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.
Max,
The link on the hotspot didn’t work.
But from what I’ve read; yes there is a problem finding it. Hotspot is probably not the right word. Very slightly warmer spot is probably a better description. Furthermore from what I’ve read, it does seem that any climate forcing, such as solar, should also produce the same effect. So, while it is interesting that it hasn’t been found, and it could as Santer says be because the instrumentation isn’t good enough it doesn’t really say anything about the cause of the late 20th century warming.
Your answer on the heating of the water has answered one question that I had of whether thermometers, and temperature readings, were allowable as ‘physical evidence’. I think we are all agreed that the thermometers have showed a general late 20th century global warming. So without going through all the figures again we have to attribute that to a variety of causes. You’ll have all seen the IPCC reports in which this is done using the best currently available scientific knowledge.
Svensmark would argue that his Cosmic rays haven’t been included. And yes, it is just possible that he may be right but apart from him and his team, and maybe a few of you guys no-one thinks it’s likely. It’s a process of elimination. If its not the sun, and its not Cosmic rays, then it must be….. But then yes I’m sure someone else will come along and suggest a factor Y as another possibility.
I’m not sure why you keep harping on about physical evidence. All the well known scientific sceptics, Lindzen, Spencer and co, don’t disagree with the idea that there is AGW taking place. The argument is about the likely amount and whether or not it should be tackled or just allowed to happen.
Both Robin and yourself seem to feel that there are some agreed rules somewhere. How many times have I heard the argument “its not up to us to prove this, it down to you to prove that… ete etc” Have you got a reference for thes rules and who has agreed to them?
A more intelligent approach to the whole problem is to undertake a risk assessment. Construct all the possible scenarios. Ask “What happens if we do this, or that, and the scientists are wrong?” “What happens if we do this, or that, and they turn out to be right?”
Australia becoming a Denier Nation
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/25/lawrence-solomon-australia-becoming-a-denier-nation.aspx
Peter: you repeat the same thing long after it’s been shown to be false. The final paragraph of your 5901 is an example. You refer to “the scientists” being wrong or being right as if “the scientists” have a single view on AGW. They don’t. They have a range of views – from questioning the hypothesis to thinking disaster inevitable. We don’t know the majority view – no one has asked. And, if we did, it wouldn’t help: science isn’t done by majority vote.
As to your penultimate paragraph, we are referring to the established practice of science: if I put forward a hypothesis, it’s up to me to validate it, not to you to disprove it. Darwin didn’t say, “I think evolution has occurred and its mechanism is natural selection – you prove I’m wrong.” No, he went into the natural world and found the evidence. Scientists didn’t say, “We think smoking causes lung cancer – you prove we’re wrong”. No, they did a vast amount of real world research to test the hypothesis and demonstrate the link. Likewise HIV/Aids. And so on.
ALL,
I’m about to pontificate about global politico-scientific priorities as I see them, following what I have heard today on the radio news about Mexico City flu.
First some background comments:
1) A baseline to draw is: How many people may have died, (and BTW also may have NOT died), so-far as a CONSEQUENCE of AGW, to which question, the number is probably; trivial with the net sign unknown. (Probably greater deaths due to cold) …. (and anyway these things tend to bring-on soon-pending deaths in the elderly, so the reported stats are far from meaningful)
2) How many people have suffered HIV and died from AIDS?
Well this is very seriously not trivial; one source (http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm) giving through to 2007:
More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981.
Africa has 11.6 million AIDS orphans.
3) The so-called “Spanish Flu” pandemic starting in 1918, when the world population was only about a third of what we have now, resulted in some 20 million or more deaths. (Wikipedia says up to 100 million).
4) Although medical technologies have advanced since 1918, some critical factors are that pandemics are inherently more rife, the larger the population base and its density. Although air travellers can be checked for body T, this does not catch anyone in viral incubation stage, and the rapid international people exchange is vast compared with 1918. However, the biggest problem is that health services around the world, have not been created with capacity to deal with a pandemic, because primarily costs need to be limited.
