Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Climate cuttings 42 | Main | CACC notices bishop »
Monday
Nov292010

Phil Trans A gives up on science

Just in time for Cancun, the Royal Society's premier journal for the physical sciences, Phil Trans A, decides to devote an entire issue to environmentalism. What a remarkable coincidence on the timing!

"Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications" is the not-very-sober title for the journal's outpourings, the first product of its new editor, Prof Dave Garner.

I wonder if any of the articles will look at how warming of four degrees per century compares to actual temperature rises since theb turn of the millennium?

Still, the good news is that Prof Garner has opened his door to reader feedback:

I wish to continue to develop a community of readers and authors who interact constructively. Therefore, I invite suggestions for ways in which we can enhance the scientific quality and value of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

Erm, how about not acting like the house magazine of the Green Party?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (18)

There's also the potential for an asteroid to plunk itself down just outside the M25 and put an end to most of the higher-order life on Earth, and off the top of my head I'd say it's not a whole lot less probable than a human-induced 4degC rise.

Nov 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

As a non-empirical discipline, "climate studies" is less a science than a classificatory exercise akin to botany. Most certainly, AGW's linear projections of complex dynamic atmospheric systems are nonsense on their face. Mathematical and physical principles aside, catastrophists' non-existent data, spurious methodology, skewed analyses cloaked in obfuscatory jargon, blast any and all Warmist hypotheses at the root.

In context and perspective, such "post-modern" expatiations recall J.B. Rhine, Trofim Lysenko, Immanuel Velikovsky-- notorious cult figures all. By c. 2020 - '30, we guarantee that any academic, commercial, or political figure even remotely connected with this degrading misogynistic scam will be relegated to despised obscurity, every bit of it deserved.

Nov 29, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Blake

been meaning to mention the Beeb's Livingstone/"empire of climate" is not the only series the Beeb has scheduled.
BBC World Sce have been doing bizarre promos - something about surfing across the oceans and similar nonsense - for the following 5-part series, with Part One audio now available:

29 Nov: BBC World Service: The Climate Connection: What's stopping us?
Produced in association with The Open University.
This week the UN begins climate negotiations in Mexico, with little expectation of significant progress. The Climate Connection is a five-part series exploring a key question in the story of action on climate change: what's stopping us?
Part One: The Selfish Ape
How much is the future worth to us? Our behaviour would suggest not much.
Stand on a beach – virtually any will do – and you don’t need to look hard to find a load of plastic rubbish. This is a simple illustration of the huge barrier that exists in tackling climate change: we like to enjoy consumption with little regard for longer term impacts, especially if the consequences end up on someone else’s beach.
The key to changing our behaviour with regards to climate change is, say economists, for humans to start valuing the future as much as the present.
One of the most ingrained behaviours affecting carbon emissions is car use. Government efforts to persuade people to shift from cars to public transport tend to be preachy and heavy handed. But in Sweden, economists believe using nudge theory can create real change.
Presenter Claudia Hammond heads to Stockholm to learn how economics can be used to change consumer behaviour.
We also hear from Irene Caselli who is in Ecuador's Yasuni forest to report on plans to leave vast reserves of oil untouched underneath the forest - as long as international governments pay Ecuador half the market price of the rich resource...
MORE DETAILS ON PAGE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specialreports/the_climate_connection.shtml

then, if u go to Open University via the link on BBC above, u get:

Creative Climate
Creative Climate has 181 pages.
http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/nature-environment/the-environment/creative-climate

from OU's Climate Connection 2010 page:

OU on the BBC: The Climate Connection 2010
On the eve of COP16, BBC World Service returns with another exploration of key issues surrounding society and environmental change...
Each of the first four programmes in the week-long journey will explore what other areas of expertise can tell us about human behaviour. The fifth programme will debate the ideas we’ve heard across the week. Join the debate at World Have Your Say on Friday.
Themes in the programmes
1.The Selfish Ape (Economics)
2.Lost in Translation (Culture)
3.Consumption on the Couch (Psychology)
4.The New Leaders (Leadership/Politics)
5.What's stopping us? The Debate (Filmed at The Open University)
http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/whats-on/ou-on-the-bbc-the-climate-connection-2010

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat

What do all these guys expect to achieve at this late stage ( in relation to Cancun) ? It seems most people "in the know" don't expect anything from Cancun and are treating it as a progress meeting.

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Can you believe the Preface to this special issue actually gives the following as one of the reasons why they decided to hold an international symposium on "Four degrees and beyond":

At the same time, the Oxford-based author Mark Lynas had just published his book ‘Six degrees: our future on a hotter planet’, and he had often commented on the scarcity of any scientific literature on the nature and impacts of climate changes larger than four degrees.

This is the same Mark Lynas who was involved in the recent "What the Greens Got Wrong" programme on Channel 4.

Since when did eco-loons dictate the scientific research agenda?

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

According to the Daily Telegraph the authors of one of the articles call for the introduction of rationing like that Britain had in both world wars and for several years after the Second World War.

Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

It is one thing to have rationing during a world war or in a country recovering from such a war but quite another thing to have it in a prosperous country in peacetime. In a democracry the chances of rationing being introduced are quite remote.

Of course governments could suspend normal democratic freedoms. Alternatively the politicians and the scientists who are in favour of such measures could try persuasion. Next time there is a conference on global warming in a location such as Cancun they should set an example by getting there in a way that creates a negligible carbon footprint.

It is possible. After all Thor Heyerdahl sailed to Polynesia on a balsa wood raft and crossed the Atlantic on a boat made of reeds. Using such environmentally friendly methods of transport would also allow time for plenty of meteorological observations!

