Bishop Hill Nullius in verba
Feb 9, 2012 Royal Society This has just been released:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is calling on the Royal Society to restore a culture of open-mindedness and balanced assessment of climate science and climate policy.
In a new GWPF report, written by science author Andrew Montford, the Royal Society is urged to ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in its public debates and reports and that the full range of reputable scientific views are being considered.
“As the Society’s independence has disappeared, so has its former adherence to hard-nosed empirical science and a sober detachment from the political process. Gone are the doubts and uncertainties that afflict any real scientist, to be replaced with the dull certainties of the politician and the public relations man,” said Andrew Montford, author of the new report.
In his report, Andrew Montford describes the development of the Royal Society’s role in the climate debates since the 1980s. He shows the Society’s gradual closing of critical scrutiny and scientific impartiality and the emergence of an almost dogmatic confidence that climate science is all but settled.
In recent years, the Society has issued a series of highly political statements demanding drastic action on energy and climate policies from policy makers and governments. On the issue of climate change, it has adopted an increasingly political rather than scientific tone. Instead of being an open forum for informed scientific debate, the Society is at risk of turning into a quasi-political campaign group.
The GWPF report criticises the Society for being too narrow minded in its assessment of climate change and for failing to take into account views of eminent scientists and policy experts that do not accord with its own position.
In his foreword to the report, Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT), one of the world's most eminent atmospheric scientists, warns that "the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry has been replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority."
The report itself is here.
Reader Comments (103)
And thus slowly, imperceptibly and without a conscious effort on the part of the leading actors of the era, the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire.
Great work Bish will look forward to reading this report!
Well after when I have fought my way through all this warm weather and walked the dog then lit the fire to cool down !
Roy:
“How much notice, if any, will the Guardian and the BBC take of the report, I wonder? If those two media organisations ignore it then Labour and the Lib Dems will too, and so will the nice, new, non-toxic Tories”.
And there you have the state of our democracy in a nutshell. And why honest critics of the scientific consensus will continue to be treated as deniers and flat earthers until hell freezes over. (OK, it already has. But that’s just weather).
One point about the Horizon programme I hadn’t seen made before: the screen in front of which Sir Paul Nurse oohed and aahed while the NASA man spouted nonsense wasn’t a climate model at all.
If Sir Paul had been auditioning for the job of Blue Peter presenter, he’d have lost it at this point.
Self article plug.. (at WUWT)
BBC broken faith with public - ref Horizon program
Especially, read the letter of invitation to James Delingpole tot take part from a BBC producer..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
Wild Bob Ward seems to be focusing on other things today, such as greenhouse gas emissions from frakking. These guys really want to drive us back to the Stone Age, don't they!
Well done, Yer Grace. I could only admire your forbearance in resisting the temptation to overkill. Thanks.
Excellent paper Sir. But now I really despair at the state of the Royal Society. I am a retired scientist, one of many, many thousands who could never aspire to the honour of FRS. But who never doubted that the Society's principles would be upheld for all time. Now we learn that the last few presidents have dragged the historic body down to the level of a taxpayer funded quango. They must be exposed for what they are. Unprincipled charlatans
All it requires is a simple name change - to the "Royal Post-Normal Society".
Then the actions of its recent presidents as outlined in the Bish's report make perfect sense.
Stunning.
Lord May ~2011? - Only the details of climatic change’s impact have still to be
worked out.
Lord Kelvin - 1904 - claimed that two dark clouds were overshadowing 19th century physics, and if only they could be solved, physicists would have no new discoveries to make.
How quicky the RS seems to forget things. Maybe the motto should be "Nulliu in verba. Ne obliviscaris" - On no one's word. Do not forget.
I have just printed off the report and skimmed through it. I am looking forward to reading it properly. You are not only a doughty campaigner for truth but also an elegant stylist.
Roger Longstaff, I prefer verbera, “beatings”, rather than tortura, “torture”:
methodi scientificae verbera.
Here is more academic dismay at the peculiar approach to science which has been so enthusiastically adopted by the leaders of the Royal Society:
'I came from the outside, after about 40 years of experience in the highly competitive field of condensed matter physics that involves the intense interaction between experiment and theory, a field with a culture of discourse that takes all controverisal and divergent opinions seriously.
'The field of climate science appeared to me as being very dogmatic right from the start, at least concerning the fundamentals. In no time flat, the motto became: “the science is settled”. Those who now challenge the fundamental statements on climate are, in the best cases labelled as dimwits, and in the worst case they get labelled as “deniers”, analogous to a “Holocaust denier”. Let’s take Al Gore for example, admittedly a politician, or Pachauri, the IPCC spokesman, admittedly an engineer. But the statements made by leading representatives from the PIK were hardly different.
These words are by a Professor Werner Weber of the Technical University of Dortmund. See:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/09/consensus-shattering-bild-professor-writes-climate-science-dogmatic-from-the-start-holds-no-water/
The PIK is the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, another happy home for highly strung alarmists.
John Shade: thanks for bringing that to my (our) attention. Powerful in numerous ways ...
You mean there are still fields like that?
One of the worst effects of climate myopia and the disgraceful lack of correction of its abuses from scientific academies is how quickly it reduces respect for all scientists. Act soon, ye FRSes, or pay a terrible price.
Please listen to that German scientist. I repeat, that German scientist. Bless him.
This is an excellent report, thanks, Bish!
Isn't it sad that the 'climate change' presidents seem to be the epitome of what used to be, in medicine, the 'Gods in White Coats'.
One wonders who the scientists are on the council who proposed the election of May, Rees and Nurse.
One cannot wonder that the fellows are so unquestioning, given the fact that not just funding but also cudos comes from the hands of the climate illuminati at the top of the RS pyramid.
One does wonder, however, why there have been no public resignations form the society, like we've seen happening in the USA. Are our top scientists, erm, wimps?
Thank you for that revealing chronology. Sadly it appears that the Royal Society is in danger of becoming yet another British institution whose reputation, in the eyes of the public, will be severely damaged. The alarming aspect is that the RS is used by the politicians as their crutch to justify decisions such as the Climate Change Act.
The RS has also, I believe, been extremely active promoting these views to other national academies around the globe - possibly in parallel with GLOBE, the taxpayer funded Paliamentary group which targets the legislators. No one should underestimate the taxpayer funded firepower available to advocate the CAGW cause.
What also has been revealing over the years is the way that cause has been relabelled from CAGW to AGW to Global Warming to Climate Change. One day, perhaps, someone will produce a chronology of the evolution of this particular species of propaganda and the influences and thinking behind it.
As and when it all unravels, will it have the resonance with the public to match the banker bashing we see today? I think there is a good chance it will - we all pay those feed in tariffs.
more on kindle.
Calibre does a pretty ugly job, at least on my mac.
You can also try sending it to your account kindle_ID@kindle.com with subject "convert"
(without the ' " '), formatting is still ugly but a bit better
A well as the bouncing bomb, Barnes Wallis also invented the Tallboy - a 10 ton delayed action penetrative (earthquake) bomb encased in high tensile steel to be used exclusively against high-value strategic targets that could not be destroyed by other means.
The Bishop just dropped one on the Strategic Command Centre.
Roger Longstaff wrote "The RS clearly needs a new motto", so how about 'Bul**hit Baffles Deniers'?... or maybe just use the acronym :-)
Yes indeed. The report is full of all sorts of "neat" formatting and things like footnotes. Not something that can be dealt with in either the MOBI or EPUB formats which are basically HTML. The original document needs to be cleaned up for that conversion to occur.
Although I do not recommend Smashwords for publishing ebooks, they do have a really handy and useful guide on how to do the conversions. Smashwords Style Guide
The Kindle Fire at least, does appear to support PDF.
Agree, Pharos.
Having just read the Bishop's report, I am now less astonished at the "consensus" in the House of Commons when it came to voting in the 2008 Climate Change Act and realise how far we have to go repair the damage.
@ Peter Stroud
Now we learn that the last few presidents have dragged the historic body down to the level of a taxpayer funded quango.
If the members of the Royal Society have consciences the comparison with "a taxpayer funded quango" should really hurt. I hope newspapers will pick up that comparison and use it so that the members will become aware of it. Then, perhaps, they will revolt against the leadership and replace it with one more worthy of their illustrious predecessors - if any can be found.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=10075
...provides a link to evidence given by Lord Rees and Sir David King to the HoC Public Accounts Committee yesterday. Climate change and energy policy crop up several times. Thay appear at c49 minutes into the session.
Points I noted: King is a convinced decarboniser, principally it appears because of the cost of oil and limitations on production capacity. Obviously he had a huge influence during the Blair/Brown years. He described his Foresight programmes as scenarios, not predictions. At c1hr 38 mins Rees said climate change science was uncertain. Yet both are convinced of climate change and dismissed any disagreement with their position! They conceded there could be disagreements about solutions and how to respond. I think I heard Rees say that "inadequate thought" had been given to off shore wind power. King saw nuclear as part of the solution; Rees said the UK was woefully equipped to take it forward, lacking people and skills once the current generation of nuclear scientists and technologists retires.
Nullius in Verba. Is that still their motto? I understood they had changed it to: "Respect the facts".
I put a lot of PDFs on my Kindle. If they're from docs I've written (in Word) I tend to 'print' them to PDF format using large fonts format. However, I've got used to reading PDFs in landscape on my Kindle and find that the Bish's GWPF Report reads well enough. The advantage of being in landscape is that I can fold the Kindle cover back and prop it on the bar while reading and drinking the odd Bombardier. :-)
The RS clearly needs a new motto. Classics scholars, what's the Latin for "Torture of the Scientific Method"? Competition, anybody?
Roger Longstaff
tormentis Scientific Methodo
Atmospheric history is a really interesting topic, IMHO. The Bish continues to show us that history of humans claiming authority on the atmosphere is at least as interesting.
Such as this conceit to be found in the history page on the CRU website is this one:
‘the view, generally prevailing within the scientific establishment in the 1960s, that the climate for all practical purposes could be treated as constant’
[see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/]
Curiously enough, this is not backed up with any evidence, although it does give a grand, ice-breaking role to the captains and crew of the CRU
Anyway, while chasing up another matter, I came across a post by Maurizio in which he links to one on WUWT finding climate change being lamented way back in 250AD [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/], and reports himself an even earlier instance around 40–50AD:
‘that regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and the weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus in the greatest abundance.’ – the words of one Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
[http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/the-first-ever-climate-change-reporter-and-skeptic/]
So this ‘scientific establishment in the 1960s’ would have had some learning to do if they had met with classicists. Perhaps like Black’s recently reported encounter with Monckton who graciously helped him grasp that consensus is not part of the scientific method. At least it is not in most, if not all, ‘scientific establishments’
Congratulations - excellent factual report, making the chronology clear. I was amazed that the Royal Society had 146 permanent employees - I had no idea it was such an empire.
The Royal Society’s ‘motto-morphosis’ (...) points to an important shift in the way that scientific authority is used to close down debate these days.
It is an ominous sign that the prestigious scientific institution has changed its motto from 'on the word of no one' to 'respect the facts'.
To think when I had a paper published in "Proceedings of the Royal Society", in the dim and distant, I was very proud.
How things have changed.....
Thanks, I have downloaded this doc and am eager to read it tonight.
FYI Steve McIntyre has just linked to this thread and folks here may also enjoy a discussion there: he places a strong emphasis by blog policy upon scientific and technical analysis:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/09/andrew-montford-on-the-transformation-of-the-royal-society/
@Feb 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM | Snotrocket
kindle bar ...
you gave a bloody good idea, I was feeling to geeky already.
Back on topic, the reported The Royal Society’s ‘motto-morphosis’ sounds very much like a preamble to open doors to newspeak. Sad indeed.
Maybe the new motto should be:
Nullius sed exemplares
Nothing without models or nothing but models...
apologies re nullius sed exemplares,
Nullius is a genitive 'of nothing (or of no one) without models.
Patagon
Thank you for the advice regarding the kindle.
Bishop
Thanks for putting the idea to the GWPF about making there reports available in Kindle format.
Bishop
Thanks for putting the idea to the GWPF about making there reports available in Kindle format.
I am with Jack Cowper and others in urging that they get it into several ebook formats besides PDF. I have been publishing books for 10 years and in the last year I have seen the percentage my sales go from 90% POD and Adobe format to 90% Kindle and Apple. There has been a major change in the market in the last 12 months. See my suggestion about Smashwords guide. One can also use Smashword for production, but they do not use DRM, which may not be an issue.
