Thursday
Sep302010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Royal Society on climate change
Sep 30, 2010 Climate: other Royal Society I'm slightly late to the story, but it's being reported this morning that the Royal Society has bowed to pressure from sceptics and will replace its position paper on climate change, incorporating more of the uncertainties that concern sceptics.
Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.
This is certainly welcome.
Reader Comments (97)
The PR campaign is goingto GET NASTY...watch the video here... not if you are squeamish or young....
SERIOUSLY WATCH THIS
I wonder if any scientists were consulted in this short film…….
10:10 Campaign – No Pressure……
Communicating about what other people will do to you, for not reducing your carbon footprint…
Stay with it until 1min 10 seconds, and the red button..
(a school setting, of course, with children, then watch the rest, in fascinated horror)
To be shown in cinemas.. by Richard Curtis (4 weddings and a funeral, short film ) watch out for Gillian Anderson at the end…
This is a serious point about communication….
ie, the dirty CAGW PR is actually getting worse, more vile…
If you don’t agree, your choice, press a red button and you will explode into a bloody pulp……
Quote from the Guardain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
Had a look?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0&feature=player_embedded
Atomic Hairdryer
Yesterday I talked to two friends of mine who are involved in civil engineering in the UK. They both told me that concrete foundations for onshore wind turbine towers in the UK are starting to crack.
I would put this in the "Nope, I really doubt it" category. It isn't like these haven't been around for 25 years, which they have in California. If this is true, it is a case of grossly bad engineering, which is possible.
Now let's assume that it is bad engineering -- I wonder if they did the OFF SHORE wind farms as well?
The new Royal Society Climate Summary represents a grudging and unapologetic admission of their prior misrepresentation of the state of climate knowledge, and had to be prised out in the open by a deputation of their own. Yet still, there remain statements which severly ring alarm bells, such as para 31.
'Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which
simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants)
indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear; this is
mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean. Current understanding
indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from
human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial
concentrations.'
The IPCC TAR WG1 had a CO2 atmospheric residence time of 5-100 years. I understand most estimates are at the lower end of that. The estimated annual CO2 anthropogenic emissions exceed the annual global CO2 rise, so some CO2 is presumably absorbed by the carbon cycle straight away. Maybe more, if significant quantities of natural CO2 are being exsolved by ocean warming and natural volcanic emissions. 'This is mainly due to well-known chemical reactions in the ocean'- whats that then? Solution? Carbonate precipitation? Or just models. Or is it a reference to the natural lag time for CO2 to catch up with temperature change due to ocean heat damping? A statement such as they have thrown out is just not satisfactory without a reference or supporting explanation.
OT:
Who would have thought it?
"UK renewable energy production falls for second time in 2010
Department of Energy and Climate Change says lower wind speeds and rainfall led to 12% drop between April and June"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/30/uk-renewable-energy-production-drops
Changes in an Academy posture may only be gradual, as any Academy is part of the establishment ; consequently face keeping is part of the specs !
Of course, intro and conclusion maintain the CO2 originated global warming tale, with claims of evidence for human footprint, etc.
But there are many points throughout the report which are quite new ; in the end, undertainty and points of ignorance are clearly stressed : this is progress !
As I posted recently : the French academy of sciences held 10 days ago a full day seminar to establish where climate science currently stands.
On temperature data, the outcome is : we have data to build science from since 20 years (ie : only)
on past emperature : we know what the sun role is as to irradiance, change of orbit, etc., but have still to investigate sun spots, cosmic rays, and so on
on models : they are improving...(Lindzen was there to present his view)
on chemical-physical mechanisms, the CO2 direct impact makes consensus, but feed backs are highly controversial ; the dynamics of clouds & precipitations is still entirely to be understood
Conclusion : many aspects to be further investigated
Not a huge support basis to government climate policy
All tenants of IPCC approach upset (in particular those from the French Met Office and CEA funded ISPL, the sponsors of the 2 French GCMs), academy fellows now described by them as uninformed old guys, with vested interest in fossile fuels
OT:
More and more desperate:
"There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign's 'No Pressure' film
Here's a highly explosive short film, written by Richard Curtis, from our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
WARNING: contains lots of blood and quotes from Franny Armstrong!
e.g.
