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.
Scientist says Arctic getting colder
Published: April 23, 2010
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/04/23/Scientist-says-Arctic-getting-colder/UPI-94431272034113/#comment
So where has that 0.5 degC figure come from? You sure that your higher beings wouldn’t think even that estimate to be too arrogant?
Its actually a lot more than that as you well know. You may be right and that not enough will be done in the next ten years but the longer the problem is left the harder it will be to fix.
Pete,
The Arctic ice is “normal”! How could this be??????
Jimmie Hansen and Al Gore told us that the Arctic would be ice free by now and its growing!
Horrors!
We’ll all be frozen to death under mountains of ice!
Are you certain that Al Gore and Jimmie Hansen, (the dedicated guardians of the planet’s well being) weren’t looking at pornography instead of doing scientific research?
Personally Pete I believe that the data collection nerds at the NSIDC are being paid off by the evil, corporate, vested interests within the oil and coal industry to throw the game against the Church of Global Warming………what do you think?
PeterM
You ask (352):
Actually, it comes from the “consensus of your 2500 higher beings” at IPCC.
Taking the mid-point from the projection by these “higher beings” for “scenario B2” (the only scenario that passes the “reality test” – see 343), we have their “ouija board estimate” of 1.8C above 1980-1999 average, or 1.5C above 2009 actual.
This translates to a decadal warming rate of 0.116C from now until 2100.
So according to your “higher beings”, we should reach 0.5C above today in 43 years (by 2053 rather than 2060, so I was off by 7 years – sorry).
The rest of the proposal still stands.
Any comment on this “proposed experiment” (I believe it falls into the category of “no regrets” approach)?
I think it makes more sense than the experiment you proposed in 339, which would essentially cripple the world economy based on a “hunch” from your “higher beings” and their computer oracles, which may very well turn out to be wrong.
Max
PeterM
Sorry.
There is an arithmetic error in my latest post.
The warming rate to 2100 as projected by IPCC is 0.163C per decade (and not 0.1163C, as I indicated).
This means we would theoretically reach a warming of 0.5C above today by year 2040 (not 2053).
Still gives us plenty of time to see if the IPCC wizards really got it right or not before acting.
Max
Max
PeterM:
Oh dear, it seems you couldn’t answer my #346. Hmm. Well, here’s another question for you. This is easier.
You say here “What happens in all countries is equally important”. True – provided of course that relative country sizes are taken into account.
I set out a consequence of that truth at #341 (above): as the developing economies are emitting more and more GHGs than the developed West and have no intention of changing that and as Western countries, even when they have an opportunity to impede that, fail to do so (see this, especially my #15) and anyway themselves show little sign of reducing their emissions, overall emissions are set to increase for many years to come – whatever Western governments, pundits and institutions (and Peter Martin) may say.
That doesn’t worry me because I don’t think the dangerous AGW hypothesis is valid. As you, in contrast, are sure that increased GHG emissions will cause dangerous, even catastrophic, climate change, you must believe that mankind faces disaster.
Do you?
Anyone seen this article in the Telegraph, about dinosaurs made extinct by climate change?
The last paragraph is interesting:
“The drop in temperature is thought to have occurred because high levels of CO2 were in the atmosphere which caused global temperatures to rise and polar ice to melt – a phenomenon currently predicted for Earth.”
Now my impression is that the Earth lacked major ice caps during the Cretaceous; someone else on WUWT also picked up on this. I could be mistaken, though. And weren’t there consistently very high levels of atmospheric CO2 throughout the Mesozoic? Just wondering why there would be high CO2 levels for millions of years without a massive die-off, and then a sudden extinction event out of the blue; seems odd. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about palaeontology than me could comment?
Alex,
Sounds like a bit of “creative” thinking to me…..
maybe something to secure a research grant?WTF is there a photo of a fossil Ammonite anyway; they are everywhere are they not?
Robin,
An answer to your 346#? You must have missed my #347. Any idiot can just keep on repeating that I haven’t answered your question. You’ve asked for unambiguous evidence and I’ve told you how we need to start a long term series of experiments to obtain it.
If you have any suggestions which will provide an answer in a shorter time scale, lets hear them!
Max,
I don’t know why you are bothering to apologise for your latest error.
Your posts are riddled with them. What makes #355 any different?
PeterM:
That (your #360) is not an answer. My question was this: show me an example of my “arguing that normal scientific procedures shouldn’t be thoroughly followed”. I have said time after time that normal scientific procedures are the sine qua non of scientific practice and have never even suggested otherwise. As usual, you’re talking nonsense.
PeterM:
Now answer my #357. Thanks.
Brute (your #353):
For what it’s worth, both Antarctic and Arctic sea ice are on the 1979 – 2000 average.
Robin,
So, on the one hand you are saying “you want unequivocal empirical based evidence that …etc etc”, but on the other, there is “no need for your experiment”. The very experiment that is designed to obtain it?
Do you want the evidence or don’t you?
Presumably if you have decided that the experiment I’ve suggested is unnecessary you’ve thought of a better one. Congratulations! No need to be modest now – we’d all love to hear it!
Its a pity the Right wing view on Climate change isn’t given more of an airing in the UK election. I expect that this will happen later this year when we have an election in Australia.
This, basically, is the core of the problem for those with that variety of political view:
“AGW poses a direct threat to some forms of libertarianism and right-wing capitalism. I think that this may have played a strong role in my personal AGW skepticism, and perhaps in other libertarians. As I discussed in a previous blog post, values can determine whether someone considers themselves a libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. One important value of libertarianism is the desire for smaller government. This rubs up against the problem of AGW. If the problem of AGW is real, and if we have any hope of solving it, we would most likely require development of gross regulations from governments.”
“Rational judgement of scientific evidence is only one of these influences on our beliefs. In fact, for the case of AGW, I’d even argue that the scientific evidence plays an even smaller part in someone’s acceptance. The more complex a topic is, the harder it is to rationally judge the scientific evidence, therefore we use other methods to subconsciously decide what to believe.”
These words are are actually written by a right wing libertarian. I did come to the same conclusion some time ago, but its nice to see confirmation from someone who has successfully struggled through to a more rational position.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/14/jonathan-abrams-on-climate-change.aspx
PeterM (your #363):
As I have said many times, an unverified hypothesis continues to be just that until empirical evidence is produced that verifies it. To take a current and prominent example, consider the Higgs boson. It is hypothesised that it exists – an existence that would be critical to scientists’ understanding of the nature of matter. But it’s extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate that it does exist and, in an attempt to do that, scientists have, at vast expense, designed and built the Large Hadron Collider at Geneva. But, until that identifies the particle (if indeed it ever does), the hypothesis continues to be no more than an interesting but unverified hypothesis.
You seem to be arguing that mankind must wait (what was it?) 500 years to verify the dangerous AGW hypothesis. OK, if you insist. But, as I pointed out, there’s no need for your experiment because mankind is actually carrying out the real life “experiment” of emitting more and more GHG into the atmosphere. Eventually that will either verify or not the validity of the hypothesis. So far, results suggest it is not valid.
But whether we adopt your approach (and it would be interesting to know how you would go about it) or simply observe what actually happens as GHGs continue to be emitted, we will have to wait a long time for a result. In the meantime, the hypothesis will continue to be no more than an interesting but unverified hypothesis – precisely as I keep saying.
The only solution for you is to produce some evidence that exists now. But you cannot. And that, I believe, is because there is none.
PeterM:
Now answer my #357. Thanks.
Bob, re your #359, yes it ticks all the right boxes, doesn’t it. Major ecological catastrophe… CO2 the main driver… extreme heat/extreme cold (nicely hedged outcome)… grim lesson for humanity if we don’t mend our ways… The ancient Egyptians, the Roman Empire, the Mayans and now the dinosaurs, all done in by climate change! Is there any doubt that we will be next? :o)
PeterM
The Jonathan Abrams blog article you cited (364) allegedly tells the story “Why I am no longer a skeptic on climate change”.
Once you read the article, it is easy to see that the author never was a “skeptic on climate change”.
Read the blogger comments: they see through Abrams’ tale pretty clearly.
He is really trying a very sneaky approach of discrediting “climate skeptics” by first putting it into the first person (before I saw the light, I was one of those), and then pointing out how skeptics are motivated by something other than the science (politics, consumerism, etc.).
This is a cheap shot, and many of the blogger comments have spotted it and pointed it out.
Those who are rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise in the scientific sense (which Abrams never really was, despite his nice story), usually remain so unless and until empirical data can be shown to support this premise.
These data have not yet been shown, so the true “rational skeptics” remain skeptical. In fact, the “scientific case” for dangerous AGW is unraveling before our eyes
As one blogger put it:
I am afraid that Abrams is a phony. Check the many “green industries” and “events” Abrams is profiting from. “No longer a skeptic?” What a farce!
Max
” And that, I believe, is because…” Ah yes its all down to beliefs in the end. Mine’s science. What’s yours?
Did you read the link to the Jonathan Abrams article? Do you recognise some of yourself in there?
There is little point getting into any detailed scientific discussion with either you or Max on the AGW issue. Max pretends to understand. You don’t even bother to do that. Your line of defence are a few weasel words of phoney logic. How sad is it to “believe” that they are any sort of protection at all?
“The sorts of beliefs that AGW would trouble include political/economic and religious beliefs. I won’t judge these core beliefs that people have, but they are key to understanding why AGW is doubted. Just as a religious world view could cause someone to not accept evolution, it too can make them less likely to accept AGW. One of these religious views holds that nature exists for humanity’s benefit, and therefore, is at our whim and cannot pose danger to us.”
Yes, the last paragraph could have been mine but Jonathan Abrams perhaps puts it better.
PeterM
To my correction of an arithmetic error, you wrote:
Please point out which posts are “riddled with” errors, and specifically what these errors are in your personal estimation.
Otherwise drop such stupid remarks. They just make you look like a dickhead (your term).
Max
Alex Cull (358)
I’m sure that Alvarez (father and son) would roll over laughing at the silly suggestion that “global warming from CO2 followed miraculously by global cooling” caused the extinction of the dinosaurs!
Unfortunately, Luis Alvarez (the father), who received a REAL Nobel Prize (Physics), died in 1988.
The father/son team showed that the K-T boundary extinction occurred at the same time as a marked increase in irridium in layers found in several spots around the Earth. The impact theory was later corroborated by the discovery of a giant crater off the shore of Mexico.
Do the dodos who are claiming extinction from “CO2-caused warming followed by cooling” have any explanation for the irridium, or the giant crater?
Do they suppose the dinosaurs were driving too many SUVs to cause this problem?
Such rubbish! It is truly amazing what junk can get published these days, especially if it can somehow be linked to AGW.
Max
PeterM
You have opined (to Robin):
So far, Peter, you have danced around any scientific discussion, preferring to dwell on perceived political philosophies, etc. rather than discuss the science.
To requests from both Robin and myself for empirical data based on physical observations to support your “dangerous AGW premise”, you have waffled and sidetracked, rather than “getting into any detailed scientific discussion”.
Bring the science, Peter. We are both eagerly awaiting something specific from you, rather than just empty blah-blah.
Max
Max,
You quote your anonymous blogger “As I’m sure you know, in science the onus is on the supporter of the hypothesis to prove it correct. And no one has yet scientifically proven the case for AGW. So, Jonathan, the world is waiting. Please present your proof.”
Possibly, because I’ve educated both you and Robin that science isn’t about proof, you haven’t made the same mistake as your anonymous blogger.
But, what you both are asking for, if it isn’t proof, is so close as to be indistinguishable. You are happy to set the bar so high as to make it unreachable but you are only fooling yourselves.
You seem to be familiar with Jonathan Abrams, but I only stumbled on him earlier today, just by accident when I was looking for something else. You must have thought that I wouldn’t have been interested in him otherwise you would certainly have shared the information in the spirit of true scientific cooperation! :-)
PeterM:
I think your
was addressed to Alex, not (as Max suggests) to me. But, whether it was or not, please read carefully and respond to my #365. Just to remind you, it concluded with the observation
Max says that we are “eagerly awaiting something specific from you”. I suppose I have to sympathise with your difficulty: as there is no such evidence you have a simple choice. Either you have to accept that truth (the honourable and logical position) or you have to come up with more “empty blah-blah”. Sadly (for you) you choose the latter. That, Peter, is not how science works.
Then please answer my #357. Thanks.
PeterM
Jonathan Abrams has written what is called a “red herring”. Many bloggers spotted this right away. I’m surprised you apparently fell for it.
His blog article on “Why I am no longer a skeptic on climate change” is as absurd as if I had written: “I used to be a true believer in the dangerous AGW premise, but now am a rational skeptic”, and then followed that up with my thoughts on why DAGW believers really believe in this doomsday cult for religious reasons (similar to “intelligent design” or “creationism” believers), or how some are secretly hoping for a communistic world government that will bring evil capitalistic corporations (especially those in the USA) to their knees, etc.
That would be just as absurd as Abrams’ article.
Now to the matter of “empirical data as scientific evidence” versus “proof”.
Peter, I am not “setting the bar” for evidence to support your dangerous AGW theory “high” at all. I am just asking you for empirical data, based on actual physical observations, to support your premise.
Bring the “empirical data”, Peter, and we’ll see if it is real or simply imagined.
So far you have brought no empirical data to support your premise.
Max