Thread: Royal Society backs off

"The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years"

gee, all the scientists don't agree on what the data shows . Maybe there isn't a consensus among people able to do the science.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

"The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years"

gee, all the scientists don't agree on what the data shows . Maybe there isn't a consensus among people able to do the science.

Some scientists have been saying all along that there never was a consensus.

Isn't it amazing the number of people here that have not posted in this thread?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Isn't it amazing the number of people here that have not posted in this thread?

I'm sure some folks will reply after they get the marching orders or huff-po tells them what to think.

The bolded statement says basically "there may still be things we don't know which could impact how our models work."


Hi, cons, this is called science. I know, scary stuff.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

The bolded statement says basically "there may still be things we don't know which could impact how our models work."


Hi, cons, this is called science. I know, scary stuff.

Like I said, its a nice change from "the science is settled".

Originally Posted by Brexx

Like I said, its a nice change from "the science is settled".

/shrugs


The fact that the models are going to see some adjustment isn't a surprise, and doesn't mean that the science is now invalid. Every model needs tweaking upon occasion.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

/shrugs


The fact that the models are going to see some adjustment isn't a surprise, and doesn't mean that the science is now invalid. Every model needs tweaking upon occasion.

I'm glad its not a surprise to you. Its certainly not a surprise to me. But its going to be a bit of an "adjustment" to those who drank the Gore-Ade, and claimed that all non-believers were flat earthers misled by oil company stooges.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

/shrugs


The fact that the models are going to see some adjustment isn't a surprise, and doesn't mean that the science is now invalid. Every model needs tweaking upon occasion.

These are the folks who always try to appeal to the imaginary authority of scientific consensus.

Clue - if your "model" doesn't hold up, it's just a failed hypothesis. THAT's science.

what would happen if we found out we really don't know?

Originally Posted by Moonglow

what would happen if we found out we really don't know?

Well, then a group of useful idiots would buy into a bogus premise created by the...never mind.

Notice how all of the deniers here immediately jumped on this story, not even considering the source.

"NewsBusters" was launched by The Media Research Center, which says this on its own website:

"Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. About Media Research Center

What's the real story here? We'll have to find out from somewhere other than this biased conservative fantasy site.

A good place to start would be here: http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Societ...-change-guide/
It says this:

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.
John Pethica, Vice-President of the Royal Society and Chair of the working group that wrote the document said: “Climate change is an important issue affecting everyone. Much of the public debate on climate change is polarised at present, which can make it difficult to get a good overview of the science. This guide explains where the science is clear and established, and also where it is less certain. It is not a simple guide, as this is not a simple issue. This summary has been produced for all who want to understand the full range of the scientific evidence.”

Here's the guide itself (pdf): http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/Dow...?id=4294972963
Here's the guide's conclusion:

57 There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
58 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. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.
59 Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made. Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well
established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.

None of the deniers here dug into the story to find out what reality lay behind it. None of the deniers cared to research it at all. None of the deniers here used their brains to ask themselves if real scientists who belong to the British Royal Society would really characterize global warming in the way that the right-wing NewsBusters story said they had. None of the deniers here read the guide, especially paragraphs 20 through 30.

It's so typical that the right wing would jump on this and try to characterize it in a way that's totally misleading. But it's also understandable. On this issue, misinformation is all they have.

Originally Posted by jpn

Notice how all of the deniers here immediately jumped on this story, not even considering the source.

"NewsBusters" was launched by The Media Research Center, which says this on its own website:

"Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. About Media Research Center

What's the real story here? We'll have to find out from somewhere other than this biased conservative fantasy site.

A good place to start would be here: Royal Society launches new short guide to the science of climate change - Science News - The Royal Society
It says this:

Here's the guide itself (pdf): http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/Dow...?id=4294972963
Here's the guide's conclusion:


None of the deniers here dug into the story to find out what reality lay behind it. None of the deniers cared to research it at all. None of the deniers here used their brains to ask themselves if real scientists who belong to the British Royal Society would really characterize global warming in the way that the right-wing NewsBusters story said they had. None of the deniers here read the guide, especially paragraphs 20 through 30.

It's so typical that the right wing would jump on this and try to characterize it in a way that's totally misleading. But it's also understandable. On this issue, misinformation is all they have.

I don't see where NewsBusters got it wrong, but if you don't like them here is another source.

"And Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation also welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise.

He said: 'The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is
settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and
uncertainties unresolved.

'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.

'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.

'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'


Read more: Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits 'uncertainties' | Mail Online