"But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is."
"We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds."
A tiny step in the right direction but overall still wedded to the AGW hypothesis and the precautionary principle.
Would you take IPPC AR4 as a reference source?
No mention of temp. or CO2 variations in a geological time scale. No thermometer record before 1850.
No acceptance of temp. variations in the last 2000 years ( proxies or historical )
No serious discussions of alternative 'short' term drivers of climate.
Apparently supportive of 'sophisticated' 'complex' computer models which supply guesses (approximations and parameterisations ) to predict a chaotic, unstable, dynamic system. Scientists?!?
Nothing here to cheer or be cheered about.
Nothing here to change the minds of our scientifically 'ignorant' (R. Lindzen) politicians who will press ahead with windmills and other imaginary schemes to save the world and impoverish us.
Very disappointing.
Barry Woods
I was convinced that your wretched film had to be satire against 10:10. It's a sure sign of flowering psychosis in the CAGW camp if they kid themselves that it's effective propaganda for their cause.
hey.... it NOT MY film!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.1010global.org/uk
the Guardian love it.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
Guardian: There will be blood – watch exclusive of 10:10 campaign's 'No Pressure' film
Here's a highly explosive short film, written by Richard Curtis,
from our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign
Only reply possibleis:
Nice friends..................
Some excellent comments over there at the Guardian:
"The one thing that I did notice was that it was heavily weighted in favour of people in positions of authority 'killing off' any sort of dissent, which if the film is about getting people to discuss and act upon 10:10 was something of an own goal and will be utterly counterproductive to what Richard Curtis et al intended with this film."
Best One just a link to this: (josh might appreciate it)
http://www.frexx.de/sburns.jpg
Lucy Skywalker
It was totally gross. And I think it was beyond psychotic. People use to get locked up in padded cells for doing things like this "movie". I guess the message is "You don't have to save the planet, but we will press the red button if you don't. Totally with out pressure, it is."
Dung, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:22 PM
"I have recently become frustrated by the forum because the focus is on the detail only and not on the big picture.
I have tried to post my big picture ideas but Zed gets more response than I do ^.^
The big picture proves conclusively that CO2 is not now warming the planet so why bother arguing over the details?"
The CAGW phenomenon is being worked out at several levels, one is the scientific basis for the claims, but it's also got a religious aspect, but I'd say it's largely a political question. It seems to me that we are being guided into an energy strategy and a political setup under false pretences and which would prove disastrous
However, in the eyes of the public at large, the idea that CO2 definitely is causing CAGW has weakened, the idea that it definitely isn't and the apparatus put in place to 'combat climate change' is a serious waste of time and money which makes life more expensive for no good reason, isn't really there. The CO2 hypothesis is looking unhealthy, but it's not dead and certainly isn't buried yet.
I suppose people discuss things of particular interest to them and things they feel qualified to talk about and a lot of people posting here seem to be engineers and scientists. The scientific claims and the hi-jacking of science to give CAGW a veneer of authority are the foundation of this nonsense and I don't think they've yet been sufficiently exposed as fraudulent. When they have, the focus will change to why we are wasting time and resources pursuing a non existent problem when there are real problems more deserving, what our energy policy should be and what we should do about constraints on that, such as the EU. All of these are political questions.
New Zealand inspired insight! Marlborough White rather than the All Blacks.
The power of all the 'learn-ed' scientific societies resides in girls and boys of my age, born in the 40s.
We were brought up with slide-rules and log tables and remember with some amazement hand held calculators. Of course,we are are comfortable with the new computer world with E-mails, blogging etc., but we are still in awe of programmers and computer engineers. (My son is one and I know not what he does!)
When very clever people tell us 'this is what the computer tells us', and ten more tell us the same thing, we find it difficult to argue against the very clever people who are of the opinion that everything is deterministic and computable, even if they have to guess a few inputs.
