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.
This red line looks a very different shape from the shape of the graph that you previously posted up by Wilson. A conveniently different shape. It wouldn’t be drawn in with a crayon would it?
Which one is correct?
If Willie Soon is saying that Wilson is incorrect ( and I believe that Wilson got his TSI data from Max Plank Institure in Germany) shouldn’t he be wanting to correct the record in a serious scientific journal. Not with some right wing pressure group.
It all comes back to politics in the end.
Hi Brute,
Your 5172 is well put.
Robin may have a different slant on this, but here is my take.
It really does look like AGW is a Western “rich man’s” diversion.
I believe this may be driven by a sense of collective quasi-religious guilt for the high standard of living we enjoy in the West (compared to the rest of the world).
This may be combined with some sort of idealized picture of a simpler, more beautiful pre-industrial world without traffic jams, smog, industrial pollution, etc.
Then there is the obvious anti-industrial, anti-capitalistic view of many “Greens” (and “Reds”) who support AGW as an ideological political issue, rather than anything having really to do with “global warming”.
Eastern religions are less driven by “guilt”, plus the standard of living in these countries is much lower (except maybe in Japan), so that these people generally know full well that the key to their economic development (and improvement of their standard of living) is industrialization along with increased energy consumption (as it was for the West).
The poorest nations and people of all are being denied their chance to pull themselves out of abject poverty by increasing their energy consumption (and “carbon footprint” in the process) by “do-gooder” Westerners who tell them they should not burn their coal to generate the electrical power they need for development but should concentrate on (much more expensive and limited) “green” solutions, such as wind or solar power.
This same “Western bias” carries over to the scientists involved, not only for the above reasons, but also because the billions of dollars of research funds usually come from Western governments (i.e. Western taxpayers = you and me), so they are usually granted to Western scientists or scientific agencies.
So you are 100% correct.
AGW is a big business that is primarily a Western “rich man’s” game, both on the political as well as the scientific side.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Of course the overwhelming opinion of all scientists is that the AGW is a serious problem. There are a few mavericks but the overwheming consensus is that the IPCC is correct in its estimation. Many many more scientists accept the IPCCs report than reject it.
If they didn’t I doubt that you would waste so much of your time writing to blogs under your own name and with the names of your sockpuppets.
Its you guys who go in for lists. I doubt you’ll find any starting with James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Peter Martin ;-) , etc
You can define 75% or whatever you like for the consensus. But as I’ve said it doesn’t work that way. There’s no formal vote or head count. A consensus just sort of emerges. It might sound a bit vague to you. You might not like it. You might disagree. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. That’s just the way it is.
Hi Peter,
Reur 5176
Both curves are “correct”. They may be based on different studies with slightly different results.
The first study you mention compared global average temperatures while Soon’s study compared Arctic temperatures.
But the key irrefutable “take home” from both is that there is a much more robust correlation between solar activity and temperature than between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
And this is bad news for the AGW crowd, Peter.
Regards,
Max
PS Where’s your “list of 600”? I’m still waiting…
Hi Peter,
Just read your unsubstantiated “statement of faith”:
“Of course the overwhelming opinion of all scientists is that the AGW is a serious problem. There are a few mavericks but the overwheming consensus is that the IPCC is correct in its estimation. Many many more scientists accept the IPCCs report than reject it.”
Bring the list to support your claim, Peter, that ?many many more” scientists have stated that AGW is a serious problem than those that have been openly skeptical if this premise.
Otherwise I must conclude that your statement is either “whistling in the dark” or outright fabricated BS.
Facts, Peter. Not unsubstantiated BS.
Regards,
Max
Brute,
You may be right. Most of the world’s research on the AGW problem may be done by the wealthier nations.
Nevertheless there are no scientific institutions anywhere in the world who reject the IPCC defined consensus.
You can Google for this just as well as I can. One example from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
http://www.chinacsr.com/en/2009/03/12/4756-chinese-academy-of-sciences-sets-co2-emission-targets/
Hi Peter,
Don’t act so stupid (I know you really aren’t as dumb as you pretend in 5176).
Of course, Soon’s curve was based on a previously published study (if you look closely you will see it is from 2004) and was not presented for the first time at the recent International Conference on Climate Change.
Duh! Wake up, Peter!
Regards,
Max
PS Where’s your list, Peter? Stop the silly waffling and bring some evidence for your claims.
Max,
I’m sorry you seem to be having difficulty with the concept of scientific consensus. Let me try to explain it another way.
Would you agree that an overwhelming number of the world’s scientists agree with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution?
Lists of all those creationists who literally accept the ideas of Noahs Ark may well be quite long. Even longer than your list of AGW deniers. But it doesn’t mean that the creationists are in a majority, or even that they are sizable minority. Not in the scientific community at least.
But they are according to your logic.
Max,
You say “Soon’s curve was based on a previously published study”
Do you have the reference for that?
Hi Brute,
I’m addressing this to you, in order to not defocus Peter from his task of substantiating his claim by posting a list of at least 600 scientists and meteorologists that have gone on record that they consider AGW to be a serious threat.
Here is the viewpoint of one senior science student on the so-called “consensus”, responding to a lead article, which stated that estimates of skepticism within the American Meteorological Society regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/global-warming-the-myth-of-consensus/
Casey Niemec, August 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm
As a senior meteorology student who had the privilege to work at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC this summer, I thought I might be able to contribute to this discussion.
It is indeed true that there is not a consensus about global warming, though the number of people who adhere to the commonly expressed view is likely larger than the above quote claims. However, a large number of people, like myself, who hold to a non-fanatical view of global warming, do not often publicly make their opinions known. There is a large reason for this: most of the funding for climate science today comes from people who are operating under the assumption that man-made emissions are the primary cause of global warming. If one does not adhere to this viewpoint, one will have a difficulty receiving funding for his or her climatic research. Unfortunately, I have observed people who may actually not agree with anthropogenic climate change, but will “tow the line” and go along with the majority opinion in order to succeed as a scientist. Therefore, I would say a large number of scientists have been bullied into ignoring their better judgments for the sake of advancing their careers. A possible evidence for this is that I have observed (I may be mistaken) that a larger percentage of meteorology students are in disagreement with the majority opinion on global warming than are professional meteorologists and climatologists. Nonetheless, it does hold true that the majority of climate scientists DO believe in human-induced global warming. One difference I have perceived among these individuals is that they are far less prone to having an apocalyptic perspective on the results of warming, and a less extreme political stance on the issue. I myself can say with near certainty (after much research on each side of the issue) that there is no question that humans have contributed SOMEWHAT to global warming. The extent of this contribution is likely minimal, however, and is NOT the main cause of the recently-observed global warming in the last ~130 years. Basically, it is not something to be worried about, and is not something we could reverse. This was put another way by Patrick Michaels (an infamous global warming skeptic) in his book “Meltdown”:
“Global warming is real, and human beings have something to do with it. We don’t have everything to do with it; but we can’t stop it, and we couldn’t even slow it down enough to measure our efforts if we tried.”
A very rational and observant young man. By keeping an open mind, he’ll do well in his field.
Max
Hi Peter,
To Soon’s (2004) study (your 5184).
Nope.
Check it out yourself, Peter, but don’t let this distract you from puuting together your “600” list.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 5183.
Sorry, Peter, this is an irrelevant waffle to get away from our main topic here, and I am not going to waste my time responding.
Bring the “600” list and forget Darwin, Noah’s Ark or any other side track.
Regards,
Max
Max,
In case you want to argue that there isn’t such a list of creationists, here’s one containing about 100 names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intelligent_design_advocates
By your logic, if you now want to argue that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in Evolution you’ll have to come up with 300 names.
Then I’ll have to start to look for others who are into different forms of creationism. Maybe I’ll come up with another 100 names. Then you’ll need another 300. And so on.
I’m happy for you to include me BTW if that makes it any easier for you.
Max,
It is interesting to note how the report in your 5185 reads with a few alterations.
It is indeed true that there is not a consensus about Darwinian Evolution, though the number of people who adhere to the commonly expressed view is likely larger than the above quote claims. However, a large number of people, like myself, who hold to a non-fanatical view of human evolution, do not often publicly make their opinions known. There is a large reason for this: most of the funding for paleontology today comes from people who are operating under the assumption that natural selections are the primary cause of changes to the human fossil record. If one does not adhere to this viewpoint, one will have a difficulty receiving funding for his or her …
Hi Peter,
The Soon study “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years”, with the comparison of Arctic temperature variation with solar activity and with atmospheric CO2 was published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 5189. This post is blatantly silly. Forget Darwin sidetracks for now and concentrate on getting your “600” list together.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To paraphrsse your 5183:
I’m sorry you seem to be having difficulty with substantiating your claim that “many many more” scientists support the notion that AGW is a serious threat that those that do not. Let me try to explain it another way.
If you are unable to substantiate this claim with a list of at least 600 scientists and meteorologists who have stated that they agree that AGW is a serious threat, then your claim is a hollow statement without merit.
It’s really up to you to back up your claim. So far you seem to be having difficulty doing that.
Bring your “600” list, Peter or admit that your statement was simply hot air.
I’m waiting.
Regards,
Max
I know you aren’t happy that you haven’t got your list. But I’m not happy that you haven’t given me your list of Evolutionists either.
