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
Re the you-tube (724) from “Climate Denial – Crock of the Week”.
Sorry. This “sales pitch” does not provide any empirical data based on physical observations to confirm your theory of dangerous AGW, despite what the title advertises.
It cites evidence that CO2 is a GH gas, going back to Arrhenius and Keeling (yawn!).
It tells us humans are emitting CO2 and that evidence shows that this is at least part of the reason that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (yawn!).
Then Richard Alley tells us that it is straightforward that CO2 should cause warming (yawn!).
Then we hear about the 33C natural GH effect (caused primarily by water and to a much smaller extent by CO2). (Yawn!)
Then we see a headline in a paper that reads: “Increase in greenhouse forcing inferred from outgoing long-wave radiation”. (Yawn!)
Then the talk is about measurements of outgoing LW radiation and conclusion that GH gases must be trapping more LW radiation (no talk about any observed changes in TOTAL incoming and outgoing radiation, though). ((Still yawn!)
Then there is much talk about proof that it is warming (yawn!).
We are even told that 90% of 29,000 independent data sets tell us it is warming (yawn!).
I won’t mention all the indicators cited, such as Arctic sea ice retreat, etc., since they are all known.
There is one statement (that has since been proven false), namely that glaciers are receding at an accelerated rate. Another “groaner” is the statement on accelerated sea level rise (which has actually been rising at about the same rate since the mid 19th century).
But even if these statements were true, they would not provide any empirical data to support the hypothesis that the late 20th century warming was caused primarily by human CO2 or that this represents a serious potential threat.
Peter, this silly sales pitch claims to prove a) that it is warming, b) that CO2 is a GH gas which causes a slowdown in radiation of LW energy into space and c) that humans are emitting CO2, thereby causing an increase in its concentration.
That’s all, folks.
Bring something a bit better, Peter, otherwise you are insulting the intelligence of both Robin and myself.
Max
PeterM:
To your #722 demanding a Yes/No answer (as to whether I think it impossible to define a means of supporting or invalidating the dangerous AGW hypothesis), the answer is No. BTW, it’s interesting that you’ve now inserted “invalidating”. Hmm: as others have shown, especially Max (see e.g. this and this), it’s clearly possible to refer to evidence that appears to falsify the hypothesis. But referring to supporting evidence seems to be rather more difficult.
As to the links you provided, there’s little I can add to Max’s #726. But is that really the best you can do? I’m not asking for evidence that mankind’s CO2 emissions are increasing, that CO2 raises atmospheric temperature or that global temperatures have increased recently. As you know, I accept all that. Nor am I asking for links to websites or gimmicky preaching-to-the-converted videos. No, I’m requesting specific scientific references to empirical (physically observed) evidence supporting the contentions: (1) that mankind’s GHG emissions, and not natural processes, were the principal cause of late twentieth century warming; and (2) that continued emissions will cause dangerous climate change.
When you’ve provided that (if you can), it will be possible to determine whether your evidence validates the hypothesis or whether other evidence falsifies it. As Max has said, “that’s the process”.
PS: I’m glad to see you’re not disputing the points I made at #721. (Note: my references there to the “hockeystick” thread should have been to the “Royal Society” thread. Apologies.)
Robin,
So you are not still saying that “it is is impossible to define a means of supporting, or even invalidating, what you always refer to as the “dangerous AGW hypothesis”?
You were in March.
What’s made you change your opinion?
PeterM:
No change of opinion: see this and this.
Why is this so important to you (so important that you pay no attention to the answers I have already provided)? And do you still think that empirical evidence (re dangerous AGW) “is actually impossible to provide” (#40 on the RS thread)? A simple Yes or No, please.
And I look forward to your response to #726 and #727.
Robin,
You now deny ever saying that it was impossible for empirical evidence for what you refer to as the ‘dangerous AGW hypothesis’ ever to be identified. Yes?
But you clearly did say (25/3/2010) that it was “impossible to define, let alone set up, a means of obtaining empirical evidence supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis”
Can evidence ever be ‘identified’ even though it is ‘impossible to define’ let alone ‘set up’ and ‘obtained’?
Are we writing in the same language here?
Are these two statements compatible? Can I quote you on either one?
PeterM:
Yes, I did write the words you quote. But I also wrote the words that preceded them. Once again (yawn) read this. Carefully this time.
Then answer this question:
Do you still think that empirical evidence (re dangerous AGW) “is actually impossible to provide” (#40 on the RS thread)? A simple Yes or No, please.
And I’m still looking forward to your response to #726 and #727. Thanks.
England’s debacle in the World Cup yesterday (a 1:1 draw with the USA) may have one positive outcome: bringing the word “Green” into (even more) disrepute.
PeterM
You apparently keep stumbling over whether or not Robin has opined that “it is impossible” to “define” and/or “obtain” the empirical data based on physical observations to provide support for your hypothesis that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal cause of recently observed warming and that AGW represents a serious potential threat.
This seems to me like a side-track to avoid the main issue, Peter.
As a rational skeptic of this hypothesis, I have asked you for these data, which you have (so far) been unable to produce. Robin has done the same.
On the other hand, I have provided you three examples of empirical data based on actual physical observations (rather than simply theoretical deliberations or model simulations/assumptions), which tend to falsify your hypothesis. You have also not reacted to these posts.
The type of empirical data, which you could use to validate your hypothesis, is the same sort of thing I have used to falsify it.
So my advice to you is to keep looking. Maybe it’s out there somewhere.
I am personally sure that if someone were to identify these empirical data, the news would be splashed all over the headlines that “EVIDENCE OF DANGEROUS MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING PROVEN BY ACTUAL PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS!” (with detailed studies supporting this claim).
And, since I have not seen these headlines (with supporting studies) anywhere so far, despite the billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on climate research, I must assume that the empirical data supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis has not yet been identified.
In order to find these data, you’ll have to (as Janice Joplin once sang): “try just a little bit harder”.
Max
Robin,
Yes the words that preceded them were about sub-atomic particles and don’t answer the question at all!
Are you willing to answer my question properly? No back references – just write something from scratch that might make some sense in your own words. Yes/No
To answer your question The answer is No.
If you want some elaboration I’d say that empirical evidence does exist and I have provided it to you. As the global experiment of raising CO2, and other GHG, levels continues more evidence will become available some of which is not yet available.
Is it possible to ask for an impossibly high level of evidence which is tantamount to asking for proof? Yes it is.
PeterM (#734):
There’s an old story about a well-known theatre critic who wrote, “Last time I saw this play it was one of the best productions I’ve ever seen – this, in contrast, is dross”. The billboard read: “one of the best productions I’ve ever seen …” The words that preceded those you refer to were these: “I suspect Peter’s difficulty may stem from a single awkward fact: …” Note the “suspect” and the “may”.
Get it now?
Re your “No”, fair enough – but why did you change your mind?
Max and I are simply asking (as we’ve done countless times before) for specific scientific references to empirical (physically observed) evidence supporting the basic dangerous AGW contentions: (1) that mankind’s GHG emissions, and not natural processes, were the principal cause of late twentieth century warming; and (2) that continued emissions will cause dangerous climate change. Without that evidence, the dangerous AGW hypothesis continues to be an interesting but unverified hypothesis. Simple really. Yes, you’ve referred to empirical evidence but not evidence supporting those key contentions. Were such evidence to become available in due course, that conclusion (that the hypothesis continues to be interesting but unverified) would have to be changed – unless the new evidence were falsified. As Max has said, “that’s the process”. It’s how science is done and has nothing to do with proof.
What you describe as “an impossibly high level of evidence” is precisely the level that applies to all other branches of science. Yet you seem to believe that climate science should be treated differently. Why?
Sounds like religion to me.
Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?
Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming – but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
PeterM
Re your latest waffle to Robin (734)
Despite repeated requests and a lot of dialog, you have been unable to provide the empirical data requested to support your “dangerous AGW hypothesis”.
I have given you some examples of such empirical data.
Please respond specifically to my previous posts, where I showed empirical data based on physical observations, which invalidate (or falsify) your “dangerous AGW hypothesis.
Awaiting a specific response, rather than another waffle or sidestep.
Max
Oh dear – the BBC reports on more UN climate change talks in trouble: “UN climate talks have ended, with delegates speaking of an improved mood but with major gulfs remaining between various blocs”. I was amused by this:
Robin,
So, my difficulties possibly arise from a “single awkward fact“? That ‘awkward fact’ being you believe the sort of empirical evidence you are demanding is impossible to even define let alone setup a means of obtaining?
You don’t have to be particularly clever to indulge in the tactic of demanding the impossible.
Its tactic #4 in this list!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier
It does surprise me that there can be such a thing as denialism about anything at all. Your frank admission that you know, or even “suspect”, you’ve been asking for the impossible is even more surprising, especially from someone who claims a legal background with its tradition of ‘the scales of justice’.
You’ve been found out not just weighting those scales to get the answer you want, but actually clamping them down tight!
PeterM (#739):
Oh dear, it seems to be a rule that, whenever you provide us with links to read, their content makes you look foolish. Don’t you bother to read the stuff to which you refer us? Seems not.
Here’s a suggestion. Go back and read (1) your Guardian link (its “fourth tactic”) and (2) its link to the Denialism Blog. Read them carefully. When you’ve done so, tell me whether you really think that what they’re saying applies to me (and to Max). If you do, I’ll show you how foolish that makes you look. If you don’t, we can get back to the science.
Robin, Reur 738;
Oh dear! you say; concerning Saudi “modern-westernised” toilets, which somehow I had until now imagined were still but a hole in the ground with pads to place one‘s footware!
How entertaining can it get!
Your quote brightened my day and may keep me smiling for a good while yet.
I also found the following from your citation a bit of a giggle, particularly the first ten words!
“The worst case is we would not see an outcome, we would not be able to conclude on the many items we are discussing,”
PeterM
Robin has brushed off your silly Guardian blog: “Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them”, written by Mark Hoofnagle, who has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia (another “psychologists” entering the multi-billion dollar climate change biz).
However, after going through this childish drivel, I will add a few comments.
After the standard and totally irrelevant introduction comparing climate “denialists” with those who deny a link between HIV and AIDS (huh?) or “creationists” (whodat?). the good psychologist tells the AGW faithful to look out for the following signs of climate denialism:
Whew! Glad this one does not apply to me, as I have pointed out to you many times.
Have seen many instances where IPCC have done exactly that, but I try to avoid it myself. Of course, both sides of the debate will follow the advice of the old tune “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative”. That’s human nature, and even super-scientist, Michael Mann tossed out the tree-ring data that did not support his hypothesis. Phil Jones, James E. Hansen and all the others are also basically just humans, nothing more. Same goes for me. So (despite the good psychologist’s advice), this is no more a “sign of climate denialism” that it is a “sign of AGW activism”. It is a “sign of human nature”.
Oops! Lindzen, Spencer, Landsea, Reiter, Loehle and the many others are apparently “fake experts”, while Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth, etc. are not. Talk about “cherry-picking”! How does our good psychologist tell the difference between the two (since he presumably understands zilch about the physical sciences in the first place).
Here comes good ol’ number four (to which both you and Robin alluded):
Ouch! Peter, here you really shoot yourself in the foot. Robin and I have consistently asked you for exactly the same thing: empirical data based on actual physical observations, to support your hypothesis a) that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of recent warming and b) that AGW represents a serious potential threat. If you check the record, you will see that neither of us has “moved the goalposts”, yet you have been unable to provide the empirical data requested.
As far as setting “impossible expectations” is concerned, I do not believe that it is “impossible” to provide empirical data to support a valid scientific hypothesis, although it certainly will be so to validate an invalid hypothesis. This is the crux of the matter here, Peter. Until a hypothesis is validated by empirical data, it remains an unvalidated hypothesis. And this is where (so far) none of the learned AGW climatologists have been able to provide this empirical evidence, despite the fact that billions of dollars have been spent trying to do so.
I am sure that this inability to cite empirical evidence in support of the dangerous AGW hypothesis is, indeed, a “frustration” (as the good psychologist admits), but that’s the way it goes in the hard physical sciences (maybe things are a bit easier in “psychology”). Half baked hypotheses based solely on theoretical deliberations and computer model assumptions and simulations remain just hypotheses until they can be validated by empirical data. Even more difficult for these hypotheses is that they can be invalidated by the same empirical data.
The comparison between “deniers” and “creationists” is made in the introduction. This comparison is actually much more valid for “creationists” and “AGW-believers”, for neither of the two groups have been able to provide empirical data to support their “beliefs”. As a result, both “beliefs” remain non-validated “hypotheses”.
Peter, don’t you realize that the more you bring up such silly blogs to “prove your point”, the more foolish your argumentation looks. Stick with searching for the empirical scientific data Robin and I have requested without getting into silly side-line discussions by fuzzy-logic psychologists, who obviously don’t have a clue.
Max
PeterM
Apparently Hoofnagel is not a “psychologist”, but a “physiologist”. My error (but it does not make much difference to the conclusion reached.)
Max
Max:
Physiology is a serious scientific discipline. Here’s what Wiki has to say, “In physiology, the scientific method is applied to determine how organisms, organ systems, organs, cells and biomolecules carry out the chemical or physical function that they have in a living system“. It rather seems Mr Hoofnagel doesn’t understand the relevance of applying that approach to other scientific disciplines, not least climate science.
I’ve put up responses to several comments on the RS thread that came in while I was away:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=291#comment-61379
Robin,
Oh dear, it seems that Bob_FJ has caught the habit of using that quaint old phrase from you? Oh deary me-whatever can be be done?
So you have finally caught on that I’m accusing you of being climate change deniers rather than sceptics? Oh dear. I do hope you aren’t too offended! But, and in all honesty, I would have to say that people like you an Max are exactly who Mark Hoofnagle had in mind!
Yes, I am accusing you and Max of using the denialist tactic of what is sometimes known as moving the goalposts. If the goalposts are of the soccer type you’ve made the space between the posts too small even for the ball to squeeze through! If the goalpost were of the Rugby type the cross bar would be set so high that no-one could possibly ever kick it over.
So raising the barrier of impossibility is probably a better way to describe it.
Robin
Yes. I have seen several “psychologists” jumping into the AGW fray recently, so that I was blindsighted.
As you point out (744),”physiology” is a stricter scientific discipline, where (as in climate science) empirical data, based on actual physical observations, are of paramount importance in validating hypotheses.
But Dr. Hoofnagle has not written his “guide to the faithful” in the role of a serious “physiologist”, but has rather simply expressed his intellectually somewhat immature opinions on “how to spot” “climate change deniers”.
It is basically a rehash of things we have seen on several blogsites of the AGW faithful.
I would classify it under “whistling in the dark” when one suffers from the nagging fear that ones “AGW belief” may not really be validated by empirical data (or, even worse, may actually be invalidated or falsified by such data, as one AGW-faithful referred to recently as a “travesty”).
I would suspect that, deep down, many believers in “creationism” or “intelligent design” suffer from the same nagging fear, and probably also hide this by “whistling in the dark”.
But, as we have seen, “belief” is a very strong thing, whether this be in “creationism”, “intelligent design” or “AGW doomsday”.
Data which invalidate the hypothesis or paradigm behind the “belief” are ignored, refuted, rationalized away or simply not seen.
Then it is always easier to change the subject and talk about smoking/cancer or HIV/AIDS deniers than to face the facts.
Max
Max,
Yes you are right. Just why climate change deniers won’t face the facts is hard to understand at first.
Take Robin for example. Even though he acknowledges that I’m right to say that 20th century warming has been attributed to anthropogenic causes to at least a 90% level of certainty, he still sides with the deniers.
Mind you know Robin he’ll probably claim that this doesn’t necessarily mean that at least 9 times out of 10 the scientists who are saying that will turn out to be right!
What’s your theory about that?
Correction:
Last paragraph should read
” Mind you, knowing how Robin argues, he’ll…..
PeterM (#739):
Your claim that Max and I have been “moving the goalposts” is crass.
For months now (possibly years), we’ve been consistently asking you for exactly the same thing: for references to empirical data based on actual physical observations, to support your hypothesis (i) that AGW was the principal cause of recent warming and (ii) that mankind’s continued GHG emissions will cause dangerous climate change.
Please explain how that is “moving the goalposts”. Thanks.