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.
Just to jump in with my vote
AGW threat? – NO
Believe evolution – YES (bit like beliving in the postman to me)
Though to do a proxy vote for Dr Roy Spencer.
AGW threat? – NO
Believe evolution – NO
Apparently he’s a follower of intelligent design. Yet considering his credentials and NASA background, i’d hardly call him scientifically ignorant. Some of the most intelligent individuals in history have been deeply religious and indeed the reverse is true, in fact all combinations are true. I really don’t see how there is a link within the context of AGW. To get into the link between intellegence and religious disposition would take forever and is a pointless distraction from the main topic.
Peter, it’s 12:39am local time by my watch. I’m naturally a night person, and i don’t need to get up for work until 7:15am, lucky me.
Peter,
Are all people that believe in the theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming Atheists?
Are all Atheists supportive of the theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming?
Is every scientist in the world an Atheist?
Just checking………
Hi Brute,
Your chart showing 21st century temperature trends with the CO2 levels added shows what is going on at the present time.
But, as Peter always tells us, we have to look at the long-term record to see the CO2/temperature correlation.
The problem is, though, that even the long-term record shows a very dicey correlation:
1850-1858: No CO2; rapid cooling
1858-1879: No CO2; rapid warming (same rate as in 1976-2000)
1879-1910: Hardly any CO2; rapid cooling
1910-1944: Very little CO2; rapid warming (over half of 20th century warming)
1944-1976: Increased CO2; cooling
1976-2000: High level of CO2; rapid warming (the IPCC “poster period”)
2001-2008: Record CO2 levels; rapid cooling (your graph)
No matter how you twist or turn in, everything hangs on a relatively small time period of 1976 to 2000. This is the period that is covered very extensively by IPCC (in an attempt to substantiate its IPCC hypothesis), while the other periods are essentially ignored.
The 1944-1970 cooling period is written off (in the FAQ section of Chapter 9) with the unsubstantiated statement: “In the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures leveled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet.”
The 1910-1944 period of rapid warming is more of a problem for IPCC, since more than half of the entire 20th century warming (0.53C) occurred over this 35-year period. IPCC concedes (Chapter 9), “Detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th century warming than the recent warming.”
The 1976-2000 “poster period” for IPCC is, of course, the only period in which both temperature and CO2 rose significantly. IPCC states (Chapter 3), “The 1976 divide is the date of a widely acknowledged ‘climate shift’”, and (in Chapter 9), “Climate simulations are consistent in showing that the global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with a combination of external forcings that include anthropogenic factors” and “No climate model using natural forcings alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend of the second half of the 20th century.”
No mention is made of the most recent cooling period (IPCC cut-off was before this trend had become evident).
There is also no mention by IPCC of the 19th century warming and cooling periods, prior to any significant human CO2.
So, in summary we have IPCC rationalizing away the mid-20th century cooling and telling us:
· Our models cannot explain the early 20th century warming period (over half of total warming)
· We know that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming, because our models cannot explain it any other way.
OUCH!
Regards,
Max
PS For a chart showing the long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature see:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/3345656868_1afc0ca41a_b.jpg
I like your chart 4693 better than mine, (small and compact).
The CO2 layover is quite striking and demonstrative.
#4703 is also quite helpful.
May I send them around to the rest of my narrow minded, bible thumping, holy roller, anti-science, racist, male chauvinist, greedy, wealthy, selfish, polluting, capitalist pig, friends?
(Figured I might as well carry Peter’s descriptive stereotype all the way).
Hi Peter,
Wiki (a doubtful source for anything related to the “global warming” debate) tells you that a certain %-age of US inhabitants are “creationists”.
From this you conclude that “creationists” do not believe in “science”, and thus reject the validity of both “evolution” and “AGW as a serious threat”. A questionable conclusion, to start with.
Regardless of its validity, this in no way implies that non-creationists (who do believe in evolution) automatically accept the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
You opined:
“Whereas most non creationists would tend to accept the mainstream scientific conclusion. Its quite easy for pro creationists to dismiss it. After all if science is wrong on evolution then its quite easily wrong on AGW too.”
The first part of this sentence is an unfounded assumption on your part, which is certainly not being validated by the little poll we are running here. You are, in fact, implying that anyone who can accept evolution will automatically accept AGW as a serious threat.
The second part is extremely arrogant and “elitist”, Peter.
If creationists dismiss the theory of evolution or accept it only marginally within a religious belief in “intelligent design” (i.e. “evolution steered by a greater force”), so be it.
To equate this with a rejection of the “mainstream science” behind the premise of “AGW as a serious threat” is absurd. Many people reject this “mainstream science” without embracing creationism, intelligent design or any of the other quasi-religious theories on evolution.
Open your eyes, Peter. Look at the long list of eminent scientists in many fields (including climate science) who reject the suggestion that AGW is a serious threat. Are there 200? Are there 400? Or is the number closer to 650? Who cares?
These scientists see the weaknesses in the AGW argument.
They see the flawed science and GIGO computer simulations that are being used to support the “AGW as a serious threat” story.
They see the obvious contradictions, omissions and outright errors in the latest set of IPCC reports.
They read the arrogant and presumptuous press releases by Hadley, NSIDC, NOAA, NASA, etc. to hype the AGW story.
They hear the shrill and hysterical “wolf cries” of fringe scientists turned activists, like James E. Hansen.
They have seen the Al Gore AIT sci-fi picture, with all its inaccuracies, bad science and silly horror predictions.
The evidence is all around you. The numbers are increasing daily.
To equate dismissal of “AGW as a serious threat” with being scientifically ignorant or retarded is not only arrogance at its highest level, Peter. It is a denial of the facts.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just did a little “reality check” on your Wiki data regarding the support in USA for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Here is a Gallup poll result:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
As you can see, the degree of support is highly dependent on the level of education an individual has attained, with college graduates and post-graduate degrees showing a much higher percentage of support for the theory than those with a lower level of education.
If we now factor in the educational level reached by the US population:
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0908670.html
We see that for the entire US population we have:
39% support Darwin
25% do not support Darwin
36% do not have on opinion
Whereas for college graduates + post-graduates:
59% support Darwin
19% do not support Darwin
23% do not have on opinion
And for those who have some college but have not graduated
41% support Darwin
29% do not support Darwin
30% do not have on opinion
And for those that have a “high school” (12 year) education or less:
21% support Darwin
27% do not support Darwin
52% do not have on opinion
If we exclude the “do not have an opinion” category as irrelevant, we have
61% of the US population (who have an opinion on this) support Darwin, while
39% of the US population (who have an opinion on this) do not.
Believe these numbers are a bit more trustworthy than some partial statistics from Wiki.
Regards,
Max
I should perhaps have been clearer about my evolution question. Some proponents of “Intelligent Design” for example would accept an element of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
That’s not what I mean. What I do mean is a general acceptance of Darwin’s theory and subsequent mainstream scientific adavances.
Max,
I notice that you’ve dropped into the use of the word ‘elitist’ to describe non-conservative opinion. That’s a particularly American take. I’ve never heard that from a European before.
In Australia the Conservatives (National Party ) represent the landed classes. The Liberal Party represents commerce and industry. The Labor Party originated as the party of the working classes.
But of course the working classes are just as smart as anyone else. Maybe even smarter! But that doesn’t mean we are elitist in the sense you mention.
Max,
You’ve nearly got it right. Except that its not ‘automatic’ that a belief in one will lead to a belief in the other. The correct way to describe it would be to say there is a high degree of correlation.
To put it another way there are lots of people in the USA who think like Sarah Palin.
I wouldn’t disagree with your Gallup figures. It would have been interesting if they’d also asked a question on AGW alongside the evolution question.
Peter,
You wrote 4696
Seems as if “Wiki” isn’t “factual” in this case?
By the way Pete, the newly installed Brute® woodstove has been an absolute and unqualified success. We’ve cut our electric bill by 2/3rds and gas bill by 50% over the course of the winter even though the average temperature has been 3 degrees colder than last year. I’ve burned 8 cords of wood to date and only used 10 gallons of gasoline to power the chainsaws and hydraulic wood splitter totaling about 24 hours total of labor. It’s done a great job and even on the coldest nights we could grow Orchids in here.
I’m thinking of adding an extra stove and piping the excess heat into the garage so that we won’t have to let the cars idle for 30 minutes in the morning before they get warm as we had to this winter. (Can’t stand getting into a cold car and I don’t like wearing coats).
In addition, the dollar savings have also lowered my tax contribution to the State/Federal coffers! I’m thinking of using the extra dollars to build a higher displacement engine for the Brutemobile, (greater horsepower/faster off the line). If not, I’ll just buy extra gasoline for the monster truck.
Proud of me Pete for using less energy?
(I value your opinion immensely and I’m endeavoring to have the “going green” stamp of approval).
Robin,
You’ve been peddling the line that there is nothing that can be done and “we are all doomed” for a while now.
Suppose that the figures coming out of the Copenhagen conference are correct. Suppose the sea levels do rise by a metre. Are we all doomed? Of course not.
But, should we do our best to avoid it happening? Yes indeed.
If it does happen should we do our best to prevent another metre or more of sea level rise after that? Yes of course
If it still gets worse do we give up then? No, of course not. Never.
Max,
You say “If we exclude the ‘do not have an opinion’ category as irrelevant”
Yes I agree that’s what I did too. But on second thoughts its a bit scary that almost as many Americans didn’t have an opinion as supported Darwin.
I can almost hear the cries of ‘elitist’ but, I’m just wondering exactly what these 36% do have opinions about? Would it sound too arrogant to suggest that if they can have an opinion on the state of Jen and Brad’s, or whoever’s, relationship they should have an opinion on Darwin and evolution too? Did they even know who Darwin was?
You might all knock the BBC but at least they do run programs on things that matter in the world today rather than just the general level of trivia that seems to be prevalent on the commercial channels.
Max, Reur 4694, although it is allowing Peter Martin to avoid the real issues raised here, I should add my vote as asked:
1) on the question of AGW being a serious threat….. NO
2) on agreeing with the theory of evolution….. YES….. in its fundamentals centred on Darwinism
However, there are some things that bother me, in that the theory apparently does not explain a few huge puzzles; (though there are some sub-hypotheses), briefly:
a) The so-called Cambrian life explosion ~530 MYA (some have described it as including bizarre “experimental” life forms)
b) The sudden NEW speciations following the major extinction events
c) Some seemingly impossible to evolve symbiotic species total interdependences
d) The so-called chicken and egg question, both in the simple and more complex cases
If you are thinking, oh dear, Bob believes in a divine creator, then you are wrong, because that solution is very much more difficult to rationalize than what I wonder. There is no way that I can conceive the somehow creation of a creator together with “him/her/it” possessing incomprehensible tools and intelligence to create vast quantities of matter, and energy etc, to do these things.
Well, dreaming; maybe there was an advanced civilization that evolved slowly elsewhere, many BYA, and they like seeding stuff on remote planets over many millions of years, but really, that is a bit of a stretch
Could we get back on topic please?
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “To put it another way there are lots of people in the USA who think like Sarah Palin.”
Can you explain this a bit more closely with some supporting evidence? How does` “Sarah Palin think” about which particular subject?
How does this differ from how “Peter Martin thinks” about this subject?
How pertinent is this to our discussion on global warming and energy independence?
I, for one, am convinced that she “thinks” very logically on the need of the USA to drill for more oil in the ANWR to reduce its dependence on imported oil from the Middle East.
I have seen the operations in Prudhoe Bay and can vouch for the fact that they are every bit as environmentally sound as three football fields full of “green” wind turbines in the California hills despoiling the landscape there, which only provide a tenth of a percent of the energy one fourth of the time at many times the cost.
So maybe Sarah Palin is right, after all, and so are all those “people in the USA who think like Sarah Palin”. Right?
Please elaborate if this is not what you had in mind.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 4712, do you have any statistics on how many Australians (including the aborigines) have an opinion on the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution?
If so, please elaborate with some specifics.
Thanks.
Regards,
Max
Luke Warmer, in your 4667, you invited me to visit a site discussing acid/base titration over a large pH range. Whilst it MIGHT be interesting to say Max, a chemical engineer, I’d (me a mechanical engineer), rather not go there to avoid headache.
Despite that demurring, I like that you wrote in part:
Well yes, precisely!
In your second link to a statement by Dr Mike Edwards of CAFOD, I read it several times, and I found it a bit difficult to follow, but I think it is fairly sound.
And Reur 4673:
Splendide mendax
“Glorious myths are those used for a good cause, i.e., splendide mendax (splendidly or gloriously false)”
Yes, absolutely.
When you call it; “what’s left if IPPC’s wrong?”, that’s fine, but I like to think of it as PLAN B, for the doomsayers.
Hi Peter,
Some more information for you.
We saw earlier that more Americans (USA) accept Darwin’s theory of evolution than those that do not, and that this is even more pronounced for those who have had a higher education (college, post graduate).
Now, to the statistics for some other countries:
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wissen/natur/Gott-schlaegt-Darwin/story/27527979
It appears that 62% of Swiss support Darwin’s theory of evolution, compared with:
60% in eastern Europe
78% in Japan
70% in China
64% in South Korea
but far less in Muslim countries:
14% in Pakistan
11% in Malaysia
8% in Egypt
Strangely, Australia is a bit on the low side in comparison (except for the Muslim countries).
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/biology_truth_about_where_we_stand.htm
“half of Australian university students didn’t believe Darwin’s theory of evolution was true. For a biologist, living in a supposedly scientifically literate age, that’s quite a sorry statistic to hear. It’s a blunt reminder that the basic principles of biology still aren’t commonly understood, and not just by the general public. Half of the elite intellectual youth of our late 20th century society either aren’t aware, or haven’t accepted, that the theory of evolution is true.”
Just some more facts for you to digest, Peter.
Regars,
Max
Hi Peter,
As you can see from the statistics provided, around 60% of all individuals in the “western world” (North America, Europe, Australia, etc.) accept the Darwin theory of evolution.
A slightly higher percentage in Asia (excuding India) accept it. I have no data for Latin America.
In the Muslim countries the percentage is much lower.
