Another excellent job by the UK Daily Mail.
Professor Michael Kelly, Fellow of the Royal Society, was one of the 43 who protested back in 2010 at the Royal Society’s climate change position. (Read up on the Rebellion of the 43 at the GWPF p32.) They felt the Royal Society was breaking its own motto: motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’. Now five years later, Michael Kelly gives us an update, and he fears things are worse: “... since then the Society has become more, not less dogmatic – despite the fact that since we sent that letter, it has become evident that there is even more uncertainty than previously thought.”
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world’s leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows
His main point is that the Royal Society is not giving balanced information about the uncertainties and model failures. (It’s the same pattern of telling us half truths, while hiding the bombs, that we see in the BBC and the ABC, and “love media”.) Kelly argued that Society ought to distance itself from levels of certainty which could not be justified.
Real scientists put forward everything they know that is relevant. As Kelly says: “Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying.”
The great 20th Century physicist, Richard Feynman, wrote in his autobiography: ‘Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.’ This the Royal Society has failed to do.
The reason for this lack of nuance seems to be that policymakers say they want ‘scientific certainty’. As an engineer, I find that amazing: we remain legally liable for what we say professionally, so will always qualify our statements. But the misleading lack of qualification in the statements made by the Royal Society and others is creating policy nonsense.
The project to ‘solve the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like.
During my time as a government departmental Chief Scientific Adviser, I was always aware that politicians made the final decision on any issue on the balance of all the evidence. For this reason, civil servants are trained to draw their attention to all the upsides and downsides of taking a particular course of action.
Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.
PROFESSOR MICHAEL KELLY IS THE PRINCE PHILIP PROFESSOR OF TECHNOLOGY AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
For those who are interested, Michael Kelly spoke about the late great Tony Kelly (no relation) who was one of the leaders of the protest of 43.
GWPF have a briefing paper The Small Print: What the Royal Society left out (pdf)
Endorsed by the following:
Prof Robert Carter
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Freeman Dyson
Prof Christopher Essex
Dr Indur Goklany
Prof Will Happer
Prof Richard Lindzen
Prof Ross McKitrick
Prof Ian Plimer
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Prof Nir Shaviv
Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
h/t Eric Worrall, Pat, and others.
” The project to ‘solve the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like. ”
Wasn’t it the Tower of Babel endeavour that demonstrated how you cannot let the World unite in mass delusional stupidity. Thwarted by rendering everyone to speak in different languages.
Are the zealots for Global Governance at the UN bringing us back to needing another such reminder.
C. Figueres of the UNFCCC on wanting more Global Governance muscle to steal everyone’s sweats in the playground.
330
Corrigendum:- That should have been “… sweets in the playground…” ( as the pigs it seems have already had their sweat stolen;-).
100
Nah… you had it right. They want to leave us naked…
(8>))
80
The Royal Society celebrates 350 years by giving free access in March
As reported on March 6, 2015 by tallbloke.wordpress°com
So grab your free content while it’s free.
40
That is one scary movie.
The UN is clearly just a tool for her naked ambitions. One she would just as quickly discard should a better vehicle for her purposes come along . Like China (just for instance) ? Or any more credible forum for Global hegemony .
90
She can try…she might get arude shock….
And since when does anyone (a) consider the UN competent in anything (b) has any form of weight of law (c) has any credibility?
Right now its all just hot air…. bad pun, I know….
100
Unfortunately Steve,
a hot air balloon with all our hard earned tax money in the basket underneath; and it’s rising and rising and getting away from us towards where it is needed most: Manhattan and the luxurious hotels nearby that glorious institution, The Venerable United Nations.
Stop Australia’s involvement (funding – graft – unaccounted for donations – ripped off taxes – our blood sweat (or is that sweet) and tears) in this charade of do-gooderism!!!!!
KK
70
My mate AlecM wrote this on Bishop Hill:
‘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.’
80
So some scientists are finally getting alarmed at the low esteem their chosen vocation is held by many other professionals and the public. That they are willing to speak out against those activist in their number is to be praised. Well done the 43!
Now is the time to start pushing the these activists for a public debate on the subject and expose their intent as political and not scientific.
400
I suggest that Kelly is simply a man of principle ; he couldn’t care less about esteem. His loyalty is to truth.
340
Perhaps farmerbraun, or conflicted by previous appointments ?
Could that be what he wants you to think ?
You don’t get to hold all those positions without being a jolly good Fellow.
Where was Prof. Kelly on the Oxburgh ‘enquiry ‘ into Climategate I wonder ?
Here is just the first I came across in idle pursuit of that question, from Delingpole.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100044687/how-lord-oxburgh-of-persil-washed-the-climategate-team-whiter-than-white-pt-2/
80
I might agree , if I did not know him personally . Same university, same faculty, same hall of residence.
He doesn’t give a shit what I , or anyone else thinks.
One might attain all of those positions through sheer dedication and excellence.
160
O.K. by me if you use a more suitable term Mod.
50
That’s quite an endorsement farmerbraun. We are indeed fortunate to be in the company of someone who has had the good luck of knowing him so well.
50
Sarcasm , right?
It’s pretty obvious that endorsement is not required, least of all from a cow cocky.
I’m just saying that I trust him.
41
Not at all farmerbraun. It is all too easy to jump to conclusions without having benefit of knowing the man.
There is little better than the personal recommendation of someone who knows him , short of knowing him for oneself.
40
Pardon me C.J.
30
I’m just as capable of displaying ignorance as the next man and if you hadn’t spoken up how would we have known fb ? May I call you fb ?
Research at GEC, Uni. of Surrey (Guildford ?), Cambridge. What was it you know him from fb ?
I see he was Prof of Physics & Electronics for 10 years. That crossover between hard Science & Engineering and of course coming from an Industry background at GEC.
20
I take it that you are American?
00
Farmer Braun- American? German -surely!
Seriously . . . cow cocky is a bit of a giveaway i would have thought.
But why American?
00
C.J.Richards
March 16, 2015 at 7:41 pm
Victoria University – Weir House.
00
The Daily Mail is a sympathetic forum for reforming Warmists to ‘come out’ in. Should they be welcomed with open arms or held to account for the witness they previously held to ?
I rather suspect plea bargains may be assumed by the early defectors while their more entrenched ex-colleagues may have to bear the brunt and are more likely to go down with the sinking Warmist ship.
This move from an ex-Oxburgh committee member is clearly to be celebrated though. The move anyway, if not the man.
50
Worth reading his notes from the inquiry linked to off http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/22/kellys-comments/ to get a more balanced view.
00
My reference was to the esteem of ‘science’ as a subject, not the man. Today, I’m sure, science is viewed as less worthy and truthful than it was in past times.
Michael Kelly probably is, as you say, a man of principle (I don’t know for sure as I don’t know him personally), however as such a person I cannot imagine that he wants to be associated with the many vocal others of his profession that appear far less than principled or truthful.
10
It sometimes helps to define a common understand the language we are using, when discussing complex and contentious subjects. Thus, I present a set of definitions for “science”, from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary:
The various definitions apply in different contexts, but they should all remain true to the basic definition of knowing rather than believing or wishing something.
170
Hmmm. Certainly agree it’s more about knowing than believing, but more perhaps about knowing the limitations of one’s knowledge & really about the eternal inquiry and advancing the frontiers of essentially mis-understanding.
Now here I might differ because religion, as I understand it , is about celebrating the great mystery of what is objective reality.
40
In my less sophisticated terms, science is concerned with understanding the real world through theories and systematic classification. That is with definitions 3c and 3d. What is important is making sure these theories and classifications actually relate to the world out there, and are not just constructs within our minds. It is very easy to become confused. In climate science this is exacerbated by groups like the Royal Society agreeing on a collective view of the world that is impervious to assault by mere facts.
100
Worse are the NGOs all the PR money.
Their science is easy to disprove…
it’s the spending run amok to hide their lie.
10
On difficult and complex issues, greater understanding can be had by comparing and contrasting the arguments. If the scientific consensus had much stronger arguments than we “deniers” then they would have long ago squashed us flat. But it is the other way round, so the argument is deflected onto scientific consensus with banal statements. Instead of debate there is mudslinging as a protective shield against the “experts” having to think for themselves.
301
The more this saga goes on, CC, GW et., the more I feel that somebody should write a sit-com like “Yes Minister”, “Yes Un”? or……? If it wasn’t so serious, it would be hilarious!!
230
Not as unlikely as one might think. I Googled Yes Minister and climate and look what popped out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072268/Creator-Yes-Minister-launches-blistering-attack-bias-ridden-BBC.html
I wonder if he already has a script 🙂
30
It’s a clever attack ; right at the weakest point i.e. uncertainty.
Because the only scientific position available right now is that we don’t know. It is not possible to say , either way.
141
There are those cooling towers again, belching that dangerous ‘greenhouse’ gas, H2O.
180
Actually, Manalive, you are more correct than you seem to realise – H2O (not to be confused with H2G2) – is officially recognised as a considerably more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2! Oh, the irony! It hurts!
101
I know.
30
Give him a beret and doesn’t he have a striking resemblance to Benny Hill ?
Prof. Michael Kelly is an Electrical Engineer.
Here is his profile from the Lord Oxburgh’s laundering panel into the UEA ‘s CRU behaviour following Climategate.
” Prof Michael Kelly FRS is Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge, where during 2003-05 he was also executive director of the Cambridge-MIT Institute. He was a member of the research staff of GEC during 1981-1992, and professor of physics and electronics at the University of Surrey during 1992-2002, and head of its School of Electronics and Physical Sciences during 1996-2001. He is also a non-executive director of the Laird Group plc. He is a fellow of the Royal Societies of London and New Zealand and of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Physics and the Institute of Engineering and Technology. He was chief scientific adviser to the Department of Communities and Local Government from 2006 to 2009.”
110
I am an electrical engineer by training, if not by profession.
There is something about: a) having to make something, that you can’t directly see, work; and b) not having that something, kill anybody in the process; that makes you very pragmatic.
I don’t recall ever meeting an Electrical Engineer who gives any credence at all, to the climate scam.
231
Well I never valued my Electrical training so highly as a life skill since discovering the JoNova Blogg and all it’s good people.
122
Could Electrical understanding be they key to truth itself or does the discipline just attract certain seekers after truth ?
Jo certainly seems to have been attracted by one 🙂
51
Well lets just say there is a certain pragamatism that goes into harnessing something thats very useful ( electricity ) but will kill you stone dead as soon as you get it wrong.
This puts a premium on (a) understanding the beast youre delaing with ( electricity ) and (b) making sure its kept well contained and (c) used in a productive manner.
But the other thing about EE is that it interfaces with the physical world in so many ways – open cut mine diggers, trains, houses, comms, etc etc.
Working in EE means yorue properly plugged in ( excuse the pun ) to reality, and then some.
This is probably also why engineers also are quick to lose patience with fickle humanities based nonsense, like politics.
71
Well, I’ve only ever electrocuted myself once and that was from probing the eternal mysteries of a light socket without bulb. It should have been so obvious but I was totally absorbed. I was in my early teens.
Nowadays I’d put such absent mindedness down to age, but that’s only for the sake of my colleagues who would think so. I know I have always been this way, but who gives a $4!t about trying to convince anyone beyond their preconceptions .
Absent mindedness is my only real scientific qualification.
70
Apparently, getting the odd half-cycle is good for the heart – but only when taken in moderation. 😉
40
Yeah, Rereke,
let’s see, half a cycle, so that’s 0.01 second. That’s moderation enough!
Cue Curly!
Tony.
30
EEs also are not afraid to use math to check the bed wetters facts. Above all else I think its the EEs lack of fear of mathematics that eventually sends them to the sceptic side.
Having said that one glance at spectrum shows you that EEs can drink the koolaid, in my experience though that’s because they haven’t bothered to check the math. Laziness is the EEs enemy in this debate.
There are plenty of EEs for example that see photovoltaics as a viable energy source where any experienced professional who has run the numbers knows that the energy density from photovoltaics at any efficiency is just too low to bw useful. Photovoltaics look wonderful in theory, but they are woeful in practise.