5) A while ago, I opined that “bird-flu” was potentially a far greater threat to humanity than AGW. That did not transpire, (yet), although I still believe that to be true. However, note that the human victims of it were generally in high contact with chooks, and that millions of the birds were destroyed to control it. Also that the outbreaks of human infection were relatively small and drawn-out, compared with (according to reports) this sudden large deadly flu outbreak in the Americas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, for crying out loud; why is AGW seen as a major threat, with political reactions of huge expenditures etc, when far greater existing problems and potential threats should be more importantly addressed. (not all of which I’ve covered)
Robin,
I’m sure that you are as aware as I am that not a single one of your country’s climate research organisations, or a single one of your country’s universities, or any of the UK’s science societies and organisations would disagree with the IPCCs climate reports. You know that and yet, even though you admit that you know little about science, you still argue the opposite. Amazing.
I think the second paragraph of your 5903 could be subtitled “disproving a negative”. You are quite right that something like the Theory Evolution is expected to stand on its own merits. It doesn’t stop many describing it as ‘just a theory’ though and using many of essentially the same arguments as we read on this blog against AGW.
So what’s the negative in the AGW case? From one point of view, obviously yours, its opposition to the AGW theory which you are quite happy to protect from too much scrutiny.
However, from another, and equally valid point of view, the negative is opposition to the idea of atmospheric change itself. It can well be argued that you, and all those who support the idea of atmospheric change, should commission something that may be described as an ‘environmental impact survey or report’ to support your case. That’s what they are called in Australia. When someone wants to build a new dam or a new pulp mill, or whatever, they have to show that any environmental damage is within acceptable limits. I’m sure there are similar procedures in the UK and the USA.
So why should a potential doubling of CO2 concentrations be treated differently? Why should those of us, who support the idea of keeping the atmosphere as it is, be asked to ‘prove’ a negative?
Robin,
What sort of test do you have in mind?
Peter: once again (5905) you’re trotting out a tired old fallacy. Even if all the UK’s research authorities and universities did agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature (and I know of no evidence that they do), that wouldn’t make it good science. A hypothesis is not validated by appeal to authority but by objective test against empirical evidence. However, I suppose it’s some progress that you agree with me about how Darwin validated his theory of evolution: in precisely the same way as smoking/cancer and HIV/Aids. Now it’s up to the dangerous AGW hypothesis to “stand on its own merits”.
I don’t “oppose” that hypothesis, I ask to see the research establishing its validity by empirical test. A simple enough request and nothing to do with “proving a negative”. Where is that research?
Robin,
I’m not sure how my 5906 came before your 5907. I’m sure I wrote it afterwards.
Anyway I was wondering what sort of ’empirical test’ you have in mind?
You’ve obviously been convinced by some empirical test of Darwinain evolution. What was that?
Tempterrain
Very simple example of the principle of Darwinian evolution, the rise of MRSA.
Peter re your 5906 and 5908:
A recap. As you know, I have already said that I would like to see “published research demonstrating unambiguously that the hypothesis [that mankind’s continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature] has been subjected to rigorous testing against empirical (i.e. physically observed, not theoretical) evidence and has survived such testing intact. The evidence must be publicly available and the testing capable of independent replication”.
It’s no more for me to tell scientists what empirical evidence that might be or how they should go about testing the hypothesis against it than it would have been for me to tell Darwin how to go into the natural world, gather evidence and demonstrate how it validates his hypothesis. But I know empirical evidence when I see it and am able to understand whether or not it validates a hypothesis. Re dangerous AGW, I’ve seen neither the evidence nor the validation.
Scientific Method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Thought I’d jump in. This seems like a pretty good synopsis of the scientific method (no, I don’t like using Wikipedia………however………
I can think of several areas where the criteria has not been met pertaining to Anthropogenic Global Warming. “Peter’s” scientists seem to take liberty with a few of the steps, bypassing/ignoring some of the more rigorous qualifications. Making assumptions without providing tested results, failing to reveal methods subject to peer review.
If we’re going to discuss the scientific merits of Global Warming we should leave the media, politics, sources of funding, personal religious/philosophical ideology, etc out of it, (Yes Peter, I’m guilty of the latter also)……………… of course, leaving these factors out is probably an impossibility…………
If one favors the implications of a sound Anthropogenic Global Warming theory then the criteria seems to be relaxed to accomodate the perceived societal outcomes……..(same is true of the converse).
Here’s an interesting overview of climate change from the Polish Academy of Sciences.
(The original paper – in Polish – is here.)
Brute,
You write “….we should leave the media, politics, sources of funding, personal religious/philosophical ideology, etc out of it” Why should we?
Barelysane and Robin,
Your MRSA example is valid, but, of course this and similar arguments would have been unavailable to Darwin and his his supporters when they were trying to establish the theory. What comtemporary evidence do you think they presented which clinched the argument?
Robin,
Its a simple question. You’ve asked for empirical tests. I’d just like to know what sort of empirical tests you are asking for. They may have already been done and it could be just a matter of digging out a reference for you.
You say that “..you [PM] agree with me about how Darwin validated his theory of evolution”
Do I?
How would you say he did that then?
Peter,
I apologize; I meant in the context of you providing empirical evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming using the scientific method outlined in my Wikipedia reference, (answering Max’s/Robin’s challenge).
For example, referencing escaped lunatics like Al Gore or Jimmie Hansen running around whining to anyone who’ll listen that CO2 is causing an apocalyptic catastrophe so people will buy their worthless carbon credits or because they think “it’s the right thing to do”………..that wouldn’t count.
Come to think of it, so far, in the last +/-18 months, you really haven’t brought any sort of reference to the table that establishes cause and effect. I know that the “theory” states that rising CO2 should be causing temperatures to rise but as time marches on that isn’t happening. Your answer to that inconvenient fact is that the Sun is weak or all of the global temperature monitoring services are being bought off by “big coal” or “big oil” or a right wing cabal of industrialists, and/or “what till next year”.
About the only salient point you’ve made is a gradual increase (if you can call ½ of 1 degree an increase over 150 years averaged over the face of the globe) which more likely is due to a recovery from a major (and several minor) ice ages.
My point is that your source of debate is emotive, irrational, political and philosophical as opposed to scientific in its origins. You fail to deal with or address the topic presented to you……you dodge and weave around the subject when challenged.
As Max writes……bring facts, not theory; (or bring facts that support your theory), then maybe some of us will begin to take your arguments seriously.
Your obvious bias curses you to the second string team. You don’t have to be a “climatologist”…………just bring facts to the debate, not fantasies.
One other point that I believe you’re having trouble with……Here in America, what I earn belongs to me; it doesn’t belong to the “State”, the “Collective”, the “Group” or anyone else. My property belongs to me. You may not like that, but that’s the way it is. (Oh, and the sky doesn’t belong to you either).
If I choose to give you some of what I have voluntarily, that’s called charity……If I am forced to give you some, (or all), of what I have earned by an oppressive government, that’s called slavery.
Maybe it works somewhat differently where you come from but your failure to understand personal property rights as they relate to the Constitution of The United States is all too apparent in your comments.
One addendum to this statement:
I’m not even convinced that this ½ of 1 degree is accurate considering the “adjustments”, sloppy record keeping, Urban Heat Island Effects, removal of notoriously cold weather monitoring stations from the dataset and poor siteing of temperature monitors.
You’ve proven my point in spades with this latest comment. We cherish liberty and freedom and generally reject government intervention into our personal lives. Regrettably, being a “Subject” you fail to understand the true meaning of freedom. (I put forth a theory regarding your vision of American government responsibility and you’ve proven that you don’t understand it with one sentence).
All of the proposed “remedies” for addressing the supposed global warming issue involve government intrusion into my life and confiscating a larger portion of my personal property as well as further limiting my personal liberty and freedoms. You’ll notice that I used the word “voluntary” in my statement. Have the global warming zealots advocate voluntarily curbing their Carbon Dioxide emissions…….have the global warming fanatics fund research and development of the “climate” and alternative energy solutions.
As far a proving or disproving a theory; read the blurb (follow the link) that I posted at 5911.
Brute,
Its all very well to suggest leaving politics out of the argument but how does this square with your point about the US constitution?
I’m happy for everyone to leave Al Gore out of it. But, to dismiss James Hansen like you have, just because you don’t like the political implications of what he is suggesting, is to display a total lack of scientific understanding of the potential problem everyone faces.
Yes, I agree with what Wiki says is the scientific method. But I’d just like you and Robin to write something that shows you understand what that really means and how it operates in practice.
Robin has chosen to say that we are agreement on Darwin’s theory and how that controversy was resolved. I’m not sure that we are at all in agreement on that, for the straightforward reason that I don’t really know what Robin’s view is. I doubt he can explain how all the steps in the Wiki article have been scrupulously followed. I doubt he has given it much thought at all.
But this is both your chance to say something intelligent on the subject.
Brute,
I’m not sure how your picture of a galloping horse supports your argument. Max is fond of saying ‘use your commonsense’. ‘Commonsense’ led to incorrect pictures of horses ‘flying’. Science to the correct stride pattern of a horse being recognised. So, I would have thought that it more supported my argument of “if commonsense was all that was needed, why bother with science?”
You’ve not picked up on my suggestion that the question of potential global warming should be treated as an exercise in risk management.
This is a very famous video clip from youtube which argues from that perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=fvsr
Brute,
So your latest argument is that AGW can’t be happening because it, or any cure, would be against the US constitution?
OK If you say so.
All,
This is another interesting one and should give you plenty of food for thought.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=The+Most+IMPORTANT+Video+You%27ll+Ever+See+%28part+1+of+8%29&aq=f
It is relevant to the topic of global warming. Brute’s arguments pretty much confirm what I’ve been saying for sometime now about how opposition to AGW is politically motivated.
I would suggest that Prof Andrew Bartlett might provoke some politically motivated hostility too! However, as he relies on nothing more than arithmetic its not so easy to argue against him.
Bob_FJ,
You ask “So, for crying out loud; why is AGW seen as a major threat” ?
No need to cry out loud. The simple answer to your question is contained in the first youtube video which I’ve just posted
I’ve just finished watching the second youtube video (in fact there were about 8 of them in the series) and they are quite chilling! They’ve left me with the feeling that AGW is just a side issue. It takes about an hour to watch them all but its an hour well spent.
Peter
If you want to know Darwins evidence as presented at the time i suggest you read his book, his experiements and observations are very well detailed.
Peter:
You want to know “what sort of empirical tests” I am asking for. No particular “sort”, Peter. I would be happy with anything that shows unambiguously that, when examined in the light of the natural world, the hypothesis emerges intact.
You’re right to be interested in how Darwin went about this process . As I’m sure you know, he didn’t invent the theory of evolution. What he did was carry out the detailed research that demonstrated that evolution was actually occurring in nature. You asked for examples. Well, he showed that the birds in the Galapagos (notably his famous 13 species of finches) differed from one island to another, depending on slightly different environments. He showed how the advantage this provided was passed to the next generation – the process that came to be called natural selection. Another well-known example were the “peppered” moths living in industrial areas in England: darker moths were less likely to be eaten by birds – so, over time, the environment favoured darker moths which became gradually more common. Thus the hypothesis was “subjected to rigorous testing against empirical evidence and survived intact”. Moreover, the details of the tests were publicly available and, crucially, were capable of independent replication.
Of course, had I lived at the time, I wouldn’t have been able to advise Darwin about how to go about all this. But, having seen the results, I am now able to recognise the enormous significance of his work. Likewise with the dangerous AGW hypothesis: has it been validated in the natural world? I’m happy to let the specialists determine what should be done to achieve this. But I’m simply asking to learn how it has been tested and to see the results.
ALL, Further my 5904, here is an edited version, with additions [thus]:
ALL,
I’m about to pontificate about global [media]-politico-scientific priorities as I see them, following what I have heard today [yesterday] on the radio news about Mexico City flu.
First some background comments:
1) A baseline to draw is: How many people may have died, (and BTW also may have NOT died), so-far, as a CONSEQUENCE of AGW, to which question, the number is probably; trivial with the net sign unknown. (Probably greater deaths due to cold) …. (and anyway these things tend to bring-on soon-pending deaths in the elderly, so the reported stats are far from meaningful)
2) How many people have suffered HIV and died from AIDS?
Well this is very seriously not trivial; one source (http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm) giving through to 2007:
More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981.
Africa has 11.6 million AIDS orphans.
3) The so-called “Spanish Flu” pandemic starting in 1918, when the world population was only about a third of what we have now, resulted in some 20 million or more deaths. (Wikipedia says up to 100 million).
4) Although medical technologies have advanced since 1918, some critical factors are that pandemics are inherently more likely, the larger the population base and its density. Although air travellers can be checked for body T, this does not catch anyone in viral incubation stage, and the rapid international people exchange is vast compared with 1918. However, the biggest problem is that health services around the world, have not been created with capacity to deal with a pandemic, because primarily costs need to be limited.
5) A while ago, I opined that “bird-flu” was potentially a far greater threat to humanity than AGW. [Thankfully] that did not transpire, (yet), although I still believe that to be true. [There remains the risk of viral mutation causing human to human transmission]. However, note that the human victims of it were generally in high contact with chooks, [with direct infection], and that millions of the birds were destroyed to control it. Also that the outbreaks of human [to human] infection were [uncertain or] relatively small and drawn-out, compared with (according to reports) this sudden large [human to human] deadly flu outbreak in the Americas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, for crying out loud; why is AGW seen as a major threat, with political reactions of huge expenditures etc, when far greater existing problems and potential threats should be more importantly addressed. (not all of which I’ve covered)
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your treatise 5901, which, however, did not bring any physical evidence supporting your credo that AGW is a serious threat.
Let’s first discuss the missing “hotspot”. This is the “fingerprint” of AGW. But it is missing (please refer to Douglass et al). So no “fingerprint” of AGW. Too bad. Santer tells us it might be there, since our measurements are poor. So might unfound fingerprints at a crime scence or the Easter Bunny “be there”, Peter. Forget that one. It is about the dumbest excuse I have ever heard.
But this really has little to do with your inability to provide physical scientific evidence to support your credo that AGW is a serious threat.
Now to your next point, where you opined:
Thermometers are fine, even when they are located next to AC exhausts or asphalt parking lots.
Manipulated, variance adjusted, ex post facto corrected globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomalies are a bit less OK, particularly when stations are shut down willy-nilly, but (unfortunatelty) they are all we have (with the satellite record there to keep the merry men at Hadley and GISS as honest as possible). (Please refer to Brute’s 5915 for some of the reservations of the sloppy temperature record).
So it has been warming over the past 150 years according to this record (with all its warts and blemishes) at an average rate of 0.04C per decade, and, yes, it warmed more rapidly over three multi-decadal periods, including the late-20th century period to which you refer.
Solar scientists can account for a bit more than half of the 20th century warming of 0.65C, leaving a bit less half for CO2 (if we accept that all the rest was due to CO2).
This is certainly no physicial evidence to support your credo that AGW is a serious threat, particularly since the first two mutlti-decadal warming cycles occurred before any real human CO2 emissions.
Bring physical evidence, Peter. Please refer to Robin’s 5910 for what is meant here.
This is all pretty “thin soup”, Peter.
Try a little bit harder (as Janice Joplin advised).
The ball is still in your court.
Regards,
Max
PS I am beginning to seriously doubt that you are unable to provide the physical scientific evidence to support your credo.
Robin,
Yes Darwin’s finches are very famous of course. Darwin’s studies show that beaks can become longer or shorter, and maybe of different shapes, to suit their natural environment. However, farmers too would have known that desired characteristics can be bred into domestic animals.
So while it was strong evidence, it was by no means conclusive. It doesn’t rule out the possibility that animals were in fact created at some time relatively recently, in geological terms, and then continued to evolve from there. Some people do still believe this.
The Origin of Species by Natural Selection of inherited characteristics, was indeed Darwin’s Discovery, ‘Invention’ is a word best used for electric light bulbs and steam engines etc. Although, other possible mechanisms of evolution had been also been proposed and discussed.
I would suggest that it is over simplistic to point to any particular piece of evidence as the ‘clinching argument’. Generally over time as new pieces of evidence emerged the opposition to Darwin decreased. At least it did in scientific circles, and it should be remembered that nearly half of all Americans still don’t believe it in the year 2009. Even thugh it is now known that similar species, such as humans and chimpanzees often have DNA sequences which are 99% the same. If that doesn’t convince people what will?
Yet, there are pieces of the jigsaw that don’t quite fit as well as everyone would like. Like the question of why the Antarctic ice isn’t melting as fast as Arctic ice, there is the question of “irreducible complexity” which still causes many to believe that a creator is a necessary part of the evolutionary process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
The Evolutionists have their Lindzens and Spencers too! Michael Behe for one.
I would suggest that the AGW controversy will follow a similar course. As new evidence is accumulated the opposition will dwindle. But there will always be the die hards who will absolutely refuse to accept the evidence , come what may.