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.
Peter:
So it seems (5945) that you’re unable to show that the hypothesis in which you put so much faith has even been validated (not, as Max has noted, that it’s been “proved”). You keep asking me to tell you what the physical evidence, tests etc. must be. You also claim how well you understand science – yet you don’t, it seems, understand the simple principle that, if I put forward a hypothesis, it’s up to me to validate it – not to you to do it for me. As I’ve said before, Darwin didn’t say, “I think evolution has occurred and its mechanism is natural selection – now you sceptics must tell me what evidence to look for.” No, he went into the natural world and found the evidence for himself. Scientists didn’t say, “We think smoking causes lung cancer – you tell us what tests are relevant to validate that”. No, they did a vast amount of real world research that tested the hypothesis and then demonstrated the link to the world, persuading the world that action was necessary. Likewise HIV/Aids. And so on.
My position is sceptical: I don’t think there is any physical evidence out there that supports the dangerous AGW hypothesis. But I assumed you did and asked you to produce it.
It seems you cannot. Interesting.
Robin,
No. It seems that you’re unable to explain just exactly what you are asking for.
Forget me. If you know nothing about science take your cue from your own Royal Society, not what I or anyone says.
The IPCC have assessed the evidence and delivered their verdict to the best of their ability. I’ve tried to explain to you all to the best of my ability just why they are very probably, almost certainly, right.
What you are asking is for me to explain why they are absolutely certainly right. They don’t say that themselves so how can I go a step further?
PS What’s the difference between validated and proved anyway? I’d say they were synonymous.
The link between GHG concentrations and global temperature has been established at least as well as the link between HIV/Aids or smoking and lung cancer.
AGW theory, and all the other ones you’ve mentioned have been established in exactly the same way. There isn’t some magic clinching piece of evidence for any of them. They are all accepted because, in totality, they are the best fit for the available evidence.
It’s just nonsense for you to expect that AGW theory should be any different. That you keep persisting in saying it should be shows you just don’t know what you are talking about.
Hi Peter,
From your exchange with Robin it has become quite clear that you are unable to provide any evidence that AGW is a serious threat.
Too bad.
It would have been interesting weighing the validity of the evidence you provided against the many counter indications, which are out there in the literature, but since you have provided no evidence, there is really nothing to debate.
Just another nail in the “disastrous AGW” coffin.
Regards,
Max
Peter
I have already commented on the you tube video.
To refer to your Sherlock Holmes analogy.
What about the 19th century warming? And the 18th century warming? (unexpectedly to similar levels to today, even though it encompassed the LIA) the 17th century warming? In fact the warming (and cooling) that takes place in virtually every century with the most notable examples being the MWP, the Roman optimums and the various Holocenes.
Surely if co2 is the driver, and it has been constant for tens of thousands of years, and the sun has a limited effect (in your eyes) the worlds temperature should also be relatively constant over the years?
Yet even in the period of instrumental records we can see it went up and down like a yo yo. We have enough historic records to know that it continued to do the same throughout mans existence.
I have posted on various historic sources before. The Byzantine records (383-1453AD) often describe great heat and droughts and describe the irrigation systems to overcome these conditions. This record describes one of the periods of intense cold they experienced (one of about 10).
“…the freeze reached as far as the provinces of the Byzantine Empire: “A great freeze oppressed the Gauls,Illyricum and Thrace and, wasted by the freeze, many olive and fig trees withered; the sprouts of the crops withered, and in the following year, hunger oppressed these regions very severely….The north coast of the Black Sea froze solid 100 Byzantine miles out from shore (157.4 km). The ice was reported to be 30 Byzantine “cubits” deep, and people and animals could walk on it as on dry land…
Drawing on the same written source, another contemporary, the patriarch of Constantinople, Nicephorus I, emphasized that it particularly affected the “hyperborean and northerly regions,” as well as the many great rivers that lay north of the Black Sea. Twenty cubits of snow accumulated on top of the ice, making it very difficult to discern where land stopped and sea began, and the Black Sea became unnavigable. In February the ice began to break up and flow into the Bosporus, entirely blocking it. Theophanes’ account recalls how, as a child, the author (or his source’s author) went out on the ice with thirty other children and played on it and that some of his pets and other animals died. It was possible to walk all over the Bosporus around Constantinople and even cross to
Asia on the ice.
One huge iceberg crushed the wharf at the Acropolis, close to the tip of Constantinople’s peninsula, and another extremely large one hit the city
wall, shaking it and the houses on the other side, before breaking into three large
pieces; it was higher than the city walls. The terrified Constantinopolitans wondered
what it could possibly portend.”
We make the mistake of believing there is some optimum climate (echoes of Eden?)as we lose touch with the natural world. I dont know when that optimum climate is supposed to be. Is it Extreme heat? Extreme Cold? One of the happy stages in between which we currently inhabit?
All of these climatic variations over the millenia have natural causes and the modern warminmg fits squarely into the long line of changing conditions.
If you believe it to be different this time you need to bring the evidence to the table and demonstrate how and why. Relying on scientists who try to get rid of these extreme climatic episodes in the past is not evidence. Relying on a marginal increase in temperature records derived from the very strange concept of global temperatures (especially since 1850) is not evidence. Pointing to catastrophic sea level rises that simply do not exist is not evidence. Agreeing that there could be temperature increases of up to 6 degrees c is not evidence (unless you tell us how this extraordinary figure is calculated) is not evidence. Relying on computer models that even the IPCC admit are flawed is not evidence.
Where is the actual solid evidence Peter?
TonyB
Peter: it would seem from your 5952 that you’ve conceded defeat. Unable to produce what I originally requested, you’ve decided it’s best to misquote me and deal with that instead. No, Peter, I have not asked you to explain why the IPCC “are absolutely certainly right”. I haven’t mentioned the IPCC: my request was (and is) that you produce published research demonstrating unambiguously that the dangerous AGW hypothesis has been subjected to and survived rigorous testing against empirical evidence. It seems you cannot. Hmm.
And your 5953 demonstrates yet again your failure to pay attention to what I’ve requested. Empirical evidence showed that, re smoking/cancer and HIV/Aids, the first is the principle cause of the latter. I’m requesting empirical evidence that mankind’s continuing to add GHGs to the atmosphere will cause a dangerous increase in global temperature: i.e. the link between adding the GHGs and the dangerous increase in temperature, not the link between GHG concentrations and global temperature.
OK here it is the evidence that AGW is a serious threat.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
Happy now?
It seems that the tanning industry has taken a leaf out of the climate contrarians handbook.
“There is nothing dangerous about getting a tan. In fact, your body needs ultraviolet light to live. And now, new research is unlocking the secrets of vitamin D, which is naturally produced by skin when it is exposed to sunlight or indoor tanning lights. Earlier this year the London Telegraph
reported….”
Well I guess that’s pretty conclusive if its reported in the Telegraph. And if the Daily Mail said the same thing , well that would be just about clinch it.
Do Brute and JZ realise that they are suffering from sever Vitamin D deficiency?
“With so much money being spent to convince Americans to stay out of the sun, its no surprise that we’re seeing about 60 percent of the population with severe vitamin D deficiency.”
You can read more on: http://www.sunlightscam.com/blowback.html
How many of you guys would fall for this line of argument?
Brute doesn’t like the idea of anyone asking awkward questions about who funds websites and organisations like Icecap and Heartland. Yet it the key to an understanding of what is going on.
If you turned up at your favourite fishing river one day to find all the fish floating on their backs you might walk upstream to see what was going on. You might find an irresponsible landowner who was discharging effluent into the rive. Would it be even worthwhile asking his ‘opinion’?
He might tell you that he’s had a scientific survey done and that the link between the dead fish and his effluent pipe was purely circumstantial. Fish don’t live for ever. There were other factors that couldn’t be conclusively ruled out. Fish deaths happen in cycles. There were more deaths in 1998 than there were currently. He might challenge you to present physical evidence.
No-one with a half grain of intelligence would fall for it. Why then are you so keen to fall for all the lies, distortions and half truths promoted by the powerful fossil fuel lobbies around the world?
Robin,
“my request was (and is) that you produce published research demonstrating unambiguously”
OK Here its is again.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
And before you complain that it is not ambiguous, I’d just say it’s no more ambiguous that HIV/AIDs or smoking /lung cancer.
Peter: many thanks for your 5958. Progress at last!
I will have a number of comments on your link in relation to my request but I have a busy day and will have to defer them until rather later (possibly for a few days – see below). In any case, I expect you may be asleep by now.
But I will comment on your smoking/lung cancer and HIV/Aids ambiguity point. I’ll take smoking/lung cancer (HIV/Aids closely parallels it). What happened was this: (1) Medical practitioners noticed that there seemed to be a link between smoking and the development of lung cancer (it wasn’t completely obvious – remember doctors were, at one time, amongst the heaviest smokers). (2) Medical researchers investigated this and were able to show that, in theory, such a link seemed likely – thus a hypothesis was established. (3) As an initial test of this hypothesis, experiments were conducted in the laboratory – using animals, mainly I believe rabbits and dogs (you may remember the ghastly pictures). These test showed a definite link. (4) But that wasn’t enough – for the hypothesis to be used as a basis of health policy, it was necessary to produce clear evidence of what happened with humans. So tests were designed. (5) What they did was examine what actually happened in the real world by determining the incidence of lung cancer amongst smokers across a huge range of categories: age, geography, ethnicity, social class, diet, lifestyle, etc. That was compared with the incidence of lung cancer amongst non-smokers in the same categories. The results were overwhelmingly clear: a link was exceptionally likely – indeed no one has been able to produce any real counterevidence, despite the best efforts of the tobacco industry to do so. Was it unambiguous? Yes, the evidence produced was certainly unambiguous – one result incidentally was that most doctors stopped smoking. But, of course, that doesn’t mean that, one day, a researcher may not produce evidence that, in say a particular society, smokers are no more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers (remember: science is never settled). But it hasn’t happened yet and frankly, in view of the vast body of evidence (look it up), it seems most unlikely. That, Peter, is what I mean by “unambiguous” – lets see how the dangerous AGW hypothesis measures up. (The above, incidentally, is a good example of what I mean by testing against empirical evidence.)
No doubt this discussion will continue. But I am going away for a few days without my computer and, after today, will not be commenting until at least next weekend.
Peter, reur 5957
“No-one with a half grain of intelligence would fall for it. Why then are you so keen to fall for all the lies, distortions and half truths promoted by the powerful fossil fuel lobbies around the world?”
Try much harder the just spewing out this rubbish from realclimate et al, the fossil fuel lobbies are currently having a field day with AGW. Would you like to hazard a guess at just how much additional power is required to perform carbon capture?
The funding being made available to push AGW, cap and trade, carbon capture etc is truely immense e.g
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090427151312.aspx
The sceptic funding amounts are by comparison a drop in the ocean.
If you’re going to go around insulting peoples intelligence, it’s best to get your facts straight first.
Hi Peter,
You have cited IPCC AR4 as the “physical evidence” supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
You are aware, of course, that there are several notable errors and omissions in AR4, plus some new data, which were not yet available when AR4 was published.
Let us ignore the basic question concerning the greenhouse theory and the radiative forcing factors from CO2 plus other anthropogenic GHGs, and assume that the IPCC estimates in this regard are correct.
Several of the errors and omissions in AR4 relate to areas where IPCC has conceded that its “level of scientific understanding” is “low”. Two notable areas are solar forcing and cloud feedbacks, which IPCC has conceded is its “largest source of uncertainty”.
Fortunately, there are other sources on solar forcing (which we have already discussed), which shed a bit more light on the importance of solar forcing on the long term temperature trend.
In addition, the Spencer et al. study, which was published after AR4 has brought new information on cloud feedbacks, clearing up IPCC’s “largest source of uncertainty” and confirming that the net cloud feedback is strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by the models cited by IPCC. This new information represents a true “paradigm shift” regarding the way cloud feedbacks are considered.
Actual physical observations have also shown that the IPCC assumption of constant relative humidity with rising temperatures has not been validated in real life. Relative humidity decreases with rising temperature. As a result the positive feedback from water vapor as assumed by the models cited by IPCC is exaggerated.
(The references for these studies have all already been posted.)
These additional data give us the possibility to modify the IPCC model assumptions for the future. Instead of a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2C (as assumed by IPCC) we can now conclude that this should be around 0.8C.
This also gives a good cross-check with the observed 20th century temperature rise and the estimated solar impact from the various solar studies.
All in all, it means that we should theoretically expect to see another 0.5 to 0.6C warming from added CO2 by 2100 (assuming all natural forcing factors remain constant).
The first eight years of the 21st century have actually shown a sharp cooling, particularly since late 2007 when solar activity diminished to a minimum. In other words, the assumption that natural factors will remain constant has already been challenged by the actual facts to date.
How long this solar minimum and the resulting cooling will last is anyone’s guess. Some solar scientists predict an extended solar minimum, based on similar historical patterns.
Other natural factors, such as changing ocean currents (NAO, PDO, ENSO) and their possible tie to solar activity, are hardly considered by IPCC, although their importance on global temperature has been evident (and largely conceded by the “mainstream”scientific community), from the 1998 all-time high to current low temperatures, so this is another real weakness in AR4.
Then there is the possible solar cosmic ray/cloud connection proposed by Svensmark, which has not been considered by IPCC and is now being tested at CERN. If these tests turn out to validate Svensmark’s hypothesis, this will explain another natural mechanism of solar forcing.
All-in-all, the greatest weaknesses in AR4 are its fixation on anthropogenic factors over a very limited time frame of the record (the 25 years or so from 1976 to 2000), its essential exclusion (and admitted low level of scientific understanding) of natural factors and its since outdated assumptions on cloud feedbacks.
It is precisely these weaknesses that cause its projections for the future to be seriously flawed (and the projected anthropogenic impact grossly exaggerated).
Once we incorporate the new data, which IPCC has not included, we can see that the theoretical warming one might expect by 2100 from added CO2 (assuming all natural forcing factors remain constant) is only a fraction of one degree C, so that we can safely conclude that AGW is not a serious threat.
So you see, Peter, once one incorporates all the available data not included by IPCC, the AR4 report does not provide the “physical evidence” supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
Regards,
Max.
Yet another former NASA scientist speaks out against AGW
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.111.6
(you need to follow the links)
Max,
So, the IPCC have said that its level of scientific understanding of solar changes was low? But, fortunately for the science of climate change along comes Max Anacker who quickly and “fortunately” finds other more knowledgable sources. What a hero you are Max!
I wonder why the IPCC didn’t think of asking the same sources for their opinion? They could have incorporated it all into their report then, couldn’t they? What a bunch of slackers they are.
But wait a minute. Are you sure that this is what the IPCC were saying? Or, maybe they were commenting that the general level of scientific understanding was low?
I think that’s exactly what they were saying Max. Don’t you?
Peter
“But wait a minute. Are you sure that this is what the IPCC were saying? Or, maybe they were commenting that the general level of scientific understanding was low?
I think that’s exactly what they were saying Max. Don’t you?”
Who cares?
Either way we now have information that wasn’t including in AR4. The mechanics of why are irrelevant and a silly sidetrack. Most people would just be happy that we are advancing our understanding of the various factors that influence climate, if we’re lucky maybe they’ll be in AR5.
All
That is quite a nice summary piece in 5962 (just got round to reading it)
Barelysane,
You seem to be of the opinion that:
“The sceptic funding amounts are by comparison a drop in the ocean.”
I doubt if the level of funding, and where the funding comes from, to climate sceptic groups is publicly available. However, the majority of climate sceptic websites would have direct links to right wing ‘think tanks’ proclaiming the virtues of the free market, private enterprise, international capitalism etc. We have one in Australia, the so-called Institute of Public Affairs, who are funded by the wealthy mining and forestry industries here, and who in turn fund the Australian denialist movement. Including Ian Plimers recent book BTW.
http://www.ipa.org.au
If your theory were true they’d be funding me instead!
PS If there is anyone from the I.P.A. who is reading this maybe they’d like to prove Barelysane right and me wrong! How does $75 an hour sound?
From this link is a biog of all the people involved at the IPA referenced by Peter above. Sounds pretty impressive to me.
http://www.ipa.org.au/people
Perhaps Peter ought to do a search on the left wing organisations funding such as realclimate, the gatekeeper of wiki, and be made aware of the background to those who awarded Al Gore the Nobel prize? I suppose left wing credentials are ok but right wing ones aren’t?
Incidentally the science blog of the year 2007 Climate audit and the science blog of the year 2008 Watts up with that have obviously got these links as the most respected/voted for/visited sites. As a visitor to both I would like to know which right wing think tank is funding them so I can decide if I want to waste any more time on them.
tonyb
If you watched the you tube video Peter was so keen to promote and felt you were being talked down to it was because the guy presenting it is a high school science teacher (not an IPCC scientist-who are the only ones who count).
http://www.myspace.com/wonderingmind42
I am sure he is a nice sincere guy but why Peter should think we will all be converted by listening to him I don’t know. Peter obviously thinks the guy has more credibility than such as Lindzen and Spencer or indeed many of the people on the IPA group posted above.
Tonyb
Now here’s a political party i could get behind!
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Barleysane.
I am sure they are merely a tool of Big oil!
There is a section on Environmental alarmism in schools which is exactly what I was discussing with Robin a few weeks ago when I discovered alarmist plays were being performed by primary school children in England.
The high school teacher mentioned in my post above (Peters you tube guy named ‘greg’) is doing the same. This goes back to the Agenda 21 posts I made some weeks ago in connection with the UN programme which were linked in with the IPCC.
TonyB
“left wing organisations funding such as realclimate”
Left wing? There’s nothing about socialism on their website. Please explain.
“but why Peter should think we will all be converted by listening to him I don’t know.”
“I am sure they are merely a tool of Big oil!”
Not quite. Apart from Exxonmobile the oil industry are relatively progressive in their official position at least. They are Australian and more the tool of Big coal. Big deposits. Big dollars involved. Funding a website is just small change to them.
“I discovered alarmist plays were being performed by primary school children in England.” Look they’ll be alive when, climatically, the sh*t hits the fan. You won’t. Leave them to it.
“not an IPCC scientist-who are the only ones who count” Was this meant as a serious comment?
No as I said to Robin if you are true climate sceptics you’d never do that come what may.
Although, like all of us on this blog, he’s not a climate scientist, he makes a valid point and I’m not sure why you consider it to be beneath your dignity to answer it.
Surprise, the Arctic ice is twice as thick as expected……
Inconvenient Eisdicken – “surprising results” from the Arctic
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/inconvenient-eisdicken/
Peter
“not an IPCC scientist-who are the only ones who count” Was this meant as a serious comment?
No it wasn’t meant as a serious comment but as a jocular counter to your belief that ALL the scientists we cite are not worthy, or have some personal defect that disqualifies their science, but we are supposed to fall over in wonderment when you quote a High school scientist.
It is your bel;ief that the sh*t will hit the fan, it is my belief that it won’t and that this is plain indoctrination. If the boot were on the other foot you would see it that way as well
“No as I said to Robin if you are true climate sceptics you’d never do that come what may.”
Please clarify-I think this comment has become separated from the context.
Tonyb
TonyB,
The high school physicist, I’m quoting, isn’t using any physics but a simple risk assessment strategy which is taught on all business courses. The idea is that in running any business, or your own life if you like, you’ll be required to make lots of decisions. Of course if you’re any good you’ll get it right more often than you get it wrong. However, no-one can be expected to get it right every time, so it does pay to ask yourself what will happen when the wrong choice is made, before making that choice. If the consequences are likely to seriously jeapordise the business, then look for an alternative choice. Sooner or later the worst will happen.
All politicians should and probably do go through the same exercise as Greg Craven. Say, a report was recieved from engineering surveyors that a bridge was becoming unsafe. They could well take the view that it was wrong. They could back their judgement and if the bridge held up and no money was spent fixing it then they’ve obviously chosen correctly. On the other hand if the bridge collapses during peak hour traffic……..
You don’t have to be a climate scientist to apply the same logic to climate change.
Brute, Reur 5971 on your link to; “Inconvenient Eisdicken”
I must say I really enjoyed reading the whole thing including the many rational comments from many authors, some containing good humour. How about the (very) English guy signing off: Toodle poop? (maybe wanting to puzzle/annoy Americani!)
I would like to imagine that the people who were sucked-in to fund that silly Catlin-Haddock thing might read it, but I guess no.
And anyway; as Confucius he say: Eisdicken is not a life essential; size does not matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a period of some 18 months, around the end of the fifties, when once a week I would fly to North Germany from South-East England, mostly in a company chartered DC3. I viewed this aircraft with great suspicion, and closely inspected the hundreds of rivets that were in sight during boarding. As we endlessly droned across the continent, with the ground apparently barely visibly moving by below, I would marvel at the courage of the pilots and crew doing just that during WW2! And, I would look at those piston engine nacelles with (oil stains?) running down them, and conclude that no worries, this is a well maintained aircraft!
Peter 5973
I am well aware of the risk assessment strategy process having carried it out myself numerous times.
However the model used is simplistic and doesn’t take into account numerous extremely important factors which include, is it REALLY happening (a key consideration despite the efforts to minmise it) the cost and benefits
and realistic downsides.
I would aregue we have far more important things to worry about until the science relies far more on the known facts and historical precedence, rather than on models and unproven theories, and actually proves what the IPCC are saying.
This current WUWT thread lists some of the over riding concerns.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/is-climate-change-the-defining-challenge-of-our-age-part-1-of-3/#more-7424
tonyb