Articles Tagged "Royal Society Review"

The UK today has made it official. With the release of its revised guide to climate change by the Royal Society, the nation’s preeminent scientific organization, the UK now formally joins the ranks of the denier nations. The science on climate change is no longer certain, the Society now says.

Climate change: a summary of the science was commissioned in May after a revolt by 43 Fellows of the Royal Society, who felt that the society had been acting more as hot-headed advocates than cool-headed scientists. Its previous president, Lord May, had particularly rankled Royal Society scientists by claiming, without having canvassed his membership, that “The debate on climate change is over” and that “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

The debate is now officially not over, the society says. “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty,” it explains, appearing to chide scientists who have tried to make scary predictions about the future that had no basis in science: “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

Moreover, the Royal Society now states that so little is known about how different today’s climate is from the past that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced.”

To see how far the Royal Society has come from its past pronouncements on climate change, see its notorious 2005 document, “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change.”

This "opposing view" is of interest as it makes it look that the "Royal Society" has NOT changed it's outlook...The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...."If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science....but oh yes there is!

UK's 'definitive voice of science' hopes guide will counter misunderstanding and bogus claims about man-made global warming

The Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific establishment, today publishes its own layman's guide to the science of climate change, in the hope of countering the confusion and inaccurate claims that continue to surround the topic.

The new guide – Climate Change: A Summary of the Science – seeks to cut through the confusion by summarising the degree of consensus and depth of understanding surrounding different aspects of the science of global warming caused by human activity.

The report, written by a panel of prominent scientists chaired by Professor John Pethica, Royal Society vice president, breaks down the subject into three sections: aspects on which there is "wide agreement", "a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion" and those which are "not well understood".

The Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science, has today launched a new short guide to the science of climate change. The guide has been written to summarise the evidence and to clarify the levels of confidence associated with the current scientific understanding of climate change. It makes clear what is well-known and established about the climate system, what is widely agreed but with some debate about details, and what is still not well understood.

Climate change: a summary of the science, describes how and why the earth is currently warming, and explains the wide range of independent measurements and observations which underpin this understanding. It shows that there is strong evidence that over the last half century, the earth’s warming has been caused largely by human activity. It also explains the uncertainty involved in predicting the size of future temperature increases. There are many potentially serious consequences of climate change, so that important decisions need to be made. The guide concludes that, as in many other areas, policy choices will have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge, but that the scientific evidence is an essential part of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.

The UK’s leading scientific body has decided to rewrite its own definitive guide on climate change, now admitting that it is “not known” how much warmer the planet will become.

The Royal Society has released a new guide which outlines its retreat from its former vanguard stance on the threat of climate change and man-made global warming. The decision to update their scientific guide came after 43 of its members complained that the previous versions failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

The new guide, entitled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, concedes that there are now major ‘uncertainties’ regarding the once sacred ‘scientific consensus’ behind man-made global warming theory, admitting that not only is it impossible to know for sure how the Earth’s climate will change in the future but it cannot possibly know what the effects may be. The 19-page guide states clearly, ’It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made”.

The guide continues stating, “There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase”.

In a recent article published in the UK Mail, Professor Antony Kelly explains, ”The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document”.

Click source to read FULL report from Patrick Henningsen

The Royal Society today, 30 Sept, publishes a new document on Climate Change in response to some of its members concerns about overblown claims.

Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics from the Times via thegwpf.org

(Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.)

Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist and highly successful long-range weather and climate forecaster of WeatherAction.com commented:

"Curiously it has been suggested that the Royal Society is now somehow bowing to Climate Change Sceptics. Firstly the use of the word sceptics is inappropriate because no-one is sceptical of the fact that climate has been changing for millions of years. We who stand for the application of evidence-based science to the matter of climate change are better termed Climate Realists.

"The Royal Society however do not appear to be bowing to anything. They may indeed be admitting the existence of Climate Realists a bit more but the new statement is a continuing cover for the failed science and fraudulent data of the ClimateChange lobby and a dereliction of the Royal Society's duty to uphold evidence-based science.

Click source to read FULL report from Piers Corbyn

Environment: The Royal Society of Britain is rewriting its official position on global warming. We'd say the consensus that man is causing the planet to heat is cracking, but there never was a consensus in the first place.

Last December, the 350-year-old Royal Society, considered the top scientific institution in Britain, published the following statement: "It is certain that greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years."

But now, just six months later, the Royal Society, under pressure from skeptics, says it will publish a new "guide to the science of climate change" this summer. According to the London Times, "The society has been accused by 43 of its fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause."

British media were more dismissive. The Times' environment editor labeled the 43 dissidents as "rebels," the Financial Post described their demands to be heard as a "revolt" and the BBC quoted an unnamed Royal Society member who said the skeptics are "strident."

Lord Rees
President
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG.

Dear Lord Rees

Science is organized scepticism and the consensus must shift in light of the evidence." Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society (May 28, 2010)

To be sure, what an inspirational message – the more so in the light of another from your manifestly objective predecessor (Oh yes, indeed!) that we should “Respect the facts.” Perhaps you, he or The Royal Society collectively would care to educate and enlighten “crackpots” by defining which facts, or should one perhaps say “Whose facts?”

In the meantime, let us move on. You have been busy of late, and another quotation follows, albeit taken from the verbiage surrounding this letter’s opening statement. You state:

“The Society has always encouraged debate particularly through our discussion meetings and our journals.” [My emphasis]

That is a lie. Far from encouraging debate, the RS has proactively done everything within its power to suppress it. For this uncompromising accusation, you are invited to revisit enclosed correspondence from 2007 (below). Let me remind you that, on 31 July 2007, the Society, overnight and without warning, closed down its website forum – not simply the so-called climate change string but in entirety. Why? Because, after a few exchanges, it could not countenance well sourced contra-contributions – as it happens, mostly from me. Specific to this episode, your attention is directed to my letter of 1 August 2007 - for ease of reference enclosed herewith.

Click source to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham

Britain’s Royal Society, the UK’s preeminent scientific body, has joined national science bodies in India and France in validating the views of global warming sceptics.

The Royal Society’s decision, which follows a revolt by 43 Fellows of the Royal Society, will see it rewrite its position on climate change in a tacit admission that it and in particular its previous president, Lord May, had been acting more as lobbyists for a cause than as agents for scientific reason. Without canvassing his membership, May had famously stated that “The debate on climate change is over” and that “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

Following the revolt over the society’s recent history of alarmism and hyperbole, the current president, Lord Rees, by no means a sceptic, has nevertheless decided to take a more balanced view: “Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information,” he said. “We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand very well.”

The Royal Society review of its position, expected this summer, comes at the same time that France’s National Academy of Sciences has asserted that it has taken no position on climate science, that it respects the views of both camps, and that, in the interests of furthering understanding, it will sponsor a high-profile debate this fall. This decision by the National Academy of Sciences has distressed the country�s manmade global warming camp, which had lobbied the Academy and the French government to denounce and even expel the sceptics.

It all started with a report by Roger Harrabin of all people. On Wednesday, under the headline ‘Society to review climate message’, the BBC website broke the news that the Royal Society was to review its public statements on global warming, and that this had been brought about by what appears to be an uprising within its ranks.

Disquiet led forty-three fellows of the Society to demand that the governing council should conduct a review in order to establish what is widely agreed on climate science, and what is not fully understood. At the heart of the rebel’s concerns is lack of objectivity about uncertainties and derogatory remarks about climate sceptics.

It would be hard to overestimate the importance of what is happening. The Royal Society occupies a very special place in the scientific firmament, not just in the UK, but worldwide. The impact of its very partisan outpourings about climate change is thought to have been crucial not only to the last government’s decision to put global warming at the top of the political agenda, but also in persuading national academies of science almost everywhere to throw their weight behind the warmist cause. The ructions behind the grand facade of 6-9, Carlton House Terrace will be watched closely by scientists everywhere, and there can be little doubt that if fellows of he Royal Society are prepared to stick there heads above the parapet, then others will follow their lead.

The Royal Society is to issue an official guide on climate change to better reflect the uncertainties around the science.

The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public.

In particular they were unhappy that the long term effects of greenhouse gases were being oversimplified.

Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, admitted that the case for man-made global warming has been exaggerated in the past.

He emphasised that the basic science remains sound but agreed to issue guidance so that it better reflects the uncertainties.

”Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information," he said. "We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand verywell."