UK Royal Society revises climate change view, says uncertainties exist and will not presume to advise governments

9/30, "Great Britain's leading scientific institution on Wednesday

• softened its position on manmade global warming.

In a document published after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows, the Royal Society's new guide to climate change says there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it previously had suggested.

As you might imagine, the following report from Britain's Times has climate realists all across the globe buzzing (subscription required):

Climate change: a summary of the science states that "some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced". Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide - the document it replaces - it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: "The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty."

The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heatwaves and rising sea levels. It now says: "There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales."

It adds: "It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.

"There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding."

The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Benny Peiser was thrilled by this announcement:

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," said Dr Benny Peiser, the Director of the GWPF. [...]

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 This political activism has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific evidence and ongoing climate debates.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," Dr Peiser said."...

• via Climate Depot
  

Scientists admit mistake about key mantra, 2010 Arctic ice not so bad after all, didn't shrink to 2007 low-BBC

• 9/16/10, BBC, "Rapid 2010 melt for Arctic ice but no record," Richard Black

BBC: "Ice floating on the Arctic Ocean melted unusually quickly this year, but did not shrink down to the record minimum area seen in 2007.

• That is the preliminary finding of US scientists who say the summer minimum

• seems to have passed and the ice has entered its winter growth phase.

2010's summer Arctic ice minimum is the third smallest in the satellite era.

• Researchers say projections of summer ice disappearing entirely within the next few years

increasingly look wrong."...

==========================

Comment: Americans are told they must pay billions annually in climate 'reparations' because of constantly retracted 'science,' such as Arctic Ice extent, measurements for which do not exist over a substantial period of time to begin with. The entire climate reporting business is overseen by the same people

• who run the postal service, the US government
• (occasionally in cooperation with other governments)

Ice Ages have come and gone long before the industrial era. How do they explain that? They can't. At best they say, well carbon trading is a good idea anyway. Civilized people want clean air and water, but those are

• separate issues from catastrophic man induced CO2 danger and carbon trading. ed.

As per its mission statement,* the NRDC is anxious to

• transfer hard earned US taxpayer dollars to 'developing' third world dictatorships:

9/16/10, NRDC, Climate finance: "This summer the Senate Appropriations Committee released budget recommendations for 2011 which include over

• 1.2 billion to combat the impacts of global warming

• pollution

and shift to a clean energy future. The funding will provide critical

• investments in developing countries to reduce tropical deforestation,

drive clean energy investment and help vulnerable people adapt to climate change. The Senate recommendations released in July represent a significant increase from the 2010 climate change finance budget, despite some cuts by the Senate to the President’s proposed budget.

• The anticipated 2011 climate funds are a good first step,

• but the United States must step up its level of investment

over the next few years to shift developing countries away from highly polluting energy programs and toward low-carbon energy pathways. Increased public investment will be needed to scale up to the goals in the Copenhagen Accord. The funds available through this budget cycle will be an

• important part of the global fast start-finance commitments and the anticipated Green Fund to be agreed in Cancun this December. "...

*NRDC's mission statement says global warming is political, that environmental injustice is unfairly

• "borne by people of color and others who face social and economic inequalities." They are about forcing the transfer of money from industrial nations (the bad guys) to unknown and unaccountable persons in the third world and/or helpers in the endless "climate" industry (including groups like the WWF which displace masses of indigenous people and land).

Brutal equatorial dictators have been cashing in on do-gooder instincts of Americans for many years. Because of global warming (which does not exist), we are told we're still bad and must give billions more every year. But the climate profiteers are good, trust them.

• The NRDC also promotes carbon trading programs in states and regions....

• Robert Redford spoke to the George Soros climate pressure group Ceres in April 2009

and reportedly said one of the 3 reasons Al Gore's 2006 movie was a turning point was:

• "Wall Street realized there was money to be made in 'going green.'"

Cap and Trade strangling 10 northeastern states via RGGI auctions, but NY exec Schrag just bought $2.2M Manhattan condo

• Climate guys say 'our lifestyle is not sustainable', but what they mean is YOUR lifestyle must collapse. THEIR lifestyle is a different story.

Babe Ruth's daughter has said you can't live in New England and not be a Red Sox fan. She held out for awhile, then gave in. Harvard seems to have the same effect on people vs the global warming scam, ie, no matter what you think when you enter Harvard, by the time you leave you'll buy into it along with cap and trade. For example Jonathan Schrag, the head of the 10 northeast state 'mandatory' cap and trade outfit, RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

• "Jonathan Schrag, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc.

(3/09) Jonathan Schrag joined RGGI, Inc. as Executive Director in May 2008. Before RGGI, Mr. Schrag was a partner of Hudson Strategic Energy Advisors LLC, where he worked with the state governments of Wyoming, West Virginia, and Montana and the Western Governors Association on energy, climate and the environment. From 2005 to 2007, Mr. Schrag was an Assistant Director of the

• Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Executive Director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy,

• where he ran programs on carbon capture and sequestration,

nuclear energy, carbon policy, and renewable energy technologies. Mr. Schrag also served as Research Staff with the Global Roundtable on Climate Change and as a Research Associate for Columbia University's Center for Carbon Management. Mr. Schrag earned AB and AM degrees

• from Harvard University and

received a Fulbright scholarship for research in the history of electrification. He lives in New York City."

• In July 2010, Schrag and his wife bought a $2.2 million condo in Manhattan.
  

.