JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Rupert Wyndham ponders the wanton hypocrisy of Paul Nurse and The Royal Society

Rupert Wyndham is an eloquent treasure. For those who have not already seen this (and I’ve received many emails about it) — Enjoy! — His turn of phrase is something to behold: the damning indictments carefully understated, yet laid bare. That the Royal Society President has been reduced to ad hominem attacks “… demonstrates more clearly than anything else the loss of dignity it has endured and depths of corruption to which it has been reduced under your stewardship and those of your two predecessors. “

  — Jo

The Royal Society in better days: Boyle, Newton, Franklin, Jenner, Babbage, Wallace, Lister, Rutherford, Hodgkin, Shackleton. (From The stamp collection).

—————————————————————————————————————-

31 March 2013

Sir Paul Nurse, President, The Royal Society

6-9 Carlton House Terrace

London SW1Y 5AG

 

Dear Sir Paul Nurse,

Your reply to Lord Lawson dated 8 March has come to hand. It goes without saying that I make no claim to be responding on his behalf; he is more than capable of doing that for himself. Your letter, however, is such a singular juxtaposition of barely suppressed personal antipathy (malice even), blatant mendacity and shameless evasion, especially coming from a person in your position, that comment seems warranted.

Nigel Lawson’s letter never “implied that you should not be commenting on climate science” sic. Only a wilfully distorted reading of the words written could possibly have placed such a construction on them. The point of emphasis very plainly was and is that there is no excuse for wanton misrepresentation, either generally or personally. You are then provided with a specific example, which the writer unequivocally and in terms describes as “a lie”. He is, of course, quite right, is he not? And, if he is, what then are you?

You write that you ‘understand very well the importance of reliable observation, experiment and consistent rational argument’ sic. Good, and so you should! After all, to borrow Prof. Lindzen’s elegant and succinct definition, “Science is the continuing and opposing dialectic between theory and observation”. In principle, nothing in science is ever “settled”, so long the contra-scientific contention of anthropogenic global warming consensus proselytisers, conspicuously amongst them The Royal Society. Against this backdrop and of your assurance in particular, perhaps you would care then to explain why such propagandists:

  • decline to publish empirical evidence;
  • usually with insolence, refuse to offer their raw data, their algorithms and their methodology to the scrutiny of the scientific community at large;
  • manipulate and misrepresent the data they claim to possess;
  • refuse to validate or have validated their general circulation models, even though these are known to be flawed;
  • decline to engage in any form of debate which might expose them even to questioning, let alone to constructive criticism;
  • who, in substitution thereof, prefer instead to smear and defame any who challenge their dogmatic orthodoxy, with many amongst the dissenters being scientists of immense distinction, equal at least to your own, and often experts in disciplines far more directly relevant than yours to matters in hand.

With respect to the fifth of these bullet points (and there could have been many more), let me add that I speak from experience. Prior to 1 August 2007, the RS, on its website, carried a section headed “Share Your Views”. It comprised about six topics, one of which was putative climate change. On 1 August, the entire section was pulled……………. I have reason to believe because of awkward questions being posed in a number of contributions posted by myself. Now, though I say it myself, this was pretty impressive for, to be sure, here was an admittedly interested but, still, an untrained layman occasioning the demise of an entire section hitherto sanctioned and encouraged by the mighty RS! A hard copy of the complete exchanges can be supplied; would you like one?

In passing, from the RS, I personally was the recipient of this rather heart rending little bleat:

 “Yes, WE have caused global warming”. And yes, in scarlet!

—–

And you claim to respect the importance of rational debate. Well, well!

Furthermore, contrary to your baseless suggestion, at least to my knowledge, there have never been any GWPF ad hominem attacks on persons who disagree with it/them. Such, on the other hand, constitute the default tactic of, as far as can be detected, all those of your claimed persuasion. Indeed, an increasing public perception of pointless impoverishment wrought by fraudulent science has concomitantly increased the shrill desperation of its proponents, to the extent that dishonourable epithets such as ‘denier’, ‘contrarian’, ‘nay-sayer’ now stand as amongst the more moderate “personal attacks” favoured by AGW cult fundamentalists.

The impertinence implicit in your suggestion that the GWPF may not have access to climate science advice of the highest calibre is in keeping with the thrust of your letter as a whole. It is also equally wide of the mark. The distinction between their climate specialists and those favoured by the RS, however, lies in the objectivity which the former bring to the task of  assessing possibly dangerous climate change in contrast, that is, to the edifying displays of integrity in, say, the climategate emails and pronouncements of the IPCC – and let’s not overlook, within only the last few days, the work of such paladins of scientific rectitude as Messrs. Marcot et al 2013 with yet another dodgy hockey stick. The allusion, I’m sure, is familiar to you.

And finally, of course, we must not neglect a (perhaps the) key suggestion in your letter, namely that relating to the issue of GWPF funding. This is now, and has ever been, the one routine constant running through all warmist rants and diatribes. That it should be repeated by the President of The Royal Society demonstrates more clearly than anything else the loss of dignity it has endured and depths of corruption to which it has been reduced under your stewardship and those of your two predecessors. At this point, be it noted also that what is sauce for the goose is likewise sauce for the gander. No? But then, in your book, hypocrisy, no doubt, is the tribute that vice must reluctantly but unavoidably render to virtue.

Well, anyway, I can provide you with at least a partial answer. In small measure some of their funding has come from me and, dare I suggest, many like me. And no, I have no connections with ‘big oil’, ‘big gas’ or the Koch brothers! I do, however, have a deep seated prejudice against bogus science, scientific charlatans, self-serving and dishonest politicians and brazen chicanery.

Yours sincerely,

 

R.C.E. Wyndham

 

Cc: Prime Minister     Mr. E. Miliband MP          Mr. N. Clegg MP       Mr. E. Davey MP      Lord Lawson       As the spirit moves

PS For illumination as well as entertainment: Address of the President of the Royal Society to their Lordships of the Admiralty, 20 November 1817:

“It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordships’ knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the circumpolar regions, by which the severity of the cold……………….in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened………………………………

 and

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday  from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

 Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far North as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

 Soundings to 3,100 metres show the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have completely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the Eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have so far never ventured so far North, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that, due to the ice melt, the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

[bolding by Jo -- She wonders is this the earliest form of scientific global warming alarmism?]

————————————–

November 2, 1922 – as reported by AP and published in The Washington Post.

h/t Paul, Keith, Neville… with thanks to Rupert.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (167 votes cast)
Rupert Wyndham ponders the wanton hypocrisy of Paul Nurse and The Royal Society, 9.1 out of 10 based on 167 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cueyfa5

216 comments to Rupert Wyndham ponders the wanton hypocrisy of Paul Nurse and The Royal Society

  • #
    David

    Beautifully eloquent in its understatement. I have had the privilege to listen to some eloquent speakers in my time and to read some of their legal submissions. Rupert Wyndham can now be added to that list. I would that I had such a command of the language.

    640

    • #
      Joe V.

      hypocrisy, no doubt, is the tribute that vice must reluctantly but unavoidably render to virtue.

      Priceless. Does the situation at the RS just reflect the wider malaise of a rotten society ?

      540

    • #

      I’m late to this party, having just come in. David, I think you’ve summed it up nicely.

      What a brilliant read this article is! I can’t wait to hear what the response will be. :)

      150

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    A couple of points. Brilliant letter encapsulating the irritation,anger and frustration of all those who doubt the wisdom of politically-inspired, “science”.
    The observations of fishermen, seal hunters and explorers must be discounted because they were not scientifically trained and therefore unable to properly interpret or collate the data into an acceptable context. Furthermore, as there was no GCM available to process the information, the reported widespread melting must be a myth. Like the LIA, the MWP and the Roman Warm Period.
    The earliest form of global climate alarmism can be found in Exodus. Noah’s flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are both attributed to Man-made causes.

    460

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Rupert Wyndham has written many very eloquent letters to various esteemed numpties such as Nurse.

    350

  • #
    Joe V.

    We shouldn’t laugh, but why does Sir Paul remind me so much of Robin Williams, the Hollywood comedian ? I can’t listen to him without being on the edge of my seat, bracing for the next witty one-liner he might drop .

    130

  • #
    Gbees

    Being a member of the Institution of Egineers Australia I’m not sure whether I should cut my wrists or resign my 30 year membership after reading its clearly political, ideological policy statement on climate change. It seems that this madness permeates many once esteemed and respected institutions.

    One line from the policy “Agrees with the position taken by the Stern Review that climate change is an economic, social and environmental problem.”

    360

    • #
      • #
        Joe V.

        Just who do these committee types think they are, presuming to make position statements on each trendy cause, without consulting their members, and just because their ilk in other institutions do likewise.
        You don’t have to be useless at every thing else to be committee calibre, but when you can do nothing else it’s a useful position to have.

        230

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Joe V.
          I found from my old notes quite a few Engineers that have embraced the AGW/Agenda 21 religion.
          Search Terence Jeyaretnam and his rap sheet reads like many of his “ilk”.
          Environmental Engineer grad UWA.
          Principal @ URS Australia.
          Chair of “Society for sustainable & environmental engineering.
          And so on, I often wonder if these people know the damage they cause and if they do, WHY?

          81

          • #
            CameronH

            By this time in the advancement of the environmental totalitarians, I would suggest that everything that has the name environment or sustainable attached to it should be considered corrupted.

            171

          • #
            Joe V.

            Instinctive Engineers solve problems. It’s what they do. Many’s a time I’ve struggled for the satisfaction of finding a solution, when the business case for spending all that effort might have been questionable. The Client who’s paying decides their priorities though and the Engineers deliver. It’s not up to them to have a policy on Climate Change any more than it is up to eg. Bankers to have one.
            OTOH an as an office administration their committee might have an environmental policy for the way they run their office, to avoid wasting paper clips etc. That shouldn’t be confused with the professional role of engineers though.

            70

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              Such policies are put up as a facade for the public. It’s the public face, or perception, that matters.

              The work the business does is pretty much the same, but the person paying for the project “believes” he’s getting something special.

              Likely; it is typical political correctness, all pretence and no substance.

              00

        • #
          Byron

          it`s all about committee members and institutions displaying Their piety in the new religion . Once , kings and emperors had their heralds announce Them with things like ” The most Christian and Holy Noble King of blah blah ” and They built great cathedrals to display Their devoutness for all to see .

          Nowdays institutions and individiuals like their heralds ( PR departments and media officers )to use words like “sustainability” and “environmentally aware” when announcing Them and stick windturbines and solar panels about the place to display Their devoutness . Of course having then made the effort to put on a display of piety , This , to Their petty minds at least , then gives them a “social license/papal indulgence” equivalent to pretty much behave like arseholes

          160

    • #
      Streetcred

      Gbees … the IEA has been well and truly infiltrated by Agenda 21 perpetrators. It is a stated aim of the Agenda to recruit all professional institutes and it is evidenced in such matters of policy of each.

