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
Duh! Of course Schneider would not have added the word “unrealistic”, to his statement (why should he – it’s not even necessary). The statement:
The statement speaks for itself.
– Use fear mongering to “capture the public imagination”
– Make things sound “dramatic”
– Do not admit any “doubts” or uncertainty about the validity of the “scary scenarios” “offered up”
– Choose between being “effective” (in capturing the public’s imagination and frightening it) and being “honest”.
This is all pretty straightforward advice, Peter.
It advises the “scientists” quite clearly that scientific “honesty” comes after “effectiveness in capturing the public attention” with “scary scenarios”.
IPCC has followed this advice very closely.
As we now know, it has attempted to “capture the public imagination” with “scary scenarios” of anthropogenic warming with “simplified dramatic statements” about increase in the rate of sea level rise, increased intensity and occurrence of severe weather events, crop losses in Africa, rain forest demise, disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, etc. (much of which has since been shown to be false).
Schneider advised them well, and it looks like IPCC paid attention to his advice.
(Hansen did not need to “listen to” Schneider – he started “crying wolf” before Schneider made this statement and has been doing so ever since; he made the mistake back in 1988 of making some warming forecasts, which turned out to be totally wrong – but that’s another story, which we have already covered here.)
Max
PS Best advice: Do not try to “defend” the late Dr. Schneider’s words (or opine on “what he really meant to say”). The words are quite clear and easy for anyone to understand.
Max,
This is Stephen Scheider’s quote in full.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
I’ve included and highlighted the bits you’ve missed out. His message is somewhat changed, wouldn’t you say? Id say you would -otherwise you’d have certainly included it!
So what can we learn from all this?
We shouldn’t just accept anything and everything. Find the original source and read it for yourself.
Max,
This is Stephen Scheider’s quote in full.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
I’ve included and highlighted the bits you’ve missed out. His message is somewhat changed, wouldn’t you say? Id say you would -otherwise you’d have certainly included it!
So what can we learn from all this?
We shouldn’t just accept anything and everything. Find the original source and read it for yourself.
Peter your 2878
Sometimes your bare faced cheek is astonishing.
It was YOU that originally misquoted Schneider in order to get your message across. I corrected you with my 2816 addressed to Max and he also quoted it in context. My post read as follows;
***
Max
Peters #2797
It seems extraordinary that in Peter complaining about our misrepresenting Phil Jones view-when we cited his words time and again- that he should then do what he accused us of.
He has form on this of course when he quoted Arrhenius’ first paper but conveniently forgot his second, which substantially revised his own calculations.
In his post Peter claimed Schneider said this;
“Steven Schneider was criticised for his comment about ” Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Peter only quoted the last phrase, whereas to see what Schneider was really inferring you have to go to his whole quote;
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
In that context the word ‘hope’ takes on a much more significant role.
Tonyb”
***
Peter
You misquote us, misquote other people, refuse to even read your own links, don’t acknowledge your mistakes and won’t engage on ANYTHING that disturbs your highly politicised world view.
I am still waqiting for you to answer the various charges I made against the scientists concerning a variety of studies.
Instead of continually trying to avoid the questions why dont you actually ANSWER them?
tonyb
TonyB,
Look I must admit that I hadn’t heard of Stephen Schneider’s comments until Max raised the issue. So to say that I “originally misquoted Schneider” just can’t be right.
If you make a list of questions that you need answering I’ll take a look.
PeterM
Yep.
Both TonyB and I have read the entire SS quote.
It tells the story quite well: use fear mongering and underplay areas of uncertainty in order to get the public’s attention.
Quite simple advice, which IPCC has followed well.
Trying to rationalize it all does not change anything, Peter.
Max
Max and TonyB,
One of the usual excuses given about using any quote is that is given “out of context”. But that’s what quotes are – its not possible to include everything that was said, or written, earlier or everything that came later.
But at least any quote should be a contiguous block. If anything is missed out, or added, it should be acknowledged in such a way as to make it clear to the reader.
I notice in your quotation of SS, you’d failed to do that. You missed out most of a sentence from the middle of the quotation and tampered with the punctuation to hide what you’d done!
But what can else can we expect from contrarians?
PeterM
Yeah. I try to avoid that “out of context” sort of thing. Schneider’s quote is very clear and does not require a lengthy preamble to be easily understood.
He advised scientists to be “effective” rather than “honest”. Straightforward advice, which has apparently been followed well by IPCC (as recent revelations have shown).
But don’t you think we have spent too much time on this topic already?
It all started with your feigned “outrage” that the Daily Mail allegedly misquoted some scientist in an article a year ago, which was later shown to be wrong, as there was no “misquote”, but just an “op-ed” addition.
Both Tony and I then pointed out that op-eds by newspapers are one thing, but dishonesty on the part of scientists is a far more serious problem, and I quoted the Stephen Schneider example in this context.
But why don’t you address the specific questions TonyB raised about scientists “bending the truth”? Are these too direct for you? Or are you afraid that your AGW dogma might be put into question?
Max
.
Peter
You say that if I pose my questions yet again you will try to answer them. This was in response to my general question; Do you get concerned that scientists themselves are actually INVENTING (interpolating) information they then cite as scientific documents?
A good example are SST’s the majority of which are made up and much of the rest utterly unreliable.
Does that count as misinformation?
SO QUESTION 1- Do you believe the SSt’s are an acurate record of ocean temperatures globally back to 1860?
Question 2 Does it bother you that most are completely invented because the data doesnt actually exist?
TonyN said in relation to the new climate rapid response team;
http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/testimonials.php
“Their FAQ B13 has the Radiative Forcing Components table from AR4 SPM, but with an interesting modification:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/2A953C90-CC12-42B2-BD0A-B51FECC2AEC3/FAQ_e.pdf
I can understand why they might have edited out columns 3 and 4 as this is for the general reader rather than the specialist, but taking out column 5, which deals with levels of scientific understanding, would seem to be understandable for a quite different reason. There’s nothing like hiding the …. when it might raise awkward questions.”
My reply;
Interesting. The chart you are talking about is this one. This is precisely the sort of thing Peter was accusing the Daily Mail of doing. It is positively misrepresenting the situation.
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/figtableboxes/figure-2.htm
You are right they have missed off several columns (excluding the technical stuff-which is understandable)
Question 3
Why would the climate rapid response team miss out this key information?
There’s more-at a brief glance- I found this in their resources page;
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming
Number 4) Mentions the 1906 Arrhenius paper but just like Peter seems to forget the 1906 version which substantially reduced the estimates.
Question 4 Why would they’forget’ the later paper (Nasa also do this)
Number 6) Mentions the Callendar paper of 1938 but not the much more convincing rebuttal by Giles Slocum in 1956 which also mentions the generally accepted levels of co2 as being 400ppm. Also no mention of the 1936 paper on which Callendar based his temperature calculations, on a very small sampling, which even he wasn’t impressed with.
Question 5 Why do the IPCC airbrush out of history tens of thousands of Co2 records and make no mention of them in official history by pretending Keeling was the first to measure them?
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
Question 6; Please answer the various points made in the link above, many of which we have raised before, in particular sea levels and arctic ice levels.
The hockey stick shows a serious downturn in NH temperatures from 1600 until man supposedly warmed things up circa 1900 with the dramatic uptick. Trouble is that all our NH records (which I collect as you know) show a temperature rise from 1660 and as our coldest decades were 1600-1610 the warming began then.The stick is completely misleading.
Question 7; Please justify this re writing of history
Question 8 Are you aware as to how Global temperatures are manufactured?
Question 9 Does this bother you?
That will do for a start Peter. Note that single word replies will not be sufficient. Please give us proper references for your rebuttals. Pointing us vaguely in the direction of the IPCC will not do
Look forward to your replies.
Tonyb
TonyB,
You do believe in some nonsense. The CO2 records for the 19th century are all over the place. Its just not possible for them all to be right. The ice core record shows that CO2 concentrations were stable for several thousand years at around 280ppmv , but then started to rise in the middle of the 19th century as fossil fuels were burned in increasing amounts an forests were cleared for agricultural purposes. Give me some credible references for what you are asserting.
Arrenhius just didn’t have the necessary information to get the right answer on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. That his first attempt gave a higher answer than the second is of no real significance.
It’s of no more significance than you or I aiming a dart at the bullseye, and the first attempt being closer than the second.
Peter
I asked nine questions. You have answered none of them but are doing your usual trick of asking the asker for more information when you have already had it.
I asked why the IPCC ignored the Co2 readings-not that they are all going to be correct.
Whether you believe in the figures or not there is a 120 year industry-backed by legislation- that took measurements by highly qualified people using reliable equipment, and yet this is not even acknowledged. Why?
Ignoring Arrrhenius’ second paper seems extraordinary. Would that have ocurred if his findings had been the other way around and he initially gave a very small estimate, but then subsequently increased it? Of course not.
I am asking why the second paper is never mentioned even though its more important than the first as he substantially refines it-in other words he actually gets on the darts board rather than missing it altogether.
Look forward to your more considered answer to this and the other seven questions.
Tonyb
PeterM
It is common knowledge that Arrhenius used basically the same theoretical deliberations that are used today in order to arrive at his 2xCO2 estimate. The major difference is that he had to rely on manual calculation, whereas today computer models are used. His first rough stab at this was later refined, resulting in a lower estimate the second time.
This is not comparable to the random act of “throwing the second dart”, because the second estimate built upon (and refined) the knowledge of the first.
Ergo, the second estimate has a higher probability of being correct than the first (which is not the case with the “darts”).
Just a bit of basic logic there, Peter.
Max
PS If people knowingly quote Arrhenius’ first (higher) estimate and ignore the second (lower) one, they are being disingenuous (or downright dishonest).
PeterM
Why do you personally think IPCC has chosen the CO2 record from ice core data prior to 1958 (start of Mauna Loa) rather than the many recorded physical analyses, which were performed in several different locations over the 19th and early 20th centuries, many performed by leading scientists of the time, which have been compiled by Ernst Beck (and TonyB has mentioned here)?
a) Because paleo-climate data from ice cores is inherently more reliable than analytical measurement for determining atmospheric CO2 levels?
b) Because the analytical data do not support the premise of “constant natural CO2 levels” prior to human industrialization, which is a key basis for the IPCC premise of alarming AGW from human CO2?
c) Neither of the above (please be specific).
Thanks for your answer.
Max
Bureaucrats Swindle Greens In Cancun
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/2035-bureaucrats-swindle-greens-in-cancun.html
But the bureaucrats won: the “process” (annual trips to exotic locations, cushy expense accounts, etc.) will be kept “alive”. [But no global carbon taxes in sight.]
Max
I haven’t been keeping up with the thread so apologies if someone else has brought this up. Seems even NASA are now saying the a 2 degree warming for CO2 doubling is a tad extreme.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
TonyB,
You seem to be into all this nonsense promoted by Beck saying:
“They suppressed over 200,000 records of historic co2 readings made by a host of eminent scientists since 1830, showing that Co2 levels then were as high as today. Having read and researched the material and corresponded with Ernst Beck, I think his conclusions are essentially correct.”
You do seem to have some quite kooky ideas on how CO2 levels have gone up and down like the proverbial tart’s knickers in the 19th century and early 20th century. Curiously this stopped in the 1950’s when accurate readings from Mauna Lua & Antarctica showed that CO2 levels have been increasing by just a few ppm every year since then.
The ice core records are very much in agreement with this finding which also shows that any increase in CO2 levels, in the last 150 years, has been smooth and gradual. They also show that CO2 levels weren’t as high as today. In fact there has been a 40% increase since pre-industrial times.
This is a fundamental point. The position of modern mainstream science on AGW depends on this interpretation of the evidence being correct. If we can’t agree on that, there is no point talking about anything else.
Barelysane,
Naturally you like to get your information from the Daily Register but I’d say it would be a good rule to avoid giving too much credence to any article using the word “boffin”.
The actual paper seems to be unfortunately hidden behind a paywall. You’d really need to read that before rewriting the text books.
I did find this link which puts a slightly different slant on the report.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm
The article quotes the lead author, Bounoua, as saying “This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming.”
He’s saying in effect that vegetation can play a significant role in slowing the rate of warming. Few people would disagree with that, and this work does provide further evidence that the world’s forests do need to be conserved.
PeterM
If you don’t like the report in The Register cited by Barelysane, here is the original NASA press release.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/cooling-plant-growth.html
Enjoy.
Max
PeterM
More details to the NASA report by Bounoua (cited by Barelysane):
Let’s see what NASA is telling us here:
C1 = CO2 concentration in 2010 = 390 ppmv
C2 = CO2 concentration in 2100 = 560 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.436
ln(C2/C1) = 0.362
2xCO2 = 2
ln2 = 0.693
dT (2xCO2) = 1.94 – 0.3 = 1.64C
dT (2010-2100) = 1.64 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 0.86C
So it will warm by 0.86C between today and 2100, according to NASA.
Yawn!
Max
PeterM
Let me start off by saying that I do not have a “dog in this fight”, because, unlike TonyB, I have not spent much time studying the topic of pre-Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations in detail or corresponding with Ernst Beck, who has compiled reams of data on this topic.
But let’s simply look at the logic here.
You wrote to TonyB (concerning the Beck summary of many actual physical determinations of atmospheric CO2 in the late 19th and early 20th century versus ice core data for the same period):
That may well be correct.
But if it is correct, it tells me that the whole dangerous AGW “position of modern mainstream science” may actually be on much shakier ground than we thought.
Or, alternatively, that the a great number of the many independent “real time” CO2 analyses made over the “pre-Mauna Loa” period were basically wrong, for some as yet unexplained reason, while the ice core paleo-climate data from one single sample were correct.
Right?
As a scientist, Peter, how logical would you say that this suggestion is?
I’d say that it smells fishy, and that the results of the many actual CO2 analyses made over this period should at least be included within the “uncertainty range” for pre-1958 atmospheric CO2.
Wouldn’t this be a more scientific approach?
Max
Its not just a single ice core. There are a various data sources which supply pieces of the puzzle which all fit together to tell the same story.
http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/man1.html
Peter #2891
I certainly do not believe all the Co2 readings are correct and have never said so.
Unlike you however I have bothered to dig deep into this subject and wrote this article
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
It was essentially to look at the role co2 played in 19th century society and to determine whether the measurements were being taken in isolation and were irrelevant to 19th Century society, its industry and technology.
That is certainly not the case as I found. If you bother to read through the material PLUS the comments and the articles linked to in the comments, you will find probably the most comprehensive information available in one place on the Internet.
You will also find that I quote information from BOTH sides of the debate.
Lets have a look at your observation that ‘curiously’ this variation stopped in the 1950’s, because this is extremely illogical.
Ever increasingly accurate direct readings were taken by hundreds of renowned scientists from 1820 onwards. It is not just one person who observed variable readings from around the world. These were highly respected people at the top of their game who were involved for a variety of reasons, partly for public safety, in as much there was a legal limit for co2 in factories that had to be enforced.
The literature of the time showed they knew what they were doing and were diligent in their recording.
You believe that ALL Of these records can be sweopt aside and that it took until 10 years after the development of the Atom bomb for scientists to be able to grab accurate readings?
These Mauna Loa readings were done by a rookie with no knowledge whatsoever of climate science who you believe instantly managed to achieve what his illustrious forefathers had failed (you believe) to do in 120 years of trying.
Really? You don’t think that is curious? Yuu dont think it is curious this long and illustrious history is even mentioned by the IPCC and in fact is furiously rebutted by its acolytes?
What is even worse is that you implicitly believe in the instrumental records taken at the same time, many by untrained observers, using equipment inaccurate up to 1.5degrees F and employing widely varying methodolgies that could add another 1 degree F to that level of inacurracy.
You also believe that by adding these individually dubious pieces of data together you end up with a global meaurement accurate to hundredths of a deghree that you regularly use in debates with Max to confirm your unquestioning belief that these records are meaningful.
These instrumental temperature readings were single observations that can not be relied upon, yet you believe them whole heartedly because it suits you to do so. In contrast CO2 readings were taken in a series so the most obvious outliers can be disdcard. So historic co2 measurements are much more robust statistically than instrumental records.
Do you not see how thoroughly inconsistent you are being?
Tonyb
TonyB,
You may not agree that all the 19th century CO2 measurements are correct. But who would? But you’ve also said that Beck’s conclusions are “essentially correct”.
For those who aren’t familiar with Beck’s “work”, for want of a better word: his notion was that CO2 levels in the 19th century were higher than they are now.
So its “essentially correct” to say that you are a AGW denier with the loopiest of opinions! I’m surely “essentially correct” in saying that there isn’t much point in taking the discussion further if you believe that there is no evidence at all that CO2 levels have been increased by the burning of fossil fuels. Am I “essentially correct” in thinking that was what Beck was driving at?
Peter 2898
You said;
“For those who aren’t familiar with Beck’s “work”, for want of a better word: his notion was that CO2 levels in the 19th century were higher than they are now.”
No, you are ‘essentially’ wrong in virtually everything you say. It is clear that you haven’t bothered to read my article and the hundreds of comments and links, let alone read any of Becks work, which I also linked to but was not the purpose of the article.
Your extreme and unshakeable prejudices are showing.
His point was that there are many readings and that many are more variable than modern records suppose. He researched the outliers and excluded them and concluded that a proportion (not all) of the older readings were fairly similar to those of today. Essentially the underlying figure was around 330-350ppm with some slightly higher spikes that matched warm periods.
You are misrepresenting his work and misrepresenting me. This could be avoided if you actually bothered to read things instead of doing your three monkeys impersonation.
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=three+monkeys+see+no+evil&rlz=1R2HPEA_enGB363&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=3RUKTc_WOZOBhQevyKyEDw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CC4QsAQwAQ
As I remarked in the article-as did someareboojums- Callendar was selective in the readings he used. Unlike someareboojums I bothered to buy and read Callendars archives and know the reasons-basically he wanted to be able to confirm his hypothesis and needed readings at the lower, rather than higher end of the scale.
His exclusion of perfectly respectable higher readings, whilst accepting less well documented lower readings illustrates that when people want to believe something all scientific methods go out of the window.
I also bothered to contact glaciologists and know that there are some reservations as to what the ice core readings show, fractionation being amongst the various problems.
If you also bother to read the thread you will see very few people disagree that burning coal has had some efect on measurements, but the extent -and its relationship to natural variability-let alone its overall effects- needs exploring.
You are once again displaying your deeply held beliefs, this time that CO2 measurements-which you don’t want to believe- are less accurate than global temperatures-which you do want to believe.
The obvious point, which you have not addressed, is why you are so illogical in believing implicitly in the demonstrably unreliable single observations of temperature, but refuse to accept the series of Co2 readings made at the same time?
Perhaps you would deal with this whilst answering my original question, which was why such an extensive and well documented data base such as Co2 should be air brushed from history?
Its a perfectly reasonable question, and if you think that it should be because hundreds of leading scientists of the day employing the latest technology were all wrong, hopefully you can see the irony in its parallels to modern day climate science.
So a two parter Peter, before you move on to the other questions, having failed to date to give any sort of reply other than fling ad homs.
tonyb
PeterM I do not for one moment believe that the Mauna Loa readings represent the average CO2 concentration of the earth’s atmosphere. Why, because if you look at the method they use, it is not a direct measure, but rather a sample of air that is dried and then put through a spectroscope of a special design and the results subject to various calculations to get their answer. Each of these machines has to be hand calibrated and its results measured against its own calibrated control sample. Now I would be far happier if, one, we were sampling in at least 25 to 30 locations around the world, and two, that we were doing direct measurements at these locations to corroborate the figures. We would then have greater confidence. As it is there are too many questions un answered.
Now on WUWT some time ago was the first of the data from the satellite that was to measure CO2 emitters. I believe that someone leaked the data, as I have not seen hide nor hair of it since. At the time I recall the results showed the biggest CO2 emitters to be the tropical rain forests, a result the AGW crowd definitely didn’t want to see. But of course anyone that applies just a tiny touch of brain power knows that even though we continuously talk about man’s CO2 emissions, seldom does anyone put them into context with the overall emissions from the Biosphere. And the trouble with this much touted satellite is that it cannot tell the difference between manmade emissions and natural emissions. I guess that CRU will come up with a back of the fag packet algorithm and apply it to show that the US and Europe are the worst.
Perhaps Tonyb knows what happened to the satellite data?
Also PeterM Can you answer for me how the Dinosaurs were able to grow so large?