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

Climate science = creative statistics, proxy data sets, hyperbole and post normal analysis.
Climate scientists are of: 'humanities' faculties, thus, use the legerdemain of sophistry and diversion and loud argument backed-up by scant analysis and even less factual content.
They are not and cannot ever be classified alongside, the PURE science faculties, who at least, make the attempt at empiricism and hypothesis testing.

Haven't they learned any lessons, I had previously thought (despite reams of evidence to the contrary), that, these (supposedly) intelligent men could assimilate, new 'tricks', obviously not - old dogs clearly.

Just who listens to these eejits anymore?
On the other hand I know the answer: eejit politicians and EU control freaks.

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan

A 4 degree rise. That is some challenge to achieve. CO2 upto 390ppm, and no apparent affect. If they want the temperature to rise, they will have to think of something else to do it. CO2 simply is not working..

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Totally OT: To the Good Bishop. I have been trying to log on to the blog (www.bishop-hill.net) and keep getting a message that says:
"Please Stand By The service you're attempting to access is currently busy handling another request. Please try back again in 60 seconds. "

Do you have any idea what is going on. I have been getting this message since Wednesday night. It is most annoying. Any suggestions from the assembled multitude?

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterGilbert K.Arnold

There's been some discussion over at The Guardian on this, particularly one paper by Anderson and Bows. FYI, I repeat my post on it here:
SteB1's [committed warmist] challenge to read the Anderson and Bows paper. Available here:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html

Well, at least I tried to. Now I understand SteB's remarks: "although I admit it would take more time to absorb it's findings." and ". I have not yet got a grasp on all the scenarios".

It is the most badly written and tedious paper I've read in a long time. Its written in the style of 'geography' rather than science. I would be surprised if either Damian Carrington or any commentator here has read it word for word. I commend you if you have. Here's an example:
"By disaggregating selected global emission pathways into Annex 1
and non-Annex 1 nations, this paper provides an improved and more contextual
understanding of the extent of the mitigation challenge specifically and the
adaptation challenge more generally."

I'll give my understanding of the paper. I'm happy to hear other views, but frankly its impossible to read word-for-word. Synopsis in 3 lines (instead of 24 pages).

'Empriral emissions' data shows CO2 emissions are rising more quickly than predicted. Therefore, we will reach the 2degC rise, and possibly 4degC rise sooner than predicted. We are all doomed.'

[ignoring the fact that the temperature response in the past 12 years to these dramatic CO2 rises is rather less than predicted]

But its not all doom and gloom. The paper finishes with this cheery quote:
"However, this paper is not intended as a message of futility, but rather a bare
and perhaps brutal assessment of where our ‘rose-tinted’ and well intentioned
(though ultimately ineffective) approach to climate change has brought us.
Real hope and opportunity, if it is to arise at all, will do so from a raw and dispassionate assessment of the scale of the challenge faced by the global
community. This paper is intended as a small contribution to such a vision and
future of hope."

I think what they're saying is: we can only be saved by more scaremongering.

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered Commenteroakwood

Apparently: www.bishophill.squarespace.com is still working.

Nov 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterGilbert K.Arnold

Gilbert

It works fine for me. Perhaps something at your end?

Nov 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

The 'Zelazowski' paper looks Ok. (By ok, I mean: ignore all/any warmingist stuff and look at the what the paper say, sometimes despite the authors).

Summary of paper: If there is a 4 degree warming (whatever that is), forests may prosper.

Nov 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

They may have given up on science - but not the talking points (if not cut-and-paste):

Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, introduction:
"The 2009 Copenhagen Accord [1] has received widespread criticism for not including any binding emission targets. Nevertheless, it does reiterate the international community’s commitment to ‘hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity’ [1]."

Fai Fung, Ana Lopez, Mark New, introduction:
In December 2009, the Copenhagen Accord [1] reiterated the need to restrict global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

That two 'scientific' papers in the same volume of a 'scientific' journal should start in the same way - coincidence, surely. The preface seems to indicate that the papers represent a conference from September 2009. How wonderful that these 'scientists' were able to predict the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting. You'd think that their weather forecasts would be more accurate.

Nov 29, 2010 at 11:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

I note that the RS funding breakdown is as follows:

The Royal Society has a variety of funding sources in order to ensure its independence. (really?)

■68.2% from Parliamentary Grant-in-Aid for specific projects and programmes.
■13.1% from companies and trusts.
■9.5% from trading (e.g. journal sales, venue hire).
■8.1% from investments and endowments.
■0.8% from other public bodies.
■0.3% from membership contributions from Fellows.


The first indication I had that the RS, who I had up till that point the greatest respect for, was this 2005 Telegraph piece, which revealed that the RS were attempting to suppress dissenting comment in the MSM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3616946/Global-warming-generates-hot-air.html

Following hot on the heels of this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1489105/Leading-scientific-journals-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.html

And then again in 2005 we have the HoL report on economics of climate change, noting on IPCC procedure:

111. We can see no justification for this procedure. Indeed, it strikes us as
opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined,
at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence.
Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process.

116 We are concerned that there may be political interference in the
nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with
their scientific qualifications for the tasks involved.


All very fair play, very British then.

Nov 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Bishop - you found a better example extract than me. That should go in Private Eye's Pseuds' Corner.

Nov 30, 2010 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commenteroakwood

What in God's name does that last passage mean. Could somebody translate it into Plain English. To me it all smacks of Emperor's New Clothes. Nobody is willing to admit that they don't have a damned clue what anybody is talking about. That way they can exclude the hoi polloi and just talk to each other and rake in the government grants.

Nov 30, 2010 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilson Flood

Must be post-post-modern science.

Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>