The UK’s leading scientific body has been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit that it is not known how much warmer the Earth will become.
The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.
Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change.
And it says that it impossible to know for sure how the Earth's climate will change in the future nor what the possible effects may be.
An iceberg breaks off from the shelf in Antarctica. The Royal Society has reissued its guidance on climate change
The 19-page guide says: ’It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made.
‘Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.’
And it avoids making any predictions about the possible impacts of climate change and advises caution in making projections about rising sea levels.
It says: 'There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century
for a given temperature increase.
'Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe.
The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change but now does so in a more considered way.
It states: 'There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different timescales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change.'
The working group behind the new book included two Royal Society fellows who were part of the 43-strong rebellion that had called for the original guide to be rewritten.
Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge are both members of an academic board that advises a climate change sceptic think-tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Professor Kelly said: "It's gone a long way to meeting our concerns.
‘The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document.’
And Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation also welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise.
He said:Â 'The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is
settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and
uncertainties unresolved.
'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming trend of
the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments should take "urgent steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.
'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position all along, its message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's unilateral climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'
The new book is certainly very different in tone that the original and takes into account some of the problems that have arisen in climate change science over the past year.
The new version sets out its objectives by saying: ‘In view of the ongoing public and political debates about climate change, the aim of this document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers.
‘It lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty.’
The Royal Society’s decision comes in the wake of a scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.
The review, which focused on the day-to-day running of the panel, rather than its science, was commissioned after the UN body was accused of making glaring mistakes.
These included the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years - and that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was prone to flooding because it was below sea level.
Earlier this year an email scandal involving experts at the University of East Anglia had already fuelled fears that global warming was being exaggerated.
Read the new climate change guide from the Royal Society here
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 95 ( 3 removed by Dan E. )
This is another stunning defeat for Liberalism! Thank GOD!!
"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses."
Of course there are uncertainties...if there were not, you deniers would have to fabricate your entire story...instead of just distorting and selectively mining the data.
I posted the article from the daily mail I left nothing out!
Of course I'm sure that the news was so upsetting that you didn't bother to check before you started with your accusations....Liberals ya gotta love em.
No - your "cut-n-paste" is pretty thorough. However, the daily mail left is "spinning" "uncertainties". "Uncertainties" have never been denied in this scientific consensus. It has always been said that "enough is known", and this report says nothing otherwise.
Got any scientific evidence? An admission of uncertainty just doesn't cut it.
By the way, it is pretty hard to provide scientific evidence of "potential impacts."
By definition, "potential" means "future possible."
So I would say the scientists in the Society are giving you their expert opinion of possible outcomes from a warming earth. Of course, I realize that your opinion might be different than theirs...
You can find it at the Royal Society web site.
Here is the link.
You will need a PDF reader to open the document.
The link in my article also takes the reader to the report! Gotta love your flailing about!
I wanted people to READ THE SUMMARY AT THE BEGINNING.
Let me repeat the first sentence:
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity
Just wanted to make sure you guys saw it (laughing).
And you think that, that is significant enough to validate your claim that I was being deceptive?
Your reference to the Church and evolution got me thinking.
Charles Darwin (James Hansen) had a revolutionary idea. At first, it was just a speculation with no data to back it up, but as he researched it, data seemed to support the idea. So he published it. Immediately critics appeared.
"Nonsense!" they shouted. "Your ideas conflict with the ideas of the Bible (fossil fuel industry) so they must be wrong."
But other scientists were intrigued with the idea, and they collected a lot more data that supported the idea.
The critics became louder and more strident. They cited the "gaps" (uncertainties) in the data, saying that the whole thing was a house of cards. But scientists continued to collect more data, filling in the gaps, and even started to consider the most difficult parts of the theory, like transitional fossils (tipping points and nonlinearities).
But the creationists (deniers) were adamant. No matter how many new fossils (higher temperature measurements, ocean level rises, glacier meltings) were discovered, they stuck to their "young earth" (warming denial) religious ideas.
Thanks for putting me on this track. The whole thing makes a lot more sense now.
Ditto that. Bert, you and your ilk are just a religious cult. There is no empirical evidence to back up Hansen's nonsense or yours. Evidence is all we deniers/skeptics are asking for (much like atheists ask for evidence of god). Evidence, Bert...you know...that thing you and your cult never seem to provide. You just play the same broken record that endlessly repeats that you have evidence and science, etc. But preaching is not the same as showing. Hansen and you believe in Armagheddon--the burden of proof is on you--not those who are skeptics. Science is a culture of doubt, not blind acceptance of any crackpot idea.
Of course, I realize that you and Dan are waaaay smarter than those NASA guys.
Check 'me out...I think you will find all the evidence you need.
I wonder how much those numbers changed since the revelations of climategate?
"Of course, I realize that you and Dan are waaaay smarter than those NASA guys."
Nope Bert but this guy Dr. Roy Spencer is.
It hasn't.
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause
"Nope Bert but this guy Dr. Roy Spencer is."
Dr. Roy Spencer is smarter than NASA?
Thanks for another of your many contributions.
And you know this how? Here let me answer that for you! You don't!
See the study that your referenced article references was submitted before the revelations of climategate, the total number of climate scientists of the study who are not convinced of the science supporting the theory of man made global warming was 93 of the total 908, greater than 10%.
Another factor that was brought to light by climategate was the conspiring to keep contrary papers from the peer review process, undoubtedly there would have been even more skeptical scientists on the list if this discrimination had not been taking place.
Sure you did (not).
Re climategate...I doubt if many scientists' minds were changed. They understand the data. But I must admit that the lurid publicity that resulted...due mostly to deniers and their backers...have affected public opinion, and that will probably slow or even halt any corrective action for awhile. There is no doubt that it wasn't handled well by the scientific community. They are not as good at these media wars as their opponents.
I have not been to the NASA web site since you posted it but I have been to the NASA web site many times before and I have read their position on Climate change.
Have they changed their position too? Is there something new I should be made aware of.
Have you checked out Dr. Roy Spencer's site Bert? He is a renown award winning (previous) NASA scientist who is skeptical about the evidence supporting the theory of man made global warming, He often speaks to NASA research concerning climate change.
This is unrelated to climate science, but he is also a believer in Intelligent Design, a pseudoscientific religious theory that denies the theory of evolution.
As I said above, deniers of global warming have a lot in common with deniers of evolution, and Spencer is a perfect example of that.
Here's a piece that looks at Spencer's scientific creds on both global warming and ID. Is this the guy you admire so much, Dan? He sounds like a headline-hugging charlatan to me...and a religious nutcase.
If this is the best you deniers can do for a spokesman, I recommend you talk to Pat Robertson. He can help you recruit the fundies to your cause.
any proof of that Bert?
"Here's a piece that looks at Spencer's scientific creds on both global warming and ID."
An anonymous blog post Bert?
Well how bout this;
Roy Spencer (scientist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. Spencer's research suggests that global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution and suggests that natural, chaotic variations in low cloud cover may account for most observed warming."
As a Climate scientist yes Bert I admire him and his accomplishments!
Re George C. Marshall Institute, according to this web site, "Exxon-Mobil was a funder of the GMI until it pulled funding from it and several similar organizations in 2008.[18] From 1998-2008, the institute received a total of $715,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil.[19]
Re Spencer, yeah, the satellite based temperature monitoring work was where he screwed up (or deliberately distorted) the data to show that the earth was cooling. That data has since been corrected.
Actually, I would think that climate change deniers would be a little embarrassed about Spencer. I mean a scientist who says things like this:
"Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone."
Um...what science supports ID? Tell me about it, Dan.
A scientist who says something like that loses a lot of credibility.
(laughing) I am sure glad he is on YOUR side of the global warming argument, Dan. I wouldn't want him on mine!
I was just Googling Spencer's quotes on ID, and I came upon this quote from a Spencer fan:
"I’m currently reading Roy’s book, Climate Confusion.
I guess I shouldn’t take anything he says or writes too seriously, however, because now that I know he supports ID, I know that he isn’t a “real†scientist."
Well said.
The more I look, the more stuff I find that this guy has done that is just plain dishonest.
The guy is a fraud, Dan.
For being a representative of groups who say if your a skeptic no matter how well credentialed or awarded we are going to try and smear you.
But what else do you have?
Even mother nature isn't playing ball with your side!
""Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets"
Heartland and the Marshall institute do a lot more than climate. And there's a lot more money to be had in promoting Human caused climate change than denying it. Just take a look at Al Gore;
"Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. (tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764)", "“The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new $683m fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing.”
"NASA Goddard Scientist to Receive Heinz Award
“Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York,
N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.” http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010305/
“Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement,” ... “The awards are provided by a trust of the late Ralph Hayes, a former director of Coca Cola and Bank of Delaware, now PNC.” (http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080407011650.dyqm0pmz.html) (AFP) Apr 07, 2008
The federal revenue's that Cap and Trade would have brought in would have been off the charts not to mention the existing world carbon market; Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008 and the US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries fund projects and programs that protect the global environment, As the financial mechanism of the Climate Convention, GEF allocates and disburses about $250 million dollars per year in projects in energy efficiency, renewable energies, and sustainable transportation. Moreover, it manages two special funds under the UNFCCC — the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund."
