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.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

  1. PeterM:

    I should, of course, have referred just now to your #746. I look forward to your answer.

    But, in relation to your post, I’ll add this: once again you’re bleating that we’re asking for the impossible. Yet we’re doing no more than request a level of evidence (empirical evidence supporting a hypothesis) that is precisely the level that applies to all other branches of science. Yes, it’s a tough discipline. But that’s the scientific process. You seem to believe that climate science should be treated differently. Sounds like religion to me.

  2. As I was away for some of April you all may have discussed this document on the IPCC when it first came out at that time.

    It is written by Mike Hulme amd he seems to agree with Monckton that the IPCC ‘consensus’ on the overall science comes from a few dozen experts rather than the 2500 that others often cite. (page 10 and 11) but the whole document is well worth reading.

    http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf

    Tonyb

  3. Max:

    You said (#747), ““belief” is a very strong thing, whether this be in “creationism”, “intelligent design” or “AGW doomsday””. True. But you might have included another area where “belief” is a very strong thing: religion. Indeed, it is based on it.

    I’ve pointed out to Peter (many times) that his views on dangerous AGW sound more like religion than science. I did so most recently at #751. Consider the similarities:

    A religious believer asserts that God exists:

    Look around you (he says), His works and wonders are everywhere. Moreover, the Holy Scriptures tell us He exists – as do the priesthood and, in particular, the leaders of the Church’s institutional authorities. No, I cannot produce now empirical evidence verifying His existence: your continuing insistence on it simply demonstrates your arrogant foolishness. But, of course, the evidence exists, and there’s one way of finding it: wait until you are dead. Then it’ll become clear enough! So now, like me, you must humbly believe in His existence, ensuring – if you truly want to be saved – that you observe His Holy laws.

    But, in your ignorance, you refuse to believe. Thus you’re a heretic.

    Peter asserts that dangerous AGW is a fact:

    Look around you (he says), the effects (retreating icecaps, species extinction etc.) are everywhere. Moreover, the IPCC Report tells us it’s a fact – as do the climate scientists and, in particular, the governing bodies of the scientific institutions. No, I cannot produce now empirical evidence verifying dangerous AGW: your continuing insistence on it simply demonstrates your arrogant foolishness. But, of course, the evidence exists, and there’s one way of finding it: continue to pump huge amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. Then it’ll become clear enough! So now, like me, you must humbly believe that dangerous AGW is a fact, ensuring – if you truly want to save the planet – that GHG emissions are radically reduced.

    But, in your ignorance, you refuse to believe. Thus you’re a denier.

    Not much difference, it seems to me.

  4. PeterM

    Re 748

    Double-talk won’t hack it either, Peter.

    My “theory on that” is that you keep waffling and side-stepping (and bringing up ridiculous “how to spot a denier” blogs), precisely because you are unable to present any empirical data to support your dangerous AGW hypothesis (as I did to falsify it).

    Max

    PS Your “9 out of 10 scientists” have apparently also been able to show this empirical evidence to validate the dangerous AGW hypothesis (despite the billions that have been poured into “climate research”), otherwise you would parrot what they concluded.

    Max

  5. Robin

    I agree with your analysis on “religious faith” and various “pseudo-religious beliefs”, which are not tied specifically to a religion, such as “doomsday theories”, “visits by extra-territorials”, “man-made disaster scenarios”, “disastrous AGW hysteria”, etc. or those that may be officially tied to one “religion” or another, such as “creationism”, “intelligent design”, “destruction of the earth by fire on Judgement Day”, etc.

    These all claim a scientific basis, of course, but their believers are unable to come up with empirical data based on actual physical observations or repeatable experiments to validate the belief scientifically. Often appeals to “scripture”, “prophesies by prophets” (or computer models) or “theoretical deliberations” are cited as “evidence” instead.

    The key similarity for me is that the “believers” will continue to hold their belief, even if it should be shown that it is unrealistic or it has been physically falsified by empirical data.

    The “doomsayer” will rationalize that “doomsday” did not happen exactly when first predicted, a) possibly because some miraculous action was taken to forestall the disaster or b) because some miraculous, uncontrollable event occurred, which will give us a bit more time until “doomsday” returns “with a vengeance”.

    Exactly these words have been used to describe the current reversal of global warming, caused by unforeseen “natural variability”, but which will return “with a vengeance” once the “natural variability” stops.

    The current cooling of the ocean is rationalized by Josh Willis, the Argo team leader as a “speed bump” in upper ocean warming.
    See: “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat” by Richard Harris
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

    Interestingly, Willis is a co-author with doomsayer James E. Hansen of an earlier paper, claiming that a significant portion of GH warming is not realized today, but actually “hidden in the pipeline”, i.e. the upper ocean, from where it will eventually be released (by some as yet inexplicable mechanism) into the atmosphere to cause more GH warming. The apparent warming (at the time measured with inaccurate, expendable XBT devices, which were shown to give a warming bias) was cited as “evidence” for a high climate sensitivity and, therefore, for dangerous AGW. It would seem to me that the observed cooling, since more reliable Argo devices were installed in 2003, would provide “evidence” that the “hidden in the pipeline” postulation (and with it, the prediction of dangerous AGW) has been falsified, but true “AGW believers” do not see it that way, at all. It’s just a “speed bump”.

    AGW-believer Phil Jones agrees that there has been no warming of the surface atmosphere over the past decade (as confirmed for the troposphere by the satellite record), yet he still “believes” in potentially dangerous AGW.

    Kevin Trenberth, also an ardent believer in the “dangerous AGW hypothesis”, has stated that the “missing energy”, despite record increase in atmospheric CO2 is a “travesty”. He has stated (in an interview that will shock many staunch “believers”) that this “missing energy” may be radiated into outer space with clouds possibly acting as a “natural thermostat”. But the implication is that this is just a temporary hiatus from “doomsday warming”.

    The recovery in Arctic sea ice, which has occurred since the modern low end-summer level was reached in 2007, is “pooh-poohed” by NSIDC director, Marc Serreze as no real “reversal”, but just a slowdown on the road to disaster (for the hapless polar bears).

    The story is always the same:

    “THE END IS NEAR” (maybe not quite as “near” as we predicted 10 years ago, but JUST WAIT!).

    Yawn!

    Max

  6. Robin,

    Do you accept the 90% figure? Yes/No?

  7. PeterM

    You asked Robin whether or not he would agree with the sentence below, but I will respond as well:

    20th century warming has been attributed to anthropogenic causes to at least a 90% level of certainty,

    I would agree, provided you modify the sentence as follows:

    A portion of the observed 20th century warming has been attributed to anthropogenic causes, with a roughly equivalent portion attributed to natural causes, partly related to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity, both to an estimated high level of certainty.

    This change takes out the myopic fixation on anthropogenic causes alone and the unsubstantiated 90% figure.

    Would you agree to this modified version: Yes/No?

    Max

  8. Peter Martin,
    You might be aware that Anthony Watts, David Archibald and Bob Carter are giving a talk in Brisbane in about 3 hours from now as I write this; see:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/13/perfect-place-for-a-thermometer-in-oz/
    I imagine you would not risk purgatory, (in its religious sense), by entering that forum, but I could imagine you standing outside with a blazoning placard of doom.

    C’mon Pete, give us a good laugh and tell us what you declare on your placard. (or would have liked to)

    If you did attend, I hope a friend (?) took a photo for us to rollick over; please show it!

  9. PeterM (#756):

    Are you referring to your earlier statement that “20th century warming has been attributed to anthropogenic causes to at least a 90% level of certainty” (your #748)? If so, I suspect several people and institutions have made that attribution. Who did you have in mind?

    When you answer, remember that many people attribute mankind’s existence to supernatural creation with a 100% level of certainty. But that doesn’t mean they’re right.

  10. Robin, You wrote in part in your 760:

    When you [Peter Martin] answer, remember that many people attribute mankind’s existence to supernatural creation with a 100% level of certainty. But that doesn’t mean they’re right.

    Yes Robin, and that is especially true of the “most advanced nation in the world”, across the pond westerly from you.
    For example, I vividly remember a TV doco, where a helicopter tour guide for the Grand Canyon solemnly declared, sitting atop it, that the astonishing vista behind him, (not to mention the Brice Canyon sedimentary formations even above it), was the result of the famous Biblical Noah 40-day event some 4,000 years ago.

    I’ll avoid stating the obvious

  11. Here’s an interesting example of how science is really done – except, that is, (if PeterM is to be believed) climate science. According to the Standard Model of particle physics (which incidentally predicts the Higgs Boson – see this), the universe as we know it (stars, planets, gases etc.) represents only about 4% of the cosmos, the rest being dark matter and energy. And, according to the “Big Bang” hypothesis, it’s the latter that powers the expansion of the universe. But it’s now reported that the Royal Astronomical Society has published new findings, based on recent Nasa measurements, suggesting that dark matter and energy may not exist and calculations of the make-up of the universe may be wrong. As Dr Robert Massey of the RAS said,

    This would challenge greatly our assumptions about the long term future of the universe, because the assumption at the moment is that the universe is expanding and if it isn’t that would be a huge shock.

