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.
Brute,
Would you say all universities are “radical left wing nuthouses”?
Book learnin’ just fills folks ‘eads with strange notions, and never did no-one no good eh? Except for the the Good Book of the Lord! Hallelujah!
Brute
The Berkeley study is being financed by a non-profit organization called Novim.
This group is managed by Executive Director, Michael Ditmore.
The first study financed by Novim had to do with geoengineering, i.e. doing stuff to change our climate.
Here is a write-up in a local Santa Barbara paper:
http://pacbiztimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1081&Itemid=1
The blurb ends with these paragraphs, and the last sentence makes me a bit suspicious:
Let’s see what they come up with. We’ll see soon enough if it’s just a meaningless politically motivated white-wash (like the recent ones on the UEA or IPCC).
Max
PeterM
Brute did not say “all universities”, but it is generally known that UCal at Berkeley does have a very left-wing political science department and administration.
This report says something about the political leanings of many prestigious US universities (including UCB):
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/1898/lackdiversity.html
I’ll have to admit that I would have felt more comfortable if the study had been made at Georgia Tech (where Dr. Curry is located) or the University of Alabama at Huntsville (where Dr. Christy is located).
The city of Berkeley itself has also been referred to as the “Peoples’ Republic of Berkeley” or “berzerkley”, because of its ultra-socialistic city council.
The study being made to investigate and audit the surface temperature record sounds factual enough, and only one of the panel members is an outspoken supporter of the “dangerous AGW” premise.
I hope this does not turn out to be a political white-wash job, such as the ones made for UEA and IPCC recently. At least Dr. Curry is on the panel, which should help in keeping the politics out, but we’ll have to see.
Max
Wait and see about what?
If the outcome isn’t to your liking you’ll just shout “whitewash!”. Just like you always do.
You may as well just get on with it now. No need to wait!
Max,
I’m surprised that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in US Unis is as high as 10:1
Maybe there is a case for some positive discrimination here? Maybe lower entrance requirements for Republicans, or certain quota of Republicans should be admitted each year?
Perhaps Republicans could be “bussed in”. And if there are angry demonstrations from local Democrats you could bring in the National Guard as protection?
It’s like I said, all that book learnin just doesn’t do anyone any good. It just turns real all-American boys into Democrats! How bad is that?
PeterM
“Wait and see” if this will be a completely open, transparent and impartial audit of the temperature record (as stated in the charter) or not, that’s what.
We’ll see soon enough,
If it turns out to be another “white-wash” job without any transparency, this will be easy to detect.
If it glosses over any weaknesses in the existing record, this will also be easy to detect.
I’m actually more optimistic than Brute, since Dr. Curry has put her prestige on the line here, as well.
I’ll admit I would have been happier if Steve McIntyre had also been a member of the audit team, because I know he would have dug relentlessly into the details to see if there are any “worms”. However, there are a couple of experts in statistics on the panel, so that should help.
But, as I wrote, let’s wait and see what comes out of this. I’m perfectly open (and I hope you are, as well).
Max
PeterM
Your 3780 shows me that you have once again confused “cause” and “effect”.
But, hey, that SOP for “dangerous AGW” aficionados, like yourself (just like Al Gore’s misinterpretation of the long-term CO2/temperature record).
Max
Max,
I’m not sure whether there are fewer right wing types at US unis because they are less intelligent and can’t get the quals to get in :-), or because the the teaching at the unis encourages a degree of critical thinking which, in turn, encourages progressive attitudes.
I’m not confusing cause and effect and I haven’t expressed any opinion on it. I think probably a bit of both. Certainly I know from my own experience that my own attitudes were altered in ways that Brute wouldn’t approve of!
Incidentally I think its pretty much the same story here and in Europe too, but probably to a lesser extent.
PeterM
The study I cited on US universities suggested a third alternate (instead of your two):
It appears that this is the key problem in the US universities covered in the study: once a campus is totally infiltrated by professors and administrators that lean in one direction, the selection process for new talent becomes skewed in that direction.
So it has nothing to do with relative IQ or ability to pass entrance exams of “conservatives” or “progressives”, nor with your suggestion that university teaching automatically opens the mind to “progressive” thinking (in the political sense), but rather to a politically biased selection process.
The same is true here in Switzerland in many (but not all) universities.
Max
Hi Peter
Any comments on Sea surface Temperatures? See my 3766
We can then move on to educating you as to how global temperatures are concocted.
What we do know is;
* temperatures have been generally rising since 1600 (with numerous setbacks and advances)
* Glaciers were mostly retreating by 1750
* There are many parts of the globe that are counter cyclical to the general warming trend
* The Considerable UHi effect -known about as far back as Emperor Nero- is not taken properly into account.
* the gobal temperature bears little relationship to reality
Tonyb
Max,
It’s possible that in certain fields there may be a bias towards those in favour of one political persuasion but these would very much in the minority. Economics and Politics, maybe, but why would it apply to anything else? I’m not sure about Politics but in Economics there are varios “schools” such as the Chicago one where the dominant ethos is quite right-wing. And others, like the LSE, more leftish in their approach. And, that of course is fair enough, at least as far as I’m concerned.
I’m no longer in the University system, so I can’t speak with any real authority, but from my experience of it, I’d say that everyone is accepted, no matter what their political persuasion, and regardless of their race or religion, regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of their appearance etc but, and this is a big BUT, they do have to be intelligent. and support their position with rational arguments.
So, that does put you lot at somewhat of a disadvantage I’m afraid :-)
TonyB,
You ask “Any comments on Sea surface Temperatures”?
Well, no. Neither on that or anything else. If you don’t believe that the vast amount of CO2 emitted by from the burning of fossil fuels has had any effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, there seems little point in taking the discussion further.
Peter 3787
We have had this discussion before. When have I ever said that that burning fossil fuel has no impact on concentrations? The amount and its effect-especially compared with nature-is another matter.
You base your beliefs on nonsensical measurements of global temperature of which the SST is the most flawed. Yet you blithely accept that it is correct in order to bolster your belief in dangerous climae change. Do show some consistency and explain why you believe SST’s to be any sort of reliable measure when it clearly and demonstrably isn’t?
tonyb
Did anyone else watch Brian Cox’s first programme in his much hyped ‘Wonders of the Universe’ series last night?
TonyB,
You ask “When have I ever said that that burning fossil fuel has no impact on concentrations?”
How about when you say that ” Having read and researched the material and corresponded with Ernst Beck, I think his conclusions are essentially correct.”
And that’s what Beck thought too. Human emissions of CO2 have no measurable effect. So you can’t have it both ways!
Mind you, I keep wondering why I should say such things. You’re an AGW denier. Of course, you can have it both ways!
Peter said that I remarked
“Having read and researched the material and corresponded with Ernst Beck, I think his conclusions are essentially correct.”
Do read what Beck said and what I said, which is that I thought he was essentially correct in believing that there were hundreds of thousands of co2 measurements taken by reliable scientists on trusted equipment that demonstrate a different history to modern ice cores and that they need explaining and auditing.
This is as opposed to your strange belief that hundreds of thousands of SST’s taken by fishermen throwing a bucket over the side of a ship, who eventually got round to sticking a thermometer in, should be considered a reliable component of global temperatures.
I know which I think to be more plausible which is why it would be good to know why you take fishermen over scientists?
tonyb
TonyB,
Yes, we all know exactly what Beck said. We know that he drew graphs showing that CO2 levels in the 19th century were comparable, or even higher, than they currently are.
So, if Beck is ‘essentially’ correct, then it is also follows there is no evidence that burning fossil fuel has had any impact on CO2 concentrations. Modern science has gone with the evidence from the ice cores which contradicts Beck, showing that CO2 levels increased gradually from 280ppmv in pre-industrial times to 390ppmv now.
As I say, there’s no point talking further, about the possible effect of this 40% increase, and the likely effect of further increases, if you don’t accept it’s happened in the first place.
‘Era of Constant Electricity at Home is Ending, says UK power chief’ — ‘Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/the-empire-strikes-out/
Peter
You do have this worrying habit of conflating arguements. I asked you to justify SST’s and you re-introduce Co2 concentrations out of nowhere.
It is clear you hve not bothered to read Beck and I do not agree with everything he said. His early works were somewhat naive, much of his later stuff very much better.
His main point, which I agreed with after my own independent research -which included visiting some of the sites- was that there are hundreds of thousands of APPARENTLY reliable records. I say ‘apparently’ as the methodology was sound and they were taken by highly competent scientists.
It is clear that co2 was measured regularly and as a result legislation was put in place to monitor it in factories and hospitals. You can’t deny the history.
These measurements are ignored, and my contention is that they deserve auditing. It might be that they will ALL be found to be flawed but unless they are independently examined we won’t know.
On the other hand you are blithely accepting (and trying to deflect attention from) the reliability of SST measurements. These are of far more importance to climate science than Historic Co2 measurements as they are ACCEPTED
and part of the mainstream narrative.
I am asking why you believe them to be acurate to hundredths of a degree when clearly and self evidently they are not. That is the only question I asked Peter, so there is really no point in reintroducing red herrings and trying to claim that I said things that I never did.
Simple question “why do you believe the SST’s are accurate?”
tonyb
Brute
As outsiders, you and I can only chuckle about “UK Power Chief” Steve Holliday’s remark about the “lights going out” in the UK (because of a failed Government energy policy).
But for the UK residents, I hope this guy gets fired soon. He has clearly shown that he is fully incompetent.
Max
TonyB
PeterM has conceded that he has “no comments” on the reliability of the SST record.
I can fully understand why that is so.
He strongly “believes” in rampant man-made global warming, and the SST record is part of the “proof” he has seen for his “belief”.
It’s like asking a Christian fundamentalist whether he has any “comments” on the reliability of the Book of Revelations.
Peter’s (politically inspired?) religious conviction cannot be shattered, Tony, because he refuses to engage in a discussion about the validity of the underlying science, as we have seen over and over on this thread.
“Science” just isn’t his “bag” – it’s “political dogma”.
Max
Max 3796
Regrettably, I think your analysis is spot on. Increased co2 concetrations are supposed to cause rampant warming, but when I point out episodes of this in the past, or, as in this case, that the global record is fatally flawed he goes silent.
SSt’s are an important part of the global temperature mix-surely even Peter can see that they are completely nonsensical?
tonyb
TonyB and PeterM (and anyone else interested in the “science” behind AGW, rather than simply the “politics”)
Here is a link to a very good summary (Australian) of the “AGW story” so far (Part 2 promised for April). It does not take a strong stand either way but tries to present a balanced picture.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/3/the-intelligent-voter-s-guide-to-global-warming
As Judith Curry has said on her blogsite:
Max
PS An “uncertain lukewarmer” (in the ongoing scientific debate) is someone who agrees with the basic GH hypothesis, that CO2 is a GHG, that human activities have contributed to an increase in atmospheric CO2, which may have caused some warming – but does not agree that the science confirms that AGW has caused most of the past warming nor that it represents a serious potential threat (the IPCC “alarmist” line), due to the many major uncertainties which surround this premise.
PPS I’d put myself into that category and I’m not really sure whether Dr. Curry also would – at any rate, she has been dubbed a “heretic” (and worse) by those faithful to the IPCC party line, for daring to question the IPCC “dogma” and pointing to the many large uncertainties.
TonyB
You wrote:
Well, there are at least two possibilities here, Tony.
Either he “can” see this and simply doesn’t “want to” (since it would be too painful for him to admit that his story is full of holes, and this can be explained (as I tried earlier) by the fact that he sees “dangerous AGW” as a political or pseudo-religious “dogma”.
But, even if we give Peter the benefit of the doubt of looking at AGW as a “scientist” (after all, he is a physicist), following the logic of Thomas Kuhn, in his treatise on paradigms in science, it may be that Peter is actually “physically unable” to see this (i.e. data points lying “outside the box” – or prevailing paradigm – are simply not seen).
Hard to tell which one it is.
It may even be a subtle combination of the two.
But I’m no psychologist, so can’t tell for sure.
Max
Max 3799
If Peter chooses to ignore the simple question yet again we can come to one or both of the conclusions you postulate above. The simple question is;
“why do you believe the SST’s are accurate?”
tonyb