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.
Hey guys, (in general),
After reviewing the following article, I think your Queasy Queenslander Friend may, astonishingly, be right! ….. Yep ….. “The End of the World” is verily nigh; and I now grovel:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fish-threatened-by-global-warming-to-be-moved-north-2192001.html
I should smack myself, or go and kick my dogs! As an engineer, always trying to be rational, I’ve mistakenly wondered about such stuff, but the overwhelmingly powerful eco-science described in that link must veritably be way-way beyond my training and previous understanding.
For instance, in my previously wobbly doubting, I must be lacking in comprehension of the experience of introduction of European Carp into much warmer Oz rivers. I don’t know about the other Oz states, but I heard on the grapevine that here in Victoria, that the species is declared a serious pest because it greatly increases turbidity by bottom feeding and bank erosion, and is in strong competition with native species, thus causing their decline. (and fishermen even commit a crime if they return captured carp to the water)
From my visual observation along my close-by Plenty River, at its many deep and rather still pools, on hot afternoons, (typically in summer, but not yet this year), there is commonly an impressive congregation of BIG carp, where they gently scull motionless near the surface. I think that the eco-scientists assert that they do this because they are heat and oxygen stressed. Yet, as a nasty suspicious engineer, I previously tended to think that they are actually enjoying the surface warmth, or otherwise why don’t they just sink to the cooler more oxygen rich layers in the deep pools? (which are top-heated-laminated by the sun). Oh and BTW they very well survived that “record breaking” long heat-wave in 2009.
Yehbut, as I say, me no have training in eco-science!
Brute and PeterM
So did the Swiss, seven centuries ago (in 1291), when the first few cantons threw out their Habsburg rulers. (Unlike the American Revolution, this revolution took another 500 years in all, until all parts of Switzerland were free from their “aristocratic” rulers).
But I think the problem is that all too often we forget about all this, and are all too eager to accept the voice of authority.
The most insidious example of this is when elected government officials decide that they know better what is good for their electorate than their constituents themselves do.
The UK has gone through an exceptionally egregious example of this phenomenon recently with the whole campaign to educate (i.e. brainwash) the (obviously ignorant) populace on the dangers of AGW.
But, seen from here, it appears that the voting public has begun to see the light there, as they definitely have in the USA.
Is this the same case in Australia?
Is the public there slowly getting wise, Peter?
Max
PeterM
Re your 3270 the real problem here is that the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” construct is fairly meaningless for several reasons, of which I will mention just a few (TonyB has gone into more detail on this):
– it does not adequately adjust for the obvious upward temperature distortion resulting from urbanization and land use changes
– it does not adjust for the obvious errors resulting from the elimination of a great number of weather stations from the record, many of which were located in Arctic and sub-arctic regions of the former USSR
– it relies on interpolation and other techniques to attempt to arrive at temperatures for a great many regions where there is no actual temperature record
– it relies on a totally worthless sea surface temperature record prior to satellite observations, with serious reservations even after these were introduced
– it relies on land weather stations many of which are poorly sited, next to AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc., all of which introduce a spurious warming distortion
– it is being adjusted, manipulated and corrected “ex post facto” in a non-transparent manner by exactly the same individuals who are trying to “sell” us the concept of dangerous human-caused global warming.
[Need I say more?]
So when I read that 2010 was an unusually warm year globally at the same time as I have read over the year of unusually cold local weather all over the globe, I think to myself that the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” record is fairly worthless and should not be taken too seriously.
Fortunately, we do have a satellite record, which shows a much slower average rate of warming than the surface record (even though GH theory tells us that the troposphere should warm more rapidly than the surface).
So, taking this all into account, I have concluded that we have undoubtedly seen some warming (most likely much less than the surface record shows) with a part of this warming possibly resulting from human factors and the majority resulting from natural variability (i.e. natural forcing).
Max
PeterM
No to quibble about minor details (your 3231), but Simon Holgate was pretty clear in his statement that the 20th century (1904-2003, by his definition) showed an average of around 1.7 mm/year rise in sea level, with the first half slightly higher than the second half.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
Those are the recorded facts according to Simon Holgate, Peter, like them or not.
Max
Max,
It looks like Simon Holgate is being somewhat contradictory. In this paper, pub (Sept 2007)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5846/1866.2.full#related-content
he writes: “The mean rate of sea-level rise is 0.86 mm/year based on the first half of the record and 1.98 mm/year based on the second half of the record. The mean rate for the 1887 to 1994 period based on the sea-level reconstruction is 1.49 mm/year. ”
This paper was written subsequently to your reference so maybe, in the meantime, he’d revised his position?
…………………
I think we are speaking at cross purposes about ‘aristocrats’. We don’t have them in Australia either – at least not in the same sense as they exist in the UK. There are still those who hold large swaths of land though. and a study of the family history of these people often shows it to have been obtained in somewhat dubious circumstances. But that’s another story.
Brute doesn’t mean the real aristocracy. He’s deliberately confusing them with those who others may describe as the “intelligentsia”. The well educated section of society that middle-America has always had a particular problem with. The term “elite” is fine when applied to US sportsmen. There’s no problem with an athlete being able to run faster than anyone else.
However, it’s different if that term is applied to those of above average intellectual capabilities. These guys just can’t be trusted. They raise too many awkward questions. This sort of suspicion, of course, exists to some extent in all countries, but the Americans take it much further than most. Our last but one PM actually spoke fluent Mandarin. I think that counted in his favour overall – but I’d say it wouldn’t in America. If, say, the Democrats put up a candidate against Sarah Palin who was known to be a real expert about anything in particular, she’d win hands down.
PeterM
I hardly believe that Simon Holgate “revised his position” (3280).
Changing the historical record “ex post facto” is something that James E. Hansen does routinely and repeatedly to his GISS temperature record and Phil Jones (plus his successor) does regularly to the HadCRUT record, but other folks (serious scientists, that is) do not do this on a routine basis.
After reading the paper you linked, I see that it covers a period starting in 1887 and ending in 1994, and NOT the 20th century record (defined by Holgate as 1904-2003), which was covered in the report I cited.
So Holgate is NOT “being somewhat contradictory” (as you surmised).
The entire 20th century (as defined by Holgate) showed a rise of around 1.7 mm/year, with the first half showing a slightly higher rate (2.0 mm/year) than the second half (1.4 mm/year).
These are the recorded facts, Peter, like ’em or not!
Max
PS You have to read the “fine print” in these reports, Peter, rather than jumping to erroneous conclusions.
PeterM
Here is another study on 20th century sea levels by Wenzel and Schröter of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JC005630.shtml
The authors base their data on long-term tide gauge records using a “neural network technique that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship”.
The time period is slightly different than that of Holgate and the overall rate of rise is slightly lower. The authors “do not find significant acceleration” over the time period studied (Holgate had actually reported a slight deceleration):
This all tells us simply that there has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise resulting from late 20th century AGW, contrary to the dubious claims made by IPCC in AR4 (by changing the scope and method of measurement between one time period and another to claim acceleration between the two time periods).
It also tells us that the IPCC prediction of 59 cm rise by 2100 is most likely “nonsense” (as Mörner has stated) and that the even higher projections of several meters by Hansen and Gore are even more absurd “nonsense”.
Max
There has been quite a flap resulting from a lecture to be given by Dr. Kevin (“travesty”) Trenberth to the American Meteorological Society, which has been submitted as a pre-print to the AMS.
ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf
Judith Curry has commented on this on her site
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#comment-32846
Curry concluded
In this speech Trenberth makes the strange and illogical suggestion that the rules of scientific inquiry be “reversed” for the specific case of climate science:
This suggestion is, of course, total nonsense, as any true scientist would clearly concede.
Then Trenberth makes the silly mistake of referring to those who do not share his personal opinions on AGW as “deniers”, using the term six times in his lecture.
To me this silly speech seems like a self-inflicted “shot in the foot” for the so-called “mainstream view”.
Willis Eschenbach has gone through the text of Trenberth’s proposed lecture.
Here are his comments.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/willis_trenberth_wuwt_essay.pdf
These are well worth reading.
Max
Max,
Holgate’s results just don’t seem to be consistent at all. If you think I’m wrong, try drawing a graph which reconciles the figures he’s claimed in the two separate papers.
I’d be interested to see it.
Peter 3284
Sorry Peter but you are barking up completely the wrong tree.
What Holgate et al were doing in the paper you cited (#3280)-were critiquing Rahmstorfs paper ‘A semi empirical approach to sea level rises’.
Simon was not providing new information that differed to his own paper a few months earlier, but criticising the methods used, and the hindcasting and statistical techniques of Rahmstorf.
Just for total clarity, as I am not in the habit of repeating the content of private emails (which is why so many people send me so many interesting things) this is what Simon Holgate said to me in December 2010- already in the public domain-in regards to the 2007 paper Max and I have cited;
“The fact that tide gauge records appear to show that the rate of sea level rise was less in the second half of the 20th century than the first half (his own 2007 paper) doesn’t prove or disprove anything, in my view. The difference in rate is statistically insignificant and the number of tide gauges is small. “
Both authors used rather different criteria in their respective papers and set out to do rather different things. It was as a result of Holgates work that others started looking harder at Rahmstorfs paper (that you inadvertently cited in your link to Holgate).
Rahmstorf is a rather excitable person who seems to want to believe the sea levels are rising dramatically and tried to prove it-Holgate was pointing out the methodology was flawed, as he had demonstrated that sea levels were not rising quickly. They are arguing from different ends of the spectrum so could be considered rivals.
Rahmstorf is one of Real Climates contributors (which explains his excitability), a few months prior to the paper you cited (within the link to Holgate) he had authored a paper (together with James Hansen) in which a number of mistakes were made in their eagerness to try to exaggerate sea level rise. This is set out here.
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/my-experience-with-rahmstorfs-non-linear-trend-line/
“Since the publication of Rahmstorf et al 2007, a highly influential comparison of models to observations, David Stockwell has made a concerted effort to figure out how Rahmstorf smoothing worked. I now have a copy of the program and have worked through the linear algebra. It turns out that Rahmstorf has pulled an elaborate practical joke on the Community, as I’ll show below. It must have taken all of Rahmstorf’s will-power to have kept the joke to himself for so long and the punch-line (see below) is worth savouring.”
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/03/the-secret-of-the-rahmstorf-non-linear-trend/
Stockwells work, cited above, is carried in the link here,where Rahmstorf himself admitted his methods were incorrect.
As Stockwell said; “Just for clarity, the influential Rahmstorf 2007 paper that is contradicted by published evidence here, was irrevocably discredited by his own admission here, that apparent increased climate sensitivity was only due to ‘weather’.
Rahmstorf: “In hindsight, the averaging period of 11 years that we used in the 2007 Science paper was too short to determine a robust climate trend. The 2-sigma error of an 11-year trend is about +/- 0.2 ºC, i.e. as large as the trend itself. Therefore, an 11-year trend is still strongly affected by interannual variability (i.e. weather).”
http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-2007-discredited/
Guessing sea level change is a very imprecise science as I have tried to tell you numerous times, as we have so little real historical data. The current rate of rise from observations, not modelling, is smaller than the 3mm per year claimed and has slowed anyway over the last decade (a great deal of land that have historic tide gauges used in IPCC AR4 is either rising or falling so the sea level content is often the smallest factor in any change)
Last November I cited the Moberg graph which illustrates that levels are still substantially below that of the MWP and Roman Optimum. Here it is again.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1240
Figure 1. Global sea level from 200 A.D. to 2000, as reconstructed from proxy records of sea level by Moberg et al. 2005. The thick black line is reconstructed sea level using tide gauges (Jevrejeva, 2006). The lightest gray shading shows the 5 – 95% uncertainty in the estimates, and the medium gray shading denotes the one standard deviation error estimate. The highest global sea level of the past 110,000 years likely occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1100 – 1200 A.D., when warm conditions similar to today’s climate caused the sea level to rise 5 – 8″ (12 – 21 cm) higher than present. Image credit: Grinsted, A., J.C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2009, “Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD”, Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2, 06 January 2009.” ENDS
All in all temperatures and sea levels are doing very little when looked at in a historic context rather than through the prism of a few decades. To reach the levels of a 1 metre rise by the end of the century -suggested by the more credulous such as Rahmstorf and Hansen – the rate of rise would have to increase immediately by some 500% and remain at that level until the end of the century. Morners estimate of 10cm plus or minus 10cm seems much nearer the mark .
tonyb
Re my 3283, here is the link to Trenberth’s lecture to be presented at the AMS meeting tomorrow:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper180230.html
Note that he has included the “groaner” below – let’s see if he really says this when he gives his talk:
“Wrong question”?
Hmmm…
Max
The present scientific consensus position on sea level rise is that it has risen by about 20cm during the course of the 20th century.
The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by a further amount of between 19cm and 59cm by the end of this century – providing that no significant non-linear ice melts are observed on either the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.
There is some evidence that sea-level rises are accelerating but as yet this is not conclusive.
I would say that a 59cm rise by the end of the century would be serious but not catastrophic. However, as you climate change deniers never tire of telling us the world isn’t going to come to a cataclysmic end any time soon. The end of the century seems a long way off and certainly we’ll all be dead by then, so one argument would be “who cares, anyway?”
But , assuming that you do care, you should also care about the end of the 22nd century and beyond too which is, IMHO, the danger period.
TonyB
Thanks for your very interesting 3285 with links.
You quoted Simon Holgate:
This is undoubtedly true (see graph in 3226).
The observed linear deceleration in rate of sea level rise over the 20th century was only around 0.1 mm/year per decade (slightly less than 1 mm/year over the entire century). This certainly is “statistically insignificant”, especially in view of the large multi-decadal swings in the rate of change, i.e. from -1 to +5 mm/year in the decadal averages!
However, I suspect that if there had been the same “statistically insignificant” acceleration in the observed rate of sea level rise, that some would have seen this as evidence of potentially catastrophic AGW.
But maybe I am being too skeptical here.
Max
PeterM
TonyB has summarized the sea level issue pretty comprehensively, clearing up the confusion on the numbers cited by Simon Holgate in his 2007 report and in his subsequent critique of Rahmstorf’s paper ‘A semi empirical approach to sea level rises’.
The graph you posted shows 3-year average absolute sea level values in cm (compared to 1900) rather than decadal rate of sea level change in mm/year as I posted based on the same tide gauge data. It shows that sea level has risen over the 20th century. Duh!
This was actually part of the clever IPCC “chartmanship” (showing what appears to be an “acceleration” in rate of rise where there is none in actual fact).
Your graph confirms that SL has changed by around 1.7 mm/year over the 20th century, with no statistically significant acceleration or deceleration in the rate of rise (as Holgate has confirmed to TonyB and in his 2007 study).
On this basis, a rise of 59 cm over the 21st century (IPCC upper limit of range) sounds exaggerated and the even higher “disaster” predictions of Gore/Hansen sound downright ridiculous.
The IPCC lower limit prediction of 18 cm over the 21st century sounds more reasonable (i.e. not much different from 20th century).
I’d stick with Morner on this one – anything over around 20 cm rise is probably “nonsense” (provided one stays with the same method and scope of measurement as has been used historically).
I think we have pretty much concluded the discussion of sea level changes over the 20th century. The chart attached to 3226 gives more detail plus estimates of 1993-2003 change from several sources for comparison.
Max
PeterM
Regarding SL rise you opine that “the end of the 22nd century and beyond” is, in your opinion “the danger period”
Let’s do a quick reality check on that.
20th century rise was 17 cm (no large-scale inundations resulted).
21st century rise is estimated by IPCC to lie somewhere between 18 and 59 cm (with the upper estimate highly unlikely and anything over 20 cm described by one SL expert as “nonsense”).
We have no notion if this is realistic, of course, since we have no “crystal balls” that prophesy the future (only computer models, which have been shown to be notoriously unreliable for even short-term climate projections).
But let’s say the 21st century SL rise is really halfway between IPCC’s upper and lower estimate (or 38 cm). Raise a few dikes (as has been done throughout history) and the problem is gone.
It is even more absurd to think that anyone can “predict” what will happen to SL over the next century (the 22nd). But let’s say it rises by another 38 cm. Raise a few dikes and move a few folks and the problem is again gone.
So I do not see “the end of the 22nd century” as “the danger period” at all. It’s more-or-less business as usual.
Max
TonyB is a crank who doesn’t even accept that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel don’t have any affect on CO2 concentrations. So what he is able to ‘clear up’, as you put it, would seem to be rather limited.
The problem with your argument is your unstated assumption that the sea levels will be somehow become fixed at the end of the 21st century. They won’t.
The danger is that a increasingly warmer climate will lead to ever increasing sea levels over the course of the next few centuries which will be be unstoppable unless CO2 levels are brought under some sort of control.
Max 3286
Several weeks ago I contacted Trenberth to comment on his forthcoming speech, with particular reference to his usage of the term ‘deniers.’
This is a highly offensive word when used in the provocative way intended, and one I take particular exception to as my father in law was one of the first people to enter a concentration camp and his experiences there affected him all his life.
It is not only offensive but childish to put sceptics in the same category as holocaust deniers.
I couched these concerns in polite terms to Trenberth and also pointed out a number of other matters concerning the historical temperature record.
I received a reasonably courteous reply from him, but from the context it was quite evident he had received a lot of offensive comments following the leaking of his speech which had exasperated him.
I don’t think he realised the irony that if you dish out the insults (deniers/flat earthers) you should expect to teceive them back, but this sort of deliberate provocation-from either side -does not help the debate.
Perhaps Peter would do us the courtesy of not using the phrase?
Tonyb
Peter 3291
“TonyB is a crank who doesn’t even accept that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel don’t have any affect on CO2 concentrations. So what he is able to ‘clear up’, as you put it, would seem to be rather limited.”
When have I ever said that?
What I have consistently said is that I think the historic Co2 records warrant a proper audit as they were produced by many good scientists who knew exactly what they were doing. Until they are audited we don’t know if they have any validity. This viewpoint hasnt been plucked out of the air but was the result of careful research which irrefutably demonstrates that taking Co2 readings was commonplace and the ACCEPTED level by Scientists in the 19th Century was around 400ppm. I can’t change history or erase these records.
Do engage with the science Peter instead of hurling insults at people you disagree with. It would do you a lot of good to be more sceptical instead of blindly accepting everything you are told.
If you remember, you have never been able to give me answers to the basic questions I asked you.
Let’s start again with your explaining to me why you believe Sea surface temperatures are a highly accurate record back to 1860 as they are FAR more suspect than the co2 records.
SST’s were often taken by fishermen throwing buckets over the side of the ship to varying depths and eventually getting round to taking the temperature using third rate thermometers that had often been hung on a hook in the sun.
By contrast Co2 measurements were mostly taken by proper scientists using proper equipment under monitored conditions.
Why do you call ME a crank for asking that CO2 records be audited but you don’t think that YOU are a crank for blindly believing in self evidently nonsensical SST’s? You are being highly illogical.
Explanation please Peter. Why are Co2 records so wrong but SST’s so correct?
Tonyb
PeterM
You wrote (3291)
Huh? Get serious, Peter. That’s a silly and opinionated statement. Tony knows much more about sea levels than either you or I. As far as the first part goes, what are you really trying to say here? It sounds confused to me.
No, Peter. My “unstated assumption” IS NOT “that the sea levels will be somehow become fixed at the end of the 21st century”. It is my opinion that they will most likely continue to rise at somewhere around the same historic rate as we have seen since the mid 19th century. I even showed that if this rate were more than doubled, there would be no disaster.
That is pure supposition, Peter. No one knows what will happen to our climate “over the course of the next few centuries” (models can’t even predict what will happen in the next year or decade, as the recent failed forecasts have shown). Sea level changes “will be be unstoppable” in any case (no matter what we do to CO2 levels). To think otherwise is incredibly naive. So we’d better adapt to whatever changes actually occur IF and WHEN they DO occur.
Max
TonyB
Your points to PeterM on the use of the word “denier” for anyone who is rationally skeptical of the so-called “mainstream” party line on AGW are well taken. The implied comparison with “holocaust deniers” is not only absurd but also insulting to many (in particular those who have had a family experience under the Nazi regime).
Trenberth has shot himself in the foot by using this term even if he is too naive or full of himself to realize it.
But to me the silliest thing about the word “denier” is that it implies that a “fact” or “truth” is being denied (i.e. the “mainstream dangerous AGW premise” that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment).
While it is theoretically possible to deny a “falsehood”, no one ever speaks of a “cold fusion denier”, a “phlogiston denier” or a “invasion by extraterrestrial aliens denier”.
So “denier” is reserved for those fools(?) who “deny” a “fact”.
Yet the “dangerous AGW” has not been scientifically validated based on empirical data derived from actual physical observations and thus remains an “invalidated hypothesis”, rather than a “fact”. Latest observations even tend to falsify the DAGW hypothesis, rather than validate it, so it may even be a “falsified hypothesis” – but, in any case, it is definitely NOT a “fact”.
So the use of “denier” is inappropriate in the logical sense, as well.
It falls into the same stupid category as “flat-earther” .
Max
Max,
Judith Curry likes to make the distinction between deniers, political sceptics and scientific sceptics.
Deniers, to her, are those who for religious reasons reject the science of, not only AGW and Evolution, but scientific estimates of the age of the Earth. She’s particularly scathing of those who claim the Earth to be no older than a few thousand years.
Scientific sceptics are self explanatory. She gives the names of Lindzen and Spencer, but is careful not to include herself.
Political sceptics are those, who according to her, are primarily motivated by Libertarian political beliefs. She seems particularly anxious to rescue them from the denier category. But, why is not OK to question scientific findings if they go against what’s written in the book of Genesis, but it is Ok to question them if they go against what’s written in a book by , say, Hayek? I must say that I don’t follow her line of argument. Maybe someone can explain this to me.
There must be just a handful of climate scientists who understand their subject sufficiently well to be considered to be genuine scientific sceptics. Even then, they, like Spencer and Judith Curry herself, aren’t immune from their own political or religious beliefs.
There are a few genuine cranks around but I’d say most so called “sceptics” are of the political type. You know IPCC = UN = New World Order = International conspiracy by power hungry Socialist and liberal politicians to raise taxation and impose world Communism. I can’t see why the term “deniers” isn’t a fair and valid term for these people. Judith Curry is being somewhat inconsistent in saying otherwise.
PeterM
You wrote:
I have not seen a specific reference by Curry to this distinction, but I can accept that it may exist, possibly even with some overlaps.
Those who are rationally skeptical of the science supporting the “dangerous AGW” premise need not necessarily be climate specialists themselves, such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Craig Loehle and the many others who have been mentioned. This group also includes many who have a scientific or technical background in some other field and an understanding of basic scientific principles. I would put myself and Bob_FJ (for example) in that category, along with a great number of bloggers on many sites (including this one). Individuals like TonyB who have studied climate history would also fall into this category. This group also includes many meteorologists, who see the impact of natural variability on our climate on a day-to-day basis and know the difficulty of forecasting future weather (or climate) with the limited tools we have available. Then there are statisticians, like Steve McIntyre or Carl Wegman, who see errors in the statistical approach taken by some climatologists who are not trained statisticians themselves.
Judith Curry does not classify herself as a skeptic of the “dangerous AGW” premise, although she has expressed concerns regarding the many uncertainties in the IPCC projections, the “group think” among the so-called “mainstream” group of scientists and the dogmatic approach and recent misbehavior of IPCC. These are many of the same concerns expressed by the skeptics, particularly since Climategate.
Curry has opened an interesting thread, in which she asked skeptics to state their case.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/26/skeptics-make-your-best-case/
There are a lot of very good comments and a good discussion on this thread, with Judith Curry herself entering the discussion as well. It is well worth reading.
Curry has also written about a category of “dangerous AGW” skeptics called “skeptical environmentalists”:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/12/agw-skeptical-environmentalists/#more-1908
This includes individuals who are not climate scientists, such as Bjørn Lomborg.
She also mentions “uber-environmentalists”, such as James Lovelock, who at one time recommended putting democracy on hold to solve the climate crisis, predicting:
Interestingly, Lovelock appears more recently to have regained his composure and rationality with this statement of uncertainty about the climate crisis and even the need for skepticism:
In this thread Curry points out the blurring between environmentalism and AGW – the two are not always on the same page.
So from all this it’s clearly not as “black and white” as many might want to think.
And “denier” is a rather silly term for several reasons (as discussed both on Curry’s site as here).
Max
Max,
As often, Judith Curry isn’t being totally consistent:
In this article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/article_view?searchterm=michael%20mann&b_start:int=1
she says
“The word ‘denier’ has some unfortunate connotations also. I use “scientific skeptics” versus “political skeptics.” A scientific skeptic is somebody who’s doing work and looking at the arguments. A political skeptic is somebody who is getting the skepticism from talk radio.”
Fair enough but she omits to mention that the word “denier” is indeed part of her vocabulary.
In http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/20/understanding-conservative-religious-resistance-to-climate-science/
She says:
“The reason for trying to do that is that yes, there is a group of anti-science deniers out there, who distrust science (young earth creationism is usually a sign of someone who distrusts science.)”
So she can see that those YECs , and that isn’t so much a “group” as about 40% of the US population, are fairly called deniers. However, she doesn’t like to use the word in connection with those who make the same same objection for political purposes. That’s curious.
Its not easy to be a bona fide scientific ‘sceptic’. You’d need to be a research worker in the field to qualify.
None of you guys ain’t that! I’d probably add the term ‘crank’ to JC’s list of possibilities, which would make:
1)Religious Denier (JC and PM)
2)Political Sceptic (JC) or Political Denier (PM)
3)Crank
So which would you say you were?
PeterM
Sorry, Peter. As usual, you are dead wrong. This is an “elitist” error in logic.
Anyone with a fair understanding of the basics of science (such as you or I) can analyze the data out there rationally and skeptically and form an opinion on the validity of the hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and represents a serious potential threat for humanity and our environment.
I have not seen any empirical scientific data based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation to support this hypothesis.
Instead, it is derived from model simulations based on theoretical deliberations.
Moreover, the recent cooling (or “lack of warming”) of our planet (atmosphere plus ocean) despite record increase in CO2 tends to falsify this hypothesis (as Roger Pielke and others have pointed out).
It is clear that something else is “driving” our climate, Peter. Met Office calls it “natural variability” (i.e. natural forcing). Is it the sun in combination with clouds? Is it changing ocean currents? Who knows? It just doesn’t look like it is human CO2, as IPCC would have us believe.
Max
ABC Blames Global Warming for Extreme Cold Temperatures and Snow (at least according to 10 “scientists” interviewed)
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/24/abc-blames-global-warming-extreme-cold-temperatures-and-snow
Ouch!
This is beyond stoooopid. It’s absurd. Who were these 10 “scientists”?
Max