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.
Here you are Bob, another couple of graphs to study……
Ice Target Zero
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/ice-target-zero/#comment-119956
Barelysane,
I see that you linked via “Wikipediabias” to the Naomi Oreskes/Peisner exchange.
It is true that Peisner does have some sympathy with the anti-AGW cause but he also has said that:
“ I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact.. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. [No-one is saying it is unanimous! PM]
Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory….
…Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.”
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf
I’m not sure about his claim about “barely a week goes by” unless you count the usual crap that gets posted up on contrarian disinformationalist websites! But at least he does acknowledge that mainstream science has largely come to the opinion that the “current warming period is mostly due to human impact”.
Barelysane, Reur 5844, and my 5850, both on page 39:
My post trying to explain to Offthewall, the difference between Power and Energy, was accepted by the mediator. (!) I’ve subsequently added some refinements in an additional post in an attempt to try to pre-empt how Offthewall might try to wriggle-out on this.
It too was briefly on hold for mediation, but to my surprise was cleared quickly merely whilst I typed this ‘ere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/apr/21/energy-central-veterinary-laboratory?commentid=fe275541-193c-4482-80a3-fede87153119
This link takes you to my latest comment, but scan DOWN from there for ALL comments
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your latest waffle on the scientific philosophy.
It appears that you are having a hard time to provide physical evidence to support your credo, which I will repeat again:
Why is this so difficult for you, Peter?
You opined “Robin seems to be on the right track (5839)” and I agree, fully. Robin has explained the scientific method very succinctly in the text below:
Let’s walk through the procedure here, Peter.
1. A problem is identified.
The “problem” here is actually more of a “phenomenon” rather than an actual “problem”. It is: Our climate seems to be warming, in a multi-decadal cyclical manner, with an underlying upward trend of 0.04C per decade since records started in the mid-19th century, as we have come out of the Little Ice Age, a period marked by low solar activity and decidedly colder average temperatures. Along with this long-term warming, we have seen a reduction in mountain glaciers across the world and a slow but steady increase in sea levels since the mid 1850s.
2. A testable (i.e. refutable) hypothesis explaining it is put forward.
In this case, it is a suggestion, based upon the “greenhouse theory”, that human emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2 from fossil fuel combustion) have been the principle cause of the observed warming, if not prior to 1976 or 1979, at least after this date; this hypothesis is known as the “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” (AGW) hypothesis
3. The hypothesis is thoroughly tested against empirical (physically observed, not theoretical) evidence.
This step has not yet occurred. A rough correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature has been proposed, but there is a notable lack of observed correlation over many periods in the temperature and atmospheric CO2 record, i.e. multi-decadal periods where significant warming occurred despite insignificant increase in atmospheric CO2 and periods where no warming occurred despite significant increase in atmospheric CO2. This includes the latest 11 years, where atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased at a record rate, while global temperatures have not risen, or the latest 8 years, where temperatures have actually fallen despite record increase in CO2 concentrations. In other words, the CO2/global temperature correlation is weak. Then there is the troublesome lack of quantitative correlation between human CO2 emissions and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
4. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is initially validated.The evidence does not support the hypothesis, as explained above, and there is also evidence that solar activity may have been the primary cause for the temperature increase. Over history, this forcing factor shows a closer correlation with global temperature than atmospheric CO2. The mechanism by which the sun affects our climate is only partially understood today. Direct solar irradiation is only a part of the solar forcing, as the (pre-industrial) climate record has shown. Other mechanisms (cosmic rays/clouds) have been proposed, but, just like the greenhouse hypothesis, these have not yet been validated by physical evidence.
5. But even such validation fails if the hypothesis is subsequently proved to be false.The weakness of the AGW hypothesis against observed physical facts has been described above, i.e. it has never been validated as yet.
But now we go one step further.
Based on this as yet invalidated hypothesis, climate model projections are made that incorporate assumed “positive feedbacks”, which increase the greenhouse impact of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases by a factor of three to four.
These are based on assumptions (a) that relative humidity will remain constant with warming, thereby increasing the natural greenhouse effect of water vapor, and even more strangely, (b) that (warming) high altitude ice crystal clouds will increase with warming while (cooling) low altitude water droplet clouds will remain constant or decrease.
Together, once the assumptions are fed into the computer models, these two assumed “positive feedbacks” result in a three to four-fold increase in the theoretical warming to be expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
Both assumptions (constant relative humidity with warming and net positive feedback from clouds) have been refuted by actual physical observations, but they are both still part of the AGW claim despite this.
So we have the projections from an unsubstantiated hypothesis that are exaggerated three- to four-fold with unsubstantiated (and since refuted) assumptions on “positive feedback”.
Peter, it is up to you to provide physical scientific evidence to support your statement:
The “ball is in your court”, Peter. This is the time to get specific, not the time for another philosophical waffle. It is now like your earlier challenge “PUOSU” (put up or shut up).
Awaiting your specific reply, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Brute, Reur 5851
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for that; a very interesting blog, devoid of fruitcakes!
The graphs are great, together with a whole bunch of perceptive comments!
I particularly enjoyed the post from AnonyMoose. (Living in Canada?).
Nice irony!
Hi Bob_FJ
My point was even more basic than that. If you have a look at the numbers i think he’s comparing the annual power usage of the lab to the average demand on the grid (at any one point in time) to get his 49%. Making the article reasonable and his post idiotic. Having said that yesterday i’d had a rather pleasant evening the night before and wasn’t exactly firing on all cylinders yesterday so if anyone could check my observation it would be appreciated.
Peter
Where on earth have i linked to wiki? Can’t be bothered to look through the posts, maybe you can tell me.
Hi Peter
That eventually ran bells so i looked it up (a post from last week).
Have to admit not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. That letter is nearly 3 yrs old, and we all know the pace the debate is moving at. He didn’t say mainstream science, he said climatologists, quite a distinction.
I am however glad you included the last paragraph which included the highly relevant point;
“But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons”
tempterrain
“kW and kWhr good units for electricity but not oil or natural gas. What’s the matter with litres and cubic metres?”
you have to be kidding?
Peter/tempterrain
Ah, the penny’s just dropped.
The reference to a week old post after being asked again to provide physical evidence for AGW. Possible diversionary tactic.
I won’t post again with reference to my previous two posts until the evidence question has been answered.
I find myself rooting for the 2009 sea ice to intersect with the 1979-2000 average here. I’m certain that the Eco-nuts are praying that the sea ice won’t reach the 1979-2000 line. Who are the “environmentalists” in this case?
Look for a report of a sudden “equipment failure” or abrupt “regional anomaly” in the arctic data before May 1st.
Max,
Why are they using the 1979-2000 average as a benchmark? Why not 1979-2007?
Max,
I must say it always amuses me when you accuse me of waffling, and then come back with with a piece which several times longer. This time it was six times longer, although I must say that reading it was tedious enough so I couldn’t be bothered to count every word. If you’d like to do that maybe you could let me know if I was far out in my estimate.
So you want absolute proofs? Solid chunks of physical evidence? Well I’m sorry mate. The way that science works is that everyone in the scientific community puts their heads together, looks at all the evidence and decides what is the best theoretical fit to explain it all. As you don’t need me to tell you it is that GHG’s are largely responsible for the present phase of measured warming and will be responsible for increased warming this century.
You’ve done the calculations and have got an answer of 1 degC,(too low but we’ll leave that aside for now) warming for 2xCO2. And yet you say that mitigating CO2 levels won’t change temperatures by one iota. I’m not sure what your definition of ‘iota’ is. Are you saying half an iota? Then we would of course multiply that by a factor of three to get the right answer! One and half iotas?
I’m not sure where you have got this physical evidence thing from. It’s there in all the graphs I’ve posted. Have you read that this is a good line of argument on some denialist website? Maybe you can give me an example of just what it is you a looking for?
Or you are just parroting the arguments of the creationists, once again? Don’t they say that there is no ‘physical evidence’ to show that man has ‘descended’ from the apes?
Brute,
I think what you are noticing in your graphs is that the Arctic summer melt is more pronounced that the winter melt.
I thinks that sounds about right.
You also ask “why are they using the 1979-2000 average as a benchmark? Why not 1979-2007? ”
Well yes they could equally well use either. They can’t use a single year. It is necessary to take an average of several years and ten is probably OK. The idea is to establish a reference line and once that is defined you don’t ever change it.
Barelysane,
You ask “where on earth have i linked to wiki?”
Are you having memory lapses? I notice that you’d also written “i’d had a rather pleasant evening the night before and wasn’t exactly firing on all cylinders yesterday”
Mmmm. I think maybe you and Bob_FJ might have the same problem. Do you know that each pint of beer kills off 20,000 brain cells? When you get to his age you might only have a couple left if you don’t look after yourself. You don’t want to end up the same way, now do you?
Take a look at your 5708.
I see that you are joining Max in his quest for a chunk of AGW. Do you think that you could draw my a picture of what it might look like? Have I been wasting my time trying to explain that we get the answer to scientific questions generally by looking at graphs, equations, models. You aren’t too happy about that?
Why am I kidding on kW and oil? Just try asking for a 1000kWhr, or whatever, the next time you fill up with petrol. The petrol assistant might just ask you the same question.
Hi Peter,
Yes, you are waffling again in your 5861 (actually this has less to do with the number of words than the content of these words).
If you will note, I repeated your 54-word “credo” twice in my last post, to make sure we are talking about exactly the same thing.
You have made a claim, yet you are unable to support this claim with physical evidence.
As I understood your last post, you now tell me that you do not have this physical evidence, in other words your claim is not supported by physical evidence.
This is a pretty significant admission.
You wrote:
Sorry, Peter. That is not “the way science works”. Read Robin’s 5839, which I will again quote below to refresh your memory, to see “the way that science works”.
That is the way that science works, Peter. A hypothesis is proposed to explain a phenomenon. It is then tested. Can this hypothesis be validated by actual physical observations that provide conclusive evidence that it is correct? Are there no other equally plausible explanations? Has the hypothesis shown to be inapplicable for a period of the observed record, thereby invalidating it? Etc.
In this whole process the burden of proof is on validating the hypothesis, not on disproving the hypothesis.
You wrote :
So I ask you again.
Bring physical evidence supporting your credo that AGW is causing significant warming that will be a serious threat (not graphs that show that it has warmed over the past 150 years).
If you are unable to do so, so be it.
I will accept that as an answer.
Ball is in your court.
Regards,
Max
Peter: Do you really believe that “the way science works is that everyone in the scientific community puts their heads together, looks at all the evidence and decides what is the best theoretical fit to explain it all” – i.e. science by (vast) committee?
Robin,
Yes that’s just about it. Everyone doesn’t have equal influence of course, the specialists in the field do have the most say. It’s always been that way. Probably many only became aware of the workings of the scientific community for the first time due to the high level of public discussion of the AGW issue.
Max/BS,
I think you are just emphasing your high level of scientific naivity, not to say ignorance, over your persistant reference to physical evidence. Loss of Arctic ice as shown in 5862 is of course phyical evidence. The surface temperature and satellite records are another.
Where is your ‘physical evidence’ that pumping 30Gt anually, of CO2 into the atmosphere is safe.
Before you start complaining that you guys don’t have to prove anything, let me just ask you if you would eat or drink something if there was the slightest suspicion that it might be contaminated in some way and may adversely affect your health?
Barelysane,
So you are saying that a large majority of climatologists do agree with the scientific consensus? I’d say that a general acceptance of IPCC reports would be a good indicator of that.
But maybe this might not be true of mining engineers for instance? I doubt if this is true but let’s assume that it is just for now.
Well I don’t know about you, but if I’d like an opinion on my teeth I’d ask a dentist, or on my heart I’d ask a cardiologist. But if you think it should be done the other way around , then that’s OK but only if its only your health which is at stake.
Max,
So are are referencing Robin as a scientific expert now are you? “That is not the way science works. Read Robin’s 5839”
Is this the same Robin who admits he knows very little Physics? The same Robin who has no scientific qualification at all?
You’ll be quoting what your taxi driver thinks next.
Hi Peter,
You opined (wrong as usual):
Sorry, Peter. Your silly side-track does not fool anyone (least of all, me).
Robin very succinctly paraphrased Karl Popper on his philosophy of science, a subject of which you apparently are not so keenly aware. I could recommend that you check Wiki, your favorite source for scientific wisdom to improve your knowledge on this topic. Obviously, Robin only listed a few pertinent key points.
But the fact remains.
You have still not provided the physical evidence that your credo is valid that AGW is a serious threat.
Bring physical evidence, Peter, not just evasive hot air.
Regards,
Max
Earth Day predictions of 1970.
The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009.
April 22, 2009, 4:00 am
Earth Day is past now, but this article is so popular we’re pinning it at the top of the home page today so everyone looking for it can find it.
For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza.
Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.
Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.
Here we are, 39 years later and the economy sucks, but the ecology’s fine. In fact this planet is doing a lot better than the planet on which those green lunatics live.
Max,
“…..not just evasive hot air.” I would have thought ‘hot air’ would be exactly what you are asking for. See the NASA GISSTEMP and Hadley HADCRUT graphs for evidence of that.
I’m not quite sure what Robin was saying about Karl Popper or what you think Robin thinks Karl Popper is saying but the essentially the scientific method is not difficult to understand.
It isn’t the same as mathematics which works on the basis of proof. It is probably more analogous to the operation of a court of law, which assesses evidence and comes to a reasonable conclusion.
For instance if DNA is found at a the scene of the crime and the suspect said it wasn’t his even though there was only a 1 in 10 million chance of it being someone else’s, a mathematician would say that there are likely to be 30 people in the USA with that same DNA pattern and therefore acquit him. Furthermore if his fingerprints were also found and there was a additional one in ten million chance of them being someones Else’s it still wouldn’t be enough for a mathematician. Even if it were 1 in ten billion it would still not be enough. Mathematicians need absolute proof.
Science doesn’t work that way. They work on the best explanation to fit the available evidence within reasonable doubt.
See: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Proof
Fermat’s last theorem is another illustrative example of the different approaches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem
This had essentially been ‘proved’ years ago to most people’s satisfaction by testing it out with computer programs.
However, there was no proof in the sense that mathematicians understand the term, until Andrew Wiles cracked the problem in 1995.
Well Pete, It looks like the Alarmist postulate was wrong in this case…………..they’ve relied on voodoo science, crystal balls, tea leaves and climate models and are ignoring the fact that it’s getting colder, sea ice is growing, sea levels are stable and hurricanes are less intense and less frequent all with rising CO2 levels.
Sloppy science and lazy scientists………simply too indolent to due the work the old fashion way as Hadrow (snicker) is doing now.
Ask Hadrow how “warm” he is right now……that is if he hasn’t been attacked by one of those suffering, weak, enervated polar bears by now.
Obama Burned 9,000 Gallons of Jet Fuel for One Earth Day Speech
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/04/23/cbss-knoller-obama-burned-9-000-gallons-jet-fuel-one-earth-day-speech
And yet, despite Obama’s massive Earth Day carbon footprint, the Earth continues to cool………I plan on following Dear Leader’s commitment to our environment. I’ll attempt to burn 9,000 gallons of fuel tomorrow.
Brute and Max,
I’m just wondering how you’ll feel in 20 or 30 years time when you’ll be shown to have been spectaculaly wrong with all this crap you keep posting up on the net.
I shudder to think what your descendents will feel when they really are up against the problem of climate change big time. It won’t be good for them to know that they had such ill-educated and narrow-minded forebears who put their own self interest and political dogmas above the considerations of future generations.
Well Pete, if the temperature continues to drop as it has been, I’ll move the whole tribe to South America or start burning the rest of the forest on the Brute Ponderosa to keep warm.
TonyB, (Welcome back), some time back you made some rather devastating observations concerning the “Ozone hole” hype. This is a matter that has also made me quite angry too.
Brute steered us towards the following WUWT thread, which is well worth a read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/ice-target-zero/
The following extract, in part by Steve Keohane, particularly caught my attention:
Of course it is a long time since the famous accord on CFC’s, but a funny thing is that the maximum hole size recorded since interest was taken in it, (helped-along by at least one big chemical manufacturer), was in 2006, Re:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7044
I’m also not convinced that the active volcano beneath “the hole”; namely Mount Erebus, which is said to spew great heaps of chlorine is innocent. The supporters of the very complex THEORY of CFC breakdown, simply argue that the hot rising chlorine from Mount Erebus, emanating from over 3,000 metres, cannot make it to the higher altitudes where it matters. Oh yeah, ever heard of convection? (and that the atmosphere depth is significantly less at the poles because of centrifugal effects of the Earth’s rotation.)
It is also a bit odd that most of the CFC’s were generated in the NH, but their effect is alleged to be found mostly in the SH, attributed to colder weather down there. (and of course 2006 must have been very cold because of AGW)