If you’ve won your argument and I’ve won mine its pretty bad news all round. I’ll need to join the Lavoisier group. They’re an Australian coal industry sponsored anti AGW group. Some people would say they were a right wing pressure group. Others would say that the coal industry are a bunch of greedy B****** who were more interested in their profits than the state of the atmosphere.
I’m not sure why they chose the name Lavoisier. Maybe they thought it sounded quite classy. I hope it doesn’t mean that we’ll all be expected to have sex with 13 year old girls like the real Lavoisier did. And he wasn’t 14 himself at the time either. He wouldn’t be at the top of my sympathy list of those who were guillotined during the Revolution.
And, we’ll both have to join a church to learn about creationism. Which one do you think you’ll choose? There’s a local mob who knock on my door from time to time who smile at me a bit too wholesomely for my liking. Too Ned Flanders. They’re full of “good news” and all that sort of stuff. But they’ll have to do.
Still, I’m told that joining a church is a good way to meet members of the opposite sex but my wife might not be too happy about that.
Peter:
I’ve asked you two simple questions: (1) Is there a consensus? And (2) Does consensus matter? Your response? Failure on both: (1) In contrast to Max’s clear verifiable evidence that many respectable climate scientists reject the dangerous AGW hypothesis, all you can do is repeat your pointless assertion that “the overwhelming opinion of all scientists is that the AGW is a serious problem”. (2) Your best effort here is to provide a reference to Wikipedia. And that, amusingly, demonstrates the fallacy of your strange “science is decided by majority vote” belief. Here’s what it says: “Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method”. Exactly.
Brute:
It does rather look as though belief in the dangerous AGW hypothesis is more a Western than Eastern phenomenon. But evidence is thin. For example, Peter referred to the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Now statements by “important” institutions these days are driven largely by politics (and especially in the West by keeping an eye on where the grants come from) – they are not evidence of the views of their individual members. Nonetheless, the Chinese statement is interesting. At first sight, it is a rather vague endorsement of the hypothesis. But is it really? It includes the recommendation that China should be “actively participating in international negotiations on climate change and making low-carbon rules to seek for more allowances for China’s industrialization”. That rather sounds to me like a warning that industrialization comes first and reducing emissions second. Actions speak louder than words.
Even in the West, evidence of what individual scientists really think is hard to come by – as Peter, to his discomfort, is finding. The best I can find is some research done last year in Canada: what appears to be a properly conducted poll (report here) of an adequate sample of “earth scientists” found that “Only about one in three … believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified”. Were that representative of wider opinion (I do not claim that it is), it would mean the actual consensus is the opposite of Peter’s assertion.
Max and Brute
Further evidence that our knowledge of co2 sources is still on page 20 of the climate science handbook. This link describes other very plausible sources for the increase in co2 reflecting the overwhelming impact of nature versus Man.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/24/study-hemispheric-co2-timing-suggests-that-annual-increases-may-be-coming-from-a-global-or-equatorial-source/
The item I posted before you went off on Peters sidetrack with lists, concerning the likely reaason for the ozone hole, also illustrated that our understanding of the natural world-in that case cosmic rays- is still rudimentary.
Tonyb
Max:
Perhaps you should add Tom Quirk to your list. Here’s an extract from his recent paper “Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide” published in Energy and Environment (Volume 20, pages 103-119):
Robin,
No I didn’t say that “science is decided by majority vote”.
Its not even a majority vote of the scientists involved let alone a count of anyone who may have an interest in any particular matter.
It would be easier in a way if it did. We’d all be able to look up the voting figures and there would be much less scope for disagreement and argument about the consensus.
If your House of Commons worked the same way there’d never be a formal division or vote on anything. Everyone would get up and have their say. But after a while instead of there being increasing disagreement the MPs would start to say pretty much the same thing as the consensus emerged.
Yes I know it sounds strange. But that’s scientists for you.
After a while those who weren’t convinced would know, without anyone ever spelling it out, that the decision had gone against them and they’d slope off for a drink in the bar.
Peter: I’m glad you’ve conceded that, after all, you don’t think that science is decided by majority vote. That means, of course, that your constant references to unproven “consensus” and “overwhelming majority” were pointless. As your helpful Wikipedia link says, science is determined by the scientific method. Here’s a quotation:
If you look at the work published by the scientists listed by Max, you find that’s precisely how they conduct their research. I suggest you examine what they have to say. You may learn something.
Re: #5162, Peter
Thanks for the links and they certainly seem to confirm your version of events, but I note that you are relying on Wikipedia, NRDC, BBC and CommonDreams and that Pachauri was voted in 76/49. Whatever pressure the US may have applied behind the scenes, it looks as though they were pushing at an open door and there is no evidence that their intervention was decisive.