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.
TonyB,
You say that the Daily Mail has had it’s fair share of time. OK. The Mail isn’t the only offender. Just like the Mail refused to allow Prof Latif to correct what he considered to be factual errors in the Mail’s reporting of his work, the Telegraph also refused to publish this letter after using Prof Fairchild’s name in a a 2009 report about “Snowball Earth”.
“Sir,
Contrary to the headline about our scientific work that appeared last week on the Telegraph website, high levels of greenhouse gases did not trigger an ice age. In our paper in Science we provided independent evidence for a theory that a hot atmosphere rich in greenhouse gases could coexist with a cold, glacial Earth surface. A planet largely covered in ice and snow (a Snowball Earth) would allow carbon dioxide emitted from volcanoes to build up in the atmosphere over millions of years. We show that this actually happened at a time in the Earth’s history prior to the evolution of animals.
Perhaps it was the prolonged cold snap over Christmas that set the headline writer’s mind racing, but the contemporary relevance of our work is rather different. A Snowball Earth could be re-created, in spite of greenhouse warming. For example, a nuclear war would generate a pall of dust, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. Also, a proposed technological fix to global warming – launching a mass of tiny sulphate aerosol particles in the atmosphere – could be overdone with the same result. Barring these horrors, we are left with the physical reality of greenhouse warming, despite the vagaries of our wonderfully capricious British weather.”
best wishes,
Ian J. Fairchild
Professor of Physical Geography
You probably believe that the Telegraph actually did get the story right. You are denier -so naturally you’ll believe anything that’s served up along these lines by newspapers like the Mail or Telegraph. But that’s not really the point.
The Professor himself disagreed with Telegraph after they used his name, and research work, in a story. But still they wouldn’t allow him to correct the record.
Scientists do seem to be generally baffled as to why newspapers behave like this. I’m sure I know why. But, why do you think they refuse to allow scientists to air their comments afterwards?
PeterM
Let’s see if I get your premise here;
Scientists do not lie (at least not “majority consensus scientists”).
Newspapers do lie (at least those that disagree with “majority consensus scientists”).
Have I got it right?
Seems very straightforward – very “black and white”.
Max
PS What about “politicians”?
Max,
You ask “Have I got it right?” Well what do you think?
My “premise”, as you put it, is that, yes, the media should run articles on the work of scientists like Prof. Fairchild, Prof Latif and others. However, it only seems reasonable that they should be actively involved in the process and be given a chance to ensure that articles and programs are factually accurate.
This would mean that there should be no need for corrections to be issued afterwards, but if the need should arise, then certainly they should be.
It just seems to be behaviour of the worst possible kind to cite the work of scientists like Prof Fairchild and Prof Latif then refuse to allow them to comment on its use, or misuse, afterwards.
Peter
You have just produced yet another diversion with your 2851.
How about talking about the honesty-or the competence- of some of the scientists themselves without whom there would be no stories? Did they deliberately mislead?
How about answering the specific examples I gave in 2849 before you embark on yet another attempt to obfuscate the matter.
tonyb
PeterM
As weird as this seems, we may actually agree on something here (besides nuclear power as an environmentally and economically viable alternate to fossil fuels), namely:
The media should report honestly, no matter what the subject is.
However, most media outlets now have their own preferred “science reporters” and these often like to add op-eds reflecting their own personal “spin”, when it comes to the ongoing climate debate.
Is George Monbiot (Guardian) more or less “honest” than James Delingpole (Telegraph)? How about David Rose (Mail)? [I’d put them all in the same basket.]
This is not limited to the mainstream or tabloid press, but even serious scientific publications often fall into this trap. An example is a recent interview of Dr. Judith Curry in Scientific American by Michael Lemonick of Climate Central Inc. entitled “Climate Heretic”.
Lemonick quotes Curry’s views on the critical uncertainties in the science supporting the dangerous AGW premise, but then adds his own (or Climate Central’s) “spin” with quotes from Stephen Schneider and Gavin Schmidt, who obviously have a different opinion than Curry.
