Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!

Support

 

Twitter
Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Shameless | Main | Detection, attribution, disintegration »
Thursday
Feb212013

Ingratiating interactions

Paul Hardaker has moved from running the Royal Meteorological Society to the Institute of Physics, an august body that has attracted the attention of yours truly from time to time.

Interactions is the institute's magazine for members, and although some have unkindly suggested that its title is facetious, I'm sure it's a gripping read. The current edition (attached below), shows that Hardaker will fit right in with his new colleagues.

 

Interactions Jan 2013

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (76)

"Scientists thrived on uncertainty but to the public it can mean we don't know anything"

Which pretty much means they don't know anything...really, it seems the real issue here is that the so called climate scientist just can't admit that they just don't understand the full complexity of the climate!!!

It seems to me that these so called scientist just expect their views to be accepted without challenge.

Regards

Mailman

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

It seems that Hardaker is toeing the Government line, and to hell with hard science. He knows where his salary comes from and on which side his bread is buttered. I can't believe from what he says, that he is a physicist.

Until we get rid of all these lying "scientists", we are doomed.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

"Ensemble predictions" = repeatedly getting the wrong answer because your model is physically flawed. How come these so called scientists can't or won't understand that?

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:18 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Was he appointed by the mere members or by his friends ?

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

The models are flawed by assuming that CO2 drives climate. Then the self same models are trotted out to prove that CO2 drives climate.
The real world physics are being ignored to push this fairy story GHG theory and ''it's all the human's fault'' crap.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Marshall

Hardaker says "that it was important that all schoolchildren should gain an understanding of the scientific method and approach"

wouldn't it be better if climate scientists did that first? You know sort of set an example?

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterNoTrophywins

"but it’s just part of a range
of compelling evidence to suggest
that human emissions of greenhouse
gases are playing an important role
in the changes that we have already
observed"

OK, first, what is that range of compelling evidence? Second, that model is only a model. It can't really give evidence, can it? Except when it's programmed in first. Oh, and what changes have we observed? How have the climate boundaries on the Koppen-geiger map moved?

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:34 AM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Over on the "Detection ..." thread Roger Longstaff has reminded us of Orwell's definition of "double think". Then I follow the link here and find this from Hardaker:

We cannot reproduce the climate that we have observed over the 20th century if we just use natural variability alone, but we can much more accurately explain the observations if we include the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not factual proof that greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere, but it’s just part of a range of compelling evidence to suggest that human emissions of greenhouse gases are playing an important role in the changes that we have already observed.
I mean, where do you start?
They cannot reproduce the 20th century climate by only including what they choose to call "natural variability", omitting a range of known unknowns (such as cosmic rays for example) that may have a contributory effect and ignoring the existence of unknown unknowns — arrogant sods that they are! — so they fling CO2 into the mix, tweak their models and shout 'Bingo'.
(In former times they would have shouted 'Eureka' but that was in the days of real science.)
Hardaker (kind of him) admits that there is no "factual proof" that greenhouse gases warm the earth and then instantly claims "a range of compelling evidence" that they do.
Which is it to be?

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

rhoda:

Richard Betts has told us before now what the compelling evidence is. Strangely I can't recall it and nobody can actually pin it down (but it's all there in the IPPC reports, so I've been reliably informed by many august bodies).

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

"...the UK had to start significantly reducing emissions over the next 20 years or so..."

Just enough time frame to capture the imagination and rise of the children indoctrinated by the current cabal of decision makers.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael

Prof. Hardaker said: “There’s a language barrier between science and the public. In science we thrive on uncertainty, whereas to the public it can mean that we don’t know anything. Scientists have got a bigger role to play in being clear about the robustness of their evidence.”
Hang on, Prof. “Having robust evidence” means knowing something. “Uncertainty” means not knowing. That’s not a language barrier . It’s what the words mean.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Another case of the nomenklatura rotating seats among themselves to give the illusion of change and progress.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Oh dear, time for a new eye-test, I read that as ... 'Paul Hardaker has moved from ruining the Royal Meteorological Society to the Institute of Physics'.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan E

“We cannot reproduce the climate that we have observed over the 20th century if we just use natural variability alone, but we can much more accurately explain the observations if we include the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not factual proof that greenhouse gases are warming the atmosphere, but it’s just part of a range of compelling evidence to suggest that human emissions of greenhouse gases are playing an important role in the changes that we have already observed,” he said.

What he is stating is simply unscientific and not compelling evidence at all. I wonder what he makes of the fact that CO2 has ceased to explain the lack of warming in the 21st century ...

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM | Registered Commentermatthu

"...the UK had to start significantly reducing emissions over the next 20 years or so..."

Just enough time frame to capture the imagination and rise of the children indoctrinated by the current cabal of decision makers.

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered Commenter Michael


Surely closer to the truth to say, "20 years should see us all through to retirement and a big fat (usually public sector) pension."

Isn't this what it's all about at the end of the day. Money. No-one in this game really cares what happens after they've shuffled off, do they?

