Skip to content

The Science Free Royal Society Report On Extreme Weather

November 28, 2014

By Paul Homewood    




Paul Matthews has a good analysis of the Royal Society’s new report “Resilience to Extreme Weather”.


The Royal Society, formerly a highly regarded institution, is increasingly abandoning science in favour of political propaganda.  Its latest piece of scaremongering, Resilience to extreme weather, is packed full of emotive images of floods.


and completely vacuous graphics like this:



(there are at least 4 such meaningless diagrams) but contains virtually no science.


In the introduction, Paul Nurse claims that “By presenting evidence of trends in extreme weather and the different ways resilience can be built to it, we hope this report will galvanise action by local and national governments…”.
But unfortunately Nurse and his chums seem to have forgotten to include any evidence of trends in extreme weather. All we get is examples and anecdotes. Throughout the entire 100+ page report, there is not a single graph showing past trends in extreme events (there are plenty showing the results of speculative computer models for the future).

Graphs of UK rainfall are often shown at Paul Homewood’s blog, for example in his recent post Rainfall Patterns In The South West, relevant to the Somerset flooding, where it can be seen that there is no trend in rainfall and the wettest month occurred in 1929. I wonder why no such graphs are shown in the Royal Society report?

Similarly there is no data provided in the report on hurricanes and typhoons, despite there being a suitable figure on this in IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2:



Hurricane Sandy is mentioned several times in the report, but there is no mention of the current record-breaking lull in hurricane activity.

Tucked away in the middle of the report are the distinctly un-alarming remarks from the IPCC SREX (2012), such as “Low confidence that anthropogenic warming has affected the magnitude or frequency of floods at a global scale”.


Read the rest here.



Last year, the Royal Society relied on the UK govt for 67% of its income, some £48 million.




This funding has helped support a year on year rise in the salary bill of 11%, and an increase in the number of employees earning over £100K from two to four. Meanwhile, the numbers paid over £60K has risen from ten to fifteen, a veritable gravy train.




Is it any wonder they produce such a politicised report? How long will we have to wait before Ed Davey, or some other minister, uses this report to “justify” government actions?

  1. quaesoveritas permalink
    November 28, 2014 3:13 pm

    I regret that we will never win against such a propaganda machine.
    Sometimes I despair!

    • catweazle666 permalink
      November 28, 2014 10:54 pm

      I think you’ll find Mother Nature is on our side.

      There’s nothing the alarmists can do about that.

  2. Scott Scarborough permalink
    November 28, 2014 3:37 pm

    Don’t worry quaesoveritas. Not everyone files papers or wipes down counter tops for a living. There are still many people who must “THINK” for a living, and many of them will notice that there are no historical plots of actual disasters in this report. They may not reach any firm conclusions but it will put doubt in their minds.

  3. Keitho permalink
    November 28, 2014 3:48 pm

    We have to keep on hammering this home Paul. These people are a travesty of what they once were.

    I post this link wherever I can and challenge the Global Warming enthusiasts to explain why they support a theory over actual measured data.

    It is just a compendium of many data sets in graphical form but the data is clear. There is no discernible trend in weather events, man made or not.

  4. November 28, 2014 4:04 pm

    Maybe UKIP will promise to slash their funding.

    One can only hope.

  5. November 28, 2014 4:55 pm

    The RS has just become another Government QANGO, doing what the Government tells it to do and giving the advice the Government wants to hear, which the BBC will propagandise to the whole country.

    • Jimbo permalink
      December 1, 2014 12:22 pm

      You will never get Paul Nurse to understand the lack of trends in extreme weather. The more funding they get, the less they try to understand.

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.
      Upton Sinclair

      The Royal Society’s motto ‘Nullius in verba’ roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. I therefore will not take their word on anything about climate.

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    November 28, 2014 5:30 pm

    In the red circled “vacuous graphic” I note the pairing of poverty & environmental degradation**. A good case can be made for poverty leading to vulnerability to any number of bad outcomes. A report detailing this, especially the cost of fuel and electricity, could be used to ”. . .galvanise action by local and national governments . . .” [words of Paul Nurse]

    **I’ve seen many poor pairings like these 2 things. Such sloppiness muddles the message that might have been possible.

    • November 28, 2014 6:32 pm

      The best defence against weather impacts is economic growth.

    • Brian H permalink
      November 29, 2014 7:42 am

      If you think industry harms the environment, try an impoverished population!

      Wealthier people like it nicer and cleaner and neater.

  7. Bill Wagstick permalink
    November 28, 2014 6:04 pm

    In this instance the Royal Society are behaving very much like the members of the orchestra who serenaded the people as they step down from the cattle trucks.

    Paul Nurse being the head Kapo.

  8. Terry Dixon permalink
    November 28, 2014 6:40 pm

    Hello Paul,

    Thanks for the mountains of work and science that you churn out on Global Warming. I don’t read anywhere near enough about this circus as I would like, and should, and so I rely heavily on the FACTS that you keep producing, to objectively underpin your arguments. Your blog is a great source of objectivity and support of the “sound scientific method” that unfortunately many of our like-scientists have abandoned in this no-scientific AGW debate.

    You continually source facts and data to support the arguments that AGW is rubbish. I would appreciate if you could provide some of the “data” that the AGW dudes use to support their arguments – or direct me to some sites where I could find this. I know – I gotta read the latest IPCC report – but what other signature sources of information (distorted or otherwise) exist which supposedly support the AGW arguments. Don’t go into the models – I am quite familiar with this line of “facts” and the fallacies that accompany them.

    Love your work my friend !

    Best regards

    Terry Dixon

    • November 28, 2014 8:49 pm

      You could start with this report from the RS, which sems remarkably fact free.

      The real secret is to continually loop these sort of reports. So one outfit quotes a previous report, which in turn quotes a previous one, and so on.

      • November 28, 2014 9:02 pm

        You are on to the game plan, Paul. Who controls the IPCC?

        The UN’s IPCC.

      • mitigatedsceptic permalink
        December 1, 2014 8:55 am

        The system for engineering these ‘loops’ had its origins in the Club of Rome, Rothschild and his protegee Maurice Strong (now a guest of the Chinese Gov’t) The stated aim is to destroy Western civilisation and global warming was simply a convenient way of scaring the world into collective action. It was manifest at the Rio World Conference hosted by Strong and perpetuated by Agenda 21 enthusiasts in local government and NGOs. A minority Report in the Senate talks about a billionaires club avoiding taxes by pouring cash into NGOs and prompting them to push for world government via UNEP and all its manifestations. The aim is to undermine democratic process (as the ‘policy’ activities of the Royal Society demonstrate). Never mind what the people want, just get the power to rob them in the name of Sustainable Development i.e. decarbonise and deindustrialise the advanced world, concentrate its population into the New Urbanism and reduce its countryside to wilderness etc. etc…

  9. mitigatedsceptic permalink
    December 1, 2014 8:37 am

    Just have a look at Q&A Q10 Figure 4. At first glance the colouring appears to demonstrate how oceanic temperatures at different depths are rising. Closer examination tells us that these plots are simply different ways of averaging global temperature changes to conceal the levelling off over the last couple of decades. `The colouring is gratuitous propaganda.
    This is a cheap trick familiar in the advertising trade and reflects no credit on the Fellows of this once august club, least of all on its UEA-educated President. Post normal science I suppose!

  10. December 1, 2014 2:22 pm

    E. M. Smith allowed me to post the following open message to the geo-engineers who seek to control planet Earth:

    To: Geo-Engineering Proponents
    From: Oliver K. Manuel, Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo Lunar Samples
    Subject:>/b> Who Appointed You God?

    On this 5th Anniversary of the release of information to the public in Climategate e-mails, I confidently conclude that:

    Although society survived a torturous, sixty-four year journey from the end of WWII in 1945 to the start of Climategate in 2009 at the hands of those who abused their control of public information . . .

    Click to access From_WWII_to_Climategate.pdf

    those who successfully deceived the public in the past would be wise to now repent and help society accept the stormy, pulsar-centered Sun that controls Earth’s climate as well as the fate of every atom, life and world in the solar system – a volume of space greater than the combined volumes of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earth’s.

    Please understand that this action would be in your best interest, . . .

    and in the best interest of the society that you foolishly attempted to subjugate to your arrogant illusion of enlightenment.

    With kind regards,
    – Oliver K. Manuel

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: