Bishop Hill Lovelock on the Met Office and Richard
Jun 16, 2012 Climate: MetOffice Leo Hickman has interviewed James Lovelock again, the result being this article. There is also a set of transcripts, which contains this interesting statement.
I keep contact with the Hadley Centre. They are one of the best climate centres in the world. Something to be proud of. They should be given credit. They are under enormous pressure from government and are not allowed to say what they really think. But there's some really good scientists there. I like Richard Betts very much and respect him. He couldn't be a scientist and not discuss the uncertainties [in climate science]. Three cheers for him.
I wonder whether central government is asking the Met Office not to express their concerns in full or whether they are asking them not to go into too much detail on the uncertainties. The quote suggests the latter, but the former seems more likely given what we know about central government.
Reader Comments (46)
Sounds as though engineering practicalities have overtaken scientific theory, lets hope that it is all pervasive.
"They are under enormous pressure from government and are not allowed to say what they really think." They should say what they think or they are not scientists. They are not paid by the Government (MOD) but by us taxpayers. Maybe we need an official enquiry into this with witnesses under oath.
Lysenkoism
Perhaps Richard Betts could tell us about the pressure they are under to not tell us what they really think. But he will be under pressure not to tell us what he really thinks, so should we believe what he tells us?
That was quite an interview. How Leo Hickman ever got it past John Vidal is remarkable.
I do not think a single toe was left unstamped upon! I would differ with him only in his assessment of the extent of sensitivity of climate to CO2 and as it is increasingly obvious that this figure still remains for the most part a complete unknown I certainly would not fall out with him over that.
There ought to be a special word for that smug feeling that comes over oneself when one reads, nodding sagely , views that coincide so closely with ones own coming from such a man. ( N.B. Warmists! This is not a competition!)
There will be people burning him in effigy in Rio ! That would be a rare compliment.
It is just possible that Lovelock has got the wrong end of the [hockey] stick and that the scientists merely indicated that they were unhappy with all the political controversies associated with their work and wished they could pursue it without that baggage - just like scientists in most other fields.
However, if Lovelock really understood what they meant and reported it accurately then it is not too difficult to read between the lines. At a time when the government and all the main political parties in Britain are anxious to push through eye-wateringly expensive and unreliable "green" energy measures impoverishing everyone, except for wealthy landowners willing to accept wind turbines, and are intending to despoil the countryside and our coastlines all in the name of "saving the planet", they do not want climate scientists to say something along the lines of the following:
There are still things we don't understand and, although we have done our best, our predictions could turn out to be inaccurate.
Credit is due to Leo Hickman, for this article and the full transcript. Leo mentioned he interviewed him quite a while ago. so the timng of it is quite interesting in itself (ie Rio week!)
Think that this probably more than makes up for his Heartland piece
"They are under enormous pressure from government"
And I guess our Government is under enormous pressure from global institutions..... Democracy my situpon!
@jack savage
'There will be people burning him in effigy in Rio ! That would be a rare compliment'
I wonder how they will manage that in a zero emissions fashion? Same way as they magic up zero emission jet aeroplanes to take them there I suppose. A secret known only to the green cognoscenti and hidden from the rest of us mere mortals.
Note no mention of this recantation on the BBC.
Check out the squealing comments below the article.
Amazing how quickly the lovely, kind, wouldn't hurt a fly crowd resort to calling Lovelock a senile old man who should keep his mouth shut.
Ah, bless the kindness of Socialism.
Not merely inder pressure ftom the state but "under enormous pressure from government" not to report the science correctly.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=9799
Barry: I only have time to skim BH but instinctively I concur with your commendation of Hickman. Lovelock is emerging as one of our most important allies, including on fracking. And I take pleasure in the kudos for Betts too. The fightback cannot be too tightly organised because the deception goes by so many forms and names but make no mistake, a fightback is occuring. How it turns into radical political action to get snouts out of the trough and reduce burdens on the poorest I don't know. But I don't have to know. Respect Leo, James, Richard and those that have spoken for truth for many years in blogs like this one.
It is difficult to understand the motive behind the government presure.
There is already more than enough evidence out in the open to demonstrate the folly of the push for wind energy. May be 6 to 10 years ago, politicians could have been excused for not seriously scrutinising the policy, but all that changed in the harsh winter conditions of the past few years when it was plain to see that wind energy could not meet winter demands and there would have been enormous problems had the UK been dependent upon wind energy for any significant proportion of its base load production. The present economic problems of 2008/9 have confirmed beyond doubt the sheer madness of the present energy policy.
Energy is the life blood of the economy. Cheap and reliable energy is at the core of any industrial based economy. The UK needs to be competitive not simply within Europe but on a world stage. The UK cannot compete on raw materials, labour costs, skill sets and hence cheap energy becomes a game changer to the UK's competitiveness. Other countries will not be so stupid. For example, Poland is the only European country not to fall into recession during the past 5 years. It is exploiting its shale gas reserves and will compete with Russia in the energy field. Both the US and China are exploiting their shale gas reserves. Cheap energy in these countries will give them a competitive edge and hance an economic benefit. Unles the UK goes down this route, its industrial decline will worsen and we will gradually reach a position when we are no longer in the G7, the G8 and struggle to be within the G20.
Politicians do not like making decisions regarding the medium to long term. The present energy policy will be felt within the medium term. It will come home to roost within the next 10 years. Most politicians will still be around in 10 years (although they may no longer be in government). Decisions being taken now will come to haunt the majority of the politicians, and it is likely that there will be ugly scences over this since already there has been no statistical warming these past 15 years (Phil Jones has admitted such) and if the present plateau in temperatures continues for another 10 years (a not unlikely position given ocean cycles turning negative), it will be diificult to defend decisions taken in 2008 onwards.
Should the Tories wish to get the UK out of its current flat line economy the first and foremost decision should be to immediately halt the drive for renewables and subsidies thereon, roll out a programme of new gas powered generators and push shale gas for all its worth. Shale gas is green: recently a study was published showing that the USA has cut CO2 emissions by about 7% during the last decade due to the introduction of new gas powered generators which will be powered by shale gas. So the UK government can play on the green credentials of gas power generation and shale gas (should there be any need to justify the programme on 'green' grounds). This would stimulate the economy both with jobs and with cheap energy (which would greatly benefit industry). Cheap energy would also directly benefit the consumer and give them more money to spend hence supporting a consumer led recovery.
One would have thought that political poilicy would be to steel a march on the rest of Europe and to seek to discredit renewables and to support a case for conventional power generation and in particular to support shale gas, thereby giving the UK a competitive edge the effects of which would be felt within 5 years (especially given the madness of the German energy policy). Hence one would have thought there would now be covert pressure on the Met Office and UEA to downgrade the risks of global warming. A covert U-turn would assist current political circumstances.
This is high comedy:
Richard Verney:
Geoff Chambers quoting James Lovelock:
I think Lovelock's comment pretty much explains Richard's difficulty. The only things I'd are:
1. Don't write off the Christian element. It has an annoying habit, for its enemies, of resurrection.
2. The green religion has always been political in a way that the way of Jesus never was. (I know there's been loads of bad stuff since but you can't study early church history without being struck by the difference.) The right place to look for insight on greenery is in the extensive work on political religion since the days of Hitler and Stalin. Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich a New History is as good a place as any to begin.
Note that Godwin need not be involved in assessing this post, because I'm talking about the broader sweep of scholarship on all forms of political religion. It just so happens that some of the most accessible work is about Hitler, who's one of the most striking examples of the form.
Richard,
I think Godwin's law has been abused by intellectual chickens to avoid discussing things openly and honestly.
I know Mike Godwin and I am very confident that was not the intent of his observation regarding internet fights so many years ago.
Richard Verney: "Both the US and China are exploiting their shale gas reserves. Cheap energy in these countries will give them a competitive edge and hance an economic benefit. Unles the UK goes down this route, its industrial decline will worsen and we will gradually reach a position when we are no longer in the G7, the G8 and struggle to be within the G20." Don't forget that US drive for shale gas is on private land. Totally banned on Government land due to Obama and EPA. The US drive for gas is against the wishes of Obama and EPA. They are now trying to stop it. Just shows you how stupid Western Governments are now. I fully agree with Richard Verney's analysis. Should be all over the papers and in MP intrays.
I want to pick out one issue from this interview:
When Lovelock was in his pomp he was a CAGW firebrand and demanded action now (then hehe).
Now he is more laid back and believes maybe he was wrong about some stuff and that adaptation and mitigation is better, that is one hell of a journey.
I would like to suggest the reason for this.
In his early days Lovelock focussed on the science and his views were formed by what the science was telling him. Now he has realised (and said in this interview) that we really dont know enough about how our climate works to be able to predict the future, therefore we should adapt to whatever changes occur.
I truly believe that this is the lesson we should all take on board.
In Australia at least it is forbidden for public servants to speak out in the media against government policy. I have not checked but I have a feeling that legal sanctions are in place. Civil servants are meant to serve the government of the day in implementing and administering policy, whether they personally agree with it or not. That being the case, it may be that if a strategic withdrawal on climate change is planned, the government will want to closely stage manage an orderly retreat so as to minimise any political damage. People like Richard will probably only be given the green light to speak freely once the coast is clear, so to speak.
