May 28, 2010
The latest institutional retreat from uncritical support of the AGW hypothesis is one that will chill warmists to the core:
The Society now believes that its previous communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood.
It has appointed a panel to review its statements,
assisted by two critical sub-groups, including a number of Fellows
who have doubts about the received view on the risks of increasing
In such partisan activities the Royal Society has form:
This development does not, of course, mean that the Royal Society is embracing climate skepticism.
On the contrary, it is very reluctantly modifying its stance to accommodate some of its Fellows who take the very scientific position that a degree of agnosticism is good practice when hypotheses remain unproven. Yet this retreat from absolutist global warming orthodoxy will deeply dismay the AGW lobby.
For years, there was no fiercer proponent of the AGW theory than the Royal Society.
Its previous president Lord May notoriously stated:
That was about as unscientific a statement as you could get: even the theories of iconic pioneers such as Einstein are routinely revisited by scientists.
Yet Lord May intolerantly declared:
Most major scientific advances have been achieved by a handful of people.
That kind of dogmatic assertiveness brought great joy and comfort to the Al Gore cultists; to skeptics it was a reminder that the Royal Society’s founding members dabbled in alchemy.
Clearly, that kind of blind commitment to the AGW cause will no longer be endorsed by the Royal Society. It is a sign of the times.
Two months ago the Science Museum in London changed the name of its Climate Change Gallery to the Climate Science Gallery, as it began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby. In fact it was abashed by the derision to which its previous posture had been subjected by visitors.
Its director said:
That same realization is dawning on more and more institutions and individuals, as the AGW scam becomes ever more discredited.
Skepticism is now the prevailing public sentiment: the onus is on
the alarmists to prove, rather than assert, their increasingly
untenable claims. The European and global financial crisis has also
concentrated minds on the insanity of squandering $45 trillion on an
imaginary threat, to make carbon traders billionaires.
They will contest every inch of the way; it will be trench warfare against them for years; but the tide of battle has shifted decisively and the AGW superstition will ultimately be defeated.