      240

      • #
        Len

        I am doing a diploma course on building and construction and on Friday I was offered the chance to do a double diploma, the other subject being Sustainability.

        130

        • #

          Did anyone define “sustainability”? I have been trying to get a useful definition. It seems materials may not be “sustainable”, but practices are. If we don’t build houses out of wood, we build them out of concrete. If we don’t burn oil, we burn NG. Materials will always run out and we will always find substitutes. As far as I can tell, “sustainable” is pretty much meaningless but the climate change people and the marketers love it because it sounds nice. We are using a meaningless term and thinking somehow it matters.

          180

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Don’t waste your time looking for a definition, unless you are merely looking to annoy the green infirm of mind.

            The best you can do is Lewis Carroll – “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.”

            In all the Greenspeak, there is never a mention of the lifetime of an item. A house of straw or sticks may be politically correct, but I seem to recall there was a problem with its longevity.

            220

          • #
            Backslider

            The word “sustainable” (greenie version) means burning wood chips rather than coal, because you can grow the trees back.

            I have no idea HOW TF the greenies think that we can grow enough trees to replace coal… so in reality, its not sustainable (using the true meaning) at all.

            171

            • #
              Dennis

              But extreme Green Aussies from Tasmania closed down a pulp mill and export of woodchips, they are all ratbags

              91

              • #
                Amfortas

                Not only do Tasmanian Greens want to stop exports of woodchips, stop the use of woodchips and close down wood mills, they make Shrines of huge piles of woodchips. Youger Greeny acolytes climb atop them as they rot on the wharves and the aroma rises to the Great Green Sky God that ‘sustains’ Gaia.

                21

            • #
              Popeye

              BS

              “I have no idea HOW TF the greenies think that we can grow enough trees to replace coal… so in reality, its not sustainable (using the true meaning) at all.”

              I don’t know either but how does ANY GREENIE see the sense in this mind explosive claptrap??

              Drax power station to switch from burning coal to burning IMPORTED wood chips.

              These FN people are INSANE!!!!

              Cheers,

              221

              • #
                Malcolm Hill

                The Drax power station is a perfect example of just how bizarre and illogical the academic and political elites in both UK and Oz really are.

                212

              • #
                Backslider

                So, what will they do when they run out of wood to burn, which they will?

                The World is governed by morons.

                The truth you would find however, if you were to dig deep enough, is that somebody who is influencing these decisions is making a truckload of money out of it.

                Hey! Just look at Al Gore’s bank account… and he is only one of them.

                130

              • #
                Popeye

                I must ask (but probably will NEVER get an answer) – who the hell would give me a thumbs down just for stating what is obviously FACT and then also linking to an article to support these FACTS??

                Come on – be a man and admit you gave me the thumbs down and then EXPLAIN to all of us here what ISN’T insane about importing wood chips to burn in a power stations boilers INSTEAD of coal. (You’ll also need to explain the difference in heat density of coal compared to wood chips.

                Fair dinkum – some of you warmists are not on the same planet as us normal people!!

                Cheers,

                101

              • #
                Backslider

                who the hell would give me a thumbs down just for stating what is obviously FACT

                Is Mattb around?

                50

              • #
                Mattb

                look if he’d not typed FACT in capitals, maybe, but I can’t thumbs down FACTS, only facts. CAPS trumps science.

                14

              • #
                Popeye

                Matt

                I thought you’d understand BIG writing better – LOL

                Cheers,

                10

            • #
              Backslider

              I would also ask whoever gave me a thumbs down how they think that we can grow enough trees to replace coal?

              61

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Some years ago I went to a sustainability conference. The speaker was talking about sustainable transport and bla bla bla…

            I challenged him several times on what his definition of sustainable was. He fumbled about making an attempt to explain. His thoughts were very messed up in my opinion. He apparently hadn’t put any serious thought into just what sustainable meant, let alone how it relates to busses.

            At least I made him look like a fool in front of an audience. People shuffled more and were more bored from his talk after that point, lol.

            10

        • #
          Streetcred

          I have to ROTFLMFAO at the “sustainable” this and “sustainable” that BS … nothing we do is remotely “sustainable” … not even ‘hunter gather societies’ were ever “sustainable” … they eventually had to move to new areas.

          Almost everything in property development and construction ‘literature’ I read nowadays refers to something “sustainable” … it’s a marketing and advertising gimmick for developers and their sycophantic consultants. Sure, allegedly ‘toxic’ materials have been replaced by other materials, building waste materials are now sorted before leaving site … but smart operators always had the scrap dealers do this as there was a buck to be made.

          “Sustainability” is long gone if you have a crap building design that does not respect its environment and its orientation. “Sustainability” is long denied to building design if the infrastructure, (solar) orientations, and physical layouts of land development are botched by the government planners and extortionists.

          80

    • #

      Yes Gbees, Engineers Australia (EA or actually IEAust as in the Royal Charter) has been infiltrated. The past president said in an editorial “The science and evidence on anthropogenic climate change is now overwhelming, and yet our politicians are doing nothing serious to avert an impending “great disruption” that will flow from ecosystem failures (including climate change)” He is or rather was a civil engineer who clearly has no knowledge of thermodynamics, or heat & mass transfer. (I have found that some notable Civil Engineers do not even understand the properties of the most important civil engineering material -concrete, such as composition of the binder, sulphate resistance, strength growth, shrinkage, alkali-aggregate problems etc)
      However, he is clearly on the gravy train as this in his CV at QUT
      “David is currently Chairman of his own consulting engineering practice specialising in the areas of sustainability in the built environment, “green projects”, energy efficiency policy, engineering education and global engineering infrastructure. David has also directed a number of government and industry funded programs throughout S E Asia and Africa assisting the engineering profession in evolving economies with the development of competency standards and assessment processes, practice registration and education upgrading and accreditation systems. As an investor, Chairman, and Board member David led the successful turnaround of CBD Energy Limited, a small public company involved in energy saving technology and solutions for the property industry.”
      There is a need to clean out the “greens” who have vested interest from Institutions and Universities.

      510

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well, definitely no sign of bias there then …

        But I am not sure about “cleaning out the ‘greens’”. That has the feel of a progrom about it. We do however, need to ensure that they don’t have a disproportionate amount of influence in the decision making process, as is currently the case on many Boards.

        140

        • #
          CameronH

          It is their intent to clean out anyone who is not green so I believe there is a need to clean them and and aggressively so.

          110

      • #
        ianl8888

        @cementafriend

        Did IEAust hold a transparent referendum of members’ views before pronouncing that the IE supported CAGW ?

        Did the IE constitution require such an inclusive survey ?

        I ask because most technical professional organisations (eg. GSA) have made such pronouncements without a credible, transparent survey. When challenged, the reply is generally along the line that the constitution of the organisation does not require such procedures

        Academics have deliberately maneuvered into positions such as President in order to chase funding with such pronouncements. Such maneuvres are both legal and successful as most members do not vote in organisation elections

        80

        • #
          Malcolm Hill

          That would apply to pretty well most Institutions in Oz that very few of them would pass the principles of what constitutes a free and democratic organisations.

          The members are rarely consulted at the equivalent of a Town Hall metings. Indeed one organisation I regrettibly was a member of had the actual motion moved by the Chair vetoed by a VP at a branch meeting.

          Candidates for election are allowed 200 words to explain their platforms, which usually means just repeating their CV’s, and how many degrees they have. Social media are used by the politically active to curry favor and votes, not to debate the issues.

          Decision making is centralised in Sydney or worse Canberra.

          People who identify themselves as activists in other contexts are generally to fore.

          So Rupert Wyndhams letter to Paul Nurse of the RS, and indeed Andrew Mountfords excellent report into both the RS and the Insitute of Physics has clear parallels here in Australia.

          100

          • #
            Len

            It is alway extremely suspicious when the Chair moves a motion at a meeting. If the Chair feels strongly about a matter they are generally advised to get another member to move the motion. The Chair should appear to be impartial and give no indication on their support or non support on matters under discussion.

            30

            • #
              Malcolm Hill

              Dont disgree with the principle at all…

              Even if the idea had come from the floor it would not have made any difference to it being being imperiously vetoed…

              Last thing they wanted was members being allowed to be fully informed, and then being allowed to express opinions as part of elections.

              God forbid we couldnt have that…dammed impertinence of the man.

              Notably in this instance the organisation is still a small minority fringe group of the profession it represents, but has the gall to promote itself as being the peak body

              60

  • #

    I just want to highlight again just the last part of that last paragraph from that report from 1817:

    …..the Eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have so far never ventured so far North, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that, due to the ice melt, the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

    What surprises me is that this meme is still doing the rounds these days, almost 200 years later.

    People (mainly those who support CAGW) STILL think that the melting Arctic Ice will lead to humungous seal level rises, flooding coastal regions.

    It always makes me smile, and it almost got me into trouble once, that smiling bit. One person saw my smile, and in an almost aggrieved tone told me that this was no joking matter to be smiling about.

    I mentioned to him that this was Sea Ice. He gave me a somewhat puzzled look and added the standard comeback ….. “And your point is?”

    I just politely mentioned the phrase Archimedes Principle.

    The dumbfounded look that followed was absolutely priceless. He had no idea, so I mentioned that the ice already floating in the ocean (Sea Ice or North Polar Ice) was already in the water and even if it all melted, it would not raise sea levels at all.

    He still couldn’t see the point.

    What absolutely amazes me is that people like this will believe what is the most complex science that some CAGW Scientists come out with, accept that verbatim, and then have no idea at all about the High School Science they actually learned themselves while at school.

    He was still absolutely certain I was lying to support my own views.

    It’s not isolated either. In the five years I’ve been following this. that position is not just occasional, but is actually the belief of a lot of people.

    Tony.

    570

    • #
      Joe V.

      When (sic) all the sea ice melts, how much space is that volumetric contraction going to free up, to accommodate the water from melting ice caps ?

      48

      • #
        Speedy

        Joe

        Ice floats on water – that is to say it displaces its own mass. When the ice melts, it still has the same mass, but a slightly higher density (1.0 vs ~0.9). No volume change occurs.

        Simple experiment to do in your kitchen. Take a glass of water. Fill it to the top and add an ice cube. Carefully wipe away the water that overflows from the ice – we can now safely assume the glass is 100.0% full. Allow the ice to melt and report the change in volume.

        This “experiment” can be repeated – so no cheating!

        Cheers,

        Speedy

        102

        • #
          Hasbeen

          Sorry Speedy. Try parking your car out side, on a cold, below zero frosty night, with no antifreeze in the radiator. Then tell me, as you get your car towed to the shop to have the radiator replaced, after it was burst by the increased volume when the water freezes, that there is no volume change.

          This lesson will last longer due to the financial consequences of that expansion.

          18

          • #
            Otter

            So let’s see if I got this straight. You are telling us that, when water freezes, it expands, right?
            And then when the ice melts, it expands further? Or does it reduce to it’s former voulume?

            60

          • #
            Speedy

            Thanks Hasbeen.

            The problem being that the radiator is sealed tight, so the volume is fixed, but the water expands – BUGGER ! There’s the problem. Of course, the same physical chemistry applies to radiators as it does to icebergs. Hence they float.

            Which is a good thing, really. If ice was denser than it’s liquid state, water, then all the ice would sink and very soon the oceans would fill up with ice from the bottom upwards. (At least during the cold spells we’ve had periodically :) ) It would be problem…

            I think somebody up there likes us!

            Cheers,

            Speedy.

            40

        • #
          AndyG55

          umm, Speedy, In the iced state, there was ice ABOVE the line of the top of the glass.

          In the thawed state, there isn’t.

          Your little experiment proves that there IS a change in volume !!

          31

          • #
            AndyG55

            You are correct in one way though.

            the level of the water does not change.

            30

          • #
            Speedy

            G’day Andy

            The sea ice has bits above the waterline too, does it not? What’s the difference between the old sea ice and the ice cube in your kitchen?

            Feel free to disagree. But you’ll need to explain why. That’s the beauty of science – don’t you love it?

            Cheers,

            Speedy

            20

      • #
        Joe V.

        Thank you Speedy, and Hasbeen, Otter and Andy., for entertaining my question.

        Of course as Speedy’s explan. reminds me the extra volume typically sits above the surface.
        so melting won’t free up any volume ‘under the water line’.

        The notional problem with melting ice then , if the World were warming , isn’t with Sea ice at all, as Tony quite rightly indicates.

        Any such consideration would be for water locked up in Ice on land.

        30

        • #
          Speedy

          No worries Joe. That’s science and it’s a lot bigger than the ego’s of true scientists…

          20

    • #
      George McFly

      Very well put Tony. Tragically basic science is a bit hard for some people including many journalists who tend to have a non-science background (said quite seriously) and often lack the most basic ingredient…..an inquiring mind

      140

    • #
      Mattb

      but but tony… when all the sea ice melts if the sea is the same level then tell me just what exactly fills the gaps??? Air… from where? What there is no more air… so the atmosphere will collapse… the SKY IS FALLING IN!

      Tony… also… lets not pretend that dumb people who don’t get science are exclusively found on my side of the fence…

      742

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        You are, of course, correct. It’s just that your side of the fence are higher profile, more numerous and far more noisy. As Wellington said, “God spare us from the unintelligent but hardworking.”

        220

        • #

          Wise words, well noted. Turn of the 20th Century German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord has been quoted as saying:

          I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the diligent and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and diligent are fit for the General Staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and diligent is a menace and must be removed immediately!

          120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Have a thumb Mattie …

        130

      • #
        Otter

        We don’t have to pretend. It is becoming manifestly more obvious that they Crowd to your side of the fence.

        100

      • #

        mattb says
        “when all the sea ice melts if the sea is the same level then tell me just what exactly fills the gaps???”

        When water freezes it absorbs atmospheric gases.It expands
        This allows it to float. Hence sea ice
        It displaces water equal to the amount of water in the ice.
        The visible amount above the water is small compared to the ice under it.
        Try putting an ice cube in a glass of water you will see.
        Now mark the glass where the water level is.
        Let the ice melt and note the level again.
        This is all grade school simple science.

        For someone who thinks that science is something that you get. I hate to imagine where you get your concept of it. Maybe you could watch some kids shows or read some basic books to get started in the right direction.

        141

        • #

          I have done this and photographed it at appropriate stages. You really need a visual for people to grasp the idea. Melting ice floating on water simply does not significantly raise the level of water in the glass.

          62

        • #
          J Martin

          Though for a more correct assessment, you need a glass of sea water or water with an appropriate amount of salt in to match sea water and a non salty ice cube. Note the level of the water before and after the ice cube has melted. And you will find it is not the same.

          40

          • #
            J Martin

            If all the sea ice melts, then sea levels will rise by a miniscule 4cm.

            40

            • #
              J Martin

              http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html

              A couple of pictures and explanation debunking the myth that if the sea ice melts then there would be no change in sea level.

              Though at only a 4cm increase in level that is effectively no change.

              It’s one of those questions that’s good for one of those family quizzes that schools do from time to time.

              40

              • #

                It’s not quite the same as an iceberg. Icebergs are supposed to be 90% underwater. The ice in the picture is not 90% underwater. I would think you would have to physically hold the cube down to 90% submerged in order to get a more accurate measurement.

                One could also note that the volume of sea water and the volume of icebergs and the volume of land ice are all estimates. We do not know how accurate any of these estimates are. There are all kinds of nice math calculations you can do to show the change, but if the volumes are off the start with, the math means nothing. I have noticed this climate science loves math and hates real data. Math is easy–accurate measurements are not so easy. You can argue we are “getting better” but since we had no idea how close or how far off we might be, it’s meaningless.

                Plus, land ice would take an extremely long time to melt. It would not just melt overnight and flood everything. We would have adequate time to adjust, in spite of Hansen’s claims.

                70

              • #
                Bob Massey

                Sheri is right ! Also note that the ice cube is floating in said “concentrated salt water” and they do not specify the concentration. If this was done properly there would be some control but I can’t see one :)

                31

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Sheri says:
                “The ice in the picture is not 90% underwater.”

                You don’t know that because it cannot be known from the photo. The ice continues beyond the bottom of the photo frame so the size of the ice block cannot be determined and neither can the submerged fraction.

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                If floating sea ice melts then the oceans will rise by precisely 4.00 com less than you predicted;

                ie. Zero cms.

                Not only will there be “effectively no change’,

                there will actually be No Change.

                Welcome to the weird and wonderfully predictable world of science.

                KK

                10

              • #

                Andrew: I was going by the approximate size of an average ice cube and looking at the picture and judging from that. Since the volume of sea ice is a SWAG and the volume of water in the ocean is a SWAG, my estimate should be good enough for climate change science and all mathematics built on it should be assumed true and without question.

                10

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                to J Martin.

                It looks as though this experiment is to demonstrate the effect of fresh ice in a concentrated salt solution. In other words, to exaggerate and demonstrate the effect being true.

                They’ve used concentrated solution, not a sea water equivalent. The article does state the ocean would be 4cm higher if all the sea ice melted.

                The article is worded badly. It almost confuses density and mass. It takes a couple reads to understand they use the terms correctly, but it reads wrong on first read.

                I just wish to point out the effect shown in the picture is exaggerated compared to the real effect in sea water.

                20

              • #
                Mark D.

                Greg, I noticed that too.

                10

          • #

            It seems that only multiyear ice is not salty so you need a ‘salty’ ice cube as well….

            “New ice is usually very salty because it contains concentrated droplets called brine that are trapped in pockets between the ice crystals, and so it would not make good drinking water. As ice ages, the brine eventually drains through the ice, and by the time it becomes multiyear ice, nearly all of the brine is gone. Most multiyear ice is fresh enough that someone could drink its melted water. In fact, multiyear ice often supplies the fresh water needed for polar expeditions”

            http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/

            40

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Other_Andy

              … only multiyear ice is not salty …

              That is not entirely correct. Admittedly brine trapped when salt water freezes does act as you say, but a significant amount of polar ice, by volume, originates from packed snowfall, which contains little or no salt at all.

              50

        • #
          AndyG55

          umm.. I think that will find it has nothing to do with capturing air..

          It is to do with the ice crystal lattice, which just happens to occupy more volume than the the liquid state. (one of the very few molecules to behave this way).

          For the real scientific among you, it is possible to create ice that has a density slightly more than 1. but this only happens at a very precise temperature (-40C iirc) and pressure.

          For those interested, look up ‘Ice Phase Diagram’ in Google.

          40

        • #
          AndyG55

          “When water freezes it absorbs atmospheric gases”

          Sorry.. I cannot let that pass.

          Yes, ice can capture bubbles of air, but that is NOT the reason for the expansion. see 6.3.4.3

          Fill a plastic bottle completely with water, (no air at all) and put it in the freezer.. ;-)

          40

          • #
            AndyG55

            ps.. DO NOT do this with a glass bottle !

            40

          • #
            Speedy

            Andy

            Apparently, the reason the Vostok ice cores are so interesting is that they do trap a little atmospheric air is why they can be used for tracking CO2 and temperatures over the last few hundreds of thousands of years. Some or all of this would have been the air rapped between individual ice flakes, not as air in the water itself.

            By the way, the ice core data says that CO2 level in atmosphere increase AFTER the water temperature rises (normally ~1000 years or so), which pretty well rules it out as a climate driver. (Otherwise it would go into an endless feedback loop, and we’d be boiled.)

            Al Gore knew the sequence, but didn’t bother to tell people when he did his Nobel-prize winning powerpoint. The guy is a fraud.

            Cheers,

            Speedy

            20

        • #
          Backslider

          It has nothing whatsoever to do with air. The crystalline structure of frozen water is hydrogen bonded, making it less dense than as a liquid and thus taking up more space. This is why ice floats, which you should be very thankful for.

          50

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        but but tony… when all the sea ice melts if the sea is the same level then tell me just what exactly fills the gaps???

        Matt, as you know ice that melts in ocean water causes a virtually unmeasurable rise in sea levels and that small amount is due to the salt in the water. The ice in Greenland is not melting at an accelerated rate and Antarctica’s ice mass is gaining and the Antarctic sea ice is doing just fine.

        Considering that the temps of this interglacial peaked 7000 years BP and that we are heading into an ice age most likely within the next thousand years or so, why worry about melting ice?

        181

      • #
        Backslider

        But but Mattb….. according to you:

        the amount of sun that hits the earth is the same as if it were a flat disc

        That being the case, we should not have any sea ice at all, so why are you concerned about it?

        I am still waiting for your explanation (unless I missed it) as to why the poles are cold.

        71

      • #
        Speedy

        Matt

        It’s not so much air in the ice as the intermolecular arrangement of water is more compact in water than it is in ice. Due to hydrogen bonding, which makes for irregularities in the lattice.

        The sky will not fall in.

        Cheers,

        Speedy

        40

    • #
      Peter C

      @TonyfromOz

      Cognitive, or perhaps confirmation, bias rules, I am afraid. As a species we tend to accept unreservedly anything which supports our personal prejudice and beliefs while dismissing anything contrary. The level of belief or prejudice can often be so great that a person will irrationally deny any fact presented, even to comments that ‘to believe that you must be an idiot, therefore nothing you say can be right because you are an idiot.’

      This goes for all sides of the argument, of course. Nor is it restricted to common folk. Rutherford is hailed as the father of nuclear physics, yet he was also unwittingly responsible for holding back the understanding of nuclear physics for decades. Quite simply, when bright young men came up with new concepts ‘wiser’ heads would turn to him for his opinion, despite his being ‘out of the lab’ as they say for decades. His responses were usually on the lines of, ‘cannot see that, myself’ or ‘most unlikely I would have thought’, thus crushing those ‘new’ ideas.

      Environmentalists from which most climate scientists are born are by their nature already highly prejudiced against most human activity and their research is often tainted by a desire to ‘prove’ their prejudice rather than understand the science. It also doesn’t help that most environmental writers and editors in the MSM are also committed environmentalists who would rather see their own prejudices confirmed.

      Then you have to add in who benefits from climate alarm, those who also have a vested interest in its promotion. Government, because it opens the door to more control, more regulation, more tax and more spending. Supra-government, UN, EU, etc. because it affords opportunities to extend power, influence and helps the movement toward one world government. Big business because it offers new opportunities in emerging technologies and government largess. The scientific establishment because it promotes and expands science in general and their influence and power in particular. Charities because they also gain money, power and influence. Individual politicians because it helps make them appear virtuous as well as increasing influence and prestige.

      In fact the only people that do not gain are the common man, not even just the ordinary tax payer, who ultimately have to pay the cost for it all. But that doesn’t matter of course because the ordinary man has no real voice in such matters.

      411

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Very well put, Peter.

        80

      • #
        Mark D.

        Environmentalists from which most climate scientists are born are by their nature already highly prejudiced against most human activity and their research is often tainted by a desire to ‘prove’ their prejudice rather than understand the science. It also doesn’t help that most environmental writers and editors in the MSM are also committed environmentalists who would rather see their own prejudices confirmed.

        Exactly Peter!

        80

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yep. I’m always more happy to accept evidence that supports my existing ideas. But so is everyone.

        13

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          Yep. I’m always more happy to accept evidence that supports my existing ideas. But so is everyone.

          Thank you for another one of your pointlessly inane and pedestrian comments.

          The real question you need to grapple with is how do you respond to evidence which challenges or contradicts your “existing ideas?” So far, your track record is so dismal that it may actually take effort, something you are loathe to expend, to be even more of a warmist useful idiot!

          50

    • #
      Bloke down the pub

      As the 1817 report refers to moraines being left exposed and glaciers having melted away, I think it safe to assume they were not referring to sea ice.

      80

    • #
      jaymam

      Please can we be more accurate about this?
      “it would not raise sea levels at all” is just not correct. It is nearly correct, but if you look at the physics involved and do the experiment accurately, there is a tiny rise. If we can’t get the science of floating ice correct how can we get any of the other science correct?

      60

      • #
        Tim

        My experiment was some ice cubes in a tumbler of water. Near zero difference when melted. Saved me years of sacrifice, self-denial and late night study.

        71

        • #
          jaymam

          I said that you need to do the experiment accurately, and you need to look at the physics properly.
          May I suggest that you read the excellent site of WUWT where the problem of sea ice floating in sea water has been discuused several times. If you don’t know that, you have not been reading enough. Let us not be like the warmists and ignore the science. Let us be precise.
          You say “Near zero difference when melted”. The correct answer is that there is a small rise. If anyone can’t see why there is a small rise then they are not competent physicists.

          20

          • #
            Backslider

            I said that you need to do the experiment accurately….. The correct answer is that there is a small rise

            I’m pretty sure that doing the experiment in a tumbler of water would show a near zero change in level. Are you suggesting that “to do the experiment accurately” that he should go and melt the sea ice and measure the rise in sea level? Somebody else mentioned that it would be around 2cm – I don’t know how correct that is, however all seem to agree (even you) that it would be negligible.

            51

            • #
              jaymam

              Did you not go to the link posted by J Martin above?
              http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html

              You have not done the experiment. I have done it twice. There is a significant rise when pure ice melts in salt water. I am a climate sceptic. I check everything. Clearly you don’t.

              10

              • #

                With the experiment: The photos do not show if the ice is 90% submerged nor is the concentration of the salt water (3-4% salt seems the most reported concentration for actual sea water) The photos do not show the remainder of the container and the blue coloring is confusing and unnecessary. Yes, we can see the water rise but we don’t know if the submerged level of ice is correct at the beginning, so the amount of rise may be off.

                I am not saying the experiment does not show some rise–I am sure it does. However, it would be easier to understand scientifically if we had more information and more complete photos.

                I do agree we should not say “no rise” because it is not accurate. Part of the problem is when scientists say the sea level will not rise a significant amount, it gets very quickly twisted to “not rise”. Saying it will rise only a small amount becomes “it will rise”. It’s best to report accurately and hope it gets through.

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                You talk about being “accurate”. How then, pray tell, does “a tiny rise” and “a small rise” suddenly become “a significant rise”…?

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                You have not done the experiment.

                Really? How do you know that?

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                Thanks Jaymam, do you by chance have a link for the WUWT discussion?

                I find this all interesting including some observations that I’d like to add. First, if a large amount of ice is melting then, since the melt water is fresh and prone to floating atop the salty water, the effect would be that the unmelted ice could actually be floating in a “lens” of freshwater. Then there is the caption in the link provided that says “Concentrated salt water” causing me to wonder what concentration was used in his experiment. Then finally, the seawater present at the arctic is also substantially less salty than “average” seawater.

                So this is fairly complicated to simulate. My gut reaction is that 4 Centimeters of sea level rise is too much. Significantly because we know that a lot of Arctic ice has melted in recent years, yet the trend in measurements of sea level have not seemed to correlate to this recent phenom.

                10

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Sheri

                Good comment.

                The experiment is really a bit pointless and you have to worry about a “researcher” who obviously includes this for one reason only, to engage the non scientific community.

                Jaymann has done a couple of runs on an experiment but salt concentrations? I’m not sure you would pick up volume differences to easily in the equipment shown.

                Anybody who really wanted to show that difference would simply calculate it.

                Not a big deal at all.

                KK :)

                00

          • #
            Backslider

            BTW, I would equate “near zero difference” with “a tiny rise” and “a small rise”… *rolleyes*

            21

            • #
              jaymam

              The original statement made was “it would not raise sea levels at all”, which is different from “near zero difference” with “a tiny rise” and “a small rise”.
              Are we attempting to be scientific or not?
              I repeat that this has been discussed on WUWT already, and it is incorrect to say there is no rise.

              20

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hi Jayman

                Your point is true and reasonable.

                Unfortunately that is probably not what is being debated, and that is always the problem that occurs with the Global Warming science.

                The main issue with this topic is probably relevance to dealing with the CAGW scam.

                The primary issue is the CO2 induced warming claim.

                The density differential between relatively low salinity ice and ocean will give a slight increase when the ice melts although just what the salinity of the ocean is in the vicinity of the ice carving I don’t know.

                I think most people are probably just fed up with the continual Warming Science approach of taking some idea that is tangentially related to the warming fight and using it to initiate a discussion about what is basically an irrelevance with the sole aim of creating confusion and delay in finally canning the whole global warming scam.

                The main point at issue is “will the poles melt and send out more ice” under the influence of CAGW.

                Since the answer is NO, we can say that the present discussion is a premature storm in a teacup.

                KK :)

                40

              • #
                Backslider

                The original statement made was

                That was a statement made by TonyfromOz. We are talking about you taking Tim to task. Is that scientific?

                00

    • #

      Judas Priest, I didn’t expect this much conversation on this topic.

      A somewhat similar situation also applies for Antarctic ice also, as most of that ice that is (supposedly) vanishing is also Sea Ice, and Archimedes does specifically say wholly or partially immersed.

      The sea level rise thing I might suppose dates from the end of the (monster) Ice Age, just prior to Homer Homo Sapiens walking out of Africa. At that time, the height of the Ice Age, North Polar Ice extended down to the Mediterranean Sea, and well South of what is now the Canadian border, and the same distance in Asia as well.

      All that ice was in fact over land, so as it melted, it then filled the Oceans (back to where they were prior to the Ice Age, around 120 or so metres) and flooded the many land bridges between Continents and Islands.

      So, while Antarctic Ice (at the edges) is not land based ice, but in fact already in the Sea, so in fact Archimedes also applies here, and yes, I am aware of the salt component of Sea Ice.

      So, for any major sea level rise, we can only think that would come if the ice ON Continental Antarctica were to melt.

      Let’s actually pretend for a minute that CAGW caused by CO2 emissions has even the slightest base in truth, and that temperatures were to rise by (modelled) levels quoted.

      The average mean Summer temperatures would still not get to the point where ice begins to melt, and with no warm water underneath to speed that warming, then the vast bulk of that Continental ice will still stay as ice, considering that at one point it’s almost 5 Kilometres thick.

      It may warm at the edges, but again, the vast bulk of that is Ice already in the water.

      I know, I’ve probably made (a number of) errors here, but hey, a lot of this is pretty basic stuff. I’ve even had one comment somewhere or other that the warming of the oceans will actually warm up the Antarctic Continental land mass and begin to melt that land based ice from underneath. How can argue with people who actually believe that, the end result from that being that it would create a water like base under that land ice, and umm, the whole ice mass would just slide right off the Continent. (sarc off) See what I’m saying here. People will believe the most fantastic things rather than rationally look at the actuality.

      Even if (pretty big if) temperatures rise fractionally, and that’s all that has been posited, the ice will never reach a point where it begins to melt on that vast Continent.

      Have a good look around this link. Some great stuff there.

      Antarctic Connection

      tony.

      80

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I find it astonishing that so much time and ink could be wasted on this thread.

      Right at the start, Speedy is wrong twice At 6.1.1. There is a change in volume. That is why ice floats.

      With the experiment, Speedy should have, after putting the ice in the water, placed a plate over the tumbler to force the ice to submerge.

      Then remove the plate and mark the new, lower water level in the tumbler. Carry on as before.

      10

  • #
    Tim

    Yes, the CAGW debate is important, but the elephant in the Royal Society’s room is catastrophic depopulation agenda. (You could call it CDA.)

    50

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Funny you should bring that up…..

      http://www.thegwpf.org/looming-population-implosion/

      This is not a good time to be a catastophist.

      70

      • #
        Tim

        Their report: ‘People and the Planet’ April 2012 spells it out. You look like my generation of ‘useless eaters.’

        20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Hopefully the UN will then go out of business for lack of “problems” to solve? “Bless” their black little heart! :-(

        Don’t I wish?

        50

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Might be hard to shut down the UN Roy.

          There may however be an alternative involving a new, more energetic, truthful and agressive media.

          If public demand can force the media to get on with their jobs and actually investigate the news instead of manufacturing it to order, then some of the world’s real problems could be highlighted.

          The UN could then be led towards these new targets.

          A few spring to mind: cleaning warlords out of some poorly run African states would be a good start.

          Having investigations into the honesty or otherwise of the worlds banking systems and share-markets would be another.

          Crims don’t like scrutiny however and based on track record getting true journalism is not likely any day soon.

          KK :)

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Hi KK,

            Sorry, I just now saw what you said above.

            I hate to be contrary but the UN is a hopeless mess run by the intellectual pygmies of this world. If we cannot get the western world out of it and go back to solving our own problems we will be dragged down by the sheer dead weight of the thing. And as you point out, getting decent journalism seems equally hopeless.

            From actual observation of organizations appointed to save us from ourselves — they always end up enslaving us. They grow and grow and then grow some more; all of it at our expense but with very little of it benefiting us.

            The UN cannot save anyone from anything.

            Is there a war? Watch them go there and wring their hands over the bodies of the dead. But you’ll see little else.

            Is there disease or famine? Watch them go there and rape the children they’re supposed to be helping. Maybe some of the intended help will happen. As often as not there’s no end of corruption and the intended help never reaches those who need it.

            They are, however, very good at making rules for everyone to follow. Try the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child if you want to see how they would take away your right to raise your children as you choose. Try Agenda-21 or the UN Convention on Climate Change.

            An organization without a policeman to keep watch over it will become an instrument of the devil. And I say the same about national and state governments.

            I can easily be tempted to play God and want to clean up a lot of places on this planet. But in doing so would I not then become the evil I sought to eliminate? As far as I’m concerned it’s legitimate for any nation to protect its real interests around the world. But beyond that I will not go. Neither should anyone else.

            The original UN charter was to provide for peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. That was the very first thing that went to hell. And now they have become would-be dictator to the world and worse, redistributors of the wealth. You cannot save such an organization. It is evil even without evil intent. It destroys the one thing in life that is worth having, your individual autonomy and independence from the meddling of others.

            20

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              Hear! Hear!

              10

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Hi Roy,

              Nicely put – I think we all agree on that.

              In the above I was just exploring another view – always good to look at things from new angles.

              As for my basic thoughts on the matter, you have expressed them.

              You may have seen previous comments of mine that have advocated the immediate closing of the UN to the betterment of humankind and that is my great unfulfilled dream.

              KK :)

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                You may have seen previous comments of mine that have advocated the immediate closing of the UN to the betterment of humankind and that is my great unfulfilled dream.

                Yes, I remember.

                Frankly, nothing would make me feel any better about the UN than to see its headquarters in New York City bulldozed right into the East River.

                The question, of course, is how to do it? Any ideas?

                I can think of only one thing that can stop this march toward disaster — destroy the instant mass communication capabilities we have developed during the 20th and early 21st Centuries. Without communication they can’t function.

                Unfortunately, without that communication the good guys can’t function either.

                C’est La Vie. Such is life. :-(

                10

    • #
      Sonny

      Depoppulation agenda?? That’s just conspiracy crank talk!
      Everyone knows that the global elite want more people.
      More people = more people to tax.

      Anyway they wouldn’t be so heartless as to actively seek out policies that ended up killing people would they?

      You sceptics should have more faith in billionaires!

      20

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Sonny, which “elite” is running the show?

        Australia produces food to sustain 60 million people. We have in our universities mad Green professors who teach that because of its “fragile ecology”, Australia should shut down agriculture and import its food.

        In a world where some people are already starving, that sounds like killing 60 million people. Because people think those people starving would not be in Australia they get away with it.

        20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Sonny

        The depopulation agenda is doing just fine here in Australia.

        Our PC system of government has created a nation with an unenviable youth suicide rate, a high rate of farmer

        suicide, and the recent article about electricity prices and government “fees” in Rockhampton could see the

        epidemic of “giving up all hope” spreading to the nations small business community, if it is not already well

        entrenched there.

        KK

        00

  • #
    cohenite

    In an earlier post Jo noted the source of funding of the RS.

    77% comes from the government. It is now apparent with what is happening in Australia at the BOM, CSIRO and most particularly the Climate Commission, that even ivory towers have no resistance to the demands of funding. The RS is obviously no exception.

    201

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “Oh”, says the Government, “So you don’t believe what we tell you?”

      “Well, let us just get an opinion from several learned Societies, which we will have to pay for with your money of course, but it will be worth the expense to gain the reassurance that they wholehearted support everything we say”.

      “Yeah, Right”, says the Kiwi.

      200

  • #

    Devastating! Sir Paul should be quivering in the ‘dunce’ corner. Probably make not one iota of difference. He appears to be an ideologue.

    130

  • #
    Dennis

    Move on folks, nothing more to see, just a pathetic Conga Line of deceivers

    40

  • #
    Dennis

    And please take pity on beautiful Tasmania where the extreme Greens and their ALP have made moving forward almost impossible.

    120

    • #
      Manfred

      Add NZ to that list where the climate catastrophist ideation knows no political or social boundaries.

      110

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I have a theory regarding the destruction of the Tasmania economy that might interest you.
      The Greens,in particular the Tasmania Greens, are Fascists.
      The ALP, in particular the Gillard and Giddings variety, are devout Communists.
      The Fascists and Communists were arch enemies in 1930′s Germany, so why would anyone expect them to govern as rational bedfellows in modern Australia?

      80

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Rod, the Greens have completed the circle. They are to the left of Gillard, leading her.

        00

  • #
    Dennis

    Comrade Gillard is at present in Communist, adopted capitalism, China. She ignored them when she first visited Japan but now she is a diplomat, well so she says, well so her spon team say, Mc457

    60

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Wonderful stuff, Mr Wyndham, but I fear it may be a bit over Nurse’s head.

    120

  • #
    George McFly

    Very well put Sir

    80

  • #

    Jo as a regular reader [watcher?] of WUWT would you please alert Anthony Watts of Mr. Wyndham’s letter {essay]. You can pay him back for alerting me to your blog on his list of websites and the comments in his posts.

    90

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    Logic and the scientific method can not defeat an ideology, it defeats itself as the prognostications do not eventuate. Thus the warm snow and the dry rain in an attempt to salvage the ideology.

    With the sun looking more like the villain in all this nonsense it would seem that the great unwashed are becoming disbelievers as ice fairs on the Thames are looking more likely than BBQ winters.

    The Royal Society in the past has promulgated a few red herrings and this global warming stuff is only the latest of a few real doosies. Eventually they will get over it.

    110

  • #

    At least the Royal Society spoke out loudly on the issue of rapidly dwindling Arctic ice…in 1817.

    60

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    The question that arises must be, how did institutions such as The Royal Society become so corrupted?

    In Australia the Hawke government in 1986 changed the management of the CSIRO, putting their own brand of “social scientists” in charge of the real scientists. Their new chairman, Neville Wran, a lawyer, former Premier of NSW and the national president of the Labor Party, was the first non scientist to hold that position.

    How much of this went on around the world?

    221

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I reckon this video clip will be no news to you, Ted, but for anyone reading who hasn’t seen it…
      Art Raiche, a former Chief Research Scientist in CSIRO in the 70s and 80s, speaking at the Convoy of No Confidence.
      Skip to 6:40 to see him relate the changes to CSIRO management in the late 1980s from his point of view.

      He also mentions the case of Clive Spash, who was fired from CSIRO for publishing an article criticising an emission trading scheme. Don’t crank up the violins and break out the tissue boxes just yet, because when you read why Spash was objecting to an ETS on carbon you might wonder if firing him was a good deal for everybody:

      While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear
      ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs. Despite this apparent failure,
      emissions trading schemes remain politically popular amongst the industrialised
      polluters. The public appearance is that action is being undertaken. The reality
      is that GHGs are increasing and society is avoiding the need for substantive
      proposals to address the problem of behavioural and structural change.

      So compared to the draconian legislation against carbon “pollution” and vast “behavioural change” and infrastructure upheavals that Spash would prefer, a rigged quota market scheme almost seems tame by comparison.

      What’s more amazing is he says in one of his articles that government-funded science grants were biased AGAINST renewables and favoured “clean coal”. He says the CSIRO set up a climate change research framework in 2006 that was biased AGAINST mitigation research and preferred adaptation research. (Now there’s an opinion you won’t read on WUWT, or this blog for that matter.) Are we then to assume the IPCC was good enough for Megan Clark and no Australian scientists were permitted to investigate global warming for themselves?? Hmmmm.

      The more you lift the lid on climate science the more bizarre it gets.

      90

  • #

    [...] Rupert Wyndham ponders the wanton hypocrisy of Paul Nurse and The Royal Society [...]

    10

  • #
    Eliza

    A list of the people who are responsible for this scam and those organizations still pushing it should be made for posterity and possible legal ramnifications

    140

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    When I saw Sir Paul Nurse presenting a programme on the Horizon series, mostly about cagw, I came very close to throwing something through the telly. The distrust he engendered will stay for a very long time.

    120

    • #
      Carbon500

      Is this the programme in which S.Fred Singer was very briefly spoken to? – I can’t say that he was actually interviewed and allowed to offer his insights.
      Here’s a scientist who assuredly knows a darn sight more about the climate than Paul Nurse, and I was hoping for some good points to be made. Needless to say, Singer’s comments were probably snipped. An irritating, biased programme. Was I surprised? Of course not.

      70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    How interesting: I didn’t know Charles Babbage was a member of the Royal Society. He’s not very well known outside computer science circles (sometimes not known inside either). And compared with today’s computing technology his work looks like the proverbial cave man chiseling his message on a rock. And in Babbage’s time the manufacturing precision his machine required wasn’t possible so he never saw his programmable computer amount to anything.

    Now that the manufacturing capability is there a scaled down version of his computer has been built according to his original plans and works perfectly. He was truly a genius and a visionary, notwithstanding that he was too early to see his idea work.

    I wonder if the computer science curriculum still includes the details of this remarkable man and his achievement. It surely should!

    Anyone know the name of his programmer? Hint: a programming language is named after her.

    50

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace, daughter of Byron.

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Spot on!

        She’s known today as Ada Lovelace, at least as it was taught when I first took any serious computer science courses, the world’s first computer programmer. And the Ada programming language bears her name.

        It’s a shame that the Ada language turned out to be such a bureaucratic nightmare to use that — and even though it was mandated by the DOD — no one could do practical work with it. So ultimately waivers were given to project after project to allow use of C++.

        I did one small Ada program that took 3 or 4 times as long to do as C++ would have required. Classic overkill if ever I’ve seen it.

        50

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Danny Hillis’ mechanical design of The 10,000 Year Clock for the Long Now Foundation is in the same sort of vein. The way the solar-powered timekeeping mechanism and date calendar works is just mind boggling to me.

      Every now and then you find some rich guy spending their money on something that is more than just a monument to themselves but is really an inspiration to others; a message to the future. The 10000 Year Clock is like that.

      20

      • #

        “Perpetual clocks” have been around for centuries, wound variously by changes in barometric pressure and temperature.

        I guess they got sick of changing the batteries every couple of years. ;-)

        20

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I think that should be Countess Lovelace.

    Babbage developed a “ruling machine” to make diffraction gratings. He had a set of gold buttons so scribed, that generated a spectrum in light (somewhat like a DVD) which he wore to scientific meetings.

    He was also some use to the UK Government as a code breaker. Not generally known as it was subject to secrecy at the time.

    20

  • #
    TomRude

    A Classic!

    30

  • #
    Geoff

    Just out of curiosity, who is funding his new GBP 550 million Francis Crick Institute?

    30

  • #

    And finally, of course, we must not neglect a (perhaps the) key suggestion in your letter, namely that relating to the issue of GWPF funding.

    The inference, stated by warmists, is that those they dislike have motivations that cause them to lie about, or grossly distort, the evidence.
    Maybe Sir Paul Nurse should take legal advice – not in the sense of protecting himself or the Royal Society from a potential writ – but in understanding the the equivalent in a legal context. For instance
    - Sir Paul’s claim that the issue of funding is relevant is like claiming the source and amount of payments to the defense are relevant in a criminal case
    - Sir Paul’s claim that opinion is relevant would be rejected in court as hearsay.
    - Failure to engage in debate, or to properly answer questions, is the same as the denial of the ability of the defense to cross-examine the evidence.
    - Most importantly, experts on the English Common Law would tell you that giving the accused in a criminal case a clear and fair chance of rebutting the evidence will not only convince an impartial jury, but supporters of the accused as well. For instance, friends of mine could at first not believe that their nice family doctor, Harold Shipman had killed many of his patients. A clear and open trial (and later enquiry) firmly established his guilt. If Shipman had been denied a fair trail, (as there was overwhelming evidence against him) then there would be many who would still believe in his wrongful conviction by the establishment. If Sir Paul Nurse and the Royal Society, are so sure of the overwhelming evidence then they would encourage debate, adhering to the priorities of evidence used in the British legal system.

    170

    • #

      For evaluating the levels of evidence, see here.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        A citizen’s committee — how democratic. How about an honest prime minister who pays attention to honest scientists and then communicates the actual situation to the citizenry?

        But that’s not allowed, is it? :-(

        70

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Only in your dreams …

          10

        • #

          That is one of a number of options. In my opinion the best option is to maintain an open and free society. That means defending the right of people to disagree, and challenge ideas. It also implies that those who promote ideas should meet the criticism, rather than hiding behind paid propagandists who distort the evidence and seek to nobble the opposition.

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            That is one of a number of options. In my opinion the best option is to maintain an open and free society. That means defending the right of people to disagree, and challenge ideas. It also implies that those who promote ideas should meet the criticism, rather than hiding behind paid propagandists who distort the evidence and seek to nobble the opposition.

            I see that various groups have stooped to the new low standard of cheering Margaret Thatcher’s death — a bunch of intellectual children, all of them.

            Whatever you may think about her, three things are clear.

            1. Britain prospered under her leadership.

            2. She never hid from criticism but instead, met it head on; no propaganda mouthpiece for her.

            3. She never cheered at the death of anyone.

            Whatever her mistakes were, her leadership is a good example of what is right and proper to do rather than the current downward spiral. But then, the criticism of Thatcher was never about what works or doesn’t work, was it? It was about who would wield political power.

            10

            • #

              Are you really surprised? Bad behaviour is rampant. The spoiled children of socialism and handouts can celebrate the death of Thatcher. Imagine the outrage if James Hansen died and skeptics celebrated. Total outrage. Yet it’s okay to celebrate Thatcher’s death because she was someone who stood in the way of the “correct” philosophy. The rules of “civility” apply only to those who are hard-workers, conservatives, deniers, etc. Those rules are dictated by the opposing side. Those on the opposing side are totally exempt from any rules. That’s where we are. If we only had someone like Thatcher to step in and drag the unwilling back to reality…..

              20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                Did you really need to ask? :-)

                But since you did…

                Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes.

                This is a new moral low that I’ve not seen before from so-called civilized human beings. No past union violence, not even the murders they did comes close to this depravity. This is evil just for the sake of being evil.

                The bunch of them together are not worth one tenth of Margaret Thatcher.

                If I was as bad off as they are I’d be wishing them success so they’d suffer the consequences of what they’re doing. Instead I’m hoping for sanity to finally prevail.

                10

              • #

                Not in recent history, anyway. There were times in history where such behaviour prevailed. Yes, it is evil for the sake of being evil–anarchy, no rules.

                Sadly, you may not have to wish them success. At some point, only “natural consequences” can correct this. I hope it’s not too late, but it is a world-wide problem at this point. It will take a very strong group of people to pull us back without going through the ugly times.

                10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I agree, in principle, with what you say on your blog. But I am left wondering how you would define “facts”, and whether your definition would be the same as mine.

        40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What a masterful statement. I wish I had that ability with language. Good writing has always been a tough thing for me. I guess I think too much like a computer programmer or an engineer — and yes, I’ve been accused of that.

    He laid out the case exactly.

    .
    .
    .

    - decline to publish empirical evidence;

    - usually with insolence, refuse to offer their raw data, their algorithms and their methodology to the scrutiny of the scientific community at large;

    - manipulate and misrepresent the data they claim to possess;

    - refuse to validate or have validated their general circulation models, even though these are known to be flawed;

    - decline to engage in any form of debate which might expose them even to questioning, let alone to constructive criticism;

    - who, in substitution thereof, prefer instead to smear and defame any who challenge their dogmatic orthodoxy, with many amongst the dissenters being scientists of immense distinction, equal at least to your own, and often experts in disciplines far more directly relevant than yours to matters in hand.

    The failure to debate exposes the hoax all by itself as Wyndham so aptly points out. No one with a sound position and an honest intent is afraid (and they are afraid) to debate that position openly. Nuts to credentials and societies, royal, famous or otherwise. Give me someone who understands evidence.

    ——————–

    PS: Jo this blockquote thing needs to get rid of the quotation mark. You can’t get items in a list to line up without tricking it with some extra lines the way I did above.

    90

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yeah Roy, all those things he accuses them of sound pretty bad. But

      manipulate and misrepresent the data they claim to possess

      There is a problem with this. How is it known that this data is being manipulated and misrepresented if the scientists aren’t releasing the original data? Or worse still, if it doesn’t exist, as implied by Rupey.

      And when it comes to misrepresenting data, surely the “skeptics” can’t be beaten? “Arctic sea ice doing just fine” anyone?

      “Smear & defame”? Like accusing someone of wanton hypocrisy?

      Or how about this from that eminent “skeptic” Mr Watts:

      But Tamino hates fracking, hates “deniers”, and generally is just an unpleasant bloke about anything that has to do with talking point issues pushed by the left. I find him and his irrational hatred of anything associated with oil extraction wholly amusing, and it’s the best free Saturday entertainment you could ask for.

      No ad hominem there…

      BTW, how is climategate III going? Any good stuff yet? Something waiting to be posted a little out of context?

      26

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        There is a problem with this. How is it known that this data is being manipulated and misrepresented if the scientists aren’t releasing the original data? Or worse still, if it doesn’t exist, as implied by Rupey.

        Good morning John,

        In answer to your question (just one possible answer): do you remember Phil Jones and his crew at CRU? They admitted as much and in writing for all to see (courtesy of CG I).

        I don’t speak for anyone but myself. So you should take up complaints about ad hominem attacks and (have I got the term right?) dodgy data, with the promulgators thereof. I think they can withstand the questions just fine though.

        Don’t know about CG III yet. The jury is still out and probably will be for a while. But you can find some interesting things at junkscience if you’re looking for information. My guess from what I read is that CG III is exposing the hidden relationships, the blatant conflicts of interest and the hidden money trail. Just my thinking so take it as only one man’s opinion at this point.

        How’s the weather in Perth? We’re having a pleasant spring with nothing out of the ordinary. I hope your fall will be as pleasant. This means nothing, by the way. But it leads to this reminder — there is now a very large body of evidence about climate change and no one thing you look at is able to say much, one way or the other. You must look at the whole picture to see what’s going on. And when you do that it’s very difficult to conclude that climate change is worth worrying about.

        51

  • #
    Ace

    Hey folks…here’s an idea:
    Lets hope the equivalent bodies in China and India are still what their Western models or equivalents have now ceased to be.

    60

    • #
      Mark D.

      Ace, Not a bad idea unless they also pick up the urge to “colonize”……

      50

      • #
        Ace

        Are you kiddin…whilst half my immediate neighbours and roughly 10 % of my neighbourhood are Chinese citizens, who seem to be in no hurry to “return” aside for holidays…the UK as a whole will have a majority of its population descnded from the South Asian continent by the middle of this century. simply down to demographics as they stand.

        The colonisation is a fait-accompli.

        I have no problem with this. Only with one particular ideology that one segment of this eventual majority are trying too impose on the rest. And it isnt state-capitalist-Socialism.

        60

        • #
          Mark D.

          Ace, you’re right those fine folks have moved in (here too) and they are mostly very hard working (badly needed example for the youth).

          But I don’t think that is what I meant by “colonize” either.

          20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Only with one particular ideology that one segment of this eventual majority are trying too impose on the rest. And it isnt state-capitalist-Socialism.

          Lets not start an argument with others here-but I think I know what you mean exactly. I agree fully with your sentiment. Good luck with how you deal with it. It seems like dejavue all over again…..

          30

      • #
        jaymam

        To Mark D
        I’m replying here because there is no reply button on the message that I want to reply on. It is reaaly infuriating when the software stops a discussion. And I’ll give up at this point.

        Here are two WUWT links that you wanted to know about, concerning the melting of sea ice:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/30/climate-craziness-of-the-week-msm-jumps-on-alarming-headline/

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/02/oh-noes-sea-level-rising-three-times-faster-than-expected-again/

        10

        • #
          Backslider

          It is reaaly infuriating when the software stops a discussion. And I’ll give up at this point.

          Well, at least you admit that you have a temper issue.

          Its really not that difficult. All you need to do is find the nearest post up that has a reply link, then address the person you wish to reply to (preferably using manners and thoughtfulness).

          00

  • #
    tckev

    I notice that the stamps of the Royal Society does not include Robert Hooke FRS (28 July [O.S. 18 July] 1635 – 3 March 1703) was an English natural philosopher, architect and polymath. It says a lot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke

    40

  • #
    Ian George

    This is a copy of the original report from 1922. No mention of rising seas but could have been added at a later date or added in a verbal report/speech later.
    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    20

  • #
    Malcolm Hill

    Here is a more direct link to more Rupert Wyndam, with his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/07/crush-the-starving-burn-their-food/#more-14373

    30

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    “The noble art, which had once been preserved as the sacred inheritance of the patricians, was fallen into the hands of freedmen and plebeians, who, with cunning rather than with skill, exercised a sordid and pernicious trade. Some of them procured admittance into families for the purpose of fomenting differences, of encouraging suits, and of preparing a harvest of gain for themselves or their brethren. Others, recluse in their chambers, maintained the gravity of legal professors, by furnishing a rich client with subtleties to confound the plainest truth, and with arguments to colour the most unjustifiable pretensions. The splendid and popular class was composed of the advocates, who filled the Forum with the sound of their turgid and loquacious rhetoric.”

    E. Gibbon (“The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire,” 1776

    60

  • #
    Interested

    Ted O’Brien, 6th April 2013 at 8.29pm, made this reply:

    ‘In Australia the Hawke government in 1986 changed the management of the CSIRO, putting their own brand of “social scientists” in charge of the real scientists. Their new chairman, Neville Wran, a lawyer, former Premier of NSW and the national president of the Labor Party, was the first non scientist to hold that position.

    How much of this went on around the world?’

    It seems clear to me that politics lie behind the global phenomenon of CAGW.
    Science is clearly being prostituted in the service of an underlying movement to centralise control of the world’s populace and its resources for political reasons.

    For what it’s worth, I believe Fabianism is the name of the movement, a quiet persistent left-wing force which has been operating covertly for the last century or more.
    Its name comes from that of the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator (ca. 280 BC – 203 BC), who held off the superior armed forces of the invader Hannibal, not by direct confrontation, but by a process of guerilla warfare – gradually picking off the enemy one small piece at a time.

    When it became apparent to the Left that most people in the West were too busy enjoying the freedom and prosperity of liberal capitalism to engage in the kind of bloody revolution which engulfed Russia, they adopted the strategy of Fabius Maximus, determining that they would ‘deconstruct’ capitalism slowly but surely, from the inside.

    If you look at the way societies in the West have been changing over the last 100 years in the light of this understanding, it becomes clear how successful the Left has been in gradually undermining all the social foundations of Western civilisation. The erosion of the traditional family unit is a prime example. Many young children are now raised in child-care facilities, away from the stabilising influence of close-knit family life. I could go on but I’m sure you could add other points to this argument yourselves.

    That move by Prime Minister Bob Hawke with regard to the once-revered CSIRO (Australia’s premier scientific organisation), is just one small facet of the Fabian strategy – small but very effective. And it met with no significant opposition because it seemed so small and unimportant at the time.
    Now, of course, the disproportionately-large effects of that seemingly small move are all too obvious. The CSIRO, in conjunction with other groups like the Bureau of Meteorology, combine forces to ‘adjust’ climate data and support the left-wing’s most successful campaign to date – the Trojan Horse of CAGW.

    If I am right, and I’m not the only one who thinks this way, then a proportion of the Global Warming scammers are conscious of the subterfuge while the rest are simply ‘useful idiots’ or opportunists aware of the non-science but riding the funding gravy train for their own enrichment anyhow.

    What I can never figure out is which one is which.
    Who among the CAGW proponents are actually fully cognisant of the politics and actively advancing it?
    In this case, the question applies to Sir Paul Nurse. But I suggest you ask it of others, at least in your own minds, others like Flannery and Gore and Cameron and Gillard, etc.
    Where does the body of the Gorgon end and its head begin?

    170

    • #
      Backslider

      Lewandowsky will have a field day with you.

      I recall when Whitlam brought in the Supporting Mother’s Benefit. I also remember girls deliberately getting pregnant so they could leave home and get on it… everybody was getting pregnant!!! This, along with the dole queues created by Labor policy created the welfare dependence we see until today.

      I’m not saying we shouldn’t have social welfare, however I have met enough pot smoking dole bludgers in my time to know that the way it works could be significantly improved.

      70

      • #

        The real and logical conclusion of the labour vote buying scheme can be seen writ large in the likes of Mick and Maireed Philpott (look them up, lovely people). My question for the socialists of western democracies is, how can you claim to care for the welfare of people when you actively encourage them to disavow their own self respect and latent potential?. I’ve never heard anything remotely convincing to that question. In fact evidence suggests that they have only contempt for those who try to reach their full potential and in so doing rise above the rest independantly. In NZ it’s called the “tall poppy syndrome” and it’s held this country back for decades. I have no problem helping those in genuine need but what we have now is far removed from the original intent.

        60

      • #
        John Brookes

        Yeah, bad Labor! But when Howard & Costello bought in a $5000 baby bonus, it was good policy?

        13

        • #
          Backslider

          But when Howard & Costello bought in a $5000 baby bonus, it was good policy?

          Of course it was. How else are we going to pay for the huge p*ss up to welcome the new bub???

          10

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Again JB has a good point.

          Eventually you people will realize that Labor and Liberal are two sides of the same coin; a false choice given every 3 years.

          Only independents that can resist pork barreling, and more of them, can keep Canberra honest and inject some real representation and community values back into federal laws and Commonwealth policy.

          Barnaby Joyce for the PM and Dennis Jensen in cabinet as Minister for Education, Skills, Science, and Research :)

          00

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Very well said indeed.
      I recall the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) was in 1991 incorporated as a public company with all shares held by the Australian Government (Hawke gov), 1994 it was floated on the stock exchange.
      The CSL website reads like any other company, far removed from it’s initial service to Australia.
      It does make you think though.

      40

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Exactly! And more.

      The Hawke government on election deregulated the banks. A strange thing for a supposedly left wing government to do.

      The apparently all round knockabout good bloke Hawke immediately set about promoting Alan Bond, a money grubber who lived life at the leading edge. “Look at this great Australian”, he said.

      The commentators said that this was because Bond gave the party $3 million. It was too bizarre for that, because even as Bond was doing the things that landed him in gaol 10 years later Hawke publicly vilified the critics, notably the CEO of the National Australia Bank. A very strange thing for any government to do.

      My take was that having given the capitalist system enough rope to hang itself, the government was urging it to get out there and hang itself as quickly as possible. Time proved me right. This was Australia’s contribution to the crash of 1987.

      However, when the crash came the Fabians were outsmarted. Everyone expected a return to the 1930s, but the people on top of the pile knew from that experience that there is but little fun on top of a pile that is flat. So. instead of seeking to extract every pound of flesh they took losses sufficient to save the pile from collapsing, which left them still on top and the Fabians still on the outside.

      When Hawke was elected the NAB was one of Australia’s smaller banks. After the crash it was Australia’s biggest, because it alone refused to follow Hawke’s promotion.

      The Hawke government engaged in a systematic destruction of private capital. The Gillard government with its reckless spending is working to the same plan.

      Public debt must be funded by private capital.

      Why did none of our leading journalists notice these things? Because they were educated by Fabians!

      Note on the side that in the US Michael Milken had been indicted, convicted and had almost completed his term in prison before Australia’s system got around to bringing charges against Bond. Perhaps we can blame the fabians for that, too.

      10

  • #
    Skiphil

    OT but URGENT:

    Andy Revkin of Dot Earth/NY Times blog is inviting questions to be submitted to the authors of Marcott et al. (2013). Since Revkin is one of the only journalists who might have a chance of getting the study authors to be responsive, this is a good opportunity.

    Specifically, he’s asked for someone to prepare one list of questions which are “perceived as unanswered.”

    Folks could start a list here at JoNova’s to post at Dot Earth, or simply post questions/points at Dot Earth until we have a good list.

    submit questions on Marcott study to Dot Earth/NY Times blog

    Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger

    I’d like to recruit someone to assemble the list of questions that are perceived as unanswered.

    April 6, 2013 at 4:43 p.m

    21

  • #
    Mjinga

    I do wish people would talk to the geologists. Four billion year’s worth of climate records available to anybody who is prepared t look.

    30

    • #
      Streetcred

      Marcott the geologist, has had his say and it wasn’t impressive … the geologists needs to send someone more impressive than that pipsqueak !

      30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Four billion year’s worth of climate records available

      Well I’ve heard conflicting stories about that. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but I’ve heard the rock that was exposed to the atmosphere for the first billion years has long since been subducted into the mantle and is no longer available for study.
      Sorry if this is splitting hairs, but that leaves the oldest accessible rocks being 3.5 billion years old, give or take a few millennia.
      On the other hand some samples in the Pilbara have been dated to 4.3Ga, so how do the geologists reconcile the general predictions of tectonic theory with actual measurements like these?

      From a climate point of view, surely the real question on the tips of every rockhopper’s lips is: How do we resolve the Faint Young Sun Paradox? Does Kappa Ceti have the answer? (That’s Svensmark to the rescue yet again.)

      30

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Good letter. I follow this matter with personal interest.
    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1932/sherrington-bio.html

    We do not know if he is related. The first para is old, often repeated and wrong. He was born out of wedlock and it seems probable that his father was Dr Caleb Rose, concealed at the time – and his mother a Sherrington. It is hard to unravel.

    Apart from the trio of Knighthood, Nobel Prize in Medicine and President of the RS, Sir Charles Sherrington, in his books, expresses the caution with which scientific evidence has to be presented. I do not know the details of the PRS people who followed until the last two, but it might be that he was one of the last of the prominent Presidents to place strict hurdles on scientific findings. This means nothing and is easy to say, but he writes like we could share some common blood.

    Three of his students were awarded Nobel Prizes in their own right. Archibald Hill, Ragnar Granit & Sir John Eccles, a Melbourne University graduate, who wrote a biography ‘Sherrington – his Life and Thought’ (1979). The type of work led naturally to the world ranked Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research with names like Sir (Frank) MacFarlane Burnet and Sir Gus Nossal continuing the research theme to heights about the immune system that Sir Charles could only have dreamed about. I’ve lunched at the old home of Walter & Eliza in Mt Morgan, Queensland. I’ve had a few short words with Sir Gus and his wife and join with many others who find him charming.

    So many coincidences. ‘Atlas Shrugged’, Ayn Rand’s book, is about my favourite. One of the main characters is a Ragnar Danneskjöld. Finally, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle chose ‘Sherlock Holmes’ for his hero, over ‘Sherrington Hope’.

    It’s hard going, but you could do worse than read Sherrington’s autobiography or one of his several books or 200 papers; and biographies by others. They teach one much about the conduct of science.

    40

  • #
    Stacey

    I wrote to the Right Royal Society twice about th lie promulgated by Nurse on The BBC, regarding mam made CO2 emissions being seven times those of natural emissions did I get a response. Of course not but that is how The Socialist Workers Party operated?

    31

    • #
      John Brookes

      Stacey, why would you write to the Royal Society about this when it is perfectly obvious? There is a great flow of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere each year. Before we started burning enormous amounts of fossil fuels these natural flows changed only slowly and were roughly balanced. Sure they had changed a lot over geological time, but not in a few hundred years. But once we started burning fossil fuel, a bit more CO2 flowed into the atmosphere than flowed out, and the level of the CO2 increased exceedingly rapidly (in geological time).

      I’ve no idea where you got the “seven times those of natural emissions”. Given that the natural emissions balance out to pretty close to zero each year, I’d say that our emissions are a lot more than 7 times natural emissions.

      25

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Not a bad effort, JB, but putting some real numbers to it will help knock the carbon denialism out of these poor souls.

        Of course the first step the deniers take is to say the USGS are wrong. The suspicion that the USGS might be generating politically expedient advice is hardly a new one, and is not without good grounds when other government departments are considered. Therefore a more empirical approach is needed.

        Mention that total anthropogenic emissions are estimated at over 29Gt/y CO2, which by basic stoichiometry is 27% carbon so that’s 7.8 Gt of extra carbon added to the air.
        Then mention the rate at which CO2 has been going up averaged over 10 years is 2.0ppm per year, which according to those crazy boffins at none other than Oak Ridge National (nuclear weapon) Labs amounts to (2.1*2.0=) only 4.2Gt of extra total carbon in the whole atmosphere per year.
        Well if we’re adding twice the carbon per year than the annual net change in carbon, nature in total must be a net sink of carbon from the air and therefore cannot be adding any CO2 to the air when averaged over a decade.

        Of course the next step the deniers take is to deny that basic arithmetic applies to the real world, but they never seem to spell out how the conclusion of anthropogenic carbon could in any way be affected by any other unknown or unquantified factors. The mere partitioning of the planetary model into “industry”, “air”, and “everything else” means by definition there cannot be any carbon source missing in the model.

        As a climate skeptic it is sad to see carbon anthropogenicism denial still being dished out after all these years, but I guess people are entering the murky and confusing world of CAGW debate anew every week and so newbie errors continue to be made.

        30

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        But once we started burning fossil fuel, a bit more CO2 flowed into the atmosphere than flowed out, and the level of the CO2 increased exceedingly rapidly (in geological time).

        John, of all the CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere since 1750 over 25% was put there between 2000 and 2010 and yet there has been no warming in over 16 years according to the Met office and the chairman of the IPCC. Since the effects of CO2 are monotonic, where is the missing heat and why aren’t temperatures rising?

        Wyndham pontificates, “Within a few years it is predicted that, due to the ice melt, the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” The damn heat had better start manifesting itself and rather quickly at that, wouldn’t you say, John?

        50

  • #
    Ace

    As for coastal cities becoming uninhabitable this guy obviously aint studied geography. Plenty of coastal places where people live are already below sea-level. Im having to go to one next week. Im scared of the sea. But I’m going to feckin “Water-World” of The North where half he feckin town is water and half that which isnt water is docks. Im kakkin myself.

    10

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      And many of them are sinking, too.

      I, a backblocks Australian farmer, knew that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen.

      Why didn’t the president of the US know this?

      00

    • #

      north of where? Just asking because you sound like you are describing somewhere familiar to me.

      00

  • #
    Roger Knights

    . . . dishonourable epithets such as ‘denier’, ‘contrarian’, ‘nay-sayer’ . . .

    I don’t think “contrarian” is a smear-word, provided it describes the position taken on the CAGW topic, rather than being used in a manner suggesting that a contrarian position has been taken because of a “contrary” or “agin-er” personality. “Contrarian’s” denotation is only that of opposition to a consensus. It may have some connotation of being a knee-jerk nay-sayer, but that connotation isn’t very strong.

    00

  • #
    Roger Knights

    PS: Similarly, I don’t think that “nay-sayer” is very nasty, necessarily. It is a refreshing counter-personality to “cheerleader” or “head-nodder.”

    00

  • #
  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Wow I wish I could write like that. What a brilliant letter and everything so well put. *applause*

    Im humbled in this company.

    00

  • #
    Interested

    Further to the comments regarding Fabianism as a possible perpetrator in the kind of behaviour exhibited by the Royal Society’s leadership, I noted that John Brookes pointed to John Howard’s introduction of a $5000 baby bounus.
    He also did his best to help disarm the populace after the bizarre Port Phillip massacre.

    Just because someone is purportedly of the Right in politics, it doesn’t mean their true aim is to maintain individual freedom and the capitalist system as it stands.
    It’s clearly much more complicated than that.
    Malcolm Turnbull is ostensibly of the Right too (although I believe it was once about 50:50 as to whether he became a member of the ALP or not) and yet he is a staunch supporter of Emissions Trading Schemes, which is the principal present-day vehicle of left-wing totalitarianism.
    The same applies in Britain, where the so-called Conservative Prime Minister Cameron is currently doing his bit to waste untold billions on useless windfarms – many of them offshore where storm damage is inevitable and where even routine maintenance will be an extraordinarily expensive nightmare.

    Again, I could go on and on in this same vein, and I’m sure Ted O’Brien could add more as well.
    Infiltration is the name of the Fabian game.
    The Royal Society and other such organisations isn’t led by hypocrites, as the title of this topic would indicate, it’s led by cold calculating infiltrators engaged in a deliberate task pre-determined by a higher authority.
    That sounds like conspiracy talk gone mad, I know, but it’s the only logical way to explain what’s happening all over the world with CAGW – even in the face of many years of climate data which clearly opposes the so-called consensus.
    Global Warming is simply the latest and greatest facet of a long-standing covert struggle for wealth and power by an organisation which experienced a temporary set-back when the Soviet Union fell.

    00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      To make things interesting, Australia has had six Prime Ministers who are members of the Fabian Society.
      Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, and Gillard.
      Note the absence of Rudd. What does this say about who pulls the strings?
      Within the coalition you will find both Liberals and Conservatives, and Abbott is of the Conservative philosophy and Turnbull is of the Liberal.
      Turnbull was also in the employ of Goldman Sachs, which is a bit suss, since one could consider Goldman Sachs the defacto US government. At the very least it is an intermediary that stands between the Council on Foreign Relations and the Whitehouse.
      Note also that Howard is a member. I can’t quite bring myself to believe that John is of the same Fabian Socialist stripe. Sometimes people join such organisations without knowing anything about them. However, I can’t imagine that John is that naive. I think you will find that the Fabian Society, founded in 1884 by Edward Pease, Frank Podmore and Hubert Bland, is headquartered just down the road from #10. There is some info here.
      As for a “conspiracy” it is hardly secret. (a necessary property of a conspiracy). The Fabians, in conjunction with the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations have made no secret since 1946 of what they intend to do and how they intend to do it. There is more info about membership here. As to the techniques employed, just watch the video “If I wanted America to Fail” and you can pretty much understand how we have let our forefathers down.

      00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Rod. Secrecy can be open, if people either do not believe the story or take no notice. My take on “conspiracy” is that conspiracies are supposed to be raised against governments, not by governments. This is a new one. In my view it is a conspiracy raised by government against its people.

    Now Howard.

    Throughout the 1970s the Australian Council of Trade Unions, with Hawke as president, prevented Australian firms from innovating. Anybody who tried got busted. Ned Ludd ruled. Small and medium sized businesses were wiped out in large numbers.

    Up until about the time Hawke was elected to government, Australia’s export income was dominated by agricultural products. Thanks to policies developed by the old Australian Labor Party, agricultural production was dominated by small business capitalism. Agriculture was the last sector of the Australian economy where small business capitalists played a leading role. Australia’s farmers were the world’s most efficient, producing the world’s cheapest food, and subsidising Australian consumers into the bargain.

    Agriculture then came under attack. But while the Marxists in the ALP were the leaders of the attack, it was the National Farmers Association who did all the attacking. They employed some supposedly smart young lads with modern educations, Andrew Robb was one of them, and told us that these bright lads would be the architects of our salvation. They took us on a jaunt they call Unilateral Trade Reform. Since that time Australian agriculture has rarely departed from the road to Hell. It is suicidal lunacy, but the NFF and the coalition parties have stuck steadfastly to that policy in the face of failure for over 25 years now. In that time 100,000 farmers have been forced out of the industry, and the NFF claim they have done a good job.

    The problem was in the education, in the letters that came after their names. And very few of the lettered people were able to see this. Notable exceptions were Tony Windsor and later Barnaby Joyce,and Bob Katter too without letters, with only Barnaby Joyce being able to get any hearing with his criticism.

    The Hawke/Keating government did awful damage to rural Australia. But it was the Howard government who just about completed Hawke’s job of wiping us out. The Howard government did more damage to us than Hawke did.

    The Hawke government wreaked a terrible revenge for Mudjinberri and Dollar Sweets when they bankrupted the wool marketing scheme. But in doing this all they had to do was sit back and follow foolish people in and about the industry and Her Majesty’s Opposition. This was a terrible setback for rural Australia, and a leading factor causing The Recession We Had To Have.

    But it was the Howard government who on election, citing “The Law of Supply and Demand”, and demonstrating that they had not the slightest comprehension of either supply or demand, bankrupted the entire world trade in wool. All of this has by now cost both the rural and the national economies hundreds of billions of dollars in squandered opportunity.

    Note that this would have been enough to build our own NBN and subsidise Sydney’s too.

    It was the Howard government who first terminated the Australian Wheat Board and then set up AWB Ltd, the farmer owned company that replaced it, for destruction. You see, AWB Ltd, having been born out of the old Wheat Board, was in their view a bastard child, not a product of their “Free Market”.

    It doesn’t surprise me one little bit to read that Howard was a member of the Fabian Society.

    00

  • #
    David

    What a cracking letter – and good to note that it has been copied to the arch-proponents of the ‘tax it if its got CO2 remotely attached to it’ school of politics.
    Not that any of them would have the courtesy of reading it – as it doesn’t fit the received wisdom, or the opinion of the present and previous Chief Scientific Adviser to Her Majesty’s Government…

    00

  • #
    Shevva

    FAR to many big words for the RS.

    10