This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
PeterM
Yep. They misrepresented his comment on the temperature trend since 1995 (which showed slight but “statistically insignificant” warming) exactly like you misrepresented his comment on the temperature trend since 2002 (which showed slight but “statistically insignificant” cooling).
“Glad to hear you agree” now (and that we have finally closed this long chapter of denial and misrepresentation on your part).
It had gotten quite tedious.
Max
TonyB
Great blurb from “Kate”. Young adults always sound so refreshing and convincing (even if they may still be a bit naive and uninformed).
I read:
She’s a bit far away, so will probably not have the opportunity to study “climatology” at Georgia Tech (where Dr. Judith Curry heads up the department of climate science).
A pity, because Dr. Curry could teach her a thing or two about “uncertainty”, which she apparently does not yet know, based on her essay.
Max
TonyB
Your “Green Facts” repetition of “IPCC Figure SPM-2. (WGI) Radiative Forcing Components” is a good example, indeed.
Skipping the anthropogenic stuff for now (which, itself, is based on theoretical deliberations (including the net difference between total climate change and that attributed to assumed natural causes), the natural forcing itself is severely understated.
This has been pointed out by many studies by solar scientists, which point out that at least half of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years), by comparing it with the observed empirical relationship between solar activity and temperature over historical periods prior to significant human GHG emissions.
IPCC does concede that its “level of scientific understanding” of “natural forcing (including solar)” is “low”. This high “uncertainty” about the impact of natural variability on our climate is a point, which Dr. Judith Curry also makes.
And, unfortunately for the IPCC suggestion of insignificant “natural forcing” from 1750 to 2005, we have read that the UK Met Office has attributed the most recently observed cooling to “natural variability” (a.k.a. natural forcing). This raises the obvious question: “if ‘natural forcing’ was strong enough to overwhelm record increase in CO2 over the short time period since 2001, how can it be assumed that it was essentially insignificant (less than 8% of CO2 impact) over the previous 250 years?”
A dilemma, which again underscores Dr. Curry’s recent comments on “uncertainty” regarding the assumptions on “natural climate forcing” (upon which the entire “dangerous AGW” premise is built).
“Green Facts” would do well to well to make mention of these “inconvenient facts”, rather than simply parroting the IPCC party line.
But, then again, it is quite apparently not the objective of “Green Facts” to present all the “facts” on “climate change”, but rather to present the “green slant on the facts” as being promoted by IPCC.
Max
Max
thanks for your comments on green facts. I think the rapid respohse climate action team is going to be well worth watching-they seem to be advising George Monbiot.
Just came upon this website I’d never heard of before-lots of interesting non climate change related information and then I saw this very good article on co2.
http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Historical_CO2_levels
Even more interesting is that they cite my article-the one Peter refused to read.
Tonyb
Cancun temps plunge to 100-year record low — during ‘global warming’ summit!
http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit
Everything alright over there TonyN/Tonyb?
Reports here are that a savage, Marxist, mob attacked the future King.
‘Off with their heads!’ shouted the crowd as Charles and Camilla met rage in Regent Street
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/off-with-their-heads-shouted-the-crowd-as-charles-and-camilla-met-rage-in-regent-street-2157412.html
TonyB,
You seem to have some reservations about whether the term “scum” is an accurate description for the journalists, editor and owners of the Daily Mail.
No doubt there’d be a fair degree of buck passing. The journalists would argue that they have to write their copy for the editors approval. Owners would insist that of course that they run a proper newspaper, they don’t interfere, and the editor has total freedom. The editor of course will say that his journalists have his complete backing and they are free to submit articles as they see fit.
So how is it that the Mail publish this kind of thing?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
They quote extensively the work of “Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s IPCC”
However Professor Latif is not at all happy with the interpretation of his work. You might think that as they refer to him as “among the most prominent of the scientists” that they would be happy to give him the opportunity to correct the article before publication. Apparently not. Not before publication and not afterwards either.
Instead he has to go to the Guardian.
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif”
According to the Guardian, the good Professor said he “cannot understand reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.”
Well it is a mystery isn’t it? Why would a respectable newspaper like the Daily Mail want to engage in a complete fabrication? Why would they want to upset “the most prominent of scientists” in the way they apparently have? Are they really just the bunch of scummy journalists they are often accused of being?
Or maybe the Prof is really quite happy with the Daily Mail coverage and those left journalists at the Guardian are just making it all up? Yes that would certainly explain it. That must be the real explanation :-)
PeterM
“Scum” is a fairly strong “ad hominem” pejorative, and, as such is an inappropriate “description for the journalists, editor and owners of the Daily Mail“, The Guardian, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or any other newspaper.
If one disagrees with the editorial policy or the articles of the Daily Mail, my advice would be, “don’t read it and read something else instead”.
Max.
PeterM and TonyB
The Daily Mail article talked about a coming “ice age”.
The premise that we might be heading for another LIA (or a multi-decadal period of cooling) is nothing new. Several solar scientists have been predicting something like this for the first half of this century.
The recent (as yet) “statistically insignificant” reversal of the past three decades of warming could be a first sign of such as change, although this is anything but certain.
At the present level of scientific knowledge, we just do not know what our planet’s climate will be over a longer future period.
The observed fact that it has shown multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles of around 60 years per total cycle in the past, and we have just ended a warming cycle of around 30 years, lead me to believe that a cooling cycle could now be coming.
We have seen that projections from model simulations based on the myopic fixation on anthropogenic GH gases alone are worthless, as the failed IPCC projection for the first decade of the millennium, the failed 1988 Hansen forecasts plus all the silly MetOffice predictions of “BBQ summers”, “unusually mild winters”, “no more snow in England”, etc. have shown.
It would be absurd to place much faith in these model-based projections anymore.
So the “David Rose” article may have some merit (although I do not agree with everything he wrote).
What do you two think about this article?
a. a very good report
b. sounds generally plausible
c. some points may be valid, but others are questionable
d. total rubbish
(I’d give it a “c”)
Max
PeterM
BTW, the Daily Mail article by David Rose, which you cited, is almost one year old (I just realized this).
It talks about the harsh UK winter weather (and I first thought it was referring to the current harsh weather – but apparently it’s last winter’s harsh weather).
Max
Max
Max,
Yes “scum” is a pretty harsh word. Not to be used lightly.
If the Daily Mail felt that Professor Mojib Latif was an eminent scientist, as they seemed to be saying in their article, then surely, out of common decency, they should have used his work with his agreement. Scientists are usually happy to work, for free, with the press to help them get their articles right.
It seems that didn’t happen, there was no right of reply , there was no apology, there was no common decency afforded.
I’d say that was a pretty scummy way to behave. Wouldn’t you?
PeterM
I cannot judge whether or not the Daily Mail acted in a “scummy” fashion or not, since I am not at all familiar with the details of this story.
The article by Rose does quote Prof. Latif directly, so I don’t know (or really care) what Latif’s beef is with the Daily Mail.
The article is almost a year old, so it is hard to get too excited about this whole affair.
I’d say it’s probably a case of “much ado about nothing”, but maybe you see it differently.
Max
BTW In the earlier Daily Mail article you cited, the report itself quotes Jones correctly as saying there had been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years.
The headline appears to have been abbreviated to leave out the words “statistically significant” (but headlines are often shortened, so I don’t see a real problem). Do you?
PeterM
Back to the year-old Latif-Daily Mail dispute you seem to get so excited about.
In the Guardian report you cited I read:
From the Guardian blurb, it looks like both Rose and Latif are correct.
Latif objects that anyone “would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming”
Rose does not state that Latif’s results refute the concept of man-made global warming, simply that they ”challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs” and “undermine the standard climate computer models”.
This statement appears to be correct, as they challenge the IPCC’s estimates of the negligible effect of natural forcing factors (Figure SPM.2.) – which could certainly be referred to as one “of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs”. They also predict cooling until 2015, thereby challenging the climate computer model-based warming forecasts of “about 0.2°C per decade” for the first two decades of the 21st century (SPM p.12).
I don’t really want to get pulled into a year old “who says who said what” discussion, Peter, but on the face of it, I can see no basic discrepancy between what Latif has said and what Rose reported that he has said.
Max
Peter 2836
In my 2820 and 2821 I actually looked at the references to one of the other Daily Mail stories you cite and we have already deconstructed your mock outrage over the ‘statisticaly insignificant’ one ad infinitum.
I have another of the Mails references you cited that I have also looked into. To my surprise the Mail is actually quite accurate.
I will post the second deconstruction in next few days-bit busy at present as having new doors fitted to try to prevent some of the icy blasts we have had the last three years as the UK temperature sharply turns down (see my earlier post-it is not a trend as yet)
As for the two other Mail reports you have cited I will get round to them in due course.
Is Latif the one who last year actually admitted to cooling on a BBC programme for which there is a sound clip?
PS The new doors are INTERNAL!
PPS Amused to see you cite the Guardian as a reliable source of information.
Tonyb
TonyB
Did you read about the people that have frozen to death as a result of the “statistically insignificant” cold weather in Europe?
Is this all part of the increase in “severe weather events” we can expect from “anthropogenic global warming”, excuse me “anthropogenic climate change”?
Or is it due to “natural variability”?
Max
Here’s when the Daily Mail was actively deceiving its readers on the warmist side.
Peter and Max
Peter is expressing outrage over a newspapers slant on information.
Do either of you get concerned that scientists themselves are actually INVENTING (interpolating) information they then cite as scientifc documents?
A good example are SST’s the majority of which are up and much of the rest utterly unreliable.
Does that count as misinformation?
Tonyb
Brute 2831
I think the reports were sometimes somewhat exaggerated. The cries of off with their heads-a common Mothy Python sort of saying here-was said by a couple of people in mocking tones.
There were some groups of anarchists mixed up with some anarchist students within a largely good humoured crowd. The two former groups were out to cause trouble and will no dount reappear as other cuts take effect.
Perhaps they don’t realise where money comes from? £130 million a day in interest on our debts could pay for a lot of education.
Tonyb
Max 2840
Having bothered to study very extensively the instrumental records and also thousands of observation and written records I would say natural variability.
Tonyb
My 2842
Should say ‘the majority of which are MADE up”
Maurizio 2841
Yes there were a spate of articles when the Mail went over to the dark side but I don’t remember Peter complaining about the accuracy of their articles then.
tonyb
Max,
You say the Mail “quotes Jones correctly as saying there had been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years.”
Yes the Mail did make that quote. But was it correct?
Let’s see what Prof Jones actually did say.
Q. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A. Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.
Phil Jones said it wasn’t significant at the 95% level but it was close. The IPCC does routinely use the figure of 90% significance so I’m not sure why he chose the figure of 95%.
It was an unwise thing for Phil Jones to say. He should really have known that his words would be twisted and his meaning altered. But that’s what the Mail does. He should have known that.
I’m not sure if Professor Mojib Latif comment that he “cannot understand reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.” was entirely truthful. Maybe he was. Professors can be incredibly knowledgeable about a narrow range of topics and incredibly naive outside that range.
But if you are reading this, Professor, and you still haven’t worked out why the Daily Mail behave as they do, just let me know and I’ll spell it out for you.
Brute,
Its interesting to see you refer to the student ‘mob’ as ‘Marxist’. Probably the British ruling classes at the time of the American Revolution would have termed the Revolutionaries “Marxist” had Marx lived in a slightly earlier era. Certainly they were called Republican which would certainly have carried equally pejorative connotations at the time. In fact, it might surprise you to learn, it still does in the UK. Fenians, and Republicans, even after the Northern Ireland peace accord are still not liked or well accepted, especially in Tory circles. Incidentally, the term Tory was also used as a term of abuse, by the Revolutionaries, to describe North American settlers who supported the British Crown.
TonyB,
I seem to remember reading that the stated reason for the UK cuts was to avoid “saddling the next generation with enormous debts”. Maybe I haven’t quite grasped what is going on from this distance but aren’t the UK students, – and aren’t they the next generation? – protesting that they are being “saddled with enormous debts”?
There perhaps has been some misunderstanding. Why is there a dispute if both sides want the same thing?
I’ve just noticed that TonyB has described the UK rioters as Anarchists, whereas to Brute, they are Marxist.
Marx himself was very critical of Anarchism, at least as it was espoused by Proudhon. In reply to Proudhon’s treatise “The Philosophy of Poverty” , Marx famously responded with “The Poverty of Philosophy”.
Without going into to too much detail the difference between Anarchism and Marxism mainly revolves around questions the the nature of the “State” and whether one is needed other than for the repression of the working classes in a capitalist society. Or the repression of both the bourgeois and working classes in a Feudal Society.
This is possible best summed up by Bakunin who wrote in his work “Anarchism and the State”:
“They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.”
I hope this clears up any confusion :-)
Pete,
Let’s briefly analyze the situation.
A mob of “students” are angry and behaving violently because they will no longer be able to steal money from their fellow countrymen in order to fund their education.
Confiscating monies from the general public and redistributing it to “students” to “fund” the student’s education is redistribution of wealth orchestrated by the State………one of the tenants of Marxism.
Therefore, the students that are “demanding” the continuation of wealth redistribution sanctioned by government are by definition…………Marxists.
Max 2838
Peter
Yes I would broadly agree with your comments. So the Daily Mail did pretty well after all.
They were also mostly correct about sea level rise, see my 2820 and 2821. As for the Phil Jones saga we have deconstructed this so many times that I am beginning to think that either Peter just refuses to read things his mind is programmed to reject, or English is not his first (or second) language.
So 3 -0 to the Mail (to my surprise-although the score flatters a little and is only because the other side is so weak).
Now what about the theme of SCCIENTISTS deliberately disguising the truth?
I gave an example in my 2824 and another in 2842.
Max cited another here;
“The link to the Critique of IPCC AR4 by Paul M “Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report” is here
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Fair play Peter, The Daily Mail has had more than its fair share of time here, so lets see you defend the dubious practices of some of the scientists, who if they werent getting things wrong wouldn’t be creating newspaper stories in the First place would they?.
PS Three doors out of 5 back on ready for the renewed icy chill returning on Sunday.
Tonyb
PeterM
You write that Jones “should have” known that the Daily Mail would “twist” his words…
C’mon, Peter.
The Daily Mail simply quoted Jones’ stated opinion (from the BBC Harrabin interview) that the 1995-2010 period is too short to be “statistically significant” (as is the even shorter 2001-2010 period). The first showed slight warming, the second showed slight cooling.
Jones said what he did. It’s out there for all to read.
There is no point worrying about what the Daily Mail or Guardian (or anyone else) think he “really meant” when he said it. We are not “interpreting Holy Scripture” here, Peter, so this is all meaningless gibberish.
Jones said what he thought at the time was correct and that’s it. His HadCRUT record confirms that what he stated is correct (no big surprise, since he was the keeper of the record).
As far as the Latif story is concerned, we’ve already covered that and I could find no discrepancy between what Latif said and what the Daily Mail wrote that he said. Could you? If so, what was the specific discrepancy that I missed?
Max