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.
Barelysane, Reur 6074; Rather interesting interview.
I extract the following two lines from the article:
I’m puzzled; Phil Jones is head of the CRU (Climate Research Unit) at the same university.
The two positions seem to be incompatible, do you think?
Max, Reur 6051 concerning insects and climate, you wrote in part:
Well look; only bloody tourists go there, but just in the unlikely case that I do it one day, what time of year was that? I know two persons that have been there but no mention of flies, and like in a TV doco visiting Pro Hart’s art gallery, it did not seem to be a problem. One friend now back home in England was most impressed by the Olga’s, not far from Ayer’s Rock.
Brute, Reur 6039 related to bio-engineering of unfriendly insects as more important than comedy-climate-engineering, you wrote:
WHAT! I thought I’d allow some time to pass, and after some deep breathing and Tai chi, am now calm enough to respond (to) you;
* How can an American named Randolph blissfully typically introduce himself thus: “Hi, I’m Randy.”?
* What does ‘fanny” mean in English? (real English)
* When you say “I wrote (e.g.) my parents”, what happened to the preposition ’to’?
* You guys have even contaminated our Oz car dealers to describe a coupe car, (accent on the e), as ‘coop’….Yuk! AARRGH!
Peter: glad you’re still around. If you find you have any spare time, I recommend you read a little history. Perhaps you might start with the good old days when scientific enquiry was a tough discipline that verified hypotheses by testing against measured data from the real world, testing capable of independent replication, and before it moved on to the new-fangled testing by computer model and the authority of “consensus”.
Re: #6072, Bob
I don’t suppost that Australia will be the only country to suffer a sharp dose of cold economic reality when their politicians finally have to let the electorate see the books. But two of the main agents of AGW alarmism are the UN and the EU where that kind of pressure on policy making is absent. Perhaps it is the US that will determine which way the pendulum will swing, and any sign of procrastination on carbon control will spell doom for Copenhagen.
If Obama is to be re-elected then being seen to keep his promises on welfare reform will be crucial. Without the revenue from cap and trade, how will he fund improvements to Medicare? But for the foreseeable future even this will have to take a back seat to climbing out of the recession, with which introducing new punitive taxation is incompatible. I’m glad I don’t have his problems at the moment.
Hi BobFJ
I was at Ayers Rock (and the Olgas) in early May. We went hiking and my wife wore a fly net on her hat. I did not. These little flies do not sting, but just buzz around your head and try to get into your eyes. A local told me that this was to get at some moisture.
We drove from Adelaide via the Flinders Range and Cooper Peddy (spelling?) to Ayers Rock and the Olgas, finally ending up in Alice Springs, where these little flies were no longer around. It seemed that we first encountered them just north of the border of the Northern Territory.
Before that, we spent some time in scenic Melbourne (no flies there, but we enjoyed the beautiful gardens and the dinner tram ride).
We had Swiss friends in Sydney (emigrated to Australia) that showed us around and took us on an overnight outing though all the bays and harbors there on a catamaran.
All told we spent 6 weeks in Australia, from the southeast and south to Darwin, Cairns, Lizard Island, Brisbane and then the west: Perth, Margaret River, etc. before going back to Hong Kong, where we lived at the time.
That was in 2001 and we have been back for short visits twice since then.
You live in a beautiful country, Bob. But those little flies in the desert are annoying. Get a fly net if you go there.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Glad you are back with your usual witty repartee to Robin.
Yes. I agree with you that “science” itself will not be tainted by any abuses by politically oriented bodies, anymore today than in the USSR or Nazi Germany (not to compare the horrible abuses of those times with the current exaggerations by politicians who quote the “science” to sell their story).
The underlying problem begins when politicians start to use “science” to generate fear in the public in order to sell a political agenda, as is clearly being done today with AGW.
Unfortunately, some scientists fall into the trap of becoming political activists and fear mongers themselves (James E. Hansen, as an example), thereby giving “science” a bad name.
It need not be as sinister or evil as selling the “Drang nach Osten”, the war in Iraq or “social realism”, but the principle is the same, as expressed so well by Mencken (TonyB quote).
Confusing computer model outputs with scientific observations is another part of the problem that has blurred the line between science and pure speculation.
But I am optimistic and convinced that science itself will survive all these trials and tribulations and current abuse by politicians.
Robin’s fear that people will stop believing everything they hear from scientists is actually a good thing. People should be rationally skeptical. Scientists are just humans, and they can be wrong as easily as anyone else.
Max
Max
Hey guys,
Do the global warming alarmists every get tired of being wrong?
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/
Max and Brute,
You’ve written similar comments:
“Scientists are just humans, and they can be wrong as easily as anyone else.” No actually we are more like Dr Who. Time Lords from the planet gallifrey. Like him we are never wrong. :-)
“Do the global warming alarmists every get tired of being wrong?”
Yes we do believe that global warming is something to be alarmed about. ‘Tired of being right’ shouldn’t that be?
Max, Reur 6081, you wrote in two parts concerning AGW insects:
Let’s get this right; you actually drove from Adelaide all the way up there? I did not realize that “bloody tourists” were such masochists! Sheez!
I’m glad you enjoyed Melbourne. Did you manage to see some of the beautiful mountain bush to the North east, such as along the Maroondah highway, and the quaintly signed “< big trees”, etc?
I rather like Darwin, and also Cairns and Brisbane with their environs, oh and Sydney and its Blue Mountains et al, of course.
I also love Switzerland: Zurich to Berne et al, but that was a long ago experience.
Regards, BobFJ
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your quickie to Brute and me about scientists being human and thus subject to error.
All you have to do to confirm this today with regard to AGW is look around you.
Here is one group of well qualified scientists who publicly state that they do not believe that AGW constitutes a real and serious threat.
Here is another arguably larger group of equally well qualified scientists (plus a whole bunch of computer jockies whom we’ll throw into the “scientist” pot) that have either said nothing regarding AGW being a real and serious threat, or who have openly stated that they support this premise.
So (excluding the group that has taken no stand on the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat, who will be right in either case) one group has to be right and another group wrong, i.e. some scientists are bound to be wrong by definition.
Which group?
Who knows?
It certainly has nothing to do with taking a vote, expressing the mainstream consensus, getting endorsement from the political leadership of scientific organizations or journals, etc.
Only the physical facts will tell us which group was right and which group was wrong (as Brute quotes Einstein).
As Brute also keeps pointing out to us all, the physical observations do not look too good for the pre-AGW group right now, but who knows?
It may start warming again (as you believe) and actual physical observations may indeed validate the model assumptions on feedbacks, etc. (providing overwhelming evidence contradicting the fairly convincing physical observations on clouds by Spencer et al.), and the pro-AGW group may again start to look more credible than it does today.
I just do not believe that is the way things are developing at the present. And if we have a few more years of atmospheric as well as oceanic cooling, I think we will need to reevaluate the entire premise that AGW constitutes a real and serious threat.
If it continues to cool slightly (defying the long-term trend since 1850) even as CO2 grows to Hansen’s “dangerous” “tipping point” level of 450 ppm, we can all conclude that the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat can be discarded and tossed onto the junkheap of scientific misconceptions and errors.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ
Yes, we did get a chance to look around the Melbourne area, but missed the quaintly signed big trees you mention.
Outside Alice Springs (in the middle of scenic nowhere) we did encounter some aborigines who posed for pictures and then demanded money for “buying Heinecken” (a worthy cause, so we contributed).
North of Cairns, on a boat ride, we saw some of the biggest crocodiles I have ever seen (as big as our boat). The boat captain (a real-life Crocodile Dundee), told Mrs. Max not to worry. This guy would only flip our boat over if he felt his territory was being violated.
We were impressed with the friendliness of everyone we met along the way. After getting caught speeding north of Hobart in Tasmania, the policeman told us that the fine would only be due in two months, so if we were no longer on the island then (and did not plan to return) we could forget it. Haven’t been back since then.
A retired minister (church) we met by chance in Sydney showed us around, introduced us to Moreton Bay bugs, and didn’t want to turn us loose to see our Swiss friends there.
You have a great operation there, Bob; don’t let the loonies screw it up.
Thanks for you kind comments about Switzerland.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
On the Guardian site covering the George Monbiot review of John Tomlinson’s article on AGW, a blogger (Jezebel216) opined that it is difficult to believe all the hype out there from both sides, but that
I have seen both this documentary and An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s documentary on the same subject, which has been debunked independently by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and others.
I went back through the main points of TGGWS:
· Climate has always changed naturally over millions of years (AIT does not disagree with this point)
· Over past 10,000 years there have been extended warmer periods than today, as well as cooler periods (not specifically mentioned or denied by AIT)
· Global MWP was warmer than today (AIT denies existence of MWP by showing hockey stick curve as evidence for unprecedented late 20th century warming, caused by AGW)
· There have been recent warming and cooling cycles that do not correlate with CO2
1. Early 20th century period of rapid warming (over half the total 20th century warming), before significant human CO2 emissions
2. Post war economic boom with increased human CO2 emissions but global cooling
(AIT makes no mention of these periods, but TGGWS fails to mention the human aerosol theory for post-war cooling, as suggested by IPCC)
· In ice core records, atmospheric CO2 lags warming by several centuries, therefore CO2 cannot be the root cause for the warming (AIT shows these curves and conveys the false message that CO2 drove the warming)
· Warmer oceans emit CO2; cooler oceans absorb it; there is a major lag because of the massive size and heat content of the ocean (see above)
· Natural greenhouse gases (primarily water vapor) make our planet habitable; i.e. the greenhouse effect is real and a good thing (AIT agrees)
· Human greenhouse effect should show faster warming in the troposphere than at the surface; satellite and balloon records do not support this (not mentioned by AIT)
· Human CO2 emissions are just a small part of the total natural carbon cycle (this is a weak argument; AIT points out that they are a critical part of the total, which makes more sense)
· Human CO2 emissions are not “CO2 pollution”, since CO2 is a non-toxic naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on Earth (AIT makes the polemic mistake of calling human CO2 “pollution”)
· Over past 400 years, solar activity gives a better correlation with global temperatures than atmospheric CO2 (AIT shows only the CO2 correlation; the solar correlation is more robust, but appears not to have held up so well past the mid 1980s, which TGGWS fails to mention)
· Cosmic ray / cloud hypothesis (Svensmark, Shaviv) could provide a mechanism for solar impact on climate (an unproven hypothesis which is being tested on large scale at CERN); AIT does not mention it; unless the tests validate the theory, it remains an unproven hypothesis, yet TGGWS mentions it almost as a proven fact).
· Sea levels are not rising at an accelerated rate as claimed by IPCC, but at essentially the same rate since the mid 19th century (AIT exaggerates the sea level rise, showing major coastal inundations and dramatic scenes of highly unlikely coastal flooding).
· The suggestion that a major grounded ice sheet will melt rapidly or disintegrate suddenly causing a rapid increase in sea level is not based on any sound science (AIT does not directly suggest that this might occur, but shows the dramatic coastal flooding scenes that imply something of the sort).
· Vector borne diseases are not likely to increase due to AGW (malaria exists in colder climates and worst epidemic was in sub-arctic USSR). (AIT makes unsubstantiated claim that mosquitoes and malaria are moving north due to AGW)
· Hurricanes are not likely to increase due to AGW, since the driving force is the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, and this is expected to decrease with global warming (AIT implies that Katrina was caused by AGW and that these storms will increase)
· Climate disaster predictions are nothing new; after three decades of cooling there was a global cooling / new ice age scare in the 1970s (AIT does not mention this, but it has no bearing on the AGW debate).
· Climate models are limited, unable to predict solar impacts, changes in ocean currents and clouds and subject to GIGO errors, yet are being used to make long-range projections, focusing solely on human GHGs and ignoring the many natural forcing factors; these dicey forecasts are then taken as scientific truth. (AIT gives high credibility to the model forecasts, essentially basing its projections of alarming global warming on the models).
Then TGGWS gets into a more political discussion relating to the AGW movement following the collapse of the Berlin wall and global communism, censorship or ignoring of data by IPCC, research grants being selectively given to those who support the AGW premise, false claims that AGW skeptics are in the pay of global oil or coal interests, etc. These are of less interest to me than those parts of the film that were dedicated to the science behind the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat.
Of the two films, I would judge TGGWS to have a bit less hyperbole and exaggeration than AIT and also to be a bit better researched. Many of the individuals who contributed or were interviewed are experts in their field.
The most glaring error in TGGWS was its exaggeration of CO2 emissions from volcanoes and that it failed to mention that the solar / temperature correlation failed to hold up after the mid 1980s.
The most glaring error of AIT comes when Al Gore shows the Rostock ice core graphs of temperature and CO2, implying that it is the CO2 that drove the climate (without mentioning that the CO2 increase followed the warming by several hundred years).
So maybe TGGWS was only the second-biggest lie (so far) perpetrated, with AIT at the top of the list.
But I do not believe that either one should be shown to school children.
What do you think, Peter, and why?
Regards,
Max
Max,
It would depend on the age of the schoolkids, I suppose, but I wouldn’t support any censorship. The schools have a duty to teach science; and, of course, AGW would be a part of that. It shouldn’t come down to the GGWS versus AIT. That’s far too simplistic.
This is the kind of thing which is recommended for Aussie kids:
http://www.forteachersforstudents.com.au/ClimateChange/Primary/did-you-know.php
I don’t think anyone but the most ardent denialists would have any real problem with any of it.
Max,
I notice that this theme is becoming more recurrent in denialsit cicles” CO2 is a non-toxic naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on Earth” and therefore cannot be regarded as a pollutant.
An American friend of mine was telling me recently that right wing groups are funding TV ads over there with this very theme. Is that right?
OK so what about light? Can that ever be considered to be a pollutant? According to your argument, it can’t as it’s non-toxic and essential etc etc…..
And the same thing could be said about heat too. So there is no such thing as heat pollution? Even though the use of river water for cooling in thermal power stations can serious degrade the aquatic environment?
Copper, Magnesium and Zinc are essential trace metals and are involved in various metabolic functions. So by your reasoning these metals can never be considered to be pollutants. Is that right?
The human body naturally keep copper levels within tight limits. Not too much not too little. Too much is a poison. Too little would mean anemia, bone disorder, brain and nerve tissue degeneration.
Not too much , not too little. Its the Goldilocks principle. We use it all the time.
Pete,
How much is too much?
Hansen seems to believe that existing levels are too much but vegetation and animals (including polar bears) are thriving. Reefs are healthy, sea levels are stable, global ice extent is above “normal” and temperatures are dropping. In other words, the environment and the atmosphere are within “normal” parameters.
I’ve always liked the argument from Alarmists when I write that the U.S. received record amounts of snowfall last year (for example)……
The Alarmist proclaims, “It’s winter, it’s supposed to be cold and snow in wintertime”
I write: “So, the weather (climate) is behaving normally……contrary to your assertions”.
Brute,
You write:
“How much [CO2] is too much?” Of course that is the all important question.
What is it now? 387 ppmv. James Hansen is saying that is already too high. However, if we could keep it down to the current level it would be absolutely marvellous. Although there would be a small amount of warming still to follow; you are quite right, polar bears, coral reefs would still survive very well, and there would even be snow most years in the world’s ski resorts.
It what is likely to happen if CO2 levels are allowed to rise to 450ppmv and beyond that causes the worry. Not the small amount of warming we’ve already had.
I seem to remember Max producing a graph a while back showing that the global temperature has been just about flat over this century. 8 years. Maybe a tiny rise? Can anyone remember which posting that was?