"Re Spencer, yeah, the satellite based temperature monitoring work was where he screwed up (or deliberately distorted)"
Mann's, tree ring data that led him to develop the infamous "hockey stick" graph has been found to be a manipulation of the data.
As you posted the satellite record has been corrected but Mann and you global warmists still claim the validity of his work.
"I came upon this quote from a Spencer fan:"
A fan Bert? That's what I call Let's just throw it all up against the wall and hope it sticks!
"The guy is a fraud, Dan."
But you don't have a problem with the IPCC claiming that all of their sources and reports that they used to come to their conclusions were peer reviewed when a lot of them weren't?
That G.W. scientists conspired to keep Skeptical scientists from becoming published because they did contrary work...You don't have a problem with that?
That G.W. scientists conspired to destroy evidence that might be unclosed by freedom of info regulations to protect their turf....You're O.K. with that?
This is just a smidgen of stuff that has been uncovered about the global warmists community Bert.
The incompetency, inconsistency that has gone on in the IPCC that you are willing to ignore, not to mention their sister agency that they get most of their data from the the World Meteorological Organization.
Sorry Bert, but unless you are willing to be equally critical of the global warmists community...you are nothing more than another global warmist hypocrite....Because there is at least as much wrong with the G.W. community as there is with the skeptical community.
Don't you fit that description perfectly, Dan, for your lack of impartiality in your criticism of proponents of global warming...and nary a critical word about charlatans like Spencer? Aren't you really describing yourself?
You say that proponents of global warming smear skeptics, but all I hear from you and your fellow-deniers is how the IPCC is a conspiracy, Hansen is a fraud, and anyone who believes them is an idiot or a hypocrite. You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing your opponents of.
Re money awarded to Gore, Hansen, etc. They won AWARDS for their work...they didn't accept secret funding from fossil fuel companies like Spencer's employers. Gore did what any good investor does...invested in green companies because he thinks they represent a good investment opportunity. He has disclosed ALL of his investments. He is not a government official, so he has no power to control government action. He certainly has a right to state his opinions publicly. It would be nice if all the deniers would disclose their funding sources as Gore has.
Of course Heartland and Marshall do other things. I never said they didn't. But they DID take substantial funds from Exxon...and who knows what companies are funding them now. They refuse to disclose...which makes them suspect in EVERYTHING they do, in my opinion.
It's not a "smear" when a scientific organization points out that Spencer was using incorrect or old data when newer correct data was available that contradicted his "findings.". That is simply exposing manipulation and unethical science aimed at advancing his agenda. And yes, there have been cases of global warming proponents doing the same thing.
There, how's that for equal criticism? :>)
Hypocrites? yes, but as for me calling Hansen or the IPCC frauds I waited until the evidence came out that proved that they indeed were frauds.
How about Mann Bert?
How about the misrepresentations of the IPCC Bert?
How about the lies of Al Gore Bert?
How about the conspiring by global warmists scientists to keep fellow scientists from being peer reviewed and published Bert?
How about those global warmist scientists threatening a publication for publishing those contrary position Bert?
How about hiding and destroying evidence by those global warmists scientists Bert?
There ya go Bert,
You say the millions paid to these organizations show that there is corruption but the billions of dollars being spent to support climate science can not be considered representative of that much more corruption?
You say Spencer is a charlatan but the laundry list that I posted of abuses and examples of corruption is ho hum?
Bert! The examples of money being spent on climate research that I have posted here is but a small example there are billions more and if you don't think that scientists and universities and governments won't do what ever they need to hold on to this golden goose.
"It's not a "smear""
It's a smear when you or anyone else posts Spencer's position on Intelligent Design and mock and ridicule him.
"There, how's that for equal criticism?"
Pitiful and insincere Bert!
Pitiful and insincere indeed, Dan.
Tell me about Al Gore's lies. NONSENSE.
Tell me about the IPCC "conspiring" to suppress peer review? NONSENSE.
You have no evidence of any of it. Just lies and allegations.
You asked for evidence of global warming.
I gave you evidence.
You presented your hero Spencer.
I showed how he has feet of clay.
You have not a single leg to stand on, Dan.
You keep saying the same stuff over and over.
And I keep giving you facts, data, science.
You ignore it all.
Chuck was right...this is a waste of time, trying to talk to you about this intelligently. I had hopes...but...
Besides, I have another article to write about this.
And I owe you thanks for that...your incessant demand for "evidence"...which is so readily and abundantly available that I question your sincerity on this...has caused me to do a lot more research...and I have found some really interesting things...
Stay tuned...
I'm outta here.
We could go back to the science and discuss that....but you'd have just about as much luck there cause the facts don't support your side there either.
Bye bye Bert. We will discuss these things again and I'll post the facts and you will deny them again, like I told Steve, it's only a matter of time before the scientific community at large comes to the understanding that the theory of man made global warming is not supported by the facts.
Bert,
I'd be more than willing to respond to all of of your questions but only if you don't runaway.
I have the evidence, I've been doing this for a few years now.
GM: "...here is yet another major science org you need to remove from your list of IPCC shills."
On the contrary, "einstein", the RS reaffirmed its position. Guess you missed it (if you even read it):
"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature
increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still
subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes
are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of
the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate
responses.
Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in
the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were
substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would
make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts
of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.
Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well
established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate
projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this
complex and challenging area."
Try reading for comprehension, next time.
I'm enjoying your dancing.
But rather than accept your layman's interpretation I'll recap on what was posted from a some more qualified.
"Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge are both members of an academic board that advises a climate change sceptic think-tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Professor Kelly said: "It's gone a long way to meeting our concerns.
‘The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document.’
And Benny Peiser, Director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation also welcomed the Royal Society's decision to revise.
He said: 'The former publication gave the misleading impression that the 'science is settled' - the new guide accepts that important questions remain open and uncertainties unresolved."
So shall we accept your 'nothing has changed' posturing or the comments of experts?
But what else could we expect?
You have to deny the change, your "all scientific organizations " argument is in danger of falling apart.
This is only the first of many more organizations to come who will be forced to change their "the science is settled" public statements. This is a step towards the truth, letting science tell the story.
This is not the last change to come Steve....Just a small example of what the future holds for you global warmists.
Too bad you couldn't have just "cut-n-pasted" the RS report itself - you know, instead of filtering it through your cynical blog. Actually, I've quoted directly from the RS report. What is clear from the report itself is that there is no new news here, despite your wish that it were so (or your cynical blog's wish).
Dan!!! You gotta read the report, dude - instead of the filters.
From the RS report:
"This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties."
It's right there in the introduction.
You meant the experts that I quoted? Who contradict your "nothing has changed" premise?
Looks like the RS report speaks for itself, Dan. That quote is a far cry from your wish, "You have to deny the change, your 'all scientific organizations ' argument is in danger of falling apart."
Oh no Steve!
It's NOT my wish, it's just the obvious direction towards the truth that the discussion will take. Science relies on facts and the facts are NOT supporting the theory of man made global warming. These scientific organizations have no choice but to respond to the facts.
This is but one step in the direction of scientific organizations as a whole coming to the understanding that the science does not support the theory of man made global warming.
But you keep believing Steve!
Poor Steve B. What ever will he do with his time if he can't post endless spam on gather that says all the science orgs support his crackpot ideas?
Sure I read it, Steve. In a comment above I even noted that it reminds of the time when the Church begrudgedly conceded that evolution is ligit but still clings to creationism. Old superstitions die hard. And your superstition will die a fiery death.
Sure it is, Dan, as evidenced (you know, "evidence") by your willful ignorance of the clear statement, which I quote for the third time:
"This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties."
Perhaps, you and "einstein" can point to the RS's "reversal" of its support of the IPCC?
Blah, blah. You've been holding your breath on that one for some time now. Unfortunately, here's what the RS states:
"This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties."
No change of direction there....
"Blah, blah."
But what else are you going to post when what I've been predicting begins to come true!
But posting it again and again doesn't make your denial of their change in position any more valid than it did on the first time.
58 It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and
associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these
areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their
impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected." (my emphasis)
They are two different things Steve.
impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected." (my emphasis)
Exactly! So if we prepare for warming and get an ice age instead we're screwed. Therefore we should not put all our eggs in a warming basket.
"There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity."
Spin all you like, you're not going to change it.
RS: "the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made. Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area."
More to the point, one of the key "uncertainties" re: future climate change is whether humans will decide to address climate change or not. But not only that, if we do nothing and every major scientific organization in the world is correct, we are screwed (more precisely, future generations are screwed). However, if every major scientific in the world is wrong, then we have a great, new energy infrastructure, little to no pollution, energy independence, a great economy with a plethora of well-paying jobs, no mideast oil wars, better public health with lower health care costs. And you think that amounts to being "screwed".
And from a year ago;
""It is certain that GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these GHGs are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years."
Quite a change that you are trying to deny Steve!
No, Dan. It's only a "difference" you're trying to imagine. I invite anyone reading this thread (it could happen) to review the report's concluding remarks (paragraphs 57-59, and arrive at the same conclusion you have arrived at, that "This is but one step in the direction of scientific organizations as a whole coming to the understanding that the science does not support the theory of man made global warming."
You can stomp your feet, pout and cry it won't take away the reality that they have changed position.
"It is certain that GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these GHGs are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years."
Hmmm,
From certainty to uncertainty.....Certainly a move in right direction.
I don't understand your comment.
I may have missed it, but how is the statement that you quoted currently backpedaled?
"I may have missed it, but how is the statement that you quoted currently backpedaled?"
Because it's exactly what the IPCC stated in 2007:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."
But somehow, in the climate cynics' world, we are supposed to conclude that the Royal Society's concurrence with the IPCC has suddenly ended.
estaban,
You of course see the certainty in the R.S. statement of 2009, when compared to the more reserved recent statement, it marks a dramatic change of position concerning climate change.
The true believer refuses to concede the change, and thinks that repetition will drive it away.
You of course see the certainty in the R.S. statement of 2009, when compared to the more reserved recent statement, it marks a dramatic change of position concerning climate change.
That's what I was hoping that you would clarify. I don't see any difference in the current language and that previously used by the RS. Maybe you can find some issue on which there has been a dramatic change. That would actually be interesting.
None is so blind as he who will not see.
I know that you valiantly wish that the R.S. had not issued a change in their position.
But they did and considering the word "certainty" and science....the R.S. used the word to describe their assuredness in believing that man was contributing to climate change.
The post is just above if you will just read it.
Read the report, "einstein".
"Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement"
"Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing."
"Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing."
OK, make up your mind. Is the science settled or uncertain?
Your snarky question is an attempt to pose an either/or question that does not exist. It's disingenuous at the most generous interpretation, and dishonest at the most realistic.
Actually Chuckles, that's what you are told the science says....and you believe it.
If what you are believing was correct then the temperature of the earth would continue to climb with the continued addition of C02 to the atmosphere rather than taking the decade and then some vacation.
Sorry Chuckles, there is plenty of science that casts doubt on the theory of man made global warming.
Chuck we can always count on you to turn a debate into a schoolyard shouting match.
Unless you're as little scientist as Danny.
Chuck, when do you ever speak in scientific terms? Like never.
The science that says the climate is warming, that it is in large part a human-caused problem AND that the result will NOT be good IS "settled."
So when is Al Gore and the IPCC going to win the Nobel Science Prize? The whole "science is settled" thing is a rumor started by Al Gore. No one can ever produce a list of so-called scientists who allegedly make up a consensus.
How much, how fast and how bad... not so much - thus, "uncertainty."
There is no empirical evidence to support the myth that warming must necessarily be bad. That is simply an assumption made by your religious cult. Much like ID makes the assumption that there must be a "designer." They too have a "consensus," by the way. They too claim the "science" supports their views. But like your ilk, they can't set forth the empirical evidence. All they can do and all you can do is huff and puff.
"Your snarky question is an attempt to pose an either/or question that does not exist."
You are right. The question does not exist. I was being sarcastic. Sorry it went over your head. The truth is skeptics are now being taken seriously and that adds more uncertainty, so there really is no question. You and your religious cult are losing the debate, Chuck. Now have a cookie.
It's disingenuous at the most generous interpretation, and dishonest at the most realistic.
Chuck, you shouldn't talk to yourself. What will the neighbors say?
Chuck believes anything his mommy tells him and what the government tells him and what the politicians tell him and what used car salesmen tell him. The only thing he is skeptical about is god. But he's not a theologian or god expert, so he should just shut up and believe without question. The experts are always right. Right, Chuck?
Dr. Roy Spencer and many other scientists do know how the science works.
I was interested in getting perspectives from UK broadsheets.
The story above posted from the Daily Mirror is (I think) in agreement with opinion expressed by the Times broadsheet.
For the Times view, you may visit what I think is the article they published reprinted at
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-bows-to-climate-change-sceptics.html
Somewhat different views on the subject are published by
The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/british-science-academy-publishes-climate-change-guide-2094648.html
and
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/30/royal-society-climate-change-guide