This is not “dishonest”, because he does not claim that Curry agrees with his personal “spin”, it is simply his op-ed freedom to add his own opinion and back it up with quotes from others who share this opinion.
TonyB makes an important point as well. Scientists themselves are not “honest” by definition (as Climategate and the revelations of IPCC falsifications and exaggerations showed).
Schneider, himself, advised scientists that they had to decide between being honest and being “effective” in getting the desired message across.
So the problem is broader than just the media, itself.
And the climate debate has become so highly politicized (primarily by IPCC, but also by others) and has such major political and economic implications on the entire world that it is hard to find anyone who does not have an own opinion.
And, since there are still critical uncertainties regarding the magnitude of any human-induced climate changes, there will continue to be widely differing opinions.
Max
Max,
Yes. Maybe we could, or should, agree on honesty of reporting by the media . Except that you are the one who’s accused the scientific community in general of participating in a hoax.
So, by your standards, if that doesn’t come as part of the package, as it doesn’t with the way the BBC reports the issue, you don’t like it.
You said “I could find no discrepancy between what Latif said and what the Daily Mail wrote that he said.”
Well you wouldn’t be able to do that, would you? But that’s not the point. Professor Latif, himself, was clearly of the opinion that he had been misrepresented and his views distorted. Ideally, he should have been consulted on the article first. Failing that he should have been allowed a chance to put his views in print in the Daily Mail afterwards.
He was allowed neither option. This is clearly scummy conduct on the part of the scum who run and work for the Daily Mail. That is very much the point.
Surely you can see that?
I haven’t seen this tactic used , other than by the denialist side of the so-called argument, so, surely that must give you some clue as to who is being honest and who isn’t.
TonyB,
Your #2849 is disqualified by your claim of avictory. A clear violation of Danth’s law.
“If you have to insist that you’ve won an Internet argument, (especially by 3-0 -PM) you’ve probably lost badly.”
PeterM
You stated:
Wrong, Peter. I have never “accused the scientific community in general of participating in a hoax”. I have simply said that IPCC (an inter-governmental political organization) has been guilty of the “hoax” of understating the uncertainties, ignoring conflicting scientific data and exaggerating the dangers of AGW, all in order to “sell” its preconceived message of “dangerous AGW”.
The “scientific community”, however, includes a great many scientists who do not support the IPCC view, as you know full well, Peter.
Then, to the Daily Mail reporting of Latif’s study you add the judgmental statement:
Duh!
Peter, if you have any brain at all I’m sure you must realize how silly this statement is.
Stephen Schneider explicitly told climate scientists they had to choose between being “honest” or being “effective” in getting the message across to force the desired changes. This is pretty good evidence that the so-called “mainstream” scientists are less concerned with “being honest” than with getting the desired message across, as Climategate and the other revelations later exposed.
Did you somehow miss all that?
Max
Peter your 2856
Have you even bothered to read Danths Law? I suspect not.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth's_Law
‘…your opponent just ignores everything you say.’
WE have taken the trouble to read everything you say and follow it up and get back to you. It is YOU who habitually ignores everything that is said by the other side, so Danths law is referring to you, not us. Did you even realise that?
To get back to the substance, we have taken the time and trouble to look at all the claims made against the Mail in great detail. None of them could be substantiated. The paper was clearly better than any of us had expected and were essentially (but not wholly)correct in all the three cases cited.
You then move onto the Telegraph-this time a two year old discussion-and did your favourite trick of not reading the very sources you cited (Bad Science)
Because you didn’t bother to read the links properly you didn’t analyse the information before your eyes.
When even Bob Ward makes an attempt to defend the Telegraph -and you can see the very information that is claimed to have been surpressed- you really need to question your ability to say anything rational about a subject that obviously is an important part of your personality.
Read the Blind Science report, read the comments there AND at the Telegraph, read the original Press release, read the good natured comments by Fleming (‘with best wishes Ian).
Then read the credentials of the reporter who put together the information at a time of the year when he may have been the only one on duty, then try to give us a more objective view of what actually happened, beyond the Telegraph changing a headline after the event.
Hint, it revolves round a journalist on an almost bankrupt paper (The Guardian)trying to score points over their more sucessful rival.
The press release should never have been sent to the Telegraph in the confused form it was (originated by the author, clearly more used to long detailed papers than short pithy press releases) and the Telegraph should never have printed it. Misunderstanding rather than misrepresentation (much more sinister) would be the key here.
Now can we get back to the far more important issue of some Scientists deceiving their audience?
We haven’t heard a word from you about it (Danths law), no doubt youve been too busy digging up ancient non stories that don’t stand scrutiny.
Ps Are you going to tell Ben Hardacre of the deceit by Science Daily over sea levels, or the various examples quoted in my 2849 that you will now be turning your mind to?
tonyb
PeterM
Coming back to your recent post, you seem to be a strong supporter of “honesty”, condemning those journals and individuals, which you feel do not meet your high ethical standards.
You and I actually agree on the importance of “honesty”, especially in the case of scientists.
What do you think of this advice, given by the late Dr. Stephen Schneider to climate scientists:
Just answer whether you think this was a recommendation to the climate science community to be “honest” or to be “effective” instead.
Thanks.
Max
PeterM and TonyB
A logical observation regarding PeterM’s 2856 to TonyB, in which he invoked Danth’s Law to show that Tony had lost the debate.
It appears to me that invoking Danth’s Law is by definition self-defeating.
Logic:
Hmmm… But D. Law states that those who say “I won!” actually lost and invoking D. Law is de facto the same as saying “you lost” = “I won!”.
Am I missing something here?
Max
Max,
You now say: “I have never accused the scientific community in general of participating in a hoax. I have simply said that IPCC (an inter-governmental political organization) has been guilty of the hoax of understating the uncertainties, ignoring conflicting scientific data and exaggerating the dangers of AGW, all in order to sell its preconceived message of dangerous AGW.
whereas you’ve previously said
“Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar “climate research scam”. Forget all the disaster reports being sold by environmental activists via the sensationalist media. Forget all the self-righteous calls for action by power-hungry politicians. Use your common sense. It’s all a hoax.”
So is it “all a hoax” or just the bits of it which you are now highlighting?
If the latter what has made you change your mind?
PeterM
You wrote
This is false, as I pointed out.
You quote an earlier statement I made as evidence. But in this statement I do not accuse ” the scientific community in general of participating in a hoax”, but rather the “so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar ‘climate research scam'” (like Mann), the “environmental activists” (like Hansen), the “sensationalist media” (like The Guardian) and the “power-hungry politicians” (like Gore).
This is obviously not the same as the “scientific community in general”.
Get the difference, Peter? (It’s pretty basic.)
Max
TonyB,
Re: Danth’s Law: Your argument is just making you look silly and stupid and you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole! :-)
But according to Max’s 2860 you can’t in turn invoke Danth’s Law against that statement. I think that is what he means.
Max,
The right balance between being effective and being honest can be struck, by scientists not making statements, which while technically correct, allow deniers to engage in misrepresentation of their argument.
I’ll give you an example. If James Hansen were to give a lecture on the scientific method, he’d could well say many of the things I’ve said. Such as that science is evidence based. It’s Mathematics which is logic based and uses the concept of ‘proof’. There is no proof that ‘relativity’ or ‘ evolution is correct’ etc etc But that these are the best theories to fit the facts.
He would be technically correct to say all that. He’d be correct, too, in saying that the science underpinning the IPCC reports is evidence based too. But should he say it? What do you think would happen?
Would the Wall St Journal, the UK’s Telegraph, The Spectator, the Mail, and all the other papers and TV channels like Fox, what I refer to as the “scum media”, take the trouble to explain exactly what James Hansen was meaning? Or would their headlines, the following day, be something like:
“Top Climate Scientist Admits that the Science Underpinning the IPCC is Flawed!” and “There is no Proof of Human Factors in Recent Global Warming”.
Wouldn’t you agree?
PeterM
This exchange is going nowhere as you are moving the goalposts constantly.
You started off by feigning outrage at David Rose for having allegedly misquoted Prof. Latif in the Daily Mail a year ago (which he did not) and adding his own op-ed “spin” (which he did).
When I pointed out that this sort of behavior by the press (adding op-ed “spin”) is common from both sides, you switch topics, finally accusing me of stating that the “scientific community in general” is guilty of “participating in a hoax” (which I did not do, as I pointed out).
TonyB has tried to move the conversation to the more pertinent point of deliberate misrepresentations of the facts by some scientists who are trying to “sell” the AGW dogma, but, so far, you have avoided this topic (and I can well imagine why).
Max
PeterM
You are babbling nonsense again (2863), so you’ll get no response from me.
Max
Peter
Prove us wrong and actually answer questions for a change.
Its perfectly reasonable to ask what you think of scientists apparent deceptions. It is more important than the increasingly frenetic claims you are making about various newspapers.
tonyb
Max,
So the scientific community in general aren’t part of the hoax? That’s good. Just parts of it are?
What about, say, the US National Academy of Sciences? Would you say they were in on the hoax too?
“…..so you’ll get no response from me.”
Well that would be a first!
TonyB,
“scientists apparent deceptions.” ???
How can it be “all a hoax” if there are no deceptions?
PeterM
Re-read very carefully what Stephen Schneider wrote as advice to climate scientists (bold type by me):
Pretty straightforward to me.
Translation: In order to be effective in getting our message across we have to resort to fear mongering, exaggeration and lying plus understate any uncertainties that exist, rather than being honest.
It looks like some of the so-called “mainstream scientists” (plus IPCC) have followed this advice closely. And this is the point TonyB has brought up (but you evade).
Max
Max,
Stephen Schneider isn’t around to defend himself any longer, unfortunately, but he didn’t say unrealistic “scary scenarios”. If CO2 emissions are left to grow unchecked then the outlook is scary and saying that is being 100% truthful.
“Simplified Dramatic statements”? I’m not quite sure what he means by that. It is, of course, necessary to simplify the issues when speaking to a non scientific audience. I’ve got a degree in Physics and I must admit that I struggle to understand some of the posts on Realclimate.
I appreciate the issue of doubts and uncertainties. The IPCC does attempt to quantify the uncertainties and I would say that a thorough reading of their reports is necessary for anyone genuinely interested in the subject.
However, as I’ve previously said, when discussing uncertainties, scientists do have to be carefull to avoid giving the deniers an opportunity to word twist. Saying that the current warming is attributable to human activities is statistically significant to the 90% level becomes not statistically significant, to the 95% level, in the hands of Daily Mail Journalists. Except that they’d probably miss out the 95% figure completely!
Peter
You are doing it again. Where did I say it was
“all a hoax” You are ascribing that phrase to me by putting it in inverted commas.
I have listed a number of points where what the scientists say does not appear to be true. On some of these we have previously cited ad infinitum the proof. Why won’t you deal with these? Is it because you actually agree with me?
Tonyb
Global Warming is brutalizing us here in the US. I’m certainly happy that the rest of the world is basking in the tropically warm temperatures brought about by Peter’s weather control machine.
New Cold Blast Invading Eastern U.S. Even More Brutal
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/42915/new-cold-blast-invading-easter.asp
It seems that global warming has caused the blizzard and frigid cold that caused the Metrodome collapse.
Metrodome Collapses in Minneapolis – will they blame global warming climate change climate disruption this time?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/metrodom-collapses-in-minneapolis-will-they-blame-global-warming-climate-change-climate-disruption-this-time/#more-29294
Yes Pete. I’m mocking you (and what little remains there are) of the global warming “true believers”.
Bob_FJ
Here’s a blog site that might be of interest to you.
Things Climate Science Has Totally Missed? – Convection
http://scienceofdoom.com/
Max