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.
BTW Pete,
If you are not familiar with the arrogant elitist Andrew Dessler; The one that contradicts your faith in the IPCC dictum on CO2 sensitivity, here is another comment on him:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/desslers-grist-to-sceptics-mill.html
Pete 473,
Dreaming? Hallucinating?
Do we have to argue about word definitions?
Brute: no, the McRae I referred to was Hamish McRae who is a heavyweight economics columnist at the Independent newspaper. He noted (see 415) that China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico are set to be five of the top eight economies by 2050. Therefore, he said
My observation was that
Interestingly, the economics editor of today’s Sunday Telegraph uses the same Bob Dylan phrase (“the times they are a-changin'”) in an article about the coming global powerhouses – also listing China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Mexico, and adding South Korea.
The article by the MacRae you refer to (Paul MacRae) is an excellent exposé of how the Hadley Centre deals with non-warming. Thanks for the reference.
“On the other hand, fringe science ideas are usually advanced by individuals either from outside the field of science, or by scientists outside the mainstream of their own disciplines. The thought process of fringe science is often quite irrational which makes debate between the two groups quite impossible.”
C/0 Wikipedia:
Nicolaus Copernicus-
Among his many responsibilities, astronomy figured as little more than an avocation — yet it was in that field that he made his mark upon the world.
Galileo Galilei-
Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.
Peter,
These two scientists worked outside of their “fields” and were outside of the “mainstream” of their own disciplines. I’m also certain that at the time, they were considered “often quite irrational”……definitely outside of the mainstream group-think of their peers.
Peter,
As for quote regarding Intelligent Design; Just another example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Notable & Quotable
July 10, 2008; Page A15
Theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson on global warming in the New York Review of Books:
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists — most of whom are not scientists — holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. . . .
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
The UN climate change numbers hoax
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.
Like the three IPCC “assessment reports” before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups.
Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future “projections”. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”.
The reports from working groups II and III are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.
There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.
Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change – in other words the key parts of WG I?
The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration”. And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?
Wrong.
For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the US and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.
An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the “Second Order Revision” or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.
A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented on more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.
Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided.
In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document.
The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”.
Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.
“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”
That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely.
Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.
Pete/David,
If you are serious about your end of the world prophecies, you’d better move to India….they need convincing.
GOVT OF INDIA DOUBTS AGW LINK
Even while identifying some of the observed change in climatic behaviour, such as a 0.4C increase in surface temperature over the past century, or about 1 mm per year sea level rise in Northern Indian Ocean, or wider variation in rainfall patterns, the document notes that no firm link between the documented changes and global warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.
LINK
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=302&Itemid=1
to download pdf of Indian Govt’s National Plan on Climate Change (big file – 8 mins)
Brute,
I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of what Freeman Dyson says and believes in. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
for a short biography.
He’s not opposed to the idea that CO2 causes AGW but he feels that there are other more important issues on which we should be focusing. That’s his opinion and it’s fair enough. I’m not sure he’s right but I do hope he is.
Flagging up the problem of AGW isn’t the same thing as forecasting the end of the world. Even if the seas rise by several metres, human life will continue, I’m sure. Whether human civilisation will, I’m less sure.
I am confident that there will be no catastrophic and permanent damage to the earth’s environment. I do hold to the belief that humans are too smart to allow that to happen.
Peter: I’m disappointed to see (post 473) that, like David (see posts 408 and 411), you still regard ad hominem attack as a legitimate form of debate. You say that Roy Spencer is “reported as being a supporter” of intelligent design, going on to claim that there “may be some connection between Roy Spencer’s views on ID [although all you know about that is what’s been “reported”] and climate sensitivity. But, even if he were, why would that invalidate his views about GW? See Brute’s post 478 about Copernicus and Galileo. Also, Isaac Newton had some very strange views about alchemy and the occult, but I’ve never heard it said that that invalidated his views about gravity and the laws of motion.
Hi Peter,
Believe Robin has responded to the “ad hominem” portion of your latest waffle (473), so I will skip that part, as it is totally irrelevant to our discussion anyway.
“Mainstream” is a meaningless term in science, Peter. We are talking about 20 or 30 serious climate “scientists” (including computer specialists, etc.) who have come up with model studies supporting theoretical “feedbacks” (essentially all “positive”) that increase the greenhouse impact of a 2xCO2 scenario by a factor of 4 times from around 0.7K to 3.0K. Included in this “mainstream” group are scientists, such as Minschwaner and Dessler, who believe that the 2xCO2 sensitivity is around 1.2K, without any assumed feedback (positive or negative) from clouds.
The “mainstream” opinion (as expressed by IPCC SPM 2007, p.12) states clearly, “Cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty”.
On the other side we have a smaller number of serious climate “scientists” who do not support these assumptions, and the conclusions of this smaller group are backed by physical observations (published after IPCC made the statement conceding that cloud feedbacks were “the greatest source of uncertainty”). These physical observations reported by Spencer et al. confirm a major “negative feedback” from clouds, which has not yet been considered in the computer models of the ”mainstream” group. The magnitude of this observed “negative feedback” from clouds is significant enough to offset any assumed “positive feedback” from water vapor, thereby putting the climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 back to around 0.7C (IPCC estimate with no amplification from a net positive feedback effect from water as vapor, as liquid droplets or ice crystals in clouds).
It’s that simple, Peter. Spencer’s study has “shifted” the paradigm on “feedback” assumptions. Some “mainstream” scientists (plus you, yourself) may not yet have gotten the word on this paradigm shift, but it is there and it is real.
So IPCC SPM 2007 is already out of date and what you refer to as “mainstream” could be referred to as “mainstream prior to Spencer et al. 2007”.
That’s what I meant by “keeping up to date”, Peter.
Regards,
Max
If anyone is still interested, the answer to last Sunday’s quiz question is here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=97#comment-702
Peter: I was interested in your post 473 about what you describe as “mainstream science”. BTW I agree with Max (485) that it’s a meaningless term. But, on the basis that I can safely assume that you regard the climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC’s 2007 report as being part of “mainstream science”, I’d be interested to know your view on those who produced Table SPM.2. (“Recent trends, assessment of human influence …”) on page 8 of the SPM of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report Working Group 1 – concerned with “understanding the human and natural drivers of climate change”.
The Table lists seven “Phenomena” – including, for example, “Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” and “Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas”. Of these, for five the “Likelihood of a human contribution” (column 3) is assessed as “more likely than not” and, for the other two, as “likely”. None is assessed as “very likely”. Note especially that the assessment is of “a human contribution” – hugely different from the “due to” used elsewhere by the IPCC: a “human contribution” could be as little as 1%, whereas “due to” means 100%. Moreover, for four of the seven phenomena, a footnote (f) says “Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies”. This last appears to amount to little more than guesswork.
I assume you regard these conclusions as mainstream science and therefore within “the common current of rational thought of the vast majority”. Yet I believe that both Spencer and Lindzen, whose inclusion within mainstream science is you say “debateable”, would agree with these conclusions (i.e. that there may have been some human contribution to the listed phenomena) – as would many of those you dub “contrarians” and others dub “deniers”.
Of course, you may think that some of the IPCC’s scientific contributors are expounding irrational “fringe science”. Now that would be interesting.
Moreover, with reference to Brute’s post 480, what do you think is the impact of these conclusions on the so-called “consensus”?
An ad hominem attack on a person might follow the lines of:
Person X is rude. Person X believes Y . Therefore Y is wrong.
This is obviously a logical fallacy. See for more discusion on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
However if we say:
Person X believes Theory Y and Theory Z.
Theory Y is non-scientific.
Theory Y can be applied to the subject of Theory Z.
Therefore we need to be sceptical about the factual and scientific basis of person X’s support for theory Z.
There is no logical fallacy here and therefore there is no ad hominem attack.
We do have to ask the question of why it is that those of a more secular philosophy are largely setting the pace on the climate issue.
For a look at how Hadley Centre is spinning the current temperature “plateau” check
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Bob_FJ (437) — I was going to inform you of something important about using smoothed data (which I learned from Tamino), but since you prefer to be insulting, I shan’t.
Hi Peter,
You wrote to Brute:
“I am confident that there will be no catastrophic and permanent damage to the earth’s environment.”
I agree.
Regards,
Max
Peter, just ignore poster manacker’s maunderings about equilibrium climate sensitivity (ecs). He simply refuses to look at the evidence which shows, with high confidence, that ecs cannot be small.
Instead he cites papers such a that of Schwartz, even after having read (he claimed) the refutation published by Reto Knutti et al. [There is also one on RealClimate, but since poster manacker just desparages that most excellent site, I’m not surprised he isn’t aware of it.]
On so it goes for every paper claiming low ecs; either the equations used are too simple or there is some other technical flaw.
But of much greater concern is that it is exceedingly difficult to eliminate the possiblity of high ecs. Here is why:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/629
and this means there is non-negligible risk of desasterous future scenarios.
David,
I don’t disagree. I think the risks are very real.
On the other hand, I don’t go along with the argument that it’s already too late and that the ‘end is nigh’ etc etc. The technology exists to fix the climate problem, without condemning the world’s poorer populations to remain poor. If the richer countries expect that then I cannot see that we will ever reach the necessary political agreements.
I would say that the issue of AGW isn’t ever going to be settled on scientific arguments alone. The political and economic implications can’t be ignored.
Tony,
I submitted another posting earlier today and it didn’t appear as it should. The same thing happened yesterday too, but then the posting appeared later. So I’ll wait and see before reposting.
David B. Benson 489 wrote:
Bob_FJ (437) — I was going to inform you of something important about using smoothed data (which I learned from Tamino), but since you prefer to be insulting, I shan’t.
Well David, there is no loss as far as I am concerned, because I am not interested in what Txxxxxo has to say, but prefer to go with the scientific consensus on moving average smoothing.
On the other hand, there may be posters and readers here that may have more patience than me and may be interested, so you could post it for them instead.
BTW, if you feel insulted, may I remind you that it was you, way-back, that described the 10-year block averaging as easier to understand, and have vigorously defended that position ever since. I was baffled how a computer scientist could find the Hadley smoothing complicated, and tried to explain it to you. I did NOT call you a fool however!
BTW 2.….I see you still ignore the difficult questions such as red dots and blue dots etc.
Max,
Well I wouldn’t be confident if the leaders of the world held your opinions but I’m confident that sense will prevail before it is too late.
The next few years should be interesting. After the world’s economies have been run at maximum speed for the last 15 or more years, using a supply of cheap credit to allow the consumers of the western economies to pay for goods and services that would otherwise have remained unsold, it looks very much that the party is well and truly over. At exactly the same time the price of oil and other fossil fuels is skyrocketing. Add this to the increased rates of interest that we all have to pay on our loans and it looks like the world is heading for one heck of a big recession.
It isn’t a coincidence that these two factors are ocurring together. No-one can behave like there will be no tomorrow indefinitely. Future generations will look back in astonishment that early 21st century man was so profligate in the use of fuels and raw materials. I would expect that the way we need to structure our economies will have to change considerably in future, regardless of the problem of global warming.
Peter Martin,
I’m a tad surprised, but there are some things that you have been saying recently, that I agree with.
Are you feeling like me, that “Peak Oil“, or the lead-up to it, is far more serious in terms of potential human suffering than the AGW hypothesis?
When I say “Peak oil”, I mean the problem of supply versus demand, vested interests, politics, hatred of the USA, religion, and a whole list of stuff, quite apart from any consideration of how much hydrocarbons may be theoretically available in the ground.
TonyN 467 wrote:
No problem Bob, except that Akismet just seems to have spammed you again and this time I do not think it could have anything to do with the URL that you quoted. Sherlock Holmes is on the case, but at the moment I fear that his deductive powers are not equal to this elementary problem, he may even be guilty of arguing ahead of his data.
Fine; I guess I should not advise Sherlock how to suck eggs, but did he notice that my 465 and 466 were only 2 minutes apart? The former had a block-quote and failed, and in the latter, out of curiosity, I substituted italics ILO the block quote and it was accepted. BTSOOM!
Must be something random or over-sensitive going on? (I’m NOT whinging….just making an observation)
Bob and Peter Re: Spam filter
Just for a day or two, could you keep copies of your posts – say in notepad – until you have seen that they have appeared, and if they do not, then repost identically. Better a double post than none at all, and it might give some indication as to whether this is a random problem.
Peter: I check the spam filter 4 or 5 times a day and fish out any comments that are obviously legitimate.
Bob: I haven’t noticed any correlation between block quotes and comments being caught by Akismet, but I’ll watch out for this.
Thanks to both for the feedback. Keep it coming.
Bob-FJ,
In the next 10 years or so, I think you are probably right that the shock of high oil prices will cause more damage than AGW. Already, high oil prices are causing higher food prices. It may be a slight inconvenience to most of us, but for many people higher food prices mean that they and their children will be pushed closer to starvation.
That doesn’t mean that we should forget about AGW of course. In fact, many of the measures which are needed to adapt to living in a high fossil fuel price economy and tackling CO2 emissions do co-incide.
Peter (488): “A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent” (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html). I’ve no idea what Spencer’s views are on intelligent design but, if (for some strange reason) he supports it, that is personal and irrelevant. Yes, intelligent design may be a “non-scientific” theory, but then so is any religious belief. Or do you think that anyone who holds any religious or spiritual belief has no place in science and that any view that he/she expresses or has expressed on a scientific matter is to be ignored? Maybe you do. But, if that were the general rule, science as it is understood today would be in tatters. (See, for example, my comment on Newton at 484.)
BTW how can you possibly know that “those of a more secular philosophy are largely setting the pace on the climate issue”. Even if they were (whether that “pace” supported or opposed AGW), it would be irrelevant.
But the real point, Peter, is for you to deal honestly and precisely with Spencer’s contribution to the matter under discussion; attempting to introduce irrelevant material indicates an inability to do so.
PS to Tony: 500 posts – remarkable!