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.
Robin,
You seem very keen to avoid the question of the politicisation of climate science. I’ve argued on both the science and the politics. I’m happy to discuss both but I don’t remember any substantial scientific arguments from you. If I’m obsessed what does that make you?
I might just ask you to take a look at this link:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
which states that:
“There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.”
The situation isn’t anywhere near so bad in Australia or, from what I’ve read, in the UK and Europe. But public opinion in the USA is important. Its influence doesn’t stop at the borders. It can’t just be ignored.
Peter reur 5126
Just to chirp in on this whole topic about politics/religion.
What on earth do the demographics of peoples opinions have to do with whether or not AGW is a threat?
Opinion is irrelevant (or at least should be) to science. I’ve no interest in if Joe Bloggs down the street is pro-AGW and liberal, that information is totally useless to me, i get nothing of value from it.
This is a thoroughly pointless sidetrack that can’t reveal anything useful.
Peter
Sorry to butt in, but what does this say about the strength of the evidence? It would seem to suggest that, depending on your political pre-disposition, you can find a convincing case either for or against.
I thought the science was supposed to be settled and that the debate was over for all rational people. Are you suggesting that 77% of college educated Republicans and 25% of similarly qualified Democrats are irrational?
What you say simply highlights how inconclusive the evidence for AGW is.
I’m not avoiding your question. It’s simply that I don’t see what you’re trying to say or what you’re hoping so vainly to achieve. I haven’t any doubt that some people – on all sides of the issue – are using the AGW debate for their political ends or that some peoples’ views are coloured by their political prejudices. Here in the UK, for example, the mainstream media is continually beating the “dangerous climate change is here / it’s our fault / we must do something about it” drum and doubtless some of the perpetrators do so because of a perceived political advantage or need. I’m equally sure, however, that others are not much interested in the politics and that their overriding concern is for the environment. But, to my mind, it would be a fruitless waste of time and energy to attempt to untangle all their various individual motivations. Far better, in my view, to focus on questions such as (a) are the concerns likely to be justified? and (b) could taking action make things worse? Issues such as these are difficult and contentious enough. Let’s just stay with them.
My #5129 was (of course) addressed to Peter.
Robin
Yes it is going round the schools-I have direct experience but do not want to cause trouble for the individual or schools involved.
There are potentially 100 3-5 year olds at a time all singing/acting this, and -being impressionable and with no one to put another view -will accept what they are being told. In addition they will be insisting to parents it is all true.
Whether enough parents would get together on this I’m not sure. AIT was a deliberate high cost marketing exercise and much effort was put into getting it to decision makers and the impressionable.
I don’t think this falls into quite that category as the resurces of the co involved are much smaller than those provided by Al Gore.
However I view it as the thin end of the wedge. Many schools have their Hockey stick graph up on the walls and references to the ‘endangered’ polar bears and how we are damaging their habitat and melting the ice are everyday parts of lessons. It is I believe part of the National curriculum, and the Inspectors who enforce it would certainlty want to see evidence of this sort of environmental awareness.
Ironically, one of the story lines is about cutting down trees. Nothing is said that this may happen so poor people have land in which to live, or that it may be to provide the burgers they enjoy, or to grow the enviromentally fashionable bio fuels.
I find it quite sinister to indoctrinate children far too young to think for themselves with simplistic slogans tied up in catchy songs.
TonyB
TonyB – my reaction is a load groan. Have you tried to comment on the website?
Max says “This is a silly sidetrack, Peter.”
‘Barelysane’ says ” This is a thoroughly pointless sidetrack “ Incidentally I think you’ll find that Brits ( is that what you are supposed to be?) don’t use the word ‘liberal’ in that American way. It implies a more ‘middle of the road’ types of politics there.
You’ll ‘both’ be telling me that you’ve never used sockpuppets next!
So come on you can do better than all this nonsense the ‘pair’ of you. Why so much difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans in the USA on a scientific issue? Why the rejection of science by Republicans? Oh and don’t give me all that nonsense about N thousand doubting scientists. There are many many more who do broadly accept the IPCC case.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/04/23/survey-tracks-scientists-growing-climate-concern.html
Tony N ,
You ask “ Are you suggesting that 77% of college educated Republicans and 25% of similarly qualified Democrats are irrational?”
I’m certainly suggesting they are wrong. Irrational? Very Possibly. You can’t deny that many people, and not just Americans, believe in all sorts of irrationalities. Homeopathy, Crystal healing, Witchcraft. There’s dozens of them that I could list. It is certainly not rational behaviour to accuse every recognized world scientific body of participating in a hoax and a scam.
I don’t have any hesitation in applying that word to them.
Peter: you refer to “N thousand doubting scientists” and the “many many more who do broadly accept the IPCC case”. Two questions: (1) How do you know? Unambiguous evidence please. (2) Is it your view that science is settled by majority opinion? A quote from “Darwin’s bulldog”, Thomas Huxley:
Peter
I stand by the ” This is a thoroughly pointless sidetrack “ statement. Try challenging the science rather than the people. I’ll make it easy for you. Point me to one study, just one, that demonstrates beyond doubt a causal relationship between human caused CO2 emissions and the 20th/21st century temperatures. Maybe this is why when we average the percentages above you get a 50-50 split.
People (generally) don’t like to think, the vox pop are content just to sit back, watch reality tv, and do what the MSM (or the person with the shiniest graphics) tell them to, and if what they are told to do helps relieve them of their feelings of guilt about having moderately wasted lives spent watching reality tv, all the better.
Much like appealing to higher authority (e.g. IPCC, scientific bodies generally) this is an intensely lazy approach. As with anything, you have to check “facts” for yourself and educate yourself (something discouraged in the UK today). You’ve come up with points of interest in the past, but this obsession with why people believe or don’t believe AGW based on political leaning serves no useful purpose
I’ve no intention of wasting time with “sockpuppets” again.
Peter
Why would three times as many Republicans as Democrats be irrational?Whoops! Better not go there.
You know as well as I do that political parties develop policy primarily to satisfy the expectations of their core supporters. The figures that you quoted do no more than demonstrate this.
Max
I would also add Jet streams to the very long list of known unknowns.
Do you remember that I contacted a Professor at Cambridge University and the Max Planck institute last year regarding the ozone hole as something appeared to be up?
My confidence in mans role in the destruction of it slid from 100% to 60% at the time. I then corresponded with the scientist carrying out the work and he has today released new information. I do not know if it is embargoed or not, so I have asked if I can post it here.
After reading it I would now say with 80% confidence that man is not the major contributor to the destruction of the ozone layer but it is cosmic rays. When I get permission to post I will place it here-otherwise it might appear on the internet anyway.
Tonyb
M<ax
I should clarify that cfc’s have a role to play at the poles but the main driver is cosmic rays.
Tonyb
Max
Here is the item from Qing Bin Lu regarding ozone hole depletion. Its relevance is the probabilty it is driven by cosmic rays thereby lending credence to this possibly being a major driver for our climate as postulated by Svensmark et al.
Tonyb
Dear Tony,
This reply is certainly overdue, and I apologize for it. There are indeed some reasons for my late reply, which can be found in my answers to FAQ at my updated website.
I am forwarding the news release from UW this morning (http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5051), and informing you that there are the pdf of my article published in Physical Review Letters (PRL) in the issue of March 20th, 2009, the answers to FAQ, and a summary of the background and progress of my Cosmic Ray-Ozone theory at my website (http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Qing-Bin
TonyN and the rest of you:
I apologize for my transgressions of last week. It was late in the day when I posted what I thought were pretty funny jokes. I didn’t mean for them to be taken so seriously, nor did I expect that they would be so taken. In retrospect, I realize that I was so far OT that I couldn’t even see the real topic from where I stood.
Again, my apologies, and as a penance, I shall refrain from posting for a while.
JZS
Hi Peter,
Let’s see if I can respond to 2 posts (5123 and 5133), and if we can then get “back on track” talking about the reasons for the current cooling period.
Who’s the ‘we’ in your 5123, Peter, when you write, “we don’t really believe you when you say that ‘But this issue, while of key importance to all of us, is by definition secondary to the first issue’.”? Whoever ‘we’ is has got it wrong, Peter.
The science supporting the notion that AGW is a serious problem is flawed and not supported by the physically observed evidence, ergo one can conclude that there is no serious threat. That is the primary issue.
The secondary issue is the proposed action to mitigate against the impending serious threat from AGW. Since there is no impending serious threat (see primary issue, above) there is no need for the proposed action to mitigate against the non-existing serious threat from AGW.
Can you follow the logic here, Peter? It’s really quite straightforward.
Has nothing to do with your rather silly statement about “driving a hummer”.
The validity of the threat must come before the action to mitigate against it.
Now to your 5033, this is a rather rambling waffle with (believe it or not!) a revisit of the paranoid “sockpuppet” theme, because a British poster named “Barelysane” and I happen to have the same opinion on the lack of a serious threat from AGW.
I won’t respond to that or to the next silly statement regarding US Democrats and Republicans (neither you, I nor “Barelysane” should really have anything to say about US politics, since we are not directly involved; let’s let Brute and JZSmith sort the US politicians out).
But I will respond to “Oh and don’t give me all that nonsense about N thousand doubting scientists. There are many many more who do broadly accept the IPCC case.”
First of all, science is not run by a “popularity poll”, Peter.
There are many serious scientists, however, who have taken issue with the scientific validity of the prevailing paradigm that AGW is a real and potential threat, as has been pointed out to you.
Just to clear up a point, Peter, we are not talking about scientists who “broadly accept the IPCC case” (or some aspect of it), but about those who believe that AGW is a serious threat.
There probably are more scientists who are silently going along with the prevailing paradigm today without really going on record to endorse it, as this paradigm is funding their on-going research work through tax-payer funded grants being handed out by politicians, who may have their own motives or hidden agendas or may, themselves, be convinced that the prevailing paradigm is valid.
I have not seen a definitive listing of scientists who have gone on record that they support the premise that AGW is a serious threat, so I cannot say if this list contains “many many more” names than the lists I have seen of scientists who do not think that AGW is a serious threat.
