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,
Your projection of temperatures could, just possibly, be correct.
However, we can’t know what CO2 emissions will be in the coming century – so you need to present the likely warming under, say, three possible scenarios for low, medium, or high emissions of CO2 and other GHG’s .
Furthermore, you need to back up your assertions with scientific references. Proper references – not just some dodgy back of an envelope type calculation!
Pete,
Would you be kind enough to comment on this article?
GISS Swiss Cheese
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/26/giss-swiss-cheese/#more-22599
Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass
Max especially
There is a WUWT thread on Monckton’s rebuttal of Abraham that may entertain you.
Barton Paul Levenson of RC fame made a surprise appearance but it did not go well for him, for example at this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/#comment-431637
He later made an apology and then a challenge which was esponded to
Brute,
1) The wattsupwiththat article essentially makes the point that the GISS method of stretching the limited Arctic data is a bit ‘iffy’!
I do remember reading that James Hansen has presented a paper in justification of this method, but maybe the guys at CRU aren’t totally sold on the idea, as they take a more conservative approach.
The two methods do produce slightly different results. For example GISS have 2005 as their warmest year whereas Hadcrut have 1998. Nevertheless I should just emphasise that the differences are only slight.
2)Climate denialism may seem to be largely driven by those of ultra right wing political opinions. However I have found that some on the ultra-left aren’t entirely immune from the affliction either.
http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/?p=608
There’s a guy called Youngmarxist there who agrees with you. He thinks that AGW is all a plot by those wicked capitalists to expropriate ever increasing amounts of surplus value from the ever and long suffering working classes.
I’ve never totally agreed with the notion that the extreme left and extreme right have moved to the same point by opposite circular routes but I can see why some might think that way.
So you’re writing that the GISS represents an “extreme left” point of view?
Substituting non-existent data with data from locales 1200 miles away to support the theory would meet your approval as acceptable?
Correction: 1200 km……….
Brute,
No you’ve misunderstood. I’ve divided my #1030 into two parts. GISS was the first part. Ultra leftism the second part. No connection.
Ideally the Earth’s weather stations should be spread evenly around the globe. Every 10km square, maybe, should have one station. The Arctic and Antarctic don’t have many, certainly not enough, for obvious reasons.
So how do you handle that problem? Maybe this is somewhat of an oversimplification but the CRU guys have effectively said “Ok we know that our stations aren’t ideally placed but we’ll just live with that and give them all equal weighting”
Whereas the GISS approach has been to effectively weight the results from stations where the data is sparse to get closer to the ideal of equally spaced stations.
There are pros and cons to each approach. If the two methods gave wildly different answers then , I would agree that there was a big problem. But really that’s not the case at all.
PeterM
You wrote to Brute:
For some superficial similarities between two examples of contemporary dictators of the extreme left and extreme right (Hitler and Stalin) see:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_similarities_between_Hitler_and_Stalin
A more historical perspective can be seen here:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture10.html
A very pertinent quotation from this history lecture states:
I would generally agree “with the notion that the extreme left and extreme right have moved to the same point by opposite circular routes”, if one agrees that the point reached is “totalitarianism” (Myanmar and North Korea, for current examples).
But, leaving extreme positions aside, it appears that those leaning toward the left espouse less individual freedom but more concern for the collective good, as defined by a large and powerful government for the general welfare of the population, who are deemed to be less able than an elitist leadership to evaluate what is really good for them.
Those leaning more to the right believe in greater personal liberty and freedom of individuals to decide what is good for them with less interference by a smaller and less powerful government, which, in turn, is more directly controlled by the electorate to carry out its wishes.
This all may have little to do directly with the current debate on AGW, except that those leaning toward the left may generally express more concern about “dangerous AGW” than those who lean to the right, at least partially because it fits their political “ideology” better.
But, in any case, the primary issue being debated is the scientific basis (or lack thereof) for the premise that AGW is a potential danger, and the politics must, by definition, come second.
Just my thoughts.
Maybe yours (and Brute’s) are different.
Max
Brute
The Denis Rancourt youtube is very interesting. Thanks for providing (1028) the link.
Max
Brute
Steve Goddard’s blog article on WUWT (GISS Swiss cheese), which you cited (1027) does indeed show how meaningless the GISS record is in actual fact.
But is it worse than the HadCRUT record?
Or the NCDC record?
Do these records all have the same basic problems?
Since 1979 we have a more comprehensive satellite (tropospheric) record, which has been confirmed by spot radiosonde readings. This record also shows warming, but at a slower rate than the surface record, despite the fact that greenhouse theory tells us that the troposphere should be warming more rapidly than the surface.
So from this all we can conclude a) that the rate of warming at the surface is most likely significantly lower than has been shown by the “Swiss cheese” surface records, or b) that the most of the observed warming has not come from the greenhouse effect or c) both of the above.
I’d vote for c).
Max
Bob_FJ
Thanks for 1029.
Monckton’s rebuttal of Abrahams’ attempted trashing is precise and to the point, even if his “hammering” of Abrahams is a bit repetitive.
Our friend and sci-fi author, BPL, got shot down pretty effectively in the comments on the WUWT blog, as well. (See you were also having some fun on the thread.)
Many people may find Monckton’s demeanor abrasive and “snooty”, but he is no worse in that regard than BPL. Neither of the two are “climate scientists” per se. The biggest difference I have found is that Monckton usually gathers enough data to be well informed.
Max
Max,
I probably am what you might call on the Social Democratic left but I don’t feel that this necessarily means I agree with a curtailment of individual liberty. There’s always a problem, in any society, about just where you draw the line. I notice in that in the UK its those on the political Right who are most intolerant of Burkha wearing, the riders of noisy motor bikes, noisy late night parties, or the blowing of Vuvuzelas at football matches, although I might agree with them on that one!
Science has been quite good to leftish ideals I would say. The theory of Evolution has turned upside down the old certainties of the hierarchical structure of God, King, the Aristocracy, Wealthy merchants, down to commoners and serfs. God doesn’t have to exist at all and there is no real difference between the rest who are all pretty much equal no matter what their race or gender.
So, I’m happy to go along with what the scientific consensus might be on any issue. And where do we find that? Well I’d say you should forget Wattsupwiththat and look instead on the website of the National Academy of Sciences!
PeterM
To the two graphs I posted (1024 and 1025) you opined:
If you check the graphs more closely, you will see that all the sources of the data are referenced (HadCRUT record, IPCC projections).
The linear trends for the various multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles were calculated by Excel based on the data as referenced.
All you have to do is read what is on the graphs for the “proper references”, Peter.
Max
PS I actually agreed with your assertion (1021) that short term temperature trends are meaningless as as climate indicators and that only long-term trends show us what is truly going on with our planet’s climate. That is also why I posted the long-term record showing the observed repetitive multi-decadal oscillations. Aren’t we in agreement here, or do you somehow disagree that there have been these repetitive oscillations in the long-term record?
PeterM
Darwinism is not a “leftish” science, as you have implied. It is an apolitical scientific theory, which (unlike the current “dangerous AGW” hypothesis) has been validated by empirical data; all scientific attempts to falsify it have failed (see earlier post on this topic).
The concept of equality of all men was drafted by a group of revolutionary libertarians (the founding fathers of the USA), not by Karl Marx (or Darwin, for that matter).
As far as the “scientific consensus” on “dangerous AGW” is concerned, it is a myth, to start of with (many scientists do not support the premise that AGW is a potential danger).
Even if there really were a “consensus”, it would be meaningless, as long as the hypothesis has not been validated by empirical data derived from physical observations. The empirical data gathered to date tend to falsify (rather than validate) the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, as pointed out in earlier posts.
The prevailing “scientific consensus” (on heavier objects falling more rapidly than lighter ones) at the time of Galileo turned out to be wrong, as was shown by the empirical data derived from the physical observations of Galileo’s “leaning tower” experiment.
So forget about going along with the mythical “scientific consensus” on AGW – there is none, Peter, and even if there were, it would be meaningless.
Max
So how do you handle that problem? Maybe this is somewhat of an oversimplification but the CRU guys have effectively said “Ok we know that our stations aren’t ideally placed but we’ll just live with that and give them all equal weighting”
Sorry Pete………That dog don’t hunt……
If a skeptic used geographically “cold” location data and supplanted it in a “warm” area to demonstrate that “global warming” wasn’t happening, you’d scream bloody murder (and rightly so).
All I’m saying is that using London’s temperatures to represent both London and Murmansk (for example) is junk science………(I prefer fraud)…………”weighting” or no “weighting”.
The practice is particularly loathsome when the purpose is to secure government funding and pursue a political/ideological agenda……in any case you wouldn’t stand for it…however in this particular instance, the “method” suits your socio-political ideology…so you choose to overlook it.
Max,
You are right that Monckton’s reply to Abrahams is abrasive and repetitive. I’d add the adjectives: defensive, nit-picking, pompous, and misleading. That would just be for starters.
For instance: “Though you imply I was wrong to lead my audience to believe that polar bears are not threatened, is it not correct that I made the different statement that they are doing fine”?
Now, I’m sure people like Robin can support the notion that saying Polar Bears are doing fine, does not in any way, shape, or form imply that this is necessarily the same as saying that they aren’t threatened. But, is really how an average person would interpret Monckton’s original comment? For him to quibble about this interpretation shows how slippery and desperate he must be.
That’s not atypical of the points in Monckton’s so-called rebuttal BTW. It makes very tedious reading.
Max,
Yes you are correct the American Revolution and constitution was a progressive step. Its stretching your argument somewhat to say “The concept of equality of all men was drafted by a group of revolutionary libertarians”. All men? What about the native Indians and imported slaves from Africa? Science says there is virtually no difference genetically between the races, but its taken a long time to get general acceptance of that, if in fact it has.
The American revolution didn’t happen in isolation and the American revolutionaries certainly didn’t invent ‘equality’! The French revolution had ‘liberty, fraternity and equality’ as its slogan. It might have been good if the USA had adopted those extra two words also.
I don’t think that I was arguing that science is necessarily left wing as such. On the other hand, political thought should be rational and scientific to mean anything at all. If a line of political thought clashes with what is known scientifically, as with the more right wing anti AGW zealots, then its obviously wrong, wouldn’t you say?
As well as prodigious use of the guillotine……………a bloody mess of mass murder, savagery and anarchy.
Something only you would admire Pete.
Brute, Reur 1027 concerning “extrapolated T data”
Here is one of my favourites demonstrating this issue: It shows that in general, where the red dots are the largest is where there are apparently no data available, such as in Greenland below:
EXTRACT: It is apparently much hotter than usual in Greenland. But where is the data? Most of the 5×5 degree grids have zero stations (only some of which are indicated by the black arrows). Most of the grids with data have one station. The two hottest spots on the NOAA Greenland area show 5 degrees warming and have no data.
IMAGE = http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/NOAA_JanJun2010_files/image005.jpg
Your friend Peter Martin, may also be interested in this new article concerning the Oz BOM take on temperature rise in Oz, wherein there appears to be a great dearth of good data and over exuberation with “homogenization“. I’ve made a comment there…. I wonder if he might risk purgatory and evidentially visit there too?
BTW, I’ve not enjoyed winter this year as I usually do, although the past few days have been relatively “warm”.
Brute,
The Guillotine was considered to a humane form of execution at the time. Most revolutions are fairly bloody. Yours wasn’t any different and executions were certainly carried out by American forces.
Max,
It’s good that you are going to add some ‘proper’ Scientific references to three scenarios. High, Medium and low CO2 emissions for the coming century.
Let me know if you find it too difficult – I’ll give you a hand.
PeterM
For “‘proper’ Scientific references” for the projected IPCC warming scenarios (which you have again requested in your 1046), see the referenced link to the IPCC SPM report, where these are outlined.
It’s not that hard to do, Peter. Just read what I posted and follow the links.
Max
PeterM
Whether or not the guillotine was employed because it was considered to be “a humane form of execution” is questionable.
Compared to other available forms (hanging, firing squads) it was primarily considered to be a more efficient form (as were the Nazi gas chambers 150 years later).
Max
PeterM
I stated
You object that its practical application (at the time) did not include “the native Indians and imported slaves from Africa”. This is absolutely correct, as no one would deny.
But the concept of equality of all men was created by the US founding fathers, as imperfect as their implementation of this concept may have been.
The concept of “liberté, égalité, fraternité” was also conceived by the French revolutionaries, although its implementation was also badly botched initially.
Get the difference?
Max
PeterM
To get back on topic, we touched upon Darwinism (or the theory of evolution) and how this scientific theory itself is inherently different from the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, in that the former has been validated by empirical data and all attempts to falsify it have been scientifically refuted, whereas this is not the case for the latter.
So much for the basic scientific difference between the two; now to the politics, to which you also alluded.
There is no question that evolution became a political issue (Scopes trial, to mention just one historical example). But this happened “after the fact” as religious groups tried to stop the theory from being taught in schools, as is happening in some places even today. In other words, the theory had been scientifically established long before it became a political issue.
The “politics” of AGW has a different history. The significance of this hypothesis was born out of politics, with the IPCC, a politically appointed body, specifically set up to investigate AGW and its impact on human society. The political concept of controlling and taxing carbon was promoted by the very same politicians who were also supporting the taxpayer-funded research work, which would be used to justify the political agenda. In other words, the politicians were funding agenda-driven science with public funds.
The hypothesis of man-made global warming, itself, had existed since the 1880s. There was the obscure scientific hypothesis of Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming.
As John Daly points out, before the founding of the IPCC in the late 1980s, this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not.
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
In other words, the hypothesis as postulated had been falsified by the observed empirical data.
Some historians believe today that the modern resurgence of the AGW hypothesis came as a result of the battle between British PM Margaret Thatcher and National Union of Mineworkers President, Arthur Scargill.
As the cited report by John Daly shows:
Unlike the theory of evolution, AGW has become a multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded “money-making machine” for research institutions, “green” industries, hedge funds, carbon trading companies, energy companies, environmental activist groups, etc. despite the fact that the hypothesis has yet to be validated by empirical scientific data.
How did AGW become such an important environmental issue?
As Daly states:
In the process, AGW has hi-jacked the world-wide environmental movement.
If you read Daly’s brief summary, Peter, you will see how AGW became what it was prior to the start of its demise last autumn with Climategate, the Copenhagen fiasco and other revelations of falsified and fudged scientific data.
And you will see how it had a basically different history than that of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Max