What we, the wrincklies, find hard to understand is that some things are non-computable, not difficult to compute but Not computable. Mathematically chaotic, unstable, dynamic systems are impossible to predict, even with a computer. The learn-ed wrinklies know this really but are unable to express it in terms that will be acceptable to their egos, knowing less than the modellers about computers.
So, they accept the computer paradigm ( no I'm not American) and because they are too busy with their day jobs they do not investigate the published science, let alone the blogs.
I suggest that this is why the R.S. produces such a disappointing report which totally fails to address the main points of the sceptics arguments against AGW (ACC, ACD).
On a brighter note Ryder Cup in Wales Tomorrow - Blue Skies and Sunshine guaranteed !
G. Watkins
I am with you, Ryder Cup in Wales Tomorrow - Blue Skies and Sunshine guaranteed !
The rest is total fantasy!
Have fun
Speaking of politicians, Bill Clinton was in the R. of Ireland giving a speech today, and he pushed CAGW and fuel transitions pretty hard. Something of a financial Gore effect there.
To G. Watkins : Regarding models, it's interesting to compare what the RS says in their new document, and what Brian Hoskins said to The Economist @ tea time : "climate models are lousy"
Cosmic
I truly thank you for responding ^.^
What I am trying to say equates to:
Does this computer work?
1 )Someone with great knowledge takes it apart and subjects the graphics card and the gaming network card to microscopic examination.
2) I say switch it on and see what happens.
In terms of CO2 most people on this blog are following option 1)
option 2) says that OK yes we need to understand exactly how CO2 affects climate BUT we already know that it is not currently warming the planet.
We know this because we have records of the last four interglacials when at almost the same stage of the interglacials as we are at now, CO2 rose and the planet cooled all the way to ice age.
We KNOW what the effect of CO2 is so why not argue that rather than figure out why as a priority?
G Watkins
Dio you remember the Otis King calculater AKA slide rule on a stick??
from a fellow wrinckly ^.^
The impression I get from the report is that there is now more weight towards man's influence on climate through defforistation etc than CO2 emission, which I would tend to agree with.
Lord Beaverbrook
Not that it matters in the slightest but derorestation also affects CO2 emissions. In particular it affects the emissions of CO2 that have the fossil fuel signature which warmists assert shows that it is man made CO2 :)
From Artwest's post
Who would have thought it?
"UK renewable energy production falls for second time in 2010
Department of Energy and Climate Change says lower wind speeds and rainfall led to 12% drop between April and June"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/30/uk-renewable-energy-production-drops
Louise Hutchins, climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said: "At the moment it [renewable energy] is a very small share in electricity and small fluctuations in weather can have an impact on the percentage of supply. When we have a lot more renewable energy there will be a lot more stability."
If this is the std of logic from Greenpeace no wonder AR4 was a waste of space, the more windfarms the bigger the variations in supply not less. Last winter the whole of the UK was windless for days on end.
Barry
http://www.frexx.de/sburns.jpg
Isn't that our friend Dorlomin from CiF?
"When we have a lot more renewable energy there will be a lot more stability."
Do you think they've thought that through..? No wind, no sun, no waves, slack tide - must happen sometimes!
Cosmic
"The scientific claims and the hi-jacking of science to give CAGW a veneer of authority are the foundation of this nonsense and I don't think they've yet been sufficiently exposed as fraudulent."
Hear, hear. Bish, does Wordpress have a widget for approving of posts? It would be interesting...
God. Just watched the 10:10 film.
Foot. Gun. Bang!
It looks like it was made by someone wanting to discredit the whole Warmist movement. Extraordinary cock-up.
Starts off as 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me', and then turns into Cambodian re-education camp. 'Think like us or we'll kill you. No pressure though.'
Extraordinary, and please note how the “non-believers” look really unattractive, sulky and lazy (well, apart from the French footballer, obviously. :o) Remember this case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief? Please note that 10:10 is quoted as being delighted by the ruling in the above article. Well, in that case you could argue that being a sceptic or whatever is a belief as well and is therefore entitled to protection ie not being blown up on YouTube.
Louise Hutchins, climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said: "At the moment it [renewable energy] is a very small share in electricity and small fluctuations in weather can have an impact on the percentage of supply. When we have a lot more renewable energy there will be a lot more stability."
I visited the hydro-electric power station at Loch Leathan on Skye in June. It was commissioned in 1952, I think, and was Skye's only supply for some years. When I visited it had been shut down due drought.
Perhaps Louise is thinking of the unending stability of death?
Actually, you would probably have to be a "denier" for it to work....:o)
An UPSET Friends of the Earth -BOARD MEMBER
From the Guardian comments (I’ve put some asterisks in….)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
JohnHalladay
1 October 2010 1:33AM
Actually, I have to say something stronger,
this film is ****ing ridiculous.
I am a local Greenpeace coordinator, and a Board member of Friends of the Earth and I just can’t believe that you have produced a film that is so ****ing stupid.
There, I’ve sworn on the Guardian.
Jesus, where is your common sense. We’re trying to win hearts and minds.
This is just ludicrous.
Presumably this is John….. And I salute him!!!!!
http://www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/about_us/board/board_members.html
John Halladay
Friends of the Earth Trust and Limited Elected Board member for South Central
Member of: Engagement Committee
Elected: 2008
Due for re-election: 2011
John’s particular interests in the environmental field include recycling, the concept of individual carbon allowances and the effect of increasing world population on the environment. He works as a Human Resources consultant greening the employment practices in UK companies and is also the joint co-ordinator of Bracknell & District Friends of the Earth.
Best comment is just a link to this: (josh might appreciate it)
http://www.frexx.de/sburns.jpg
The key failing of this video (for the warmist crowd) is that it identifies the authority figure as pressing the button that eliminates dissent.
If it wasn't for the red button the video would be merely offensive but could effectively be interpreted as saying: “do the right thing or other people may die.”
With the red button, pressed by an authority figure, there is no ambiguity about the message. It says: “do the right thing or we will kill you.”
It really is beyond parody that they are so far gone in their belief system that they cannot see how this will play badly. Kids will, of course, love it. And it is for this crowd that it has been cynically created.
Stuck-record, I totally agree. Reminds me of something from “The Wave” which surely is the very last thing they intended. Oh dear.
Sneak peek at the next campaign.
FADE IN
INT: NIGHT
Little old ladies living room. The gas fire is on, the television burbling away to itself.
Little old lady enters from hallway to find nice young lady with clipboard standing in front room.
Little old lady: Can I help you?
Clipboard woman: I'm afraid you left your gas fire on when you went upstairs.
Little old lady: Well, yes I did. It was only two min…
Clipboard woman: I'm afraid you know the rules.
Little old lady: Please, I'm 82. I was cold.
Clipboard woman: Your daughter informs us this wasn't the first time. I'm afraid the planet is in danger and we all have to make sacrifices. If you wouldn't mind getting on your knees please?
Old woman clambers uneasily to her knees. Clipboard woman pulls out a silenced pistol and shoots her neatly through the head. Blood pools towards the gas fire. Clipboard woman switches it off.
FADE OUT
Type over screen reads: Save the Planet, Shop An Eco-Traitor Today.
Stuck-record, made me laugh out loud. You may be in the wrong job (depending on what you do?) :o)
Lord Beaverbrook
The impression I get from the report is that there is now more weight towards man's influence on climate through defforistation etc
One of the biggest myths going. Forests have virturally no effect on CO2 levels. Almost all CO2 absorbtion is done in the oceans of the world in a complex CO2, bicarbonate, lime complex with bacteria fixing CO2 into bicarbonate. If you don't believe me, just go out to the Cliffs of Dover. Several trillion tons of CO2.
And while deforestation has some local effects on temperature and humidity, again most of the effects on weather are from the ocean. La Niña and Le Niño are classic examples of this and the weather in Europe and the US is mostly driven by what happens in the Pacific Ocean.
Now, on the other hand, if you are worried about your O2 levels, you should hug a tree. While there is a good deal of photosynthesis in the ocean, the fish use it. We breathe what trees and such piss out.
Stuck-record
BRILLANT! Make sure the eco police wear green.
Guest post by Indur M. Goklany on Watts Up With That?
"The Royal Society: Still Embarrassing Science"
WUWT piece:
Mike Haseler's comment is worth reading: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/the-royal-society-still-embarrassing-science/#comment-496400
Dung @ Oct 1, 2010 at 8:07 AM
"I truly thank you for responding ^.^
What I am trying to say equates to:
Does this computer work?
1 )Someone with great knowledge takes it apart and subjects the graphics card and the gaming network card to microscopic examination.
2) I say switch it on and see what happens."
Analogies soon break down, but the question of whether a computer works or not is seldom as simple as switching it on and seeing that nothing happens.
This is more like a government plan to put a computer controlled device into every home which will do all sorts of wonderful things, manage your accounts and save you money, improve your health by helping you manage your alcohol consumption etc. It might help you manage your booze consumption in all sorts of ways, tell you where the best wine bargains were to be found, nag you if you do overdo it, or punish you if you have more than three units a day. This thing could be sold under the loftiest of ideals and turn out to serve the basest motives. It could slide from being helpful to punishing you over time.
All brought to you for 10 grand per household, over ten years.
There are two obvious aspects to question in such a development;
Whether such a device could work at all, in which case the 10 grand per household would be a pure waste.
Supposing it worked, whether such a contraption is an ethical use of state power. What is the nature of the state and what should be its limitations?
As I say, analogies soon break down, but I don't think it's yet fully established in the public consciousness that the wonderful device promised can't work as described. The question of whether such as device is at all a proper thing for a government to strong arm people and whether it might emerge with enough functionality to selectively punish, is one which is being examined at present (because you can't separate the scientific and political aspects of CAGW) but will become centre stage later.
Cosmic
Thank you again.
My analogy works just fine:
If I want to do some work on a computer and I switch it on only to find that nothing happens, that pc becomes someone else's problem (after the quick check to make sure it is plugged in hehe).
I then find another computer because my objective is to do some work, not to find out why a computer does not work properly.
Is CO2 warming the planet?
Possible answers are:
1) YES
2) Dont know/unproven
3) NO
If the answer can be demonstrated to be NO then investigation into the science of climate change becomes less urgent. Political corruption remains a real concern but would not be relevant to CAGW and the UAE CRU could sink into oblivion.
I dont need to know why CO2 does not warm the planet, I just need to know that it DOES NOT and that it can be demonstrated.
The previous four interglacials show quite clearly that CO2 DID NOT cause the planet to warm at this point in the cycle..
That is it, period, full stop, why are we still discussing it?
Realclimate seem to be much more switched on to the danger of this argument. That is why Steig and some other guy both posted explanations on their site explaining that even though CO2 lags temperature by 800 years at the start of the previous interglacials; dont worry folks because that does not mean that CO2 did not cause most of the warming, just not the first 800 years. Did this guy write Goldilocks and the three bears?
However even Steig does not touch the fact that CO2 rises for up to 2500 years after the high point of the interglacials while the Earth cools.
Dung wrote 'However even Steig does not touch the fact that CO2 rises for up to 2500 years after the high point of the interglacials while the Earth cools.'
Another inconvienient truth that shall not be mentioned ;)
Dung,
If it was a computer which you bought and didn't work, the maker could send teams of boffins to blind you with science about the algorithms used by the graphics cards etc., but they couldn't escape your judgment that it didn't work and you wanted your money back. Simple decision process.
Now consider a communal computer which you are being arm-twisted into paying your part for. As far as you can see, it doesn't work. Not only doesn't it work (in your view and I've said that "work" in the context of computers is an elastic term", but the questions of why a communal computer is needed at all and why we are being taxed for it arise.
Getting rid of the communal computer and not paying for it is not a simple decision process as it involves lots of other people some of whom will be taken in by talk of the algorithms used on the graphics card etc.
We're still at the stage in the decision process where it's important to nail the techno-babble.
Cosmic
We are obviously at odds.
I say the techno babble does not need to be nailed necause it is not needed in order to answer the question "Is CO2 warming the planet?"
In fact the IPCC are playing a great hand. Each AR headlines new science "proving man is warming the planet".
Instead of pointing out that the Earth has kindly done a number of realtime experiments for us and provided all the empirical evidence you could ask for to demonstrate that CO2 is NOT warming the planet, you guys all get stuck into the babble.
Words fail me.
Dung,
Until fairly recently dissent about CAGW was stifled; especially after Climategate, it's OK and not a marginal or dotty. Climategate confirmed a few things but held few surprises for those who had been paying attention.
We're not quite at the stage where CAGW can be spoken about to just about anyone with the assumption that it can be spoken of as a self-evident scam, mass scare, mass delusion and all the other ways it can be described.
We are certainly not at the stage that the obviousness of the scam is so clear that talk can turn to more interesting topics such as the identification of culprits, apportioning of blame, dismantling the machinery put in place and avoiding such a delusion in future.
Cosmic
We are talking at cross purposes although I am not sure why.
Tell me how you read the evidence of the last four interglacials which the IPCC displayed clearly in AR4 without apparently realising that it blows all their arguments out of the water?
Dung,
You seem think it's case closed and the focus of attention can move to the next stage i.e, what comes now the CAGW scam has been exposed.
I think we are not quite there yet and the focus of attention is yet to shift to what happens when it's firmly accepted that CAGW is without foundation, but we are getting there fast.
Together with which, it isn't quite a simple linear process, going from one stage to another. There'll always be some people claiming they've got new evidence for CAGW, or claimed effects of CO2 on the climate.
So, given the general nature of the posters on BH, maybe it's not surprising that time is spent mulling over the nitty gritty of the claimed scientific justification for CAGW beliefs. I maintain, that even when we have moved properly to the next phase, there'll still be attempts an empirical justification for CAGW.
As I said before, it's a political process being worked through, and it's not quite as simple as concluding it's obvious nonsense and deciding how we deal with going up a blind alley.
The more I look at the Royal Society’s report, the worse it gets. They use the term “strong evidence” both in the Introduction and Concluding Remarks. In the Introduction, they state:
“2 There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation..”
And in the Concluding Remarks they state:
“57There 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.”
Note that they shift from “caused largely by human activity” including several activities, to “greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause”.
Now what is this strong evidence? In the section “Attribution of climate change” they start with and argument from ignorance:
“37 The size and sustained nature of the observed global-average surface warming on
decadal and longer timescales greatly exceeds the internal climate variability simulated
by the complex climate models. Unless this variability has been grossly underestimated,
the observed climate change must result from natural and/or human-induced climate
forcing.”
In addition to using the argument from ignorance, they use terms such as “greatly exceeds” and “grossly underestimated”. To put this in perspective, the observed global warming over the last century stated by the IPCC was 0.7C. About half of that, the warming in the early part of the century, was due to natural causes. Concerning the uncertainties with climate models mentioned elsewhere in the report and the inaccuracies of surface measurements, how can a fraction of a degree C over 100 years be considered “greatly exceeds” or “grossly underestimated”?
In the next paragraph they state
“38 When only natural climate forcings are put into climate models, the models are
incapable of reproducing the size of the observed increase in global-average surface
temperatures over the past 50 years. However, when the models include estimates of
forcings resulting from human activity, they can reproduce the increase.”
So the “strong evidence” that they quote boils down to the following:
1. An argument from ignorance
2. Ability of climate models to produce evidence.
3. Accuracy of surface stations and computer models to within a fraction of a degree.
I am right with you Mr Kindseth :)
Sadly the intellectual integrity of the RS missive demonstrates why the UK is set to be an insignificant bit part player in the C21. I hope their membership presses the editorial board for a detailed and specific reference list to be issued as an Appendix. This would be a lot more illuminating than the uselessly broad "Background reading" suggested.
Cut and Paste from RS website:
//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.”//