Jun 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM richard verney
Richard, the country is run by the administrative branch (or whatever it is called these days) of the civil service. In most matters, the government does what it is told ("advised") to do.
Civil service empires, with associated careers, salaries and inflation-proof pensions are dependent on the continuation of the carbon delusion. The Met Office was briefed (and lavishly funded) to produce 'evidence' to justify the Climate Change Act, wind farms, all supported by vast expansion of civil service empires.
It has worked out nicely for the top level of the civil service. The very last thing they want now is for the Met Office to start blurting out:
"well, actually, although the climate was warming a bit, this has now stopped - buggered if we know why. As for CO2 causing dangerous climate change, well that was just a hypothesis. Because of lack of any real evidence, we wrote some computer programs, checked that they produced the output we wanted, and then we told people their output had 'proved' it."
hunter: Agreed on the habits of intellectual chickens. But I'm even more interested that you know Mike Godwin. I'd love to ask you some questions privately about this. I'm rdrake98 on the gmail label.
Hi Bish
The "pressure" comes from policymakers (and commercial customers) wanting definitive predictions of the future, which is of course impossible. All we can do is provide estimates, usually with large uncertainty bounds. People often find that difficult to deal with - they want certainty, but unfortunately they can't have it.
However, the govt departments that fund the Met Office Hadley Centre regard scientific integrity as being paramount, so they specifically say we should do what is scientifically correct and give them honest, objective advice (which of course we do). In fact the new head of Defra's climate change team visited us yesterday and said exactly that.
The "not saying what we think" part refers to not commenting on policy. This is normal civil service - we are impartial advisors so we don't express personal opinions on govt policy.
Cheers
Richard
@Richard Betts:
>This is normal civil service - we are impartial advisors so we don't express personal opinions on govt policy.
Pity this is honored in the breach by so many US govt scientists -- James Hansen being the poster-boy for "political science".
Richard Betts
Thank you for clarifying what the Lovelock quote actually meant. For a while there I was concerned that a misinterpretation might be gaining traction.
That would have been unfortunate given the highly-charged nature of the debate in general and the somewhat polarised attitude toward the Hadley Centre in particular.
"The "pressure" comes from policymakers (and commercial customers) wanting definitive predictions of the future, which is of course impossible. All we can do is provide estimates, usually with large uncertainty bounds. People often find that difficult to deal with - they want certainty, but unfortunately they can't have it."
Yeah, the ignorant tax-paying public never bothers to pressure the Met about these things, do they? No, they never do, just as they never ask their money back when horoscope scientists get their predictions horribly wrong. It is not like anyone else wants certainty apart from policymakers and paying customers.
Meanwhile, NASA is certain that a rocket they fired into space in 2006 will reach the vicinity of Pluto on 14 July 2015. And they predict this:
Completely astonishing! How can they predict these things with such precision? How is it possible for them to speak with such certainty?
"It's basic physics", they say.
Basic physics? Like 'climate science'?
BBD
Richard cannot clarify what lovelock meant,only lovelock can do that.
Especially as depending on what lovelock meant, someone might argue, Richard was under pressure to say that
If course Richard may sincerely believe that is what lovelock meant
But I think, lovelock meant more than that given the context if the rest of the interview.
Maybe Leo, or Andrew could ask...
Jun 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Barry Woods
Hi Barry
Well yes, only Jim himself knows for sure what he really meant, but that was my interpretation based on the fact that I work at the Met Office Hadley Centre and he does not, and I'm his contact with the Hadley Centre so play a fairly large role in informing him about what goes on there.
If he really meant that either "central government is asking the Met Office not to express their concerns in full" or "they are asking them not to go into too much detail on the uncertainties" then he's wrong. But please note, those two phrases were introduced by the Bish in his post at the top here.
If Jim's statement was intended to go beyond the "not speaking on policy" issue, then it could just as easily have meant that he thinks we are not allowed to voice concerns over the seriousness of climate change - he did used to say that the IPCC was too conservative, and if you read the interview he still goes along with Stefan Rahmstorf on sea level rise being more extreme than in AR4.
To my knowledge, the Met Office has never been asked by government to play down the uncertainties in climate science. Anyone that thinks that, whether they are Andrew Montford or Jim Lovelock, is wrong.
Cheers
Richard
Richard Betts said
"I work at the Met Office Hadley Centre and he does not, and I'm his contact with the Hadley Centre so play a fairly large role in informing him about what goes on there."