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

Having paid a quick visit to the IOP website I note that Mr Hardaker's email address is readily available for those of you who might feel inclined to make representations to him direct

paul.hardaker@iop.org

Feb 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterNTropywins

Wow. That was really a brain-dead article.

Feb 21, 2013 at 12:04 PM | Registered Commentershub

'Crude or premature estimates can be very misleading in providing guidance for such far-reaching decisions and may be far more damaging than no estimate at all'

-Joseph Smagorinsky

Repeating the crude thing makes it no better

Feb 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM | Registered Commentershub

Philip Bratby: "...told us before now what the compelling evidence is. Strangely I can't recall it and nobody can actually pin it down ..."

...because every time, every time, in their "explanations", they naively slip in something like, "we checked this model against the climate models, and found our hypothesis confirmed to 95% confidence level"; and, if they want to be all things to all men, they admit in the small print, "there is a good deal of uncertainty in the measurement record". Meanwhile, you have to go to someone "ill-bred" (not a climate scientist per se) like Steven Goddard (or, in one particularly enlightening post, me) to find out the "measurement record" is fraudulently adjusted.

Feb 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman

That's what you get from a 10p rag :)

Feb 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin

I've never seen so many 'ifs', 'perhapses' and 'maybes' in one article - albeit dressed up as pseudo-certainty...

Feb 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Extract of Prof Paul Hardaker's biography from a link below.

'...He then became Programme Director for the Met Office's Development Programmes and latterly the Met Office’s Chief Advisor to Government, providing support to the Government in areas such as climate change policy and the civil contingency programme.

Paul has led the UK delegation to several UN and EU technical committees on meteorology; he has been a member of the Physics Advisor Panel at the University of Wales, one of the Government’s Science and Society Champions, Chairman of one of the national e-Science projects, and the founding editor of the international journal Atmospheric Science Letters (ASL). Paul has also been the Interim General Manager for EcoConnect, a joint-venture between the UK and New Zealand Governments to provide environmental services across the globe, and for three years, a Non-Executive Director of a City company working in risk management...'

http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Geography+in+the+News/Ask+the+experts/Meteorological+forecasting.htm

Feb 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

In science we thrive on uncertainty...

A long-awaited explicit statement that those alarmists who say "The science is settled" are in fact not scientists at all.

Well done, Sir Paul. (He may not yet have been knighted, but surely he soon will be, for outstanding service to subservient bureaucracy.)

Feb 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Why is it that people at the top of hierarchies talk the most bull?

Feb 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrian Williams

Brian

Because the really big chunks float to the top...

Feb 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Perhaps Hardaker would like to tell us what the global temperature would have been last year if the CO2 level was 280 ppm? Please show your work.

Hardaker did nothing to change the RMS poicies on data availability when he was editor of their journals.

Feb 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff

If a drug-candidate fails in clinical trials does the corporate CEO loudly insist that not only is the science "correct", but that the stupid patients have a language problem? That they need to be told more loudly that the treatment does work? And then point to one or two patients who got better even if several died as a result?

No, of course not.
Though the CEO might throw the investors a bone by saying that their predictions for the therapy were still "state-of-art" and good enough, if imperfect and rough at the edges. The CEO also knows he might find himself in a different type of trial if the regulator finds there was wilful deception or criminal negligence that went beyond unbridled self confidence.

Did the builders of the Tacoma-Narrows bridge loudly insist that their calculations were correct, that engineering could learn nothing from the failure of the bridge, that the public didn't understand the physics predictions were correct and that the stupid public had a language problem?
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m686UO68AXI

No, of course not.
But perhaps in Paul Hardaker's universe they might tell the public that the collapsed bridge now formed a nice artificial reef in the water and was thus good for the environment.

It's the predictions, stupid.

And Pharma companies don't get to define and change what criteria they are predicting and testing as the clinical trial proceeds. Nor, astoundingly, do they design a clinical-trial after it is already completed, which some in climate-change science appear to think is an acceptable test of their predictions.

Feb 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

He says we cannot reproduce the climate we have observed over the 20th Century if we use natural variability only.

He should have said that we cannot reproduce the climate we have observed over the 20th Century until we understand natural variability.

This guy is a scientist? Students under ten, destined for physical labor, can understand this point.
============

Feb 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"we cannot reproduce the climate we have observed over the 20th Century if we use natural variability only."

Well, we could try epicycles, flogisthon and ether.

Feb 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterBengt Abelsson

Always an error to not read comments before commenting. At least three people above saw the same point. Why can't this physics doofus see it? And how many physicists reading the 'Inner Action' can and cannot see the above point.

Maybe he should try ditch-digging. He might learn a little about the natural variability of the earth.
=================

Feb 21, 2013 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

A night watchman doing his rounds noticed that the lights were on in the greenhouse. Cautiously entering the building he discovers a man on his hands and knees scrambling around on the floor.

The watchman asks, "Are you looking for something?"

The man responds, "I am searching for the key to my model."

The watchman asks, "Did you drop it here?"

To which the man responds, "No but it was the only place I thought to look."

Feb 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJeff Norman

From the extract of the bio quoted by pharos above, it seems Mr Hardaker has done an awful lot of administration and editing and not very much practical science.

Feb 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Chappell

Geoff @ 2:17 has a magnificent point. To those who try to blame man for all of the temperature rise since the Little Ice Age, I ask 'Why blame, not reward'? If man were responsible for keeping us that cold then guilt might apply.
=============

Feb 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Pharos

“Paul has led the UK delegation..”

Don’t you hate those Biogs that start off formally (Prof. xx) and then get all chummy? What’s wrong with personal pronouns? Far too ‘trendy vicar’ for me, I’m afraid, and suggests that the biographer wants to be regarded favourably.

Feb 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

Now, where's that goal post gone?

Feb 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

(some suitable comment about goal posts required here).

Feb 21, 2013 at 5:34 PM | Registered Commentersteve ta

Off Topic: "facetious"

The only word in the English language with all five vowels, once each, in order.

Feb 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeC

"Scientists thrive on uncertainty but to the public it can mean we don't know anything."

It can also mean you don't know enough, which is the actual truth. It can also mean that that which you presume to know is mistaken. Or, to paraphrase a well-known American politician, "It's not that climate scientists don't know anything; it's that so much of what they know just isn't so."

Feb 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

MikeC, in naming only facetious, you are being abstemious.

Feb 21, 2013 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Are the evil prying tentacles of the giant squid of Socialist common purpose, set to invade the Institute of Physics? Verily, its certainly got to the RMS.

Feb 21, 2013 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Is it Hardaker or the reporter who is confusing the IPCC with the CCC?

But to meet the targets set by the government, which are based on the advice of the Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change, the UK had to start significantly reducing emissions over the next 20 years or so.

Feb 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM | Registered CommenterRuth Dixon

To be fair, six years ago Hardaker criticised colleagues warning that false claims and exaggeration would damage the credibility of all climate scientists. Perhaps the one prediction that came to pass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6460635.stm

Feb 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

From Andrew's introduction, I was expecting a great man going forward with career and science, into a most august and respectable body. Then I read "Scientists have got a bigger role to play in being clear about the robustness of their evidence." I almost choked.

I thought "you don't use that word, it has be sullied and dirtied and fully prostituted out by Mann and others. That is the one word I would be avoiding at all costs".

Then I read the rest of the article, and it all became clear. Thanks Andrew, you threw me on that one. :)

Feb 21, 2013 at 8:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreg Cavanagh

But to meet the targets set
by the government, which are based
on the advice of the Intergovernmental
Committee on Climate Change, the UK
had to start significantly reducing
emissions over the next 20 years or so.
While there had been discussions about new
nuclear power, renewables, and carbon capture
and storage, none of these
were likely to be adequate for the task
within the next decade or so. This meant
that we had to consider how we use and
consume energy, which presented a
really difficult social challenge, he said.

Or in plain speak:

We screwed up and the lights will likely go out as UK.com slides slowly into economic oblivion, but please don't blame our "robust science" .

Feb 21, 2013 at 9:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterClive Best

Another climate oaf in a high place. Sigh.

The Tallbloke had some revelations last year about shoddy materials on climate on the Royal Met Soc site: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/extraordinary-alarmist-propaganda-destined-for-our-classrooms-part-1/

I suppose they are but a part of Hardaker's legacy.

'ruining the Royal Met Soc' indeed! (see Feb 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM | Ian E)

Feb 21, 2013 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

please someone tell me why Physicists need an institute. Are your degrees not sufficient? What does the Institute provide?

Feb 22, 2013 at 12:25 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

I once worked for Philips, and there was a standing joke - "Q: What do Philips and the Eiffel Tower have in common? A: The biggest nuts are in the most important places!". This just became true of the IOP.

Feb 22, 2013 at 12:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon

'...He then became Programme Director for the Met Office's Development Programmes and latterly the Met Office’s Chief Advisor to Government, providing support to the Government in areas such as climate change policy and the civil contingency programme.'

Programme Director for the Met Office's Development Programmes?

In the US this means that he was chief fund raiser.

Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

For me it's a never ending story on the battle between religion/ideology/etc and science.
The reason for these silly claims is the UNEP and the political decided UNFCCC. And since its based on politics and ideology as means/tools to "make a better world or whatever.." It needs scientific support. So they(UNEP) made IPCC, that is also a political "panel" conform to the UNFCCC, but after decades with unscientific claims and Climategate it's lost it's science 100%.
The problem is that science and its principle is in the way for the political progress based on UNFCCC.
So his "task" is to politicize science?

Feb 22, 2013 at 7:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterJon

scientists thrive on uncertainty...... the science is settled......many of us want to toe the line but when the propaganda changes so abruptly it is very difficult for us to keep up. The politbureau should have more consideration for the poor bloody infantry.

He rightly says we've known about Arhennius's theory since late 19th C. Could he go on to explain why no-one was remotely bothered about it, apparently, until the 1980s?

Feb 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterbill

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>