    For all I know, supporters of the Standard Model may claim that it has a 90% likelihood of being correct (although I rather doubt it – percentages are pointless in such a context) or that it is supported by a “consensus” of scientists. So can we expect them to start shouting that Dr Massey and the Durham University physicists who carried out the new research are “deniers” who “won’t face the facts”?

    Er … no.

  12. Robin,

    You seem very fond of your Bosons. The existence of these will, or will not, be confirmed by the results of experiment.

    The scientific standard method, of popular mythology, can be described in the following chart

    Which of course often, but not always, works fine. Testing by experiment is fine if the option exists. But what if scientists are looking at say the sun? What experiments can they possibly make? Sure, they can make observations, and devise likely explanations, but that’s not quite the same thing. So they aren’t scientists?

    What experiments can paleontolgists make? Are you saying they aren’t scientists either? Again, they can make only make observations and it is absolutely impossible to show by experiment, or test, that humans evolved from the little furry mammals which were around at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. You can guess who’ll be making the same argument as you about that one!

  13. PeterM:

    Once again you’ve shown that you simply don’t read what’s posted here. Here’s what I said to you only last week (#721):

    You seem to have acquired the curious notion that empirical evidence can be identified only by experimentation or testing of the type usually associated with, for example, particle physics. Not so: the observation and measurement of data from the natural world can be equally valuable (some might say more valuable): consider evolution, astronomy, plate tectonics, etc. – including much of medicine. The key is the replicable observation and testing of physical data, whether in the laboratory or in the natural world.

    Understand now?

  14. PeterM

    You seem to have a propensity for complicating things, as shown in your 763 to Robin.

    You post a diagram, which shows how the scientific method works, but then get side-tracked.

    Let’s not worry about the problems facing a paleontologist in identifying furry ancestors or physicists in searching for dark matter, but concentrate on the topic at hand: our climate and possible changes caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions.

    We have observations from satellites of the incoming and outgoing LW plus SW radiation, including measurements, which show how these change with higher surface temperature.

    We have measurements of atmospheric CO2.

    We have measurement of “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (where there is a known possible upward distortion due to UHI, land-use changes, poor station siting, station shutdowns and moves, etc.), plus the same for the troposphere from satellites (where there is no such distortion), giving us an independent “reality check” for the surface record.

    Since 2003, when the Argo system replaced the old, less reliable XBTs, we have more accurate measurements of the upper ocean temperature.

    We have satellite altimetry, which works very well for measuring more or less stationary surfaces (glaciers, ice sheets, sea ice), but is less accurate for heaving seas, or seas located near coastlines, for example; fortunately we have a long tide gauge record of sea levels.

    We can measure solar activity, both directly (direct solar irradiance) and indirectly (sunspot number, solar cycle length, cosmic rays, magnetic field, etc.).

    Now with all this information it seems that we should be able to produce empirical data based on actual physical observations to either validate or falsify the hypothesis a) that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of observed warming and b) that AGW represents a serious potential threat.

    Forget the hypothetical or theoretical deliberations; forget the model simulations (which are only as good as the assumptions fed in). Forget all the waffles and side-tracks from “bosons” to “furry ancestors”.

    Concentrate instead on the physical data we have to see if the hypothesis can be validated or falsified.

    I have shown you three examples of specific empirical data, which tend to falsify the dangerous AGW hypothesis.

    Give me your specific reaction to this, and then we can move on.

    Max

  15. Robin and PeterM

    I will be away from my computer for a couple of weeks. Will try checking in from time to time.

    Regards,

    Max

  16. According to this, the IPCC’s Pachauri has told the BBC that climate change scepticism is OK and the debate is not over. In an article for the BBC, he said,

    … scepticism is inevitable, and has been the case with every area of new knowledge that has burst into human consciousness. We who are on the side of the consensus must remind ourselves that the evolution of knowledge thrives on debate.

    He continued,

    The IPCC and the scientific community at large should welcome the development of a vigorous debate on the science of climate change (so long as the level of that debate does not descend to personal abuse, as it has done at times).

    How, I wonder, is that to be squared with earlier assertions that “the debate is over” (see this for example) and constant references to sceptics as deniers (commonly coupled with personal abuse)?

    Perhaps Peter can explain.

    And this is the same Rajendra Pachauri who said in November 2007:

    If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.

    Well, the “next two to three years” are almost over and nothing has happened – except that emissions have increased markedly. Yet now he’s endorsing scepticism and debate. Seems odd.

  17. Max (#765):

    Peter seems to think that empirical evidence cannot be gathered from observation and measurement, but only from laboratory experiment (see my #764). I’ve no idea where he acquired that absurd notion but he’s found it useful as he thinks it supports his equally absurd notion that asking for empirical evidence re dangerous AGW is asking for the impossible. That’s why he seems to believe that the theory of evolution (hence his “little furry mammals”) is not supported by empirical evidence.

    Enjoy your holiday!

  18. Robin, #767,

    Analysing Pahauri’s use the term ‘new knowledge’ in the first quotation could provide enough material for a book.

  19. Max:

    Further to my #768, there of course is one circumstance where asking for empirical evidence re dangerous AGW is indeed asking for the impossible. And that’s when there is no such evidence.

    But I don’t think that’s what he had in mind.

  20. PeterM and Robin

    We have had a back-and-forth exchange on the postulated dangers of AGW and the merits of proposals to mitigate against these dangers versus adopting a “wait and see” policy of adapting to actual changes, if and when they actually occur.

    Unfortunately, our discussion has remained very superficial with multiple side-tracks and diversions, which have distracted from the main topics.

    Rather than continuing ad nauseam with the present back-and-forth exchange (which appears to be getting nowhere), I have now proposed two approaches to get a bit more specific in our debate, with the goal of finding some common ground on the two main topics we have discussed..

    1) The “science” [on this thread]: examining the empirical climate data based on specific physical observations that exist today to see whether they validate or falsify the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, which Peter espouses, 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.
    2) The “policy” [on the “energy policy” thread]: examining the cost to normal households of a mandatory global carbon tax (direct or indirect) and the cost plus effectiveness of specific actionable mitigation proposals to change our planet’s climate.

    Peter, if you truly believe that we are facing a serious problem from AGW, which requires action on a global basis, you should welcome this discussion.

    If you, however, already have your mind made up and are hesitant to go more deeply into the subject matter for fear that your current beliefs may be challenged or invalidated, I can understand that, and we can break off our discussion.

    Think about it a bit, and then let’s see if we should continue or end our discussion.

    Robin, I think (from past posts) that you would also support such a switch in our discussion. If not, please let me know.

    Max

  21. Robin and TonyN (767/769)

    It appears that Pachauri’s current change in image is directed more at saving his job (and any perks and side earnings that may come from it) than anything else.

    It appears that he is beginning to see that the popular tide has turned against statements proclaiming “consensus of 2,500 mainstream scientists” and “the debate is over”.

    His “voodoo science” stonewall on the IPCC Himalayan glacier lie definitely hurt his credibility, and he is now trying some “damage control” following this and other IPCC screw-ups.

    Will the world fall for it?

    I sort of doubt it.

    Will IPCC do some “damage control” of its own and remove him?

    I also doubt this, because there is too much “loss of face” (or “loss of credibility”) involved.

    Max

  22. Noting Max’s #771 (with which I agree), i will probably not be posting here for a week or so. I’ve been deferring an important project for some time and really should make a start on it. I will not be away from my computer, however, so will check this site from time to time – and may post a comment if I become aware of anything that seems important.

  23. Mac You ask:

    “how, I wonder, is that to be squared with earlier assertions that “the debate is over” (see this for example) and constant references to sceptics as deniers (commonly coupled with personal abuse)?

    Perhaps Peter can explain.”?

    Well yes of course I can! I’m not sure about personal abuse though. You’d have to ask climate scientists how they cope with that.

    The best way to understand the scientific position on the ‘science is settled’ argument is to take a step or two away from climate science and look at what scientists are writing about AIDS and HIV. Is the science settled on that? Well yes up to a point it is.
    So does this mean there is no scientific debate about AIDS? Well no it doesn’t, but its still not a good idea to engage in unprotected sex with strangers. You can become infected with the HIV virus and that will probably lead to AIDs. But maybe the chances would be a good deal less than 90%!

  24. Peter

    My apologies as I don’t have much time to post at the moment, but thought you would be interested in this thread over at WUWT as it concerns politics.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%e2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/#comment-412026

    It was written by our friend Monckton and various other people from her administration have chimed in.

    I have criticised Monckton for his attack on Abrahams (whose rebuttal of Moncktons work has a few grains of truth but is also full of holes itself)

    In turn Monckton says he is publishing several letters that apparently refer to the Abrahams matter.

    As you will have noticed in my previous comments here, all us sceptics are not totally enamoured of Monckton nor his methods, but then again you have to bear the cross of Hansen, Mann and Gore!

    tonyb

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


× 6 = forty eight

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha