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.
TonyB,
I don’t think you were on the scene last time I tried to get any takers for the bet that I’ve often offered with only one taker, Max, so far.
It is essentially that the 1998 temperature record will be be broken in the next few years.
So it comes down to whether you think that Max is right or whether Profs Hansen and Jones are correct when they say AGW has not stopped.
Interested?
TonyB
I like your “courtroom procedure” with witnesses to determine the real story on AGW (33).
There have been a few (limited) approaches to do exactly this in the USA before congressional committees. One well-known example was the debunking of the Mann et al. hockey stick and its implication of late 20th century temperatures that were “unprecedented” for 1,300 years.
I would add that the judges (or jury) deciding on this should first be screened for objectivity. No one “earning” from either the AGW scare or from industrial groups opposing AGW for a clear profit motive (such as coal companies) or representing AGW activist groups should be allowed on the jury.
Obviously this would disqualify James E. Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Joseph Romm and Al Gore. I do not know whom it would disqualify from the other side. I’m sure there are some. Maybe Peter would have an idea here.
Secondly, computer model projections should not be presented or accepted as “evidence”.
Circumstantial evidence could be allowed as background information; this could include the apparent “correlation” between atmospheric CO2 and “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature”, making sure that the jury understands that this apparent correlation does not prove causation plus the limitations of the temperature indicator itself.
Other correlations between “global” temperature and other factors (population growth, family home ownership, solar activity, world GDP, etc.) could also be presented, in order to show that there are other valid “correlations”, that do not necessarily prove “causation”.
To your question “Which side do you think would present the most compelling evidence? (assuming that circumstantial evidence and theories are not admissible)”, I would say that this depends on the witnesses called and (of course) the skill of the attorney team on either side.
Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Shaviv, McIntyre (all individuals who have nothing to gain one way or the other) might be more believable as witnesses than those “climatologists” that are fueling and earning directly from the AGW scare.
A key “lead question” to each witness could be how much each has received in climate-related research grants from which institutions over the past five years.
Hyperbole and fear-mongering sells well in the media and press, but it should be avoided in the courtroom.
Unfounded allusions to “6-meter inundations of New York City”, “extinction of a large percentage of species” or “saving the planet for our grandchildren” should not be admissible.
Will the politically powerful vested interests in this world ever allow such a “courtroom procedure” to take place?
Probably only if they see that their personal position in this debate will have the advantage from such a procedure.
Will there ever be enough rational skeptics in this world to force such a procedure in the interest of exposing the real truth on AGW?
Will these rational skeptics unite to form an activist group (as the AGW crowd have done) and march in “united goosestep” or will they (as skeptical individuals) prefer to remain “loners”?
Is there already such a (truly independent) activist group, and how effective is this group?
As someone who has a better grasp on legal questions, Robin might have some further ideas on this, but I think it is a good idea.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
My grandfather once advised me never to bet on politics or the weather.
In a moment of weakness I did exactly that when I took on Peter’s bet that the 1998 all-time 20th century record temperature (as reported by Hadley) would be exceeded by 2011 at the latest.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/3153645872_db0cb08b0e_b.jpg
Since we placed this bet, Hadley retroactively reduced the 1998 reading by a few hundredths of a degree, but it is now set for our bet, regardless of any future “ex post facto” adjustments.
Peter firmly believes in the prophesies of Phil Jones and James E. Hansen.
I do not.
I realize that the “purveyors” of the temperature record (Jones, Hansen) are exactly the same individuals that are predicting alarming warming due to AGW, so this clearly gives Peter an advantage in this bet (unless they are replaced by more un-biased individuals in the near future, which seems unlikely).
But anyway, taking this risk into account, we’ll see who was correct in 2011.
Regards,
Max
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/3153645872_db0cb08b0e_b.jpg
Max #35
I would see Gore, Hansen et al as prime witnesses-but certainly not on any jury. High court judges must carry all sorts of prejudices with them any time they try a case so they can be expected to put their own viewpoints aside.
The advantages of a televised trial is that the objectivity could be gauged. I think Barristers have a place as the ‘interpreter’ of evidence, as some people will give circumstantial evidence that needs to exposed as such. This is an inexpensive and fair format that would enable the weaknesses of their case(on either side)to be uncovered.
Computer modelling is merely electronic cartoonery until it is demonstrated to represent fact- not a guess.
You said;
“A key “lead question” to each witness could be how much each has received in climate-related research grants from which institutions over the past five years.”
Yes, a good attorney could make much of the fact that the only way to get research money is to toe the party line.
“Hyperbole and fear-mongering sells well in the media and press, but it should be avoided in the courtroom.”
This is quite true, but an incisive court room procedure will expose these claims for what they are.
“Unfounded allusions to “6-meter inundations of New York City”, “extinction of a large percentage of species” or “saving the planet for our grandchildren” should not be admissible.”
This is merely part of the overall story which would have to be proved to be factual by those claiming that co2 is killing the planet.
“Will there ever be enough rational skeptics in this world to force such a procedure in the interest of exposing the real truth on AGW?”
“Will these rational skeptics unite to form an activist group (as the AGW crowd have done) and march in “united goosestep” or will they (as skeptical individuals) prefer to remain “loners”?
As the climate realists have managed to vote in sceptical websites in the science website awards for the last two years running I think there are enough of us.
I suspect there are also enough fair minded people (like Peter) on the other side who would want to facilitate such a public debate as they are confident it would ‘prove’ their position.
I have expresed the opinion here before that climate realists lack the charismatic public figure that the AGW theorists have. In a court room that might work against Hansen and Gore -who-to a British audience at least-do not look credible behind their public veneer.
As for Dr Mann-I would really like to see him on a witness stand being grilled by a barrister who in turn has been briefed by Steve McIntyre.
As I say, I think the spectacle could be compelling and would put the arguments-real and imaginary- into the public domain in a manner which allows ether side to make a challenge to the ‘evidence’. This was not possible with such flawed programmes as ‘An inconvenient truth’ and ‘The great Global warming scandal.’
TonyB
Peter 4101
I said just a few days ago that I would expect the temperatures to keep gently rising as we recover from the last little ice age. That is nothing to do with man, just with the natural recovery of the climate.
That would still keep us well within other warming periods such as the MWP, The Roman warm periods as well as the Holocenes-all of which ocurred without the benefit of increased co2 levels.
TonyB
Peter/Max:
Did Max really accept the absurd bet (see Peter’s #4101) that, because he disagrees with Hansen’s and Jones’s view that “AGW has not stopped”, Peter will be proved wrong in saying that “the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next few years”?
If so, I have two questions:
First, I am unaware that Max believes that AGW has made any more than a minor contribution to recent warming (if that) – so why on earth bet that it’s stopped when he doesn’t accept that it’s started? It would plainly mean that he would have to pay up if the record is broken because of a natural event – as TonyB thinks may happen. Seems out of character to me.
And, secondly, did he really accept a bet with a time reference as vague as “the next few years”? If so, he was remarkably careless.
Also – what was the stake?
Guys, I pop in here occasionally to catch up with your chat and always find stuff of interest.
It’s interesting to read you discussing (e.g 4099) whether a logical or ‘killer’ argument can challenge the orthodoxy. When I became a skeptic (actually an apostate) a couple of years ago I thought the key question was:
“How to make a convincing argument against AGW using the facts” – a kind of Popperian-type argument.
Now I think we have a more difficult question to answer:
“How do you kill a religion?” which leads to Durkheim and beyond. And has a religion ever been killed? I even thought of writing up 95 theses (or errors in IPPC science) to nail up outside the Royal Society for a Luther-type approach.
As well as having to convince people that we’re not all in the pay of big oil etc, we have to be able to explain how the science (the consensus) can have been wrong. This does unfortunately lead into the sociology of science which is an epistemological minefield and does IMHO lead through the door marked “social construction” to an extent.
Finally, on Sachs’ style of argument, this is becoming more common – the agression, disbelief “how can you say that” and so on.
As Thomas Kuhn put it in The Road Since Structure:
“… – individuals committed to one interpretation or another sometimes defended their viewpoint in ways that violated their professed canons of professional behaviour. I am not thinking primarily of fraud, which was relatively rare. But failure to acknowledge contrary findings, the substitution of personal innuendo for argument, and other techniques of the sort were not. Controversy about scientific matters sometimes looked much like a cat fight.”
Ring any bells? But simply arguing that ‘playing nasty’ means they’re wrong is also invalid. But it is interesting. Let’s see how the Sammy Wilson thing pans out.
I fear that all this talk of a quasi-judicial “trial” of climate change issues displays an unfortunate naivety. There is not the slightest chance of its happening. As I’ve said elsewhere, quoting from a Huffington Post article referred to by JZ at #3723, the mainstream media truly believes that sceptical opinion is based on “the nonsensical junk science of the right-wing think tanks and their cadre of scientists for hire.”
Why would the mainstream media give such people an opportunity to parade what it sees as bizarre and dangerous views when it has no doubt that what matters is urgent action to tackle the problem?
Robin
The trial has already happened. Unfortunately, the IPPC was a rigged jury.
No, Luke, the IPCC is, in no sense, a trial – not even a rigged one.
It has scrutinised the evidence and reached its verdict – I’d call that a trial.
Are you questioning its rigour or are you making a point I’m not getting?
Hmm – Luke: I am referring to a trial in the sense proposed by Max and TonyB in this thread. I believe that they mean a classic tribunal i.e. one that comprises two opposing sides each of which presents its case on the issue to be determined (usually with each having the opportunity to cross-examine the other). A third party (judge, jury or whatever) then determines which case it finds – on the evidence presented – to be most likely to be correct. I suggest that the IPCC is, in no sense, such a tribunal.
I agree with you (& there4 Max and TonyB) but still stand by my “rigged jury” comment. The perception is that IPPC was a fair trial/tribunal and the science is settled – a point we’re pretty much all making. You might want to add that the prosecution case and evidence were also biased.
But the point I’m really trying to make here is how do we rekindle proper scientific skepticism?
My worry is that the lie is now so institutionalised that even Max Planck’s comment is voided since we are indoctrinating the children:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Robin 4111 and Luke
Yes what I propose is precisely what you describe.The IPCC had a pre determined verdict achieved through circumstantial and fabricated evidence that wasnt properly scrutinised (such as the Hockey stick and 1850 temperatures)
I think something needs to be done to force the very thin evidence into the greater public domain, as the consequences of the current path is evident.
Robin will certainly have noticed the reports that British citizens are to have all their travel details recorded (we already have all our phone calls and emails recorded) In the sense of this thread we need to tie this in with the Govt intentions to force us to ration our journeys by plane (at first) by way of a carbon card.
The new data bases will be used to not only record our movements (it seems a characteristic of socialist govts to keep track of people) but to then ensure that they can track and penalise our travel by way of taxes, should we dare to want to go and see Max or Peter.
I see a tribunal as achieving this high profile examination but it would need to be held by a prestigous body (BBC or Royal Society) and would be pointless unless those such as Hansen and Gore attended. I don’t believe they would do this for a second as they rely on emotions rather than fact to argue their case.
TonyB
TonyB
I agree about how powerful a tribunal could be but you first have to convince people that it’s not simply a “loser’s recount”. (and tackle their basic misperceptions about big oil etc.)
Even if someone said that the tribunal could then proceed, what would you actually be putting on trial and who would the expert witnesses be? Science very rarely has trials (Paul Thagard considers that the peptic ulcer case was one) and Galileo was certainly not a science v. science trial.
Climate science is a such complex blend of hundreds of scientific domains such as dendrochronology (dare I say bristlecones), oceanography, solar science, statistics even economics etc etc. Any controversy is at the sharp end of each.
We would then encounter the problem of expertise – you know the old chestnut about an expert being “someone who knows more and more about less and less.” Modern theories of expertise are all about tacit knowledge and expert judgement, still, and are likely to remain so.
I think you’re hoping that the trial would remove the sentiment and other distortions (words like unprecedented, pre-industrial, natural) etc but I fear that courts rely on sentimental persuasion these days anyhow. It’s fairly well known that attractive people are considered by the general populous to be less likely to commit a crime etc.
Whilst I see that it could work (like the philosopher king), I fear that it wouldn’t. I think you might at best get a verdict of the IPPC’s conclusions are not “beyond reasonable doubt” but you’d then have the bandwagon of precautionary twerps back in the driving seat.
I’m starting to fear that the best we can hope for is an apology in 150 years from the UN government of the world and bank of carbon!
Luke
I don’t really disagree with anything you say but perhas the need to provide entertainment (in its broadest sense) makes such a trial more feasible than it would have been in the past.
As in any trial the purpose would be to examine the evidence and listen to the arguments put forward by both sides. I do not think it would be a problem to assemble sufficient expert sceptics but getting members of the team to appear would be far more difficult-after all what do they have to lose by staying away?
I suspect that the Royal Society would be intrigued at the idea, and to refuse the debate would directly contradict their own motto;
Nobodys word is final.
Generally the British public are becoming more- not less- sceptical, and when they see the actual impacts-increased excise duty, fuel tax, levy on electric, restrictions on travel etc, they might start to take a closer interest.
I’m not sure Big oil is such a consideration here, but could be readily overcome by pointing to the hypocritical lifestyles of those telling us what to do.
TonyB
TonyB
The Royal Society has already proclaimed its truth (contradicting the motto) and so has a vested interest in not being wrong. I think you’ll get short shrift with them.
I also don’t think you will find ‘expert skeptics’ in the truest sense of the word in the same way that there are no ‘expert alarmists’. You might find a expert who is skeptical of the interpretation of his narrow community of peers about, say, solar issues, and so on, and probably would fairly easily. But you mention Gore and Hansen – even Hansen is only qualified to speak about his narrow sphere of expertise. His activism is not science. And Gore’s science is non-existent but he’s a formidable alarmist speaker.
You say the purpose would be to “examine the evidence and listen to the arguments put forward by both sides” but I and many other skeptics argue (and I’m sure you’d agree) that much of the evidence is itself already contaminated. E.g. for the temperature record (look at surfacestations.org) we have bad equipment and locations, poorly recorded, maladjusted for UHI, TOD etc etc then averaged and weighted, interpolated and extrapolated and so on and on to provide a trend graph which confirms a small but very bumpy trend for the 20th C. Since almost all of the adjustments and interpretations are from the scientists already in the warmist camp (and studies show “What you expect is what you get” as Rosenthal and Jacobson put it (1966)) can we even honestly answer the question of whether the 20th C warmed, let alone abnormally, it’s a tricky one. If raw data were all that were allowed in the courtroom it would become incredibly tedious.
Have you seen the Wegman report and read Bishop Hill’s version (Caspar and Jesus?) compared with the RealClimate version? We have two incommensurate (paradigms) views here and simple logic will not decide it one way or the other.
Also, look how the Heartland Manhattan report was reported. Why would the debate/tribunal have any higher credibility than that?
Sorry to put a downer on your idea. What’s needed is a really intellectually robust version of The GGWSwindle which doesn’t move graphs and plain lie about volcanic CO2 emissions etc. But it also wouldn’t be entertaining apart from a small minority of techie viewers.
It would also be good to find a skeptical Branson type to offer a multi-million $ prize – then we’d be able to justify all this time spent on the issue.
Luke
Yes I have read Wegman, North, Bishop Hill et al. The point is that the politicians and certainly the general public haven’t, and might be startled at the different and much more logical interpretation that can be put on identical data. Probably as yet few people realise we are dealing with theory and computer models rather than facts.
Bearing in mind that the Royal Society have their motto and their history is littered with those disputing ‘the truth’ I would not be as pessimistic about them as you are. After all, an ancient society that refuses to live up to its own motto presents a sitting target!
As for the evidence being ‘contaminated’don’t even start me on that one! As well as GISSTemp, temperatures to 1850, the poor data evidenced by the surface stations project, the nonsense of the Hockey stick-the list is endless.
I do not really believe that a ‘tribunal’ would be possible and the idea was not meant seriously due to all the obvious difficulties involved. However, the more we talk about it the more I come to think it would be something tangible to aim for in the light of our observational evidence being ignored by the powers that be. Several of the National Newspapers are Sceptical, so all we need is a large marketing budget allocated to get the idea rolling…
TonyB
Luke Warmer
Your post to TonyB does describe the dilemma very well.
You added, “It would also be good to find a skeptical Branson type to offer a multi-million $ prize – then we’d be able to justify all this time spent on the issue.”
The idea is good, but there is a practical problem.
As a staunch supporter of the AGW credo, billionaire (and “media darling”) Branson is perceived to be on the side of “GOOD” (versus “evil”), so his prize would be hailed as a philanthropic move to help “save the planet” from “greedy, wasteful industrial man”.
If another billionaire offered a prize to the those rationally skeptical of all the hype and misinformation out there, his prize would be seen as the act of a self-serving “climate denier”, standing in the way of those altruistic idealists that want to “save the planet”.
It has become a morality play, with the AGW supporters (scientists, politicians, media, activists, etc.) defining “GOOD” and “EVIL”.
I like the concept put forth by TonyB, but I can see that it would be extremely difficult to implement.
I do, however, believe that the final “court of common sense” on AGW will be the physical facts out there.
If (despite all the poorly recorded, distorted, massaged, manipulated, adjusted, interpolated, etc. temperature records, which are published by exactly the same individuals who have been predicting disastrous warming) it becomes clear that the planet is cooling slightly rather than warming alarmingly as predicted, the bubble will eventually burst by itself.
That would be the ideal timing for an “intellectually robust version of The GGWSwindle”, as you suggest, to help speed the process along.
Regards,
Max
Max
Do you remember several months ago I came across an excellent book in a Cambridge bookshop? I couldn’t read too much of it because the assistant was watching!
It was called ‘The Viking World’ (about the Vikings in Greenland) and cost over £150.
I asked the local library if they could obtain it on loan and today it arrived from no less than the British Library!
It is 700 pages long and I only have it until March 4th so I need to get reading.
TonyB
TonyB
Look forward to your thoughts once you’ve read the “Viking” book. Should be interesting reading.
To bad Michael Mann and his team were not able to read this before creating the hockey stick!
Regards,
Max
Robin
To Peter’s bet with me you wrote, “why on earth bet that it’s stopped [AGW] when he [Max] doesn’t accept that it’s started”, and “secondly, did he [Max] really accept a bet with a time reference as vague as “the next few years”? If so, he was remarkably careless.
Also – what was the stake?”
Peter stated that the 20th century record high temperature anomaly recorded for the year 1998 (= 0.515C according to Hadley) would be exceeded by the year 2011 at the latest (due to rampant AGW, of course). So it is not “in the next few years”, but specifically by 2011.
And the number is 0.515C, regardless whether Hadley makes another after the fact “correction” to this number (it was already “corrected” downward once from 0.546C).
As you know from earlier posts, I can accept the premise that human CO2 emissions may theoretically have made a small contribution to the recent (primarily natural) warming trend. Looking at all the evidence I can gather on this from several sources, I conclude that this contribution is at most 0.3C over the entire period 1850-2008, or somewhere around 0.02C per decade. The total observed warming from all causes over this long-term record was 0.65C.
Like TonyB, I “expect the temperatures to keep gently rising as we recover from the last little ice age”. I also expect there to be some upward as well as downward “blips” along the way. We are now experiencing a downward “blip” for some reason (obviously not related to the record-high human CO2 emissions).
I also agree with TonyB that the whole concept of a “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” with all its poor measurements, distortions, interpolations, variance adjustments, ex post facto corrections, manipulations, etc. plus the fact that it is presented to us by exactly those same individuals who issue frequent press releases predicting alarming warming from AGW is, in itself, more than suspect. But, unfortunately, it is all we have.
And there are some checks and balances out there (such as the satellite record) to keep Hadley more or less honest.
The stake was $100 (US). Given the trillion-dollar rescue and stimulus packages being implemented by the US government at this time I’d put that as equivalent to between 25 and 30 Euros by 2011. Maybe the same in Pounds Sterling, depending on what your government does. So it’s no big deal.
I did post a graph yesterday showing this bet along with the past, current and various forecasted future trends, but it appears to still be stuck in the filter.
We’ll see in 3 years who was right, or as Peter put it, whether “Max is right or whether Profs Hansen and Jones are correct”.
As someone who understands the fine points of contract law much better than I do you might have advised me that this does, indeed, look like a very bad wager, pitting me (an interested but non-influential layman) against the very guys that are providing the data for determining who will have won (Hansen, Jones)!
Live dangerously.
Regards,
Max
Robin
Back to my previous post on the after the fact downward “corrections” made to the anomaly reported for 1998 by Hadley:
The figure I saw and downloaded in late 2005 was 0.564C. (Hadley has erased the link to this record).
In December 2001 Hadley still reported an anomaly of 0.57C for 1998, the record year, as compared to their most recent downward adjustment of 0.515C.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2001-12-second-warmest/
In January 1999 Hadley even reported the 1998 anomaly to be 0.58C.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_1_155/ai_57770151
The total “corrections” made (ex post facto) by Hadley to the historical 1998 record equal 0.065C. This is equivalent to 1/10th of the total warming observed over the entire period from 1850 through 2008!
Climate change is real! (Especially rewritten historical climate).
Regards,
Max
Max,
Would you be able to repost the graph in your 4064 showing the extent of the Arctic ice as a area (sq km or sq miles) rather than as a % change from one year to the next? It would be much easier to understand.
Also it is misleading. A large % change from a low base makes it appear that ice extent has recovered , when it hasn’t.
If you are unscrupulous you can play games with percentages. For instance, if a parameter falls by 50% one year , and then increases by 100% the next year, it just goes back to its original value.
However, if you plot out the parameter as you have done, as a percentage change against time, it looks like the parameter has actually doubled.
Now I’m sure that you wouldn’t want to be deliberately misleading :-) So how about that new graph?