Eg on the abc last week they were carrying on about 40% efficient GaAs solar cells and cooling system that allow a 1m square cell generate power in the kilowatt range, but of course that cell can only do that with focussed solar from a tracking reflector array that can only collect at most 900 watts of energy per square meter from 10 AM to 3 PM. It doesn’t matter how good the panels are, you wont ever get more than 1000W per square meter used by 5 to 6 hours a day, with dull days being much less!
81
Two words that salesmen dread from Engineers – “overall effciency”
When a retired relative was speccing a domestic solar system, I suggested go 4 kW when the solar tech/salesman said they’d only need 3 kW.
I said yes but what happens when you have a cloudy day etc? Eventually they put in 4 kW, seems to have paid off so far….
The panels have micro inverters, not sure if they are more or less efficient than using a central inverter…thoughts?
41
Even Software Engineers don’t seem to understand contingency, yet they know software is full of errors. Thinking positive is all very well but know better than to believe your own propaganda.
51
I only picked EE because I was lazy and didn’t like getting my hands dirty.
50
Bobl says this:
Now, I’m no EE, and all I have is the lowliest Associate Diploma in EE, nothing really, only recognition of 25 years in the trade and teaching the trade in the Air Force, but use maths and watch the looks of absolute incredulity on the faces of those who ‘go along’ with this CAGW thing.
Tell them that a plant like Bayswater with four units of 660MW each, will burn 7.5 million tons of coal a year under normal operation. (mouth opens)
Tell them that each ton of coal emits (on average) 2.86 tons of CO2. (eyebrows drop with doubt followed by disbelief)
Then stand up, literally, and poke your arms out in front of you and make a right angle with them. Use that as two sides of a square, and the cube is how tall you are.
That cube will contain (approximately) one ton of coal.
Now, tell them that at full operation, each unit at Bayswater will burn that one ton of coal in 14 seconds, emitting one ton of CO2 every 5 seconds.
So, with all four units at full operation it’s burning a ton of coal every 3.5 seconds and emitting a ton of CO2 every 1.3 seconds.
The looks on their faces are priceless. They just cannot comprehend it.
They will believe the Science without question, and yet cannot comprehend the Maths which are behind all that, and frankly, the Maths is easier to understand than the Science, and that’s my point. If they cannot understand the maths, how can they claim to believe the Science.
The maths of power generation is on a scale so large, that just the numbers alone are in the realms of disbelief for those who follow the CAGW belief.
And because I do not believe, then obviously, I’m the one who is telling porkies when I mention all this. They would prefer not to believe me because I don’t believe CAGW.
Tony.
121
It’s not even Maths Tony. It just takes Arithmetic to see what doesn’t add up. One of the essentials of a Basic Education. Those 3 ‘R’s. Reading, wRiting and ‘Rithmetic.
20
It is maths Jim , but not as we know it.
20
In a review of the book On Bullshit by Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt, Simon Blackburn (philosopher) notes the difference between the bullshitter and the liar is that while the liar wants you to believe something untrue, the bullshitter doesn’t even care about the truth or whether you believe them. They just want to cloud the issue long enough to get their way.
“The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides … is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it … A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it … For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: He is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 56.
60
I would separate the two on the basis of the morality of the result.
20
The result is the same. the listener is deceived.
Surely the difference in morality, if there is a difference, is the intent.
The liar knows what he/she is doing (ie deceiving). The bullshitter does not know the truth about what he/she is saying.
30
I first came across this type of bs practice working with a manager on a board, where I couldn’t figure out how any question asked could instantly receive a positive response when I knew he didn’t have a clue, and he never followed up on his word. Frankfurt’s little book explained it. Frankfurt also wrote a small treatise “On Truth”.
There’s definitely a difference between lying and bs. A liar when questioned attempts to construct a more firm edifice of consistent lies. A bs-er doesn’t care about consistency, and wouldn’t know if they are or not because his statements are just off-the-cuff inventions, forgotten as soon as they’re spoken. What matters is effect, not correct or incorrect information.
10
Is this not another case of it takes one to know one?
How do we know that Harry Frankfurt is not a BS’er himself and just trying to cloud the definition to hide his true character?
Just asking…
10
I once met a man who told me that he was a consistent liar, and who therefore never told the truth. … Think about it.
00
Rereke Whakaaro,
The liar paradox is not a real paradox. Please read my reply to Dan Kahan on the ‘Study Shows Skeptics Know More’ thread.
Abe
00
The Royal Society is really keen on geoengineering, they are very naughty.
90
If I knew what geoengineering was, I might be able to agree with you.
60
https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
30
This is the sort of madness the royal fellows are involved with.
‘Huge mirrors that reflect the sun’s light back into space are one of a number of measures being considered to battle climate change.
‘Leaked papers from the UN science body have unveiled the measures being considered for ‘geo-engineering’, which will be discussed at a meeting in Peru next week.
‘Other measures detailed in the papers, seen by The Guardian, include producing lighter coloured crops and using iron filings in the world’s oceans.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004454/Huge-mirrors-sky-future-tackling-climate-change-claim-scientists.html#ixzz3UWACwiKc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
31
They stole that from me!! I had my magnetic umbrella of iron in the sky in particulate form , which could be expanded and retracted on a magnetic whim long ago, and lovely nights when they all crashed back into the atmosphere.
I forget the name of it , I,m sure Jo has it logged somewhere under “super genius” along with me and wily coyote.
10
Ah, The Royal Society has made up an imaginary word to describe an imaginary fix, for an imaginary problem. How creative, of them.
The word is too new to have appeared in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, but it does appear on the Dictionary.com website (where all wannabe words find a home), and that appears to be the only place where it does appear, other than the Royal Society, of course.
Word Origin (unknown) [But probably the Royal Society, nudge, nudge.]
geoengineer v. to make a large-scale effort to modify (the earth or its environment), especially to counteract global warming.
Example: “Removing all carbon dioxide from of the atmosphere is one way to geoengineer the planet.”
geoengineer n. a person who works on such projects.
Example: “Six months ago I couldn’t even spell geoengineer, now I are one.”
geoengineering v.t. The act of organising a large-scale effort to modify (the earth or its environment), especially to counteract global warming.
Example: “Next month we will be geoengineering all of the carbon dioxide out of Sussex, about two weeks before the county flower show”.
geoengineering a. “The pretense of being a geoengineer”.
