THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
JZSmith asked what percentage of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans has resulted from deforestation.
Deforestation accounts for an estimated 20% of human emissions today, with reforestation offsetting around 2%, for a net impact of around 18% of the total, equivalent to 6.3GtCO2/year.
There are two parts to the cumulative CO2 impact of deforestation that have to be considered:
1. the CO2 emitted from the burning (or decaying) trees
2. the reduction in effective CO2 absorption capacity resulting from removing the trees
Historical data on deforestation are sketchy. But if we only look at the period starting in 1850, we can make some rough estimates.
Approximately 30% of the forest existing in 1850 has been removed by man since then.
Expressed in millions of tons of carbon equivalent, annual deforestation has increased from around 135 MtC/year in 1850 to around 1,720 MtC/year today.
The cumulated impact since 1850 has been around 128,000 MtC or around 470 billions of tons of CO2 (GtCO2) equivalent released from deforestation.
The world’s forests are estimated to have a biomass of around 300 GtC today and to absorb around 8.5 GtCO2 per year today. US forests represent around 9% of this world total.
Over the period 1850-2008 the cumulated loss of CO2 absorption capacity due to deforestation is equivalent to around 260 GtCO2.
Together this “added” CO2 represents: 470 + 260 = 730 GtCO2.
To date it is estimated that fossil fuel combustion has generated a total of around 1,840 GtCO2, with cement production and other small sources having generated another 100 GtCO2.
This means that the total CO2 impact from deforestation since 1850 has been:
730 / (1840 + 100 + 730) = 27% of the total human emission
If one included all of the world’s forests that have been cleared by man over history (maybe as much as 80-90% of the original total), this percentage would be much higher, of course.
If anyone has any better numbers on this, I would be interested.
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3969): “Ocean temperatures will continue to rise until they catch up. If they are rising at exactly half the rate of land temperatures they will take exactly twice as long to reach equilibrium.”
OK. Let’s run through the numbers to make sure I understand.
70% of the global temp is the sea portion
30% is the land portion
Over the total period 1850 to 2008 the total (land + sea) increased by 0.65C according to Hadley.
Over this period the sea temperature rose at half the rate of the land temperature.
So let’s assume the 2008 average temperature (land + sea) is 15.2C.
This means that the 1850 average temperature was 15.2 – 0.65 = 14.55C
Assuming the average sea temperature in 1850 was 1.5C warmer than the average land temperature, we have:
Sea temp (1850) = 15.0C
Land temp (1850) = 13.5C
Average land + sea temp (1850) = 0.7* 15.0 + 0.3 * 13.5 = 14.55C
Average warming (1850-2008) = 0.65C
Sea warming = 0.5C
Land warming = 1.0C
Sea temp (2008) = 15.0 + 0.5 = 15.5C
Land temp (2008) = 13.5 + 1.0 = 14.5C
Average land + sea temp (2008) = 0.7* 15.5 + 0.3 * 14.5 = 15.2C
Overall (land + sea) warming was 15.2 – 14.55 = 0.65C
Several solar studies tell us that increased solar activity has caused 0.35C of this (overall land + sea) warming, or
0.35 / 0.65 = 53.8% of the total warming.
Solar caused sea warming = 53.8% * 0.5 = 0.27C
Solar caused land warming = 53.8% * 1.0 = 0.54C
Total solar caused warming = 0.35C
This leaves
Anthropogenic sea warming = 0.5 – 0.27 = 0.23C
Anthropogenic land warming = 1.0 – 0.54 = 0.46C
Total anthropogenic warming = 0.30C
So that’s what happened from 1850 to 2008.
Now are you telling me that without any additional source of energy, the sea is going to continue to warm by another 0.23C over the next 158 years (from 2008 to 2166) as a result of the atmospheric CO2 increase experienced from 1850 to 2008?
How does this happen?
Where does the energy come from to cause this additional warming?
I am really curious how this is supposed to work according to your theory, so please do explain it to me and let me know if I have made any false assumptions in the calculation.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Well you’ve obviously latched on to a set of figures which you find politically acceptable and which you can use to justify your preconceived notion that AGW is a scam or a hoax.
Your use of the term ‘linear increase’ tells the whole story. If there is an increase, what does it matter whether or not it is linear? Except that it allows you to shave another fraction of a degree off the actual increase. Subtract another 0.35 degs for solar warming. And hey presto! Little or no global warming!
The highest solar activity in 11,000 years? Any references for that? And it’s just a huge coincidence that this happens at exactly the same time as human CO2 emissions increase exponentially?
You’re happy to forget or ignore the effect of ocean heat uptake, in the same way that you want evryone to forget what is going on the Arctic. However, its the key to understanding what is going on in the climate.
You’ve repeatedly stated that the IPCC figure of 3 degC for 2x CO2 is based on nothing more than GIGO computer models. And yet when you are faced with NASA data showing that the land based temperature has increased by 0.32 degC per decade for the last 30 or so years, exactly in line with the IPCC reports, you’ve nothing to say.
I expect if I pushed you hard enough all that you could say was that the figures were faked.
Its rather dangerous to ask the question “how dumb do they really think we are?” at the same time as you are happy to ignore vital data but take on board some of the crackpot ideas of those who think the CO2 record is all faked too.
Max,
You’ve got this wrong: “Assuming the average sea temperature in 1850 was 1.5C warmer than the average land temperature”
This link should give you the NASA graph in a slightly more readable form.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif
It only goes back to 1880 but even so, you might agree that it looks to be very unlikely that the green and the purple curve will diverge by 1.5 deg C going back another thirty years.
In any case I’m not sure how accurate the figures are from the 19th century.
They are pretty accurate from the mid 70’s onwards. I’ve just guessed that the land is warming at twice the rate of the ocean in that period. If I give you the tabular figures, how would you like to produce some of your linear regressions for the two since then? That way there will be no argument!
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.txt
Hi Peter,
In your post 3978 you have brought up a few points that are pertinent to our discussion, several new side-tracks plus a couple of emotional outbursts.
I will attempt to cover all and then try to get the discussion back to the topics we are discussing.
These are: (a) the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as observed from the long-term records on temperature and CO2 and (b) your postulation (3969) of a more rapid greenhouse warming over land and a delayed warming over sea, which will allegedly continue long after the end of the increased CO2 to reach “equilibrium”.
You started off with, “Well you’ve obviously latched on to a set of figures which you find politically acceptable and which you can use to justify your preconceived notion that AGW is a scam or a hoax.
Your use of the term ‘linear increase’ tells the whole story. If there is an increase, what does it matter whether or not it is linear? Except that it allows you to shave another fraction of a degree off the actual increase. Subtract another 0.35 degs for solar warming. And hey presto! Little or no global warming!
The highest solar activity in 11,000 years? Any references for that? And it’s just a huge coincidence that this happens at exactly the same time as human CO2 emissions increase exponentially?”
I’d suggest that “politically acceptable” and “preconceived notion that AGW is a scam or a hoax” are polemic sidetracks that have very little to do with the crux of our discussion, so I will ignore these remarks and consider them as unfortunate emotional outbursts on your part.
Your statement that my “use of the term ‘linear increase’ tells the whole story” is interesting. IPCC uses the linear increase approach to describe the warming of the 20th century as compared to that of the latter part of the 20th century. It is an acceptable way to describe long-term temperature trends.
It is true however, as you say, that it “tells the whole story”: it tells us that the entire Hadley record from 1850 to 2008 shows a warming of 0.65C. I have shown you previously that if one simply takes the difference between the 1850 anomaly of -0.402C and the 2008 anomaly of +0.312C, one arrives at a spot difference of 0.714C, not far from the observed linear warming of 0.65C recorded by Hadley. So it makes very good sense to stick with the method used by IPCC and use the linear warming trend.
Your statement that this “allows me to shave another fraction of a degree off the actual increase” is pure conjecture, so I will ignore this, as well.
Your next statement is interesting, “Subtract another 0.35 degs for solar warming. And hey presto! Little or no global warming!”
First, the observed “global warming” was 0.65C.
IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” of the impact of solar activity on past global warming is “low”, so I look for other sources to get this information.
I gave you references to several studies by solar scientists who conclude that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity has contributed to a warming of 0.35C over the long-term period. I have no reason not to accept the conclusion of all these studies at face value. Do you?
Your next statement, “The highest solar activity in 11,000 years? Any references for that?” Check the studies I cited.
Then you wrote, “And it’s just a huge coincidence that this happens at exactly the same time as human CO2 emissions increase exponentially?”
Whether or not this is “just a huge coincidence” is a moot point, Peter. It happened at the same time, as did many other things (ENSO, PDO, NAO oscillations, UHI distortion, etc.). The many different factors that influence climate (even those of which we are not yet fully aware) do occur simultaneously, Peter. It’s a fact of life (even though IPCC seems to have a bit of trouble understanding it in its myopic concentration on AGW alone).
You then opined, “You’re happy to forget or ignore the effect of ocean heat uptake, in the same way that you want everyone to forget what is going on the Arctic. However, its the key to understanding what is going on in the climate.”
Peter, I have tried to understand your notion of “the effect of ocean heat uptake”, but so far you have been unable to provide me a coherent explanation of how this affects the global warming record, as I requested from you in my 3977. I will come back to this point later.
As to your suggestion that I want everyone “to forget what is going on the Arctic”, this really has as little to do with our discussion as what is going on the Antarctic, so I will ignore it. Whether or not either of the two (Arctic or Antarctic changes) are “the key to understanding what is going on in the climate”, is a moot point having nothing to do with our discussion.
You go on to write, “You’ve repeatedly stated that the IPCC figure of 3 degC for 2x CO2 is based on nothing more than GIGO computer models.”
This is correct, Peter. I have cited the recent Spencer et al. study on cloud feedbacks, which states clearly that these are strongly negative, based on actual physical observations. Then I see that IPCC had assumed earlier that cloud feedbacks are strongly positive, based on the climate model inputs, and that these represent 1.3C of the assumed 3.2C “climate sensitivity” for 2xCO2, at the same time conceding that “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”. From this I conclude that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C as assumed by the IPCC climate models (with a large degree of uncertainty on the cloud impact) should be corrected to clear up this “uncertainty” on the part of IPCC based on subsequent physical observations. If I then subtract the erroneously assumed “positive feedback” impact of +1.3C and add in the observed “negative feedback” impact of -1.0 to -1.5C, I am left with a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.6 to 0.8C.
I am comforted to see that the actual facts confirm the estimates made previously by Lindzen as well as Shaviv + Veizer.
Your next statement was, “And yet when you are faced with NASA data showing that the land based temperature has increased by 0.32 degC per decade for the last 30 or so years, exactly in line with the IPCC reports, you’ve nothing to say.”
I believe you will have to admit that I did not have “nothing to say” about the 30-year warming period starting in 1976 or so. I wrote repeatedly that it makes more sense (as you have always preached) to look at long-term records, rather than just shorter-term “blips” in the record (while ignoring all other periods). This is one of the major weaknesses in the IPCC report: it spends most of its time analyzing a 30-year “blip” rather than looking at the whole long-term record.
Your reference to “land based temperature” is an interesting side track. IPCC mentions the entire record, based on the Hadley “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” rather that a “cherry-picked” “land” piece of this anomaly, so I conclude that you are comparing “apples with oranges” when you say that the IPCC projections were spot on. Forget “land based temperature” “for the last 30 or so years” and concentrate on the overall temperature over the entire long-term record, Peter.
You concluded with, “Its rather dangerous to ask the question “how dumb do they really think we are?” at the same time as you are happy to ignore vital data but take on board some of the crackpot ideas of those who think the CO2 record is all faked too.”
This is an irrelevant sidetrack, Peter. That I am “happy to ignore vital data” is an unsubstantiated suggestion.
TonyB has raised the issue of the CO2 record, both prior to Mauna Loa and since these measurements started. While this topic is very interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion here.
To label the findings of TonyB or Ernst Beck as “crackpot ideas of those who think the CO2 record is all faked too” is silly. It is the same as if I were to label James E. Hansen or you as “a crackpot”. Let’s keep these silly (and irrelevant) “ad hom” labels out of our discussion, Peter. They add nothing.
I will come back to your 3979 in a next post. Got to sign off for now.
Regards,
Max
We’ve been arguing this topic for over a year now. Do any of you think that any progress has been made?
I don’t think that Peter will ever be convinced to rethink his cultish devotion to his enviro-religious beliefs.
Peter has failed to bring any facts to the table that would compel any Realist to support his crusade. In fact, polls show that fewer people believe in Manmade Global Warming than last year and the number of “Skeptics” is growing.
Waste of time?
Brute
I have only been on this forum a few months but do get a sense of deja vu! The debate from Peters side is based more on belief than proven science and many of the pillars of this extraordinary belief are verifiably wrong
Sea levels-they are not rising at an ever increasing rate and have been higher in the recent past. Just because a Nasa scientist and someone eager to sell carbon credits says it is happening doesn’t make it factual.
Global Sea level temperatures-the argos buoys cover a tiny fraction of the world and are very recent, and again how meaningful is the notion of SST? Those measurements purporting to date back many years are highly speculative.
Co2 doubling causes a rise of up to 4.5C? In which world is this happening, with out completely unobserved feedbacks predicted by computers that even their sponsor-the ipcc- say are inaccurate and should not be relied on
Global temperatures? Meaningless unless the same data is being taken consistently from the same stations. When grids are as far apart as 700 miles what is that telling us?
Global temperatures to 1850? There is no such thing. The data does not exist in any meaningful way, let alone one that can be parsed to fractions of a degree. Look at the history of the stations-how few they were-how they moved, got different equipment, were operated by different untrained people who missed out measurements for days on end and then made them up (sounds like modern computer interpolation!)
UHI-according to the IPCC it is negligible-according to actual experience, observations common sense and listening to the weather forecast daily, it is very real and considerable.
Melting arctic? Yes, every sixty years or so-basing definitive information on satellite data dating to 1978 is nonsense.
Removing previous warm and cold periods from the history books in order to pursue your hypotheses with a unreliable and unrepresentative pine cone and tacking on selected temperatures? And WE are called Deniers!
AGW is bad science that has few solid foundations and the scientists involved think they know far more about this chaotic and unpredicatable system than they actually do.
Unfortunately this nonsense is completely overshadowing the real issues facing mankind (where we might have lots of common ground with Peter).
I also find it increasingly sinister-recycling on penalty of fines or imprisonment, bogus green taxes, violent attempts to stop us building the infrastructure we need to develop, being told population must be kept under control and abortion should be one of the methods of doing so. Suggestions that meat should be removed from hospital diets to reduce dangerous green house gases and that people should phone the doctor rather than travel to them for the same reason.
The blind belief is what matters, not the science.
TonyB
At 3981, Brute suggested that Peter would never “be convinced to rethink his cultish devotion to his enviro-religious beliefs”. Well, that’s rather insulting and Peter may well be declined to respond. Better perhaps to remind him of his answers to the questionnaire I posted at 1093 & see if he still has the same views. His answers in November were:
!. He agreed that the world’s temperature had increased over the course of the twentieth century.
2. The cause of this (closest to his view) was that it was wholly or largely man-made – because of greenhouse gas emissions.
3. He thought this likely to be seriously harmful.
4. He thought that, because “this is the most important issue facing mankind today”, taking action to reduce GW should be at or near the top of the priority lists of world governments.
5. He agreed, because “this is the most important issue facing mankind today”, that taking action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of his personal priority list.
Are these still your views, Peter?
Hi Peter,
Attached is Hadley Sea and Land Temperature anomaly record 1850-2008.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/3244585543_e86bbe6fa5_b.jpg
Land linear rate of warming is a bit higher than sea rate. Is this because of “inertia” or the UHI effect or a combination of the two?
The land record also has much wider annual fluctuations.
Over the 150+ years the land warmed by 0.87C; the sea warmed by 0.60C; and the combined record showed a warming of 0.65C.
Regards,
Max
Didn’t mean to be insulting and if I was, I apologize. While visiting other websites and participating in discussions I find very little science or evidence put forth by Alarmists…..they possess a wealth of emotion and are short on facts.
I singled out Peter as he is the only Alarmist on this particular thread and I wanted to know if anything that any of us had written had swayed his opinions regarding the topic.
I can’t speak for the remaining Realists on this thread; however, I would venture to write that if anything, we are more entrenched than before this whole thing got started.
I for one have learned an immensity regarding the subject over this past year and while I was “on the fence” at the beginning, I’ve found that there is a wealth of information that I was not made privy to through “conventional” news outlets.
I tend to be a results oriented person and while I’ve enjoyed and learned a great deal from the experience I was just wondering if it has been worthwhile for others.
Headed to the Caribbean next week…….maybe I’ll ask the locals what their views are regarding the topic.
And remember;
If you don’t like the weather, move!
-George Carlin
Hey Brute,
Enjoy your Caribbean trip.
Your Carlin quote “If you don’t like the weather, move!” could be taken by a true AGW believer to be an ominous reference to the waves of climate refugees that will be moving en masse from the oppressive anthropogenic heat in their tropical and subtropical home countries to find relief in more temperate Europe and North America, according to IPCC projections.
Max
Robin, Brute, Bob_FJ, TonyB, JZSmith, TonyN, Peter (and other posters here)
It is true that we have all probably learned a lot about the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the AGW movement.
For me the most interesting part is to try to analyze how a true “believer” thinks in defending his belief against fairly convincing arguments.
Peter has been very polite and factual, unlike many AGW proponents who immediately resort to ad hom attacks when they have no good answers. He usually brings reasonable arguments to support his case, rather than just using the “consensus of scientists” argument as so many AGW supporters do.
And I’ve learned a lot in the process, myself.
So I definitely do not think that this has been (or will be in the future) a waste of time.
Thanks to TonyN for making it all possible.
Max
Hi Peter,
I did download and plot the Hadley sea and land temperature records. It’s still in the filter, but I just wanted you to know that I have responded to your post on this topic.
Regards,
Max
Well said, Max – especially the thanks to TonyN. For my part, I’ve learned a great deal from this thread. And my initial view (back in the early New Statesman days) that mankind probably had contributed to potentially harmful GW, although tempered even then by some scepticism, has hardened as a result into a more overtly sceptical position. Thus my own response to my own survey is as follows:
1. I think the world’s temperature has increased over the course of the twentieth century.
2. Of the options on offer, the closest to my view is that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions may have contributed to that warming.
3. I think the warming is (of the options on offer) unlikely to cause any problems.
4. I do not think action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of the priority lists of world governments.
5. I do not think action to reduce global warming should be at or near the top of my personal priority list.
PS: in the second sentence of my 3983, the word “declined” should have read “disinclined”.
If anyone’s interested, my survey can be found here.
Max 3986
I agree with your comments-especially regarding Peter.The arguments do become a bit circular though, especially when they are so based on theory and flawed data rather than actual fact :)
You and Bob might be especially interested in this item about solar activity. I have come across his work before but not such a detailed essay.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/95
Tonyb
Thousands Attend Global Warming Protest…..
You know, I brought this up several months ago. I should have published my findings. I could’ve received a Nobel Prize. You guys will testify that I came up with this first, right?
Decadal Occurrences Of Statewide Maximum Temperature Records
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/01/decadal-occurrences-of-statewide.html
There’s a pretty cool animation with this…..hope it works for everyone. If the link doesn’t work you can find it over at ice cap.
Max, Brute and others,
Well if I’m ‘a believer’ in any sort of ‘cult’, its a belief in the scientific process. It is scientific knowledge which has made possible all the technological developments such as computers, the internet, modern medicine, air travel and all the rest of it, that most of us now take for granted. Our whole modern civilisation is based on this ‘cult’!
So yes, you are right, I don’t mention the scientific consensus much. I guess that you have heard it all before anyway. If I were going to go against the scientific consensus I’d have to have pretty good evidence that it was wrong. Then I’d have to check and recheck it all again. It wouldn’t make any sense to argue that it was wrong because it was against the American constitution or whatever.
And yes, I believe in Darwinian Evolution and all the rest of modern scientific theory too. There are those who don’t and believe in the literal truth of the Bible or the Koran. I can understand that there will be those who will reject science in favour of religion but, its harder to understand that there will be those who reject science in favour of politics.
You have to ask why all the scientific academies of the world would conspire together in a great hoax. It really doesn’t make any sense unless that they should. Unless you are deeply into conspiracy theories, you should at least entertain the idea that they may well be right.
Speaking of this, if mankind is causing other species to die off and become extinct, wouldn’t that simply be the “natural order” of things? Isn’t that what Darwinian Evolution is all about?
The most cunning, clever, dominant species wins out in the end? If “mankind” is just another “animal” than who are we to argue how mankind, as a species, effects other species? As I wrote before, a skyscraper is as “natural” as a termite mound or a beaver lodge, isn’t it?
If global warming is the result of mankind’s natural inclination then we should allow it evolve, correct?
Hi Peter,
You wrote (3993), “Well if I’m ‘a believer’ in any sort of ‘cult’, its a belief in the scientific process. It is scientific knowledge which has made possible all the technological developments such as computers, the internet, modern medicine, air travel and all the rest of it, that most of us now take for granted. Our whole modern civilisation is based on this ‘cult’!”
I fully agree with you here, Peter! This is no “cult”.
You added, “So yes, you are right, I don’t mention the scientific consensus much. I guess that you have heard it all before anyway.”
This is good, Peter, because there really isn’t any true “scientific consensus” on AGW. As you are fully aware, there are many renowned climate scientists who do not support the IPCC view (or even less the more extreme Hansen view). The very concept of scientific consensus on this issue is a sham, so it is very good that you do not fall into the trap of mentioning it.
“And yes, I believe in Darwinian Evolution and all the rest of modern scientific theory too.”
Me too, Peter. And I fully agree with the rest of your sentence (which I have not repeated here.)
Then you added, “You have to ask why all the scientific academies of the world would conspire together in a great hoax. It really doesn’t make any sense unless that they should. Unless you are deeply into conspiracy theories, you should at least entertain the idea that they may well be right.”
Mentioning “all the scientific academies” sounds like you are falling into the “consensus” trap (see above). There is no consensus, Peter. It is a self-proclaimed concept, which is unsubstantiated in fact.
The concept of “conspiracy theories” is a favorite cop-out of AGW aficionados, implying that all those who disagree with their viewpoint assume that all those espousing AGW are engaged in a conspiracy.
It’s not a “conspiracy”, Peter. It’s just human nature and several billions of dollars at work here.
Paradigms are hard to break. The current one (promoted by IPCC) is that human CO2 is causing a major and potentially dangerous change in our planet’s climate. This paradigm may be starting to crumble as contradictory evidence is exposed, but it is still the prevalent one today. Data points lying outside this paradigm are difficult for those espousing the paradigm to accept (or even to see).
Add to this that several billions of dollars of research funding are directly tied to supporting this paradigm and you have plenty of reasons for “climatologists” to march to the paradigm party line without the need for any “conspiracy”.
Then there is the underlying agenda of some politicians and bureaucrats to impose draconian taxes involving hundreds of billions of dollars for them to collect and shuffle around, providing an even greater incentive to support the paradigm, in accordance with the Mencken principle.
All this has nothing to do with “science” or the abstract notion of “scientific truth”. It’s just plain old human nature at work, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Peter #3993
We all believe in science provided it is based on scientific principles which in turn is founded on actual known facts. The AGW branch of science relies very heavily on theories based on unreliable data. I have given my examples of this in my #3982
Let us specfically home in on global temperatures in general and those back to 1850 in particular on which a lot of your comments are based.
Please refer me to any link that supports your idea that
a: Global temperatures are a meaningful data reference in the first place and the ones we have are reliable and consistent
b) a counter to my claims-which I have substantiated here before-that the 1850 figures are anything other than a meaningless set of a very small number of poorly gathered and inconsistent records.
Once you have done that perhaps we can then move onto the other pillars of the science and examine the veracity of the data its foundations are built on.
