No sooner had I sent off my article on ‘Greenism’ to Canada Free Press, than I received notification that the leading scientific institution, the Royal Society, has backed down on its strident global warming claims! To put it frankly, that is one in the eye for the silly young geology graduate who decided to back the green horse in the MENSA journal (who prompted my article: ‘Greenism’).
Of course, someone like the Royal Society would not come outright and admit to its failure over global warming claims, because that wouldn’t be cool. Instead, it says that it is rewriting its guide to climate change, to show that there is “greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had suggested.” (The Times, 30th Sept 2010 Royal Society bows to climate change sceptics). I don’t really care about the language, because everyone knows it is a climb-down.
So, will our zealous young geology graduate, featured in my last article, be so keen to call the Royal Society membership all kinds of names for at last recognising that everything is not so good in the green corner? Or, will he just keep on being “aggravated”? Sorry, mate, but you are well and truly pinned to the wall!
Professor Anthony Kelly, one of 43 Fellows who called for the change, is “reasonably satisfied” because the new guidance has “gone a long way to meeting our concerns”. I should think so – no-one has done more to damage the credibility of real science than warmists. Kelly said “The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document.” (Reported on BBC News, 30th Sept). Just a few more experts to go before the whole greenie thing collapses totally.
As Dr Benny Peisner, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, commented: “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.” In other words, all those open and hidden tax hikes, together with energy restrictions, refusal to discuss, and fuel price hikes, would probably all never have arisen. Now, with this revelation from the Royal Society governments should revise their folly and stop what they are doing.
Criticism from Within the Royal Society
In The Times today, Ben Webster reports that the Society says that it is bowing to sceptics (who are realists) by acknowledging that predictions about future temperatures etc., cannot be made with certainty. This much is rather obvious, because that is what weather and climate does, all on its own!
The Society criticises those scientists who insisted on sea level rises and future temperature predictions caused by human carbon emissions, saying there was “little confidence” in them. “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.” Well said! And it is about time sense took over from rampant propaganda and Dark Ages scientific ignorance. We can do nothing to alter climate or temperature. So why fight it with fake science?
It is now an urgent requirement that governments who have strangled businesses to produce less carbon should stop their insanity before financial demise ruin the economy. (IEEE Spectrum, 28th Sept). Even Clive Crook, of the arch-Greenist Financial Times, has been forced to say that rampant Greenism is “an ethos of group-think” that should be moderated. He points out that the US and UK committees that investigated the University of East Anglia’s part in destroying emails, etc., did not go far enough, because they did not investigate properly (as we all expected would happen). Along with these recommendations are demands to completely change the IPCC and its leadership.
And, almost as a side issue, the University of Utrecht (24th Sept) now says that an increase in sea levels (which is not much greater than usual anyway) is caused by groundwater extraction (and therefore not CO2); the extracted water eventually goes to the sea, and so levels rise. The University acknowledged that though the IPCC accepted this fact, it did not make much of it because of “lack of reliable data”. Well, I am a continual cynic when it comes to the IPCC! I see it as the IPCC refusing to make much of it because it suited their plans to cause hysteria and fear over supposed anthropogenic global warming.
Let us wait for more veiled recantations. Meanwhile let us keep up the pressure so that governments stop their taxation and policy demands on the population. It is becoming more and more obvious that this must be their course of action.
© Barry Napier 2010
© Barry Napier 30 Septemeber 2010