the word dealing with
insurance, has evaluated the validity of global warming and its
origin, and decided to present a detailed, scientific rebuttal against
the skeptics. This is an argument-by-argument rebuttals with full
citations to the sources.
http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
wrote:
>The Royal Society's Joyride
>February 10, 2012
>
>In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
>joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
>
>To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
>science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
>causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
>Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academié des
>Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
>
>How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it?
>
Eg the following graph shows that average global temperature was
higher in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
And the following graph shows that since 1998, the amount of Arctic
sea ice measured in September each year, has declined at an average
rate of MORE THAN 12% per decade.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_plot.png
Also:
"A study funded by climate change skeptics confirms that global
warming is happening at the rate questioned by “Climategate.”"
http://the-scientist.com/2011/10/21/climate-change-not-exaggerated/
And:
Swiss Re, which is the 2nd largest company in the word dealing with
insurance, has evaluated the validity of global warming and its
origin, and decided to present a detailed, scientific rebuttal against
the skeptics. This is an argument-by-argument rebuttals with full
citations to the sources.
http://media.swissre.com/documents/rethinking_factsheet_climate_sceptic.pdf
R Kym Horsell
Feb 23, 2012, 12:12:10 PM2/23/12
to
In sci.skeptic Surfer <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:09:34 +1100, "AGWHooey" <h og w ash@h og w ash>
> wrote:
>
>>The Royal Society's Joyride
>>February 10, 2012
>>
>>In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
>>joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
>>
>>To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
>>science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
>>causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
>>Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academi? des
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:09:34 +1100, "AGWHooey" <h og w ash@h og w ash>
> wrote:
>
>>The Royal Society's Joyride
>>February 10, 2012
>>
>>In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
>>joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
>>
>>To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
>>science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
>>causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
>>Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it?
>>
>
> They don't. They check the data and arguments for themselves.
>
> Eg the following graph shows that average global temperature was
> higher in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
...
>>
>>How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it?
>>
>
> They don't. They check the data and arguments for themselves.
>
> Eg the following graph shows that average global temperature was
> higher in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
Hey, good idea. Retrospective testing.
For a give year, how many previous years were less than it?
So for 1996 there were 111 years in the NASA LOTI data that were less.
If there were "nothing going on" we'd expect only 1/2 (65) the prev
years to have a lower temp +- 12 (for 2-sigma test).
Since 111 is way more than 77, we suspect there is "something going on" --
1996 is warmer than the preceding years.
For (say) 2009 (2010 is a bit of a slam dunk) 124 of the LOTI years
are less -- again much more than the 1/2 we'd expect if "nothing was
going on". So it seems 2009 is warmer than prev years with a confidence
of better than 9 out of 10 (i.e. at the 2-sigma level).
--
[Causation 101: 1 effect -- 1 cause].
If human beings are the cause of the warming, how is it possible
that the world was warmer than it is now in the distant past?
-- Sparks <energizedconservat...@yahoo.com>, 9 Feb 2012
DeludedAGWDopes
Feb 23, 2012, 7:04:43 PM2/23/12
to
"R Kym Horsell" <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:ji5s1a$gjf$3...@odin.sdf-eu.org...
> In sci.skeptic Surfer <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:09:34 +1100, "AGWHooey" <h og w ash@h og w ash>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Royal Society's Joyride
>>>February 10, 2012
>>>
>>>In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
>>>joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
>>>
>>>To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
>>>science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
>>>causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
>>>Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academi? des
>>>Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it?
>>>
>>
>> They don't. They check the data and arguments for themselves.
>>
>> Eg the following graph shows that average global temperature was
>> higher in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
>> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
> ...
>
> Hey, good idea. Retrospective testing.
>
> For a give year, how many previous years were less than it?
>
> So for 1996 there were 111 years in the NASA LOTI data that were less.
> If there were "nothing going on"
There is something "going on"!
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:09:34 +1100, "AGWHooey" <h og w ash@h og w ash>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Royal Society's Joyride
>>>February 10, 2012
>>>
>>>In recent years the world's oldest science academy has been taken for a
>>>joyride. Three centuries of neutrality have been impulsively abandoned.
>>>
>>>To be a climate skeptic is to find oneself in an awkward spot. Eminent
>>>science organizations have publicly declared that human beings are
>>>causing dangerous climate change. Among these are the US National
>>>Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Academi? des
>>>Sciences in France, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
>>>
>>>How can rational, intelligent people not take their word for it?
>>>
>>
>> They don't. They check the data and arguments for themselves.
>>
>> Eg the following graph shows that average global temperature was
>> higher in 2011 than it was in 1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.
>> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/hazards/2011/12/enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
> ...
>
> Hey, good idea. Retrospective testing.
>
> For a give year, how many previous years were less than it?
>
> So for 1996 there were 111 years in the NASA LOTI data that were less.
> If there were "nothing going on"
We are emerging from a mini ice age, aside from possible cloud cover and
solar variations.
So what's your point?
Warmest Regards
B O N Z O
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species
0 new messages