Excellent Andrew!
Thanks for a very good article.
Bishop, I wrote on Steve's Climate Audit, where I saw this first, this:
Steve, I’m reading Montford’s, as usual, perspicacious prose. He is probably one of the best writers on science around (you excepted – though why not a book of your own?). And what it provokes one to think is a more general ‘corruption’ in the west – the ‘corruption’ of thinking itself, of being able to think, to distinguish between a logical, discursive argument and mere ‘feeling’, between the passion to understand, enquire and listen and ‘mere’ passion itself. How superficial we have become! How absurd!
Keep on writing, Bishop, for I anticipate much, much more!
@ John Shade
Incredible. They are making stuff up. Four glacial/interglacial cycles had been recognised by German/Swiss geologists in the Alps by the end of the 19th Century. Devonian red-beds and Carboniferous coal deposits had been identified across the northern hemisphere.
Opening my ancient copy of "West, Pleistocene Geology and Biology" at random, the first reference that I find is "Adams 1881, Monograph on British fossil elephants". Oh dear, oh dear. I find this profound ignorance depressing.
@ Hector Pascal
‘the view, generally prevailing within the scientific establishment in the 1960s, that the climate for all practical purposes could be treated as constant’
[see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/]
I find it absolutely incredible that any scientific body could make such a statement. Do the people at CRU really think that scientists were so ignorant of history that they had not heard of the Little Ice Age, or the Norse farms in Greenland to mention just two examples?
Of course it is not unknown for people to emphasis the ignorance of their predecessors, often unjustly, in order to try and make themselves look good.
The writing in the report is clear, but it still took me a long time to read. I would read a few pages, then have to put the report down and take a break—because this is so disheartening. A venerable institution for three centuries, giving way. People who call themselves scientists, working directly against the principles of science.
The report is important. Much appreciation to both the GWPF and His Eminence.
As a professional scientist throughout my career I always saw an FRS as the ultimate accolade, unachievable for mere minnows like myself, but something to aspire to. After reading this I am not sure that I would want to accept such membership were it to be offered.
Bishop
Judith Curry is now discussing this report:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/10/nullius-in-verba/#more-7113
Doug Keenan:
That bears repetition. Every FRS should feel the same.
Former President Eisenhower warned of this potential danger to our form of government in his farewell address to the nation on 17 Jan 1961 if a government-sponsored 'scientific-technological elite' ever took control of public policy.
It is my understanding that this is essentially what happened six years later, in April of 1967 at the Bilderberg Hotel where it was decided that Earth’s heat source is “in equilibrium”, like a modern furnace controlled by a thermostat [“The Bilderberg Model of the Sun,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968)].
More detailed information and links are posted elsewhere,
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/10/nullius-in-verba/
RS membership aside, we can all see the obvious:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No7.pdf
Those who consider changes in the Sun are better able to predict changes in Earth's weather and climate than those who ignore changes in the Sun.
Congratulations, Your Grace. I have long believed that the Government wouldn't change its mind (and policy) until the Royal Society recanted and started pushing a properly scientific view instead of a computer model based fairy tale. Your restrained and understated report should go a long way towards restoring a balanced scientific view by the Royal Society.
Pharos Feb 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM
As well as the bouncing bomb, Barnes Wallis also invented the Tallboy - a 10 ton delayed action penetrative (earthquake) bomb encased in high tensile steel to be used exclusively against high-value strategic targets that could not be destroyed by other means
A slight correction to the above post,
The Tallby was only 6 tons, the 10 tonner was the Grand Slam
And not before time. I have for some time been concerned at the increasingly political/idealistic strain in the Royal Society's utterances in relation to AGW - and particularly the infamous ExxonMobil letter of 2006. Although they seem to have pulled back from the brink somewhat over the past year or two, to think that one of the oldest scientific societies in the world and a founding member of the Enlightenment no less, can be so easily corrupted by this sort of political claptrap and spin, boggles the mind. Newton and Wren et al must be spinning in their graves.
dave38
Thanks. A Grand Slam it certainly is.
link changed?
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf