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.
Max,
OK ” EMPIRICAL DATA BASED ON PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS…….”
I’m having difficulty knowing just what you are asking for here. Can we have more detail of what you have in mind? Sensible people wouldn’t want to test the planet to destruction to get that data. But maybe you don’t do ‘sensible’ and think differently?
Robin
OT, if you’d like a really good example of absurd and the environmental movement have a look into the Gibe III project in Nigeria.
Here’s a starter
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8339/
I’ve moved some comments about the Oxfam report on sceptical networks to this thread:
The warmists just don’t know what hit them
I don’t think that I could in my wildest dreams envisage a better illustration of what that post was about.
PeterM
You appear to be confused about my request:
Let’s see if I can clarify with some dictionary definitions:
empirical
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
data
factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation
physical
1. of or concerned with matter and energy
2. of or relating to physics
3. perceptible to the senses; apparent
observation
1. the act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
2. the result or record of such notation
So what I am requesting, as a rational skeptic of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a serious potential threat, is factual information as opposed to theory, which is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment, and which is based on perceptible and measurable results, which supports the above-stated AGW premise.
Any empirical data that meets this definition will do.
Hope this helps.
Max
Max:
I hope you don’t mind if I add a postscript to your excellent overview of what constitutes empirical evidence. I believe it’s pathetic that Peter has asked you (and, in an earlier post, me) to tell him what might constitute empirical evidence supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis. Doesn’t his beloved “mainstream science” know? Perhaps he hasn’t he asked them – or tried to find out? Seems not.
Let’s take two examples: one from history and one contemporary:
First, William Herschel and his early 1780s postulation that nebulae (many of which he had identified) were huge independent star clusters existing outside our own Milky Way. This was extremely controversial at the time and difficult to establish empirically – most scientists thought it impossible. But Herschel persisted. Did he challenge his critics by asking them to tell him how they thought he should substantiate his hypothesis? Er, no – he built his own huge, expensive, unwieldy telescopes and carried out painstaking observation and calculation. As we know, he succeeded.
Next, the current controversy about the existence of the subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Its existence would be critical to scientists’ understanding of the nature of matter – but it’s extraordinarily difficult to get. Did researchers say to sceptics – look this too difficult, our computer models and indirect evidence show it should exist so, unless you can define a way of solving this, you’ll just have to take our word for it. Er, no – at vast expense, they designed and built the Large Hadron Collider at Geneva and set about the extraordinarily difficult task of identifying the particle. They have yet to succeed.
I suspect Peter’s difficulty may stem from a single awkward fact: it’s impossible to define, let alone set up, a means of obtaining empirical evidence supporting the dangerous AGW hypothesis. And, unfortunately for Peter, a hypothesis that’s unsupported by empirical evidence continues to be no more than a hypothesis.
Robin
Thanks for your very pertinent postscript.
FYI I posted the comment below on the Bart Verheggen blog.
Bart,
I believe this blog can help us solve a dilemma.
Rather than concerning ourselves too much with the rationale behind those who are skeptical for political or religious reasons of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a serious potential threat, let us concentrate on those who are rationally skeptical of this premise in the scientific sense.
Scientific (or rational) skepticism is defined by Wiki as follows:
The key here is empirical evidence or data based on actual physical observations as opposed to theoretical deliberations.
If we take as an example the premise of “intelligent design”, we see that there are many excellent hypotheses in support of this premise, but what is lacking is empirical data based on actual physical observations, which support the premise. For this reason, it does not pass the test of rational skepticism.
Now, as the Chris Fields youtube clip showed, there are many physical data, which support
· The fact that temperatures have risen since the modern record started in 1850, in three statistically indistinguishable multi-decadal warming cycles with cooling trends in between, with an underlying overall warming trend of 0.041C per decade or 0.65C over the entire 150+ year period
· The fact that sea levels have been rising since tide gauge records were started in the 19th century, with several multi-decadal swings in the rate of rise along the way
· The fact that Arctic sea ice extent has declined since satellite measurements started in 1979 (while Antarctic sea ice has grown over the same period)
· The fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1958, as well as possibly prior to this based on more dicey ice core approximations
· The fact that humans have been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, at an accelerating rate since the end of WWII
· Etc.
There are also many theories on how greenhouse gases trap and re-radiate energy, hypotheses supported by model simulations on feedback effects, etc.
But there are no empirical data, based on actual physical observations, which support the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is the cause for the observed changes or that it represents a serious potential threat.
A detailed statistical analysis, which shows a robust statistical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, would be a major step toward providing the next best thing to empirical data to support causation (although that, in itself, would still fall short).
On the other hand, failure or inability to provide this robust statistical correlation would be a clear falsification of causation.
Let’s see what is out there.
Max
Max,
Yes I thought so. You’re back to your usual tactic of asking for evidence, but then when you get it you complain its not proof.
But this time you actually used the phrase “capable of being verified or disproved” a little too early.
Sorry but science is evidence based and the IPCC reports contains good evidence that CO2 emissions, unless curtailed, will seriously damage the planet’s health.
Higgs boson
In view of the widespread acceptance of the AGW hypothesis, perhaps CERN has been tackling this the wrong way. After all, if the existence of the Higgs particle could be shown (i.e. modelled) to be environmentally unfriendly and its proliferation heavily taxed, I’m sure some supporting graphs would soon be forthcoming from a few of the less scrupulous academic institutions and the science would soon be settled… :-)
Max,
You might like to think the “Hockey Stick is Broken” and that Michael Mann has been stripped of his PhD, his Uni job, and now scrapes a living flipping burgers, but as usual the truth is somewhat different:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
PeterM
Nice blurb on the hockey stick, but it is dead and buried, so you can forget about it. Let it rest in peace.
Max
For a detailed “blow by blow” description of its demise, I can recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A.W. Montford.
PeterM
You state:
Please give me the chapter and page of which IPCC report you are referring to here.
Thanks.
Max
Max,
The point about the blurb, if you’ve bothered to read it, is that there isn’t just ‘the’ Hockey Stick, presumably you mean Mann’s, but there are many such graphs showing a similar shape.
Fantasizing that they are are all dead and buried, and their authors banished from mainstream society,(some sort of denier’s wet dream?), isn’t going to do you any good at all.
Usually the discussion centres on relative warmth of the the MWP relative compared with now. What tends to be overlooked is the early 20th century warming which is always part of the hockey blade and therefore all hockey stick graphs, not just Mann’s, tend to suggest that this too may be due to the same causes (GHGs + land usage changes) as later warming.
You are correct when you say it is thought to be anthropogenic because the warming cannot be explained any other way. As Sherlock Holmes would have said “When you have eliminated the impossible…..”
PeterM
Read the book I recommended and you will see the basic problem with the hockey stick and its “spaghetti copy hockey sticks”.
And, while you are at it in your “search for truth”, check out the 20+ studies from all over the world using several different methods, which I cited earlier on the old NS thread, for evidence of a MWP that was warmer than today.
But don’t let this all hinder you from continuing your search for empirical data based on actual physical observations, to support your premise of dangerous AGW. I’m still waiting patiently
Max
PeterM
You bring up the old saw of “our models cannot explain it without anthropogenic forcing” for the late 20th century warming cycle, citing the (also fictitious) Sherlock Holmes.
This has been discussed ad nauseam before, by both Robin and myself, and shown to be based on flawed logic.
But keep looking for that empirical evidence, Peter. It must be hiding out there somewhere.
Max
Max,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-2.html
PeterM:
You really don’t understand, do you? For example, you seize (#57) on part of Max’s quoted definition of “empirical” (“capable of being verified or disproved”) thinking it somehow shows that Max is asking for proof of the AGW hypothesis. He’s not. A reminder: the Scientific Method requires a hypothesis to be verified (not proved) by empirical evidence and, if it is, it’s regarded as valid. And that validity stands until/unless new empirical evidence shows it to be invalid – i.e. it’s disproved. The dangerous AGW hypothesis hasn’t even been verified so there’s no need to disprove it. Get it now?
In case you still don’t, here’s a quotation from Einstein, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
it is thought to be anthropogenic because the warming cannot be explained any other way
The Romans and Vikings probably couldn’t explain it either, but then they probably regarded the relative warmth in the northern latitudes as a good thing! With a nice bottle of Yorkshire Red on the table, who cared anyway?
Maybe it’s in the same place as Hansen’s “hidden” warmth…….just waiting to sneak up from behind you and cause havoc…..Then again, maybe it doesn’t exist.
Robin,
There isn’t a single scientific method.
The method, to which you are alluding, of repeated testing, with empirical and other evidence being accumulated, leading to a theory being developed and which by consensus is regarded as unequivocally valid is just one way.
There is another but fundamentally different method which would be more comparable to a detective arriving at the scene of a crime and is more a matter of deciding which theory best fits the available facts. Like, for example, the theory of human evolution. How do you verify that by empirical evidence? Recreate ancient hominids from scraps of their DNA , place them in a secure enclosure for several million years and watch how they evolve into modern humnas? Or the big bang theory of the origin of the universe? The same standards just cannot apply. Experimental testing just isn’t possible and, even if it was it might not be a good idea to set off another big bang! Is the big bang theory still science? Most people would say yes.
The big bang theory is not seen as a threat to the established order, or the present economic system, but if it were, the Right wing blogosphere would be resonant with condemnation for anyone who espoused it. Fred Hoyle, with his alternative steady state theory would be revered in the same way as Richard Lindzen.
The legal profession prefer to use the term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ without defining what may or may not be considered reasonable when what they really mean is deciding which theory best fits the available facts. You are like the defence counsel who might argue, even though the defendant was caught with a knife in his hand and the victim’s blood on his clothing that he should be acquitted because no empirical and verifiable evidence was available. Other explanations to the circumstances might indeed possible, however unlikely.
If every criminal trial was subject to the scientific standards you are demanding there would be very few convictions indeed. Who can say for sure that the defendant didn’t buy the stolen goods from a guy in the pub whose name and description he can’t remember and who he’d never met before? What empirical evidence would there be to disprove the defendant’s account ?
And even if a serial killer were convicted, who is to say that he would re-offend when released? That would be just conjecture of course, and again, there would be no empirical evidence to show unambiguously that he would.
So I guess you might be arguing the same way for CO2. Yes m’lud, even if it the most likely explanation for the measured empirical global warming is the 40% increase in CO2 and other GHG’s, who is to say that adding another 60% will cause any further warming? Where is the empirical evidence to even suggest that? Let these CO2 molecules go free!
Peter
Let me ask you a direct question for which I would like a direct answer.
Do you seriously believe that adding a couple of molecules to CO2 since 1900 has started runaway Global warming. By ‘global’ I mean this warming is happening in all parts of the world to a greater or lesser extent.
Tonyb
Newsflash: Peter Martin says Albert Einstein was wrong.
Wake up Peter, the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are both excellent examples of the application of the Scientific Method: unlike the dangerous AGW hypothesis, both are supported by empirical evidence. Your idea that it’s all about replicating nature is utter nonsense: did Herschel build a model of the Universe to verify his hypothesis? Er … no. See my #44.
Your waffle about the criminal law is irrelevant rubbish.
PeterM
Sorry. Your “Skeptical Science” blurb is not empirical evidence, but just a bunch of conjecture on correlations and theory.
Keep trying.
Max
James P (68)
The Vikings believed that Odin was at the time winning his battle with the evil Loki, who was single-handedly responsible for the drastically cold “fimbulvetr” that would some day herald the end of the earth.
The Romans knew better (they always did). It was obviously the good work of Jupiter, who was in overall change of global climate, and who delegated related tasks to the goddess Nympha (who ensured sufficient rain) and the goddesses Fauna and Lacturna (who ensured good weather for crops and feed for livestock). Bacchus was also involved in the wine growing, vinification and drinking process, first coming up with the saying “in vino veritas”.
The concept that man’s evil ways could be causing weather mishaps (known as “anthropogenic forcing” today) was first established by the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians and carried to extreme by Noah’s “Great Flood” story of the ancient Jews.
PeterM still believes this version.
Max