Example: This comment was documented using geoengineering licence, in the face of pure bollocks.
50
It does not give me much confidence in Geoengineers. Clearly problems with primary school education.
Interesting fact: I have a friend who has spent most of her life trying to teach mathematics to engineers at University. She says that a lot of them were woeful!
30
Didn’t Hitler see himself as a geoengineer if perhaps more on the political side ?
http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfh/docs/Harmon53.pdf
10
Does the Royal Society hide uncertainty and Climate? You bet.
In Dec 2014 the Royal Society published; A Short Guide to Climate Science, a layman’s introduction to the key issues in the subject.
It is full of dogmatic statements about so called climate science.
On 15 March 2015 the Global Warming Policy Foundation responded with
“THE SMALL PRINT – What the Royal Society left out”.
The GWPF paper takes the on the Royal Society point by point and shows that they misrepresent climate science by failing to acknowledge uncertainties and serious gaps in the scientific understanding.
In my view the GWPF paper does not go far enough. Subject for a later Unthreaded weekend.
101
The real question is why the Royal Society was so dogmatic, so absolutist in the first case, against the written advice of 43 of their members? While that is 43 out of 1300 around the world, it is significant that so many people would even dare take a principled stand in writing. Of course they are putting their treasured lifelong achievement of membership of the Royal Society in real jeopardy. The world saw the same with the American Association of Physicists and NASA. How many of the BOM staff agree with their senior management in deleting and excising and adjusting data? How many dare?
What is says is that the Global Warming issue is a hot political, not scientific issue. In scientific circles, many are totally disinterested in politics and science, so the most politically astute rise to the top and the most determined politicians are at the top. These are not necessarily the best scientists, but the ones who care the most about the world outside science and who can deny the massive pressure to tell your employer what they want to hear? Would Ian Chubb have been appointed Chief Scientist for Australia if he was a noted sceptic? No. Would Ziggy Switkowski be too outspoken as Chancellor of RMIT? No.
If you value your job, prestige, power, fame and income at the top, say nothing. It has always been this way. The scam will wear itself out eventually and you will still have your job and become more outspoken as the tide turns. Just watch the graceful departure from the sinking ship, after November.
211
I’ve got a question TdeF. Why would anyone, apart from the main stream media, care what the Royal Society and other institutions of self appointed scientific authority had to say about anything? For that matter why would any inquisitive and active scientist want to join an old boys club that promotes a side and not an open debate?
Any scientist who would prefer to keep their membership to an anachronistic organisation than to stand up for their scientific principals needs to have a good look at themselves.
Remember institutions like the Royal Society defended the validity of the Piltdown fossils for 40 years before being humiliated into accepting the facts. The reason they so easily accepted the Piltdown fossils as genuine in the first place was that they fit into the fashionable model for human evolution held by many at the time. Sound familiar?
81
Why would anyone…care?
Because the founders of the Royal Society included such as Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke. Isaac Newton was a past president, and Sir Joseph Banks.
It should concern every one of us that the standard is being lowered.
61
Yes. Agreed. It is part of the Aristole’s Argument from authority fallacy. It does not matter what thousands of physicists or meteorologists or geologists or other scientists think, the warmist argument is that the people at the top are all that matter. The implication is that if they suppposed to be the best of the best, their opinion is right. Sadly, that has never been true and the best scientists are often totally uninterested in politics. These societies are more old boys clubs who present a barrier to innovation as did the religious before them.
The utterly disgraceful behaviour of the Board of Longitude including the head of the Royal Society will live in infamy with their rejection of Harrison’s clocks. A common fault of clever men is that they do not respect people who in fact more clever. Old scientists, like old footballers can try to live on past glories, deriding people who question their authority. Global Warming is a crock, but some people have based their careers on it. Then you get Tim Flannery, Australian of the year. Words fail.
41
Or the nastiness that went on between Hooke and Newton.
It was finally reported here –
http://blogs.royalsociety.org/history-of-science/2010/12/03/hooke-newton-missing-portrait/
30
The UK’s Royal Society is living proof that we live in the age of political science, something which has devolved from objective science.
“Oi! Hey you UK government, gimme lots of grants and gimme them now” should replace the Royal Society’s current motto of “Nullius in verba.”
The old motto is just not relevant in modern times and especially not in the machinations of today’s climate science.
121
I think that today, Nullius in verba, is taken to mean, “Do not plagiarise another member”.
20
Nah , it means shhhhhh don,t say a word
20
Peter Miller,
Or maybe it’s that air of the Royal Society fearing to tread where others have gone just in case they get a right royal “Nullius in verba” down their collective ear-hole by those who have access to a real throne room.
10
Any mention of impropriety,
Concerning the Royal Society,
As in science; lax scrutiny,
Driving members to mutiny,
Is bound to cause public anxiety.
211
Excellent! Shades of Tom Lehrer’s brilliant use of words there.
60
nonetheless, the show must go on:
13 March: RTCC: Megan Darby: UN to tackle finance question in disaster risk deal
Negotiators are flocking to Sendai, Japan to strike a global deal to help prevent death and damage from earthquakes, storms, flooding and other natural disasters.
***With the UN estimating 87% of natural disasters are climate-related, the deal could help countries adapt to the hazards of climate change.
But while there is broad agreement on priorities for the framework, Margareta Wahlstrom, disaster risk reduction (DRR) chief at the UN, said in a statement the issue of financing any deal was as yet unresolved.
“What is left for member states and countries now,” she said, “is to find a common formula for the terms of international cooperation on financing, on how to formulate a common global commitment.”…
The deal, due to be finalised on 18 March, is the first of three major UN decisions this year. Sustainable development goals are to be agreed in New York in September, followed by a climate accord in December.UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon emphasised the links between these processes in an op-ed (LINK) this week…
Countries will not be required to commit finance under the DRR deal, which is voluntary.That leaves practitioners eying up other sources of funds, such as the UN-backed Green Climate Fund and private financial institutions.Ban highlighted opportunities for banks, insurers and pension funds to get involved. At a climate summit he hosted in New York last year, such institutions pledged to mobilise US$200 billion by the end of 2015.“A decade ago, when the last such gathering was held, the private sector was scarcely represented,” Ban said.“This time, companies and entrepreneurs will be there in full force to explore a range of valuable opportunities.”…
The draft text includes elements borrowed from the climate negotiations, including (in square brackets, meaning it has yet to be agreed) the contentious phrase “common but differentiated responsibility”…
Tom Mitchell, head of climate at the Overseas Development Institute, told RTCC the introduction of such politically charged terminology had increased uncertainty over the DRR deal…
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/13/un-to-tackle-finance-question-in-disaster-risk-deal/
16 March: Ban Ki-Moon: Strategy for disaster risk
Hundreds of business executives, aware of the dramatic costs — and potential benefits — at stake, are now preparing to attend a UN conference on disaster-risk reduction in Sendai, Japan…
The Tohoku region of Japan, where the meeting will take place, is a vivid reminder of how a disaster’s economic impact reverberates far beyond its epicenter. Devastated four years ago by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, Japan’s automobile production was cut by nearly half…
At the Climate Summit that I convened last September at the UN in New York, financial institutions, commercial and national banks, insurance companies, and pension funds vowed to mobilize more than $200 billion by the end of this year for action to address climate change.
They envisioned a host of new initiatives, including issuing so-called green bonds and shifting assets to clean-energy portfolios. In a particularly important move, the insurance industry, representing $30 trillion in assets and investments, committed to creating a Climate Risk Investment Framework for industry-wide adoption by the end of the year…
It is time to stop addressing development and humanitarian emergencies separately. Disaster-risk reduction lies at the nexus of development assistance, which seeks to advance better living conditions, and humanitarian aid, which begins after a disaster hits.
http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/718786
51
All Grand sounding stuff, that might convince the lame brained and the simply unwary . Global governance is beyond the present capacities of man to deliver & maintain. Diplomacy between independent sovereign entities is the way forward & bureaucrats will just have to work harder.
80
There is a saying:
If, one morning, everybody in the world woke up, and found that they all had the same degree of wealth, spoke the same language, held the same political views, shared the same religious creed, had the same skin colour, liked the same food and beverages, appreciated the same sports, and watched the same television programmes; they would find something else to argue about by lunchtime.
200
I like…so true…..
40
We would be a “Hive” with a “Queen” calling the shots along with a much smaller percentage of “Drones” than we have now
40
And that would start with disagreement over comparative wealth.
With some people, covetousness and envy know no bounds.
40
and who would be the toilet cleaners?
10
RogueElement451
“and who would be the toilet cleaners?”
The same people that argue over who was snoring during the night, and what to have with breakfast, tea or coffee.
20
Both the article and the comments fail to mention that we have an even worse case of misrepresentation here in Australia with our own Australian Academy of Science. In publishing their February 2015 promotion of the IPCC via “The Science of Climate Change – Questions and Answers” they have shown that they have no intention what-so-ever of presenting the uncertainties in the so-called science. Quote “There is near-unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is real.”
They are an utter disgrace – and yes, they did not respond to my attempts to point out the conflicts with empirical evidence which is clearly apparent in the recent historic data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature. It shows that changes in CO2 do not cause changes in temperature but that the rate of change in CO2 concentration is dependent on the temperature which has increased naturally since the last ice age.
131
Well they got it wrong by calling it “science” to start with…..voodoo, reading tea leaves… yes …. science…no….
One of the problems I have encountered, is the average punter sees and figures they are correct.
The problem is quite simply that people cant comprehend the size of the lie, and by whom, and whats at stake.
I expect eventually all the climate Collaborators will use the “Nuremberg Defence” of “I was only following orders”… mind you, quite a few of them didnt fare so well.
We shall see.
90
“There is near-unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is real.”
The classic half truth. Which would gain 97% affirmation, but, being used here for the purpose of deception, is in this context a monstrous lie.
71
All this warm mongering is akin to the ‘speed kills’ mantra; it’s pushed down people’s throats incessantly, we’re told speed cameras save lives as more appear everywhere, and speed limits are reduced to a crawl in ridiculous places and so on. People have finally got jack of it all and started calling it out for what it is, as nothing tangible has changed except growing government coffers.
‘Climate Science’ has reached that point and the ever strident wailing from ‘authority’ is pissing people off as they realise that this is just another scam to take hard earned money away from people and have it passed on to those with their mouths in the trough (corporate welfare in the extreme). My wife was once more or less a believer and now laughs at every new catastrophe that’s announced.
71
Or like in some cities they have “average speed” cameras on stretches of roads you really cant speed on ( I have seen this personally )
As such, one could only assume they are for vehicle movement surveillance mostly, with the occasional fine thrown in to make it all look respectable.
The city in question now has a grid of such surveillance cameras on all main arterial roads.
Trying to explain the most logical use of such cameras is met with a stone wall of “well if youre not speeding”…..
Is it just me , or are people become more stupid generally?
70
Need coffee No. 2 for the afternoon….
“Is it just me , or are people become more stupid generally?”
should read :
“Is it just me , or are people becoming more stupid, generally?”
50
Steve, so much money has been spent recently on this “stupidity” that there has to be another explanation.
That likely is Big Brother looking for criminals and terrorists. Applying the latest technology to keeping tags on everybody’s movements.
40
A slowly evolving combination of 1984, Animal Farm and THX1138? For a safer and better world.
30
Well I’m putting my optimist’s hat on for this.
Perhaps I am wrong but I believe we are seeing an increasingly rapid backing away from the absolutism of the correctness of the “Science” in the climate wars over the last few months.
There have been an increasing number of papers drawing attention to the numerous fatal flaws in the science that promotes CO2 as the major or in the past the claimed to be “only” factor that is or was leading to increasing global temperatures.
As was said not so long ago; We can’t find anything else to account for the continuing rise in global temperatures AKA global warming so it has to be that nefarious “carbon.”
What is even more important is that these skeptical and questioning papers ranging across the entire sphere of climate , atmospheric, oceanic, biological and etc research are starting to get published in the various science journals.
Most of the speculative climate predicting papers are pure and utter rubbish but within the total there are an increasing number of hard science papers that are making a real impact on climate research.
There is now an increasing recognition of;
Numerous other possibilities which can, might and probably do contribute and control and influence both warming and cooling of the global atmosphere and oceans other than anthropogenic CO2.
The admittance by an increasing array of climate modellers that the climate models on which every claim of warming via CO2 are based are flawed. And even an admittance they might be severely flawed and therefore are poor predictors of the future trends and direction the climate will evolve towards.
The recognition and admittance that there are numerous climate affecting factors that are not included in the models.
The admittance that very large parts of the climate models inputs are nothing more than “expert” guesstimates with no actual basis in real time observations.
The science is coming badly unstuck from it’s previous hard line position as the climate continues to refuse to follow the dictates of the climate alarmist scientists and the climate modellers.
The really hard line and viperous attacks on skeptics are now coming from the eco- fascist fringe outfits like the increasingly mafia look alike and trending Greenpeace and it’s climate activists, the WWF, Friends of the Earth and similar non science, hard left political organisations which now have agendas that are totally reliant on the continuation of the catastrophic global warming meme.
And that is a very a deep and significant vulnerability in the eco-fascists political armour that seems to have been overlooked in just about every discussion.
For if we do get a prolonged period of even slight cooling, everything the eco-fascists and climate activists have claimed and enforced as climate change climate / catastrophe dogma becomes null and void in the eyes of the public and so is likely to totally destroy their credibility for at least a generation with the mass of the public.
And by then the world would have long moved on.
The attitudes in climate science are changing and those attitudes were never as hard line and rigid behind the scenes as were suggested to the public and publicly and promoted as such by numerous activists, “climate scientists”, science organisations and “environmental” [ ??? ] media reporters and the more science corrupting and science spinning hard line climate catastrophe promoting bloggers would have it,
To get an insight into how those attitudes and the science is now changing there is a very interesting transcript [ 541 pages download which I have only scanned so far ] titled;
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP
You can check the credentials of each participant on the paper
Proff Steven Koonin was the moderator;
Taking part in the presentations and panel discussion were some very well known scientists from the top of the tree in the climate science department;
DR. COLLINS [ warmist ]
DR. CURRY [ luke warmer tending skeptic ]
DR. SANTER [ warmist ]
DR. LINDZEN [ skeptic ]
DR. CHRISTY [ skeptic ]
DR. HELD [ warmist and modeller ]
The question and answer section beginning on page 467 is probably a good place to start.
The known unknowns, the admission of unknown unknowns, the failure of the climate models in their totality, the very strong doubts, the revealing and deep caveats on the science which the public has been repeatedly told is the settled science of the climate, all of them which are rarely ever revealed to the public, are exposed in this discussion for anybody who wants to further educate themselves on this subject.
Despite the gloom and doom amongst so many in the skeptic camp who believe they see no real progress, like water dripping on a stone, the skeptical arguments backed increasingly by hard science and a climate that refuses to conform and remains frustratingly incapable of being predicted as to it’s next evolution, are eating away at the very credibility and the agenda of the alarmists of every stripe, be it climate alarmist science, political alarmism and overreach [ USA’s EPA ] or the eco-fascist’s watermelon’s agendas based on using climate alarmism to enforce their communistic trending agendas.
The collapse of the climate alarmism cult when it comes could be quite spectacular and will definitely be very satisfying for the skeptics to watch.
121
Keep hoping. The scam is fearfully advanced.
50
Thanks for that. Have downloaded the doc, and will read it, but I suspect it will take me a while.
Cheers,
Dave B
20
Although this may have come up here before, it seems to have been swept under the carpet.
John Kerry U S Secretary of State, who describes CAGW sceptics as ‘flat-earthers’ explains the ‘greenhouse’ effect of atmospheric CO2 (February 16, 2014):
90
When I started to read that article I thought it was a comic spoof about John Kerry.
But it seems that he did really say that, which is quite disturbing!
90
I agree, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
80
Try Suzuki,s co2 trapped in the windscreen which causes the green house effect in cars if you want a real laugh.
20
Now there’s a new explanation. Whose fiction is it? Did he really say that? Surely not.
40
Extraordinary, coming from a person in such a position!
SIMPLISTIC does not go anywhere near describing that comment.
An example of Politics at its’ finest.
KK
40
A greenhouse works by preventing convection whereas the radiative theory of greenhouse gases does not.
The mass induced greenhouse effect does work like a greenhouse in two ways:
i) Descending adiabatically warming air dissipates clouds to let more sunlight reach the surface as does the transparent greenhouse roof.
ii) Descending adiabatically warmed air reduces convection coming up from the surface as does the glass in a greenhouse roof.
Maybe Jo would like to publish a post inviting discussion of the merits and de-merits of the radiative greenhouse effect and the mass induced greenhouse effect ?
It could be presented as a counterpoint to Kerry’s scientifically illiterate burblings.
70
I would like to see that.
40
Not sure I follow i) – the transparent greenhouse roof neither increases or decreases the amount of sunlight that falls on its surface as far as I can see.
The point remains that a greenhouse predominantly works on convection while CO2 predominantly works on radiation.
00
HAS
The greenhouse roof is transparent to whatever incoming sunlight is available.
Descending warming air dissipates clouds and so increases the transparency of the atmosphere to make it more analogous to the transparency of a greenhouse roof.
20
The Royal Society is bowing to the widespread modern phenomenon that international science position and policy must be ‘consistent’. After all, how can science be ‘respected’ if it doesn’t present a unified and coherent position to the public?
The trouble with this is, of course, when the science is actually a little ‘unsettled’ to begin with.
These two competing forces do not mix well (uncertainty and public image), as what inevitably occurs is that those who believe matters are more or less settled don’t see the need to highlight the uncertainties and tend to push consistency, whilst those who think matters are unsettled tend to be out-competed within social hierarchies which demand ‘answers’ and ‘results’.
It then becomes a game of who can manage to fiddle information the best, whilst at the same tine hiding it the most effectively and appearing to remain objective, rather than those who actually remain objective to the facts as they are.
Most economic bubbles are produced exactly the same way; they over-inflate things just as long as those doing the over-inflating can manage to hide the fact that they are over- inflating to begin with, when this becomes common knowledge the bubble is usually long over.
It is inevitable that individuals within science will tend to claim more certainty and more definitive results in order to advance either themselves, or their organisation, and thereby win brownie points, but without actually having the results or achieved the certainties to justify their claims.
What is surprising is that the Royal Society has lost its ability to adequately evaluate or recognize this process, but to be fair, nearly all bureaucracies tend to succumb to this over-confidence eventually or at some point, as doubt and uncertainty is always hard to manage within organisations which compete for prestige, promotion, and limited resources.
80
The Royal Society receives 67% of its funding revenue from UK
government grants. 189 million between 2011-2015 according to its site .
Can anyone guess what would happen to that cash cow if they didn’t play ball ?
100
celebrities co-opted for the cause….again:
16 March: Guardian: PA: Ed Sheeran and James Blunt help create UN ‘happiness playlist’
The United Nations is marking the International Day of Happiness by asking celebrities and Twitter users to help them compile ‘the world’s happiest playlist’
UN messengers of peace and goodwill ambassadors have also suggested songs for the compilation, which aims to raise awareness of the International Day of Happiness this Friday.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, nominated Signed Sealed Delivered by Stevie Wonder, who is himself a UN messenger of peace, advocating on behalf of persons with disabilities worldwide.
Ban said: “On this day we are using the universal language of music to show solidarity with the millions of people around the world suffering from poverty, human rights abuses, humanitarian crises and the effects of environmental degradation and climate change.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/16/happiness-playlist-for-united-nations-sheeran-james-blunt
10
this will please the pro-nuclear folks, but not me (just disclosing where i stand):
16 March: Simon Evans: Austn Financial Review: Labor MP says pro-nuclear advocates are starting to win debate
South Australian Labor MP Leesa Vlahos says pro-nuclear advocates have started to win the debate in the five weeks since Premier Jay Weatherill announced a royal commission into the nuclear industry.
Ms Vlahos, who was elected to the South Australian parliament in 2010, is going against the trend of the traditional ALP platform across the nation of being staunchly against the nuclear industry. She is among more than 510 people or organisations to have made submissions as the inquiry prepares to get underway on Thursday.
The nuclear option could drive economic growth in a state where manufacturing is dying and the overwhelming majority of people she has spoken to want a mature debate and a serious examination of the fact-based evidence about what a nuclear industry might deliver for South Australia.
“It’s getting easier over time,” she said of the vigorous opposition she used to face inside the ALP when she spoke up in favour of a nuclear industry at ALP national conferences…
***Some of the elder statesmen of the Labor Party including former prime minister Bob Hawke and former energy minister Martin Ferguson are supporters of an expansion as a smart way of generating carbon-free energy and adding value to the vast store of uranium deposits in Australia…
One of the uranium mines already in operation in the north of the state is the subject of an acrimonious battle between United States nuclear giant General Atomics and the ASX-listed Alliance Resources. General Atomics, which owns 75 per cent of the Four Mile uranium project, has made a $58 million buyout offer for the remaining 25 per cent held by Alliance, which refuses to budge and argues the offer price is too cheap…
http://www.afr.com/business/labor-mp-says-pronuclear-advocates-are-starting-to-win-debate-20150316-143fhw
30
Watts is running the story.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/16/the-royal-society-misrepresents-climate-science/
20
Thank you Jo, I suppose it would by too much to expect to see sensational lead stories on TV/Electronic and print media tomorrow.
20
The GWPF goes for the fellows throat.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Shortguide.pdf
20
16 March: Scoop NZ: Expatriate physicist slams UK’s Royal Society
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Distinguished expatriate physicist slams UK’s Royal Society for its lack of science on climate change
Acknowledged as one of Britain’s leading physicists, expatriate New Zealander, Professor Michael Kelly has written a devastating critique of the UK’s Royal Society, of which he is a Fellow, over its lack of science in dealing with climate change.
Professor Kelly, born in New Plymouth, migrated to England after earning his first degree at Victoria University of Wellington. He is now the Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University. As well as being a Fellow of the Royal Society, he is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
Professor Kelly has just written for the UK’s Daily Mail what that paper calls a “devastating critique” in which he accuses the Royal Society of ignoring the science and becoming dogmatic on climate change.
Here’s what he wrote:….
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1503/S00064/expatriate-physicist-slams-uks-royal-society.htm
30
15 March: Breitbart: Fellow Slams The Royal Society as Nothing But a Lobby Group for Climate Change
by Donna Rachel Edmunds
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/15/fellow-slams-the-royal-society-as-nothing-but-a-lobby-group-for-climate-change/
30
The Royal Society should chat to Dr Norman Page.
‘The recent pause is more accurately described as a cooling since 2003 which date represents a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year periodicities.
‘I estimate that the cooling trend of the millennial cycle will reverse in about 2650 as opposed to in the coming decades. See the peak at …’
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
41
multi-purpose study, published by Royal Society, funded by European Research Council! PR for LEDs?
16 March: Fiona MacRae: Cancer warning over lights in the bedroom: Fit blackout blinds and ban gadgets to avert disease, say experts
Britons should fit blackout blinds and ban electronic gadgets from the bedroom to avert the risk of diseases such as cancer, experts say.
Cutting out all light sources while we sleep could halt damaging interruptions to our body clock, they believe…
***Writing in the journal Philosophical Transactions B, published by the Royal Society, Dr Stevens (Breast cancer researcher Dr Richard Stevens, Uni of Connecticutt) warned of the huge dangers of keeping streets and homes artificially lit.
He said children, including babies in the womb, may be particularly vulnerable because they are still developing, adding: ‘Excessive lighting of the night sky is as important an issue as climate change.’***…
Researcher Dr Fiona Matthews said street lighting and the intensity of home lighting had grown enormously over the last few decades. ‘We urgently need to reverse this trend,’ she said…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996391/Cancer-warning-lights-bedroom-Fit-blackout-blinds-ban-gadgets-say-experts.html
15 March: Science2.0: Light Pollution’s Impact On Food Webs Quantified
Artificial night time light from sources such as street lamps affects the growth and flowering of plants and even the number of insects that depend on those plants for food, a study published today confirms…
Researchers from the University of Exeter simulated the effects of street lighting on artificial grassland plots containing a community of invertebrates at night, exposing them to two different types of light treatment – a ‘white’ light similar to newer commercial LED street lighting systems and an ‘amber’ light simulating the type of sodium street lamp still found in much of the UK…
The experiments investigated both top-down (driven by predators) and bottom-up (food or resource limited) effects of the lights on the population density of a species of pea aphid, and in the presence and absence of predators including ladybirds.
The low intensity amber light was shown to inhibit, rather than induce, flowering in greater bird’s foot trefoil, a wild relative of peas and beans that is a key source of food for the pea aphid in grasslands and road verges…
Professor Kevin Gaston, Director of the Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI) said: “These are the first findings from major long-term experiments being funded by the European Research Council, and already reveal how profound the impacts of artificial night time lighting can be on even simple communities of organisms.”…
Citation: Jonathan Bennie, Thomas W. Davies, David Cruse, Richard Inger and Kevin J. Gaston, ‘Cascading effects of artificial light at night: resource-mediated control of herbivores in a grassland ecosystem’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/light_pollutions_impact_on_food_webs_quantified-154025
16 March: Belfast Telegraph: Switch off the lights for bats
The study found that bat activity was generally lower in street-lit areas than in dark locations with similar habitat.
The scientists said the findings had important implications for conservation – overturning the previous assumption that common bats benefited from street-lights because they could feed on the insects that congregated around them.
The research, which was carried out by scientists from the University of Exeter and Bat Conservation Ireland, found that the activity of soprano pipistrelle, noctule and serotine bats was similar or lower in areas with street lighting compared with dark areas…
The only species for which lighting appeared favourable was Leisler’s bat, a species common in Ireland but rare in Britain…
Dr Fiona Mathews, from the University of Exeter, said: “People rarely see bats, and when they do it is usually because they are silhouetted by a light…
“Over recent decades, the number of streetlights, and the brightness of lighting, has grown enormously.
“We also use increasingly powerful lights to illuminate outdoor areas around our homes. We urgently need to reverse this trend.”…
(LINK EASY TO FIND ONLINE)
20
Sorry, I can’t resist. It sounds like someone has been staring for too long at the south end of a northbound bull.
40
It’s convenient too. It provides another excuse to make electricity less and less available.
Bless their dimly lighted hearts.
20
And just who is the dim bulb here?
20
Danger here, danger there, danger lurks just everywhere.
Is there nothing but a return to the stone age that will keep us safe?
Frankly I’d rather suffer the damage (if there is any) from a light bulb, CFL, LED or any other technology, than to be eaten in the middle of the night by a predator while hiding in some cave.
Thank you just the same but I’ll keep my electric lights.
30
Oops! I forgot. Dumb old me. That’s what they want.
40
Just a casual observation: most people don’t seem to like uncertainty. That’s one possible explanation for the easy acceptance of dogma over skepticism and questioning.
The other part of the problem is that it’s conditional. If my immediate safety is at stake, as in flying, I don’t want any uncertainty about the pilot’s qualifications or the design and maintenance of the airplane. And that’s what the FAA is for and I get reasonable assurance of safety. But when there’s no immediate concern I have the time to consider the question and look for evidence.
Climate change is always presented as an immediate danger. So guess what happens…
30
re the “Lights” study published by the Royal Society & funded by the European Research Council.
recall jo’s 14 March thread: “Scientific American: black death and slavery cause the little ice age?”
i noted the funding here:
11 March: YubaNet: Human-dominated geological epoch known as the Anthropocene began around the year 1610
Funded by the European Research Council and a Philip Leverhulme Prize (SL) and a Royal Society Wolfson Merit Award (MM).
http://yubanet.com/world/Human-dominated-geological-epoch-known-as-the-Anthropocene-began-around-the-year-1610.php
reminder: 11 March: UK Independent: Chistopher Hooton: There are too many studies, new study finds
Science is drowning in studies, and it took a study to expose it.
In a paper entitled ‘Attention decay in science’, professors from universities in Finland and California conclude that “the exponential growth in the number of scientific papers makes it increasingly difficult for researchers to keep track of all the publications relevant to their work…
granted the funding below is not all CAGW-related, but the numbers suggest ERC is a study factory of sorts.
European Research Council: ERC Funded Projects
Since 2007, more than 4,500 projects have been selected to receive ERC funding throughout the EU Member States and the associated countries. The ERC has received over 43,000 project proposals for its calls.
http://erc.europa.eu/projects-and-results/erc-funded-projects
from Wikipedia: European Research Council
The ERC budget is over €13 billion from 2014 – 2020 and comes from the Horizon 2020 programme, a part of the
European Union’s budget. Under Horizon 2020 it is estimated that around 7,000 ERC grantees will be funded and 42,000 team members supported, including 11,000 doctoral students and almost 16,000 post-doctoral researchers…
The members of the Scientific Council are selected by an Identification Committee, consisting of highly respected personalities in European research, and appointed by the European Commission…
why do i have a sinking feeling there are many more insane CAGW stories to come from this funding alone?
30
Now look here ! Just before the entire scam collapses I would look to put forward my patents for Windmills WITH solar panels on them and and ,, solar panels in vast array with mini windmills on them.
Two winners right there.
40
for the record. Royal Society in 2004 as proponent of a European Research Council. interesting to read:
PDF: 12 pages: 2004: Research Area: the Royal Society response to the Mayor
report
This document sets out the Society’s views on the importance of fundamental
research for Europe, the need to improve European performance at the highest
levels while safeguardingits current underlying strength in depth within
many of its Member States, and the potential role of a ***European Research
Council. It was prepared by a working group chaired byProfessor Julia
Higgins, and has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society…
2. However, there are six overlapping reasons for fundingfundamental
researchto solve problems – eg to underpin solutions to societal problems
such as those in the health, social, economic,environmental areas…
10. Funding of the ERC
The budget needed for the creation of the ERC should come from the European
Union…
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2004/9720.pdf
00
The reasons for the zero tolerance of any kind of dissent within and among the scientific community appears to be two fold:
1. They are insecure about their own opinions/findings on the issues. It is obviously not settled.
2. They know the moment for the political movements behind it all is gradually passing away and may never come around again. Overcoming the inertia in the public against the proposed, and onerous, “solutions” will be unlikely or lasting if the “science” is not consistently presented as “settled”.
Kudos to Mr Kelly for his integrity.
40
[…] Royal Society taken to task for its political stand on climate […]
00