Monday, May 31, 2010

Changing Attitudes?

Uncertain Science Bickering and defensive, climate researchers have lost the public’s trust.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html

Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change
http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-to-publish-new-guide-to-the-science-of-climate-change/

9 comments:

P Gosselin said...

I'm still waiting for the warmists to "hit back hard" at the sceptics. Seems everytime they try something, they just dig their hole deeper.
I recently watched a video of Naomi Oreskes. I don't see her moving on her stance. Despite all the recent developments, she appears to be denying the non-consensus even today.

P Gosselin said...

I'm still waiting for the warmists to "hit back hard" at the sceptics. Seems everytime they try something, they just dig their hole deeper.
I recently watched a video of Naomi Oreskes. I don't see her moving on her stance. Despite all the recent developments, she appears to be denying the non-consensus even today.

Zajko said...

I think I watched the same Oreskes video - is that the one where she takes the position that science does not provide truth, it only provides consensus? A curious philosophical take to be sure, and one that positions her as providing the closest thing to evidence of the truth as possible.

I think the Newsweek article gives the misleading impression that significant parts of the IPCC reports are drawn from "activist brochures" (I know some are, but not the key claims from WGI).

From the Royal Society rebel leader, the statement that "There is a lot of science to be done before we can be certain about climate change", made me wince.
When are skeptics and warmists alike going to stop talking about eventual or achieved certainty?

This does seem like a significant development though, and one the skeptics will get a lot of credibility out of.

toby said...

I'll see the "Newsweek" article and raise you "The Economist" and "New Scientist".

The Royal Society will ultimately "do the right thing".

Next!

Anonymous said...

@Hans Von Storch OFF TOPIC

Lieber Herr Von Storch,

Schön dass Sie gestern bei uns waren und im Fernsehen aufgetreten sind. Leider konnte ich nicht zum Vortrag kommen, weil ich bis 18 Uhr arbeiten musste.

Sie haben einen sehr souveränen Eindruck gemacht, wie sie auf dem Unigelände herumwanderten. ;-)

Das alles kam sehr objektiv herüber und ich denke, dass die Leute die Botschaft verstanden haben, die heute so wichtig ist.

Sogar unsere Freunde Klimaforscher aus dem Ländchen (ich glaube ein Herr Pfister u.a.) haben sich in demselben "Journal" (Nachrichten) zum Klimawandel geäussert und haben etwas "skeptischere" Töne angeschlagen als noch vor einigen Wochen.

Alles in allem haben die CRU-mails wohl etwas bewirkt etwas bewirkt, aber nicht die allein.

Liebe Grüsse und Danke für die Arbeit

Eddy

facepalm said...

Qoute from the last link (Royal Society), empasis mine:
"It is three years since the Society published a document specifically designed to help the general public get a full understanding of climate change. Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change."

Hans von Storch said...

facepalm: The validity of the assertion Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. depends on what is claimed to be the underpinning science. That is the whole problem of statements such as "the science is settled" or "the debate is over", namely that there is indeed a core of statements, which are hardly contested, but that interested parties add all kind of other assertions to this umbrella-statement, which are heavily contested, say the hurriane issue, the Greenland-decay issue and the like.

The question is always: which science is settled? The debate about which assertions is over? Thus, the statement of the Royal Society is just repeating the unhelpful statements made by Lord May and others, who pretended that not only a core but also the large number of hypotheses would be equally valid. They are not.

People like Lord May as well as the Royal Society is miusing his/its authority as well as squandering the authority of science and of scientists (incl. mine) as well. I do not like that.

See also
Harrabin's Notes: Getting the message.

Anonymous said...

re: "[...] climate researchers have lost the public’s trust."

Yes, that is true -- nearly a complete lost. Because of the handling in the "scientific-community" and the total biased media coverage of ClimateGate. You can follow the denying and biases also in Wikipedia (especially the german speaking Wikipedia and their talk-pages).

One Example (see the article from John O'Sullivan at suite101.com):

Claes Johnson, a mathematics Professor of Sweden, wrote (about Kaiser's (see below) shocking findings):

"'The revised statement by the Royal Society Climate Change Summary of Science is full of scientific misconceptions as noted in the earlier post Royal Society in Free Fall,' said the Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm."

Confer the german chemist Klaus Kaiser:

"In conclusion Dr. Kaiser dismisses the claims of the Royal Society as 'clearly untenable.' He admonishes the once peerless institution for failing to do a few 'simple order-of-magnitude calculations' so as to as check the veracity of their claims. Even though it took months to prepare that document, Klaus says, 'it appears the Royal Society’s math is still wrong.'

Finally, he cautions us '…not to trust all the hype or myths you hear or read…but look at the facts, then make up your own mind, and do believe in a better tomorrow.'"

namenlos

Marco said...

Namenlos,

Klaus Kaiser would do well in reading David Archer's papers, as well as that of many others working on the carbon cycle, and then try and tell us where they are wrong.

He could start here:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf