(Sept. 2010) UK's Leading Scientific Body Retreats on Climate Change

Another Domino Falls: UK's Leading Scientific Body Retreats on Climate Change

21stcenturywir e.com

The Royal Society has released a new guide which outlines a retreat from its former vanguard stance on the threat of climate change and man-made global warming. The decision to update their scientific guide came after 43 of its members complained that the previous versions failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

The new guide, entitled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, concedes that there are now major ‘uncertainties’ regarding the once sacred ‘scientific consensus’ behind man-made global warming theory, admitting that not only is it impossi

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co .uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Powerful Coalition That Wants To Engineer The World's Climate
A Future Tense Event: Geoengineering The Horrifying Idea Whose Time has Come?
Top Environmentalist; Halting Tecnological Advancement Is An Unjust Agenda To Create Poverty

Here we have another setback in the Global Agenda For Poverty, aka Global Warming, the latest high profile detraction issued by the UK's leading scientific body.
They admit that it is "not known" how much warmer the planet will become.

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.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Personally I think there is a new, more diabolicol plan brewing. We will see....



21stcenturywir e.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yeah the diabolical plan is called operation WSHTF! you see its like the levees but this time on a global scale... the levees were an exercise to measure the level of effectiveness the current state of FEMA was in to handle a global disaster.... FAILURE but then again not that bad... a few minor tweaks

It seems reasonable that the first people to show integrity in this matter are scientists. A little common sense should have told the average person that there was something wrong with this whole "man-made global warming" scenario.

Consider, if man made global warming were a real problem, what is the correct solution? Obviously, the solution is to eliminate, as much as required, the emission of man-made greenhouse gases. Calculate the maximum amount that can be put into the atmosphere, and stick to those limits. But that's not the solution our world leaders proposed. Their solution: give us money when you release greenhouse gases.

If man-made greenhouse gas emission is destroying the environment, how is giving money to a world government going to help?

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


Great post! I so agree, its just that they should have spoken louder sooner.
I do believe that there is a large body of them that may have been silenced, threatened, coercerd
and even bribed in the last ten years of the Global Warming Madness.

reply to post by burntheships


I'm still waiting for that communist climate treaty to be signed. Scary stuff!

reply to post by wonderworld


Yes, its scary. I suppose these ring leaders will take us to the leader...



Amidst the fracturing community of climate scientists, and physicists, The Royal Society Ring Leader has made an attempt to keep the public roped into the scam.

Public Opinion polls show that there is a high interest in "Climate Change" which translate bottom line into Trillions of Dollars when viewed by politicians, corrupt physicists, and traveling salesman of the Global Warming Scam

The latest "document" can be found here: royalsociety.org...

reply to post by burntheships


The Daily Mail is your source? It's a joke of a Right-Wing paper from the UK. No-one there takes the Daily Mail seriously... Do you have a real source of any kind?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

 

Great post! I so agree, its just that they should have spoken louder sooner.
I do believe that there is a large body of them that may have been silenced, threatened, coercerd
and even bribed in the last ten years of the Global Warming Madness.

That's ridiculous! If anything, it's quite the opposite: the big oil companies and their paid shills have probably threatened and coerced them into to retracting what they KNOW to be the truth...

reply to post by jimbo999


Look first, speak afterwards.

Of course, here ya go! From the horses mouth itself.

Substantial Uncertainty

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

www.probeinternational.org...

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by burntheships

 

The Daily Mail is your source? It's a joke of a Right-Wing paper from the UK. No-one there takes the Daily Mail seriously... Do you have a real source of any kind?

The Mail is actually a perfectly respectable paper - just that it happens to not be totaly under the thumb of the Leftist PC media stranglehold - which is why the typical kneejerk ritual condemnations of the very mention of all such sources by lefty/liberal types who are only for 'diversity and tolerance' when it comes from antiWestern sources.

Besides the 'source'of this story is the Royal Society itself!

I'm not so sure they should completely back off, clearly we ARE going through climate change, it's just that humans have NOTHING to do with how or why it is happening.

I was just about to come in and say that this isn't breaking news, as the story is from 2010. but the thread was posted in 2010 and has been bumped, so I'll just shuffle off and sit in the corner.......

reply to post by Acidtastic




No matter, come join us over in the linked thread, of which referenced this thread.
The saga continues, either way you see it, comments are always welcome.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MRedfield
I'm not so sure they should completely back off, clearly we ARE going through climate change, it's just that humans have NOTHING to do with how or why it is happening.

From what I read they aren't completely backing off the topic...they are just changing the way WE view their prior opinions on the matter by rewriting them...

Someone must figure that it's obvious at this point the whole theory was a sham..

..they probably don't want to seem like complete uneducated idiots wasting millions of dollars.

Enough time has passed for us all to have forgoten the email scandal.

Enough money and new taxes have been made and put in place.

The collapsing Euro and dollar take a front seat.

Al Gore can now sell his beach front property for a tidy profit.

Job done, time to move on to the next blackmail project.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Look first, speak afterwards.

Of course, here ya go! From the horses mouth itself.

Substantial Uncertainty

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

www.probeinternational.org...

Thanks for the link showing how stupid the deniers are.

What htey have said is that some stuff is certain, some nearly certain, some less so, and about SOME STUFF there is substantial uncertainty.

Firstly is climate change caused by mankind?? Here's ewhat they REALLY say:

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.

Note that - strong evidence" that it is - ther is NO "substantial uncertainty" about that.

Her's what they put in the various categories:
Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement:

Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about 0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850. This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000.

-the climate is warming

Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the end of 2009.

-CO2 is increasing

Evidence from ice cores indicates an active role for CO2 in the climate system.

-CO2 helps warming

Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing.

-man-made gases are increasing the natural increase in temperature

So much for there being "widespread uncertainty" about AGW!

The next section is:
Aspects of climate change where there is a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion.

Included here is:

Once atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increased, carbon cycle models (which simulate the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soils and plants) indicate that it would take a very long time for that increased CO2 to disappear;

- So there is still discussion about how long it will take for CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere by "natural" means

In addition to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, there are a large number of less well characterised contributions to climate forcing, both natural and humaninduced.

- there are other things helping drive climate change besides the man-made green house gasses eg volcanoes, natural climate change processes, shorter lived gasses from human activity

The more complex climate models, supported by observations, allow climate sensitivity to be calculated in the presence of processes that amplify or reduce the size of the climate response.

- there are non-direct processes that may make hte climate more or less sensitive to GHG's - eg water vapour

When only natural climate forcings are put into climate models, the models are incapable of reproducing the size of the observed increase in global-average surface temperatures over the past 50 years. However, when the models include estimates of forcings resulting from human activity, they can reproduce the increase.

- oops!

As with almost any attempts to forecast future conditions, projections of future climate change depend on a number of factors. Future emissions due to human activity will depend on social, technological and population changes which cannot be known with confidence. The underlying uncertainties in climate science and the inability to predict precisely the size of future natural climate forcing mechanisms mean that projections must be made which take into account the range of uncertainties across these different areas.

- forecasts are only forecasts - their accuracy has to be checked with actual data as time goes on, and the models improved accordingly.

On to part 2 next......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Then there's this bit:
Aspects that are not well understood

As noted above, projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor.

- We don't understand much about how clouds affect things

Additional mechanisms that influence climate sensitivity have been identified, including the response of the carbon cycle to climate change, for example the loss of organic carbon currently stored in soils.

-we still don't know much about somethings that have been identified as potentially linked to climate change

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.

-self explanatory I hope

The ability of the current generation of models to simulate some aspects of regional climate change is limited, judging from the spread of results from different models; there is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales

- the models are not very good at predicting local effects of climate change

so there it is - no doubt the Earth is warming, little doubt it is being helped along (at least) by mankind puring bilions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Quite some doubt about predictions of effects, especuially localised ones, or exactly how much sea levels might rise (but no doubt they will).

To label this a "backtrack" by the Royal Society is to demonstrate either an unwillingness to actually read what it says, or willfull denial.

According to 'climate depot' the Brits had their coldest summer for twenty years, and its snowing in Colorado, plus the mean temperature has dropped 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit, lots more on 'climate change/'global warming/global cooling,' I get updates every day.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Look first, speak afterwards.

Of course, here ya go! From the horses mouth itself.

Substantial Uncertainty

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

www.probeinternational.org...

Thanks for the link showing how stupid the deniers are.

For all I care the RS could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

They...are a political sham wearing red sauce.