Let’s say that Inhofe’s “650” boils down to a very conservative estimate of only 200 real scientists who have gone on record that they do not believe that AGW is a serious threat.
Can you provide a list of “many many more” than 200 scientists who have gone on record that they do believe that AGW is a serious threat?
If so, please provide this list with some evidence that they have indeed stated that AGW is a serious threat.
If not, let’s move on to something more meaningful than this hypothetical poll of scientists.
Regards,
Max
JZ
No penance needed and your thoughtful contributions would be greatly missed.
Hi Peter,
Not to belabor the point, but you wrote to TonyN.
“You can’t deny that many people, and not just Americans, believe in all sorts of irrationalities. Homeopathy, Crystal healing, Witchcraft.”
Would you mind if I added to that list: “The AGW Doomsday Scare”?
I’d say it’s just another “irrationality”. How about you?
Regards,
Max
Robin and Max,
In answer to your question about the validity of the scientific consensus on AGW, I could quote what the IPCC say on the issue. But , as they are a UN organisation, and are disregarded (derided?) on that basis for what can only be political reasons, maybe you’ll consider the opinion of the American National Academy of Sciences.
Their report; “Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions” begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” . The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” .
National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Its easy to make lists of maverick scientists. Especially if you include those who have never published anything in scientific journals. Its easier still if you add politicians, clergymen and economists.
How many scientists, as defined as those with some sort of science degree, would there be in the USA. 0.5% of the population? That’s about 1.5 million. If just 5% have the extreme right wing views that I’ve been complaining about which would lead them to give their political beliefs priority over their scientific training, you’d be able to compile a list of 75,000 scientists who disagreed with the scientific consensus.
Study: West Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair/
Over all, the loss of the West Antarctic ice from warming is appearing “more likely a definite thing to worry about on a thousand-year time scale but not a hundred years,” Dr. Pollard said.
Hi Peter,
No. I am not looking for a regurgitated opinion of the political leadership of an august and respected group, or a sales pitch by the IPCC.
You stated that “many many more” scientists believed the premise that AGW is a serious threat than did not.
I told you that the skeptical crowd (claimed to consist of “over 650” individuals by Sen. Inhofe) may, in fact, only be around 200, who have come out openly.
So I am simply asking you to provide a list of “many many more” than 200 scientists who have gone on record in agreement that AGW is a serious threat.
If you want the list of 200, let me know. But then, rather than spending your time cherry-picking one or the other name on the list, I want you to provide YOUR list of “many many more” than 200. Go it?
The ball is in your court, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Further to my 5147 and to make sure that you do not waste your time coming back with more meaningless generalities:
Several months ago Senator Inhofe came out with a list of “400 scientists and meteorologists” who had gone on record that they did not believe that AGW constituted a serious threat.
The pro-AGW blogger, Eli Rabbett, published this list, showing that many of these individuals were not scientists or meteorologists, but sociologists, etc.
So I went through Rabbetts’ list, culled out those that were not scientists or meteorologists and then added in some others that Rabbett had failed to include (including some of those Inhofe added later to arrive at “650”).
This is now a list of slightly more than 200 “qualified” individuals.
You opined that there were “many many more” scientists that agreed that AGW is a serious threat. I would take it that “many many more” means at least 3 times as many.
So I want to see from you a list of 600 scientists or meteorologists that have stated that they believe that AGW is a serious threat.
If you fail to provide this very specific list, I must assume that your statement is unfounded and can be ignored and that the often-quoted so-called “mainstream consensus of the scientific community” is a sham.
Regards,
Max
PS Let me know if you want to see the “list of 200” first before you prepare your “list of many many more than 200”
Max,
This line of inquiry isn’t getting you anywhere.
I’ve just checked Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report. Of the papers referenced there were 30 names under A. That’s not counting the ‘et als’
I didn’t bother counting the other letters. But there would be over 600 in total. Just from one chapter.
This link has lots of names of contributors and reviewers etc.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-app.pdf
I’ll leave it to you to count them.
If you really want to know the truth about what scientists really feel, just try the following test:
Think of a university. The first one that comes into your head. Any real university, not one of those mickey mouse religious colleges they have in the USA.
Type the name into Google.
Then do a search on their website for climate change. Take a look at the first thing that pops up.
This was my attempt.
1) Imperial College London.
2) This link came up.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/eventssummary/event_8-4-2008-9-34-13
I’ve never heard Bryan Hoskins. Maybe he’s one of your lot? What are the chances? Have a listen to his lecture to find out.
Hi Peter,
I’m sorry, but you are getting nowhere with your generalization of the discussion here (5149).
Bring me a list with names of 600 qualified scientists or meteorologists that have gone on record that AGW is a serious problem, along with their qualifications, and I will believe your statement that “many many more” scientists support the notion that AGW is a serious problem than those who do not.
You are not getting there so far, Peter, so I suggest you follow the advice of Janice Joplin and “try a little bit harder”.
Otherwise I will have to conclude that your statement that “many many more”scientists support this premise is just a hollow, unfounded postulation.
Regards,
Max