As for your belief there is a consensus Max has dealt with this and it simply doesn’t exist no matter how much you believe otherwise
So please engage with your own data on Global temperatures so we can see how ‘scientifc ‘ that is.
tonyB
Peter: I thought your #3994 interesting – and revealing. You put particular emphasis on the position of “the scientific academies of the world”. Well, first they don’t all have the same view: for example the Russian Academy of Science is dubious about AGW as I think are the leading scientific institutions in China and India. See, for example, this interesting article from an Indian paper. As for the West – well, yes, most seem to toe the AGW line but, if you examine their official statements, you’ll usually find they are drafted rather vaguely. Consider, for example, this from the Royal Society:
First, it doesn’t say that it agrees with “the consensus” – so there’s wriggle room if circumstances change. And then there’s the vague talk of “possible consequences” and “could have serious impacts”. Hmm: the Royal Society would not, I think, pick option (a) for each of the five questions of my survey – the true alarmist position that you share.
Even the American Physical Society adds this to its rather stronger line:
So there’s wriggle room here too. But I believe that the call for “enhanced effort” is the real issue. And, as Max has indicated, that sadly is quite simply “follow the money”.
At a recent alumni dinner at my old college, our President was bemoaning the extreme difficulty of getting research money these days. The sole exception was environmental study. That, I believe, is common throughout Western academia. Needless to say, the scientific institutes have not overlooked this: their administrative committees share academia’s focus on science’s need for the public money available for long-term observational programmes. And climate has become, by far, the most egregious example of this – where, moreover, a politically desired position has become the object rather than the consequence of research. And those committees, understanding how important this is, have taken it upon themselves to speak for their thousands of members – without troubling them with serious consultation. Members can commonly be kept in line by the distribution of the honours that determine reputation and career prospects.
I believe therefore, Peter, that your reliance on the position of the scientific academies is these days of limited worth. There’s no need to rely on conspiracy theories to understand what is happening.
And, yes, I too am a strong supporter of “Darwinian Evolution and all the rest of modern scientific theory”.
Robin,
You are not correct about the Russian, Chinese, or Indian national academies. Take a look at the signatories of this document
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf
Max and TonyB,
I suppose that you two will be arguing that there is no consensus on CO2 levels next.
The consensus is that it rose naturally to 280ppmv during the early millenia of the current interglacial period and has risen smoothly in the past 150 years to the current level of 384 ppmv.
All this talk of spikes in the CO2 record is just so much BS espoused by crackpots. (incidentally, that is Max’s word for it)
Brute,
You seem to have a warped view of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It doesn’t mean that because we can eliminate every last giant panda or gorilla that we should. I suppose that I could argue that there are logical scientific reasons for preserving them but the truth of the matter is that most people actually like the idea of having healthy populations of these animals in the world. Most people’s motivations are probably more emotional than scientific. And, yes, we’ve evolved to feel that way about them.
Even with less cuddly animals, like sharks, there is a healthy awareness that they are part of the ecosystems of the ocean. In recent weeks we have had several fatalities from shark attack in Australian coastal waters. A common theme from friends and relatives of the victims has been that they were well aware of the risks, that they were intruding into the sharks’ world, and there should be no mindless reprisals.
You say “If global warming is the result of mankind’s natural inclination then we should allow it evolve, correct?”
No. Wrong. It’s our natural inclination to preserve our environment rather than let it be unnecessarily damaged.
No, Peter, I’m not wrong. Here’s the conclusion of the statement you cited:
A classic bureaucratically negotiated “all things to all men” statement that says little and everyone can sign – I doubt if anyone here would disagree with much of it. Interesting that there’s only one specific: “implement measures to reduce global deforestation”. And who’s going to say no to that? I suggest that the report (see the article I mentioned above) that “ … the Russian Academy of Sciences strongly advised him [Putin] to reject it [the Kyoto protocol] as having “no scientific foundation” is rather more telling. But you’ve conveniently overlooked my main point. And (surprise!) that does show up in the last of the above bullet points: “Invest strongly in science and technology …” Follow the money!