So can you explain why James Lovelock should be informed about what goes on at the Hadley Centre, as opposed to the public being informed. Who else do you inform? Why don't you inform Anthony Watts, or Steve McIntyre? Or perhaps Erich Von Daniken?
So much for democracy.
You know what some policy makers say, right?
That some scientists go over and above what can actually be said based on the evidence, in their enthusiasm for 'the cause'. Other scientists have made the same observation.
You know the media will wash its hands off the whole thing saying: "We only report on what the scientists say".
Maybe Lovelock reads between the lines when you try to be his source the best you can.
Also, Lovelock's actual statement is:
Your explanation for the pressure does not work, because, clearly the Met Office is not under pressure from commercial organizations and policymakers *not* to reveal known uncertainties. That would be ridiculous.
"To my knowledge, the Met Office has never been asked by government to play down the uncertainties in climate science. Anyone that thinks that, whether they are Andrew Montford or Jim Lovelock, is wrong"
Hmmm Sound like something out of the Leveson Inquiry.
Please jog my memory on the following. Wasn't there a conference in Exeter in the mid-noughties which helped set the scene in the UK for the CAGW climate alarmism? Was the Met Office involved? If so, what was the nature of their contribution(s)? i.e. were they for or against (C)AGW? In short, have the Met Office always been as honest and truthful as they are now? Thanks for your help.
Is it then the case that ALL the uncertainties are made clear at every opportunity? Maybe it is the media who fail to pass them on to us, for the poor public is hard of understanding.
Do the uncertainties appear in the press releases? Source?
@Richard Betts: "The "not saying what we think" part refers to not commenting on policy. This is normal civil service - we are impartial advisors so we don't express personal opinions on govt policy."
Sorry, but, as an ex-civil servant, I can't help feeling that you are being a bit disengenuous here. Are you saying that the Met Office Hadley Centre has no involvement in govt policy on climate issues, or are you saying that its employees are unable to comment on their involvement in policy on these issues?
"I wonder whether central government is asking the Met Office not to express their concerns in full or whether they are asking them not to go into too much detail on the uncertainties."
It can both. Too much hysteria and you're forced to reject it or act on it. Too much uncertainty raises the question the reality of the alarm. Something in the middle gives room to implement peripheral policy in the name of climate change without committing politician to extreme action. Perfect scenario for a spineless bureaucrat.
A recent Ben Pile article put forward the idea of climate change walking a fine line between certainty and uncertainty. It helps in understanding some of the dynamics.
Richard, I accept the Met Office has been pressured to produce accurate weather forecasts, I know for sure they're crap, and you've corrected me on this by saying they appear OK in your region. I was enlightened in my ignorance when I heard, who I believe the chief weather forecaster, on Radio 4 talking about the accuracy of the Met Office forecasts. He admitted that the long range forecasts were crap, and went on to say that nowadays the 24 hour forecasts were 67% accurate (I believe he must have been referring to forecasts that are one hour away from the beginning of the 24 hours, because in Suffolk, not renowned for its unpredictable weather, 67% is a wildly optimistic exaggeration). However if we accept his figure it's still a pretty poor return on the money we've spent, and continue to spend, on weather forecasting. In the US I find their 24 hour forecasts invariably accurate, now that may be down to me not paying as close attention on them as the UK, or, more likely the stability, and hence predictablility of the weather coming as it does over a landmass rather than the oceans, but nonetheless, they appear more accurate.
I form my opinions of the Met Office from the words of its leaders, I don't believe Drs. Slingo or Pope need any encouragement from the government to spread stories of upcoming catastrophic weather in the 20 - 50 year time scale with no uncertainty whatsoever, I believe they're activists along with your Chairman. The cycle of long range weather forecasts telling us of BBQ summers and warmer, wetter, winters in line with IPCC forecasts should have been enough for anybody not making money out of the fear of global warming to clear our the top management and get the Met Office back to focussing its efforts on improving the quality of its forecasts. Look at the recent debacle, we are now in our third month of drought according to the Met Office forecast of 23 March 2012. The first month had its highest rainfall on record, in the second month we completely replenished our depleted resevoirs by the third week and the third month is making certain the hubris of the Met Office management is demonstrated to the entire UK population continued with the deluge.
I don't believe for one minute that the people working on the forecasting are anything other than decent people doing their job to the best of their ability (but I'd bet my pension on their being "bien pensant" Guardian readers to a man and woman - I am myself by the way, but over many years have seen a once great liberal newspaper transform itself into one where the truth is what says, and happily distorting the truth to what it wants it to be). Accepting that, I believe people who follow a cause are more inclined to believe that which strengthens the case for their cause to be true than otherwise, my belief, so far at least, seems to be supported by the empirical evidence.
The only good thing as far as the Met Office is concerned is the complete silence of the MSM on the continued failure to do anything but predict long range weather forecasts in terms of IPCC AR4 SPM predictions. Or is it just me?
Jun 17, 2012 at 7:26 PM | Salopian
The Met Office is not involved in deciding climate policy. Our science informs the decisions of the policy-makers in the appropriate government departments, who take account of the scientific information provided by us, along with the information on others aspects such as economics provided by others.
Jun 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM | Rhoda
I believe so.
For example, I just checked the Met Office press release archive and found that the most recent one relevant to climate said:
Cheers
Richard
Jun 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM | Idiot_Wind
The 2005 conference Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change was organised by Defra, and held in the Met Office building in Exeter since the Met Office Hadley Centre is the government's official climate research centre and Defra wanted it to be clear that the conference discussions were largely about the science.
The conference aimed to address the following questions:
You can see the abstract and presentations here. I think about 5 of the 40 (approx) speakers were from the Met Office.
I gave a poster presentation entitled Uncertainties in Ecological and Hydrological Impacts of Doubled-CO2 Climate Change.
Cheers
Richard
I went to the Met's PR archive. There I found this:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/Climate-impacts
Now what does that read like to you?
Richard Betts -
I appreciate you coming here, but please, the Met Office has been a bastion of the alarmist camp. Just look at some of the chapter headings and text in this 2009 document: Met Office/Act on CO2 - Climate Change the facts
page 2 - Climate change is a very real and urgent global issue. Its consequences are being experienced every day. We read about it in newspapers, hear it debated in Parliament and our children learn about it in school. It’s a problem we all share, because every single country will be affected. Together, today, we must take action to adapt to it and stop it — or, at least, slow it down.
page 4 - What will happen if we don’t reduce emissions?
If emissions continue to grow at present rates, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is likely to reach twice pre-industrial levels by around 2050. Unless we limit emissions, global temperature could rise as much as 7 °C above pre-industrial temperature by the end of the century and push many of the world’s great ecosystems (such as coral reefs and rainforests) to irreversible decline. Even if global temperatures rise by only 2 °C it would mean that 20–30% of species could face extinction. We can expect to see serious effects on our environment, food and water supplies, and health.
page 6 - that damned hockeystick again just in case we weren't frightened enough...
If that isn't policy advocacy I don't know what is.
It's all right, Lapogus, it says 'could', so that is an expression of the uncertainty.
I think the case is proven as far as Met office uncertainty is concerned, unless they are prepared to quote the advice they give to government. Bearing in mind that politicians HATE to be given non-committal advice.
lapogus:
OK, yes, in my personal opinion I agree that the thing with ActOnCO2 did cross the line. I don't think that would happen now. And yes the figure on page 6 did not show the uncertainties properly.
Rhoda:
3 examples of recent advice to govt:
1. Paper on climate change and agricultural productivity written at request of Sir John Beddington - we say:
2. Report addressing the question "What is the evidence for changing variability in climates from year to year?", again commissioned by Beddington, for which the answer is basically "It's not clear, don't believe all you hear from NGOs".
3. Advice on interpretation of the UK climate projections for the the Climate Change Risk Assessment for Defra. This has sections on sources of uncertainty and limitations.
Cheers
Richard
Richard. i think we are a little at cross purposes here. You are talking of uncertainty on a regional basis, or an effect on precip or how much CO2 there is going to be. When I talk of uncertainy, I mean whether the whole conjecture/hypothesis/theory of CAGW has a solid basis in fact. You are communicating your version to govt, but mine you are pretty much taken as read. However, for the true meanig of uncertianty, here;s a snip from item 3..
"For the range of emissions scenarios considered by the IPCC and
CCRA, the difference in future emissions does not become a significant contributor to
the overall uncertainty in UK temperature change until the second half of the 20th
Century."
For the next twenty years ago, presumably? Now I am really uncertain as to what this means and whether the notion of proof-reading has ever come the way of the met.
@Richard Betts: You say that the Met Office is not involved in climate policy, but that your science informs the policy-makers in Government. This worries me because it makes it sound that Met Office science is policy-driven and Government policy on climate is not science-driven. As any scientist worth his/or her salt (at least in any area other than climate change) knows, giving the correct answer depends as much on considering the context in which the question was asked as the question itself. If you have no input into the context, then all you can do is give the 'right' answer not the correct one, which in my view, is unscientific and unprofessional.