So let’s lay this part of our discussion to rest. There is no real difference between the USA, Canada, Australia or Europe on the general acceptance of Darwin’s theory.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
With Barelysane and Bob_FJ we now have 6 votes that say:
YES (to accept the evolution theory of Darwin)
NO (to agree that AGW is a threat)
This is not a verified “trend” as yet, but it certainly does look like your suggestion that AGW “deniers” are also Darwin “deniers” is very much in doubt, based on the actual facts on the ground.
Regards,
Max
The Copenhagen climate conference is getting science a bad name.
To achieve a metre rise by the end of the century we need to average 12mm a year. Four times the official figure and infinity above the actual reality.
With millions of miles of coastline around the world SOME places must be rising and SOME fallimg (all other things being equal) but the current hypotheses makes you wonder what some of these experts are on.
Take a reality check.
See my 4697 for observational evidence.
Go to your local Harbour (lake levels don’t count Max)and ask the harbour master if there has been a surge in sea level.
Look at the tide gauges.
Get hold of old tide tables.
Ask the fishermen. Ask Their Fathers.
Look up Proudman and check the figures but examine data that goes back more than ten years and observe the natural cycles
Here are two cherry picked graphs-cherry picked because they actually show an extended period where the rise and fall can be clearly seen-the last peak was around 2006
Newlyn in Cornwall
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/170-161.gif
and Helsinki. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/resids/060-351.gif
This dramatic sea level rise scenario is a fantasy that is scaring a lot of gullible people. Scientists need to get out from their laboratories and do more observation and less theorising.
If there is anything more scary than hobgoblins or monsters under the bed it would have to be climate scientists :)
TonyB
TonyB,
You say ” The Copenhagen climate conference is getting science a bad name.”
And your qualifications for saying that are…?
Peter reur 4721
Read the rest of post 4720, the links, then re-read the blog, then check the internet for all the current hostorical records and projections.
It becomes very obvious very quickly that this is blatant scare mongering.
Please look up one or two facts before running your AGW version of the TWAT-O-TRON and posting the results.
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/
I regard the posts about creationism irrelevant and tiresome. Nonetheless, I was amused by a recent report that Richard Lindzen, commenting that there had been no global warming for 10 or 15 years and that “Nature hasn’t followed the [IPPCC] models”, described climate modelling as “unintelligent design”.
Peter Martin, Reur 4721, you outrageously asked TonyB:
Well, it is very obvious to me from what has gone before that this is the area of TonyB’s work, to which he is thus highly qualified to comment on. Have you not been paying attention to the earlier text? Perhaps you should be taking more fish oil and flax seed oil in your diet
Peter 4721
I am not going to go down the inquisition and silly sock puppet route that you tried on the others.
Let’s put this into a simple cricket analogy (sorry to the non anglos here) in order to explore the latest 1 metre in 100 years scenario.
Let’s say that in the forthcoming Ashes series Austraila set England 1000 runs to win (i.e 1000mm rise) and we have 100 overs (100 years) to get it.
8 overs have already passed, and we have only scored 10 (or 10mm- the maximum of any current sea level rise-if one is happening at all)
So after 8 overs the run rate is now approaching 11 per over. During the next 20 overs we score 1.5 an over. (1.5mm or a 50% increase over what may be happening in any real world situation)
So we then have 960 runs to get with only 70 overs left, which gives a run rate of some 16 per over(16mm)
Now I don’t want to stretch the analogy too far, but clearly every over (or year) that we fall behind the run rate needed, the harder it gets to achieve the total.
We are clearly already doing that with the sea level increase. A rise of 16mm per year is so far outside of any realistic scenario that it must be queried by any rational person. Also bear in mind there are ‘credible’ sources that believe it could be 50% greater than this. Many of them were on the BBC last night.
We are already way behind the necessary ‘run’ rate and there is simply no sign of it increasing.
I have more official sea level studies than I know what to do with Peter, so perhaps I see more privileged information than you do and look into its background more closely. Or perhaps I get out more and speak to harbour masters and fishermen and live in an environment where the past levels can be clearly seen and are properly recorded.
Perhaps I just realise that examining just a few years of data is highly biased against the longer cycle.
In the organisation in which I work, not only does no one know much about historic levels but are forced to discount it anyway. ‘History’ when looking at schemes affected by sea levels, relate to data since 2000. The organisation is COMPELLED to reject historic data because they are told the rise they have to use in their calculations- in order to receive Govt funding- is 3.5mm per year. No doubt that will now be increased.
Peter, I am a realist and actually look at observational evidence and factual data rather than so readily asccept the increaingly fantastic computer generated theories that even the IPCC admit are flawed but scientists still persist with.
Please note this is still an an analogy Peter, and tell me if you really believe England can score 11 runs (and increasing rapidly per over remaining) in order to reach the Australian total of 1000 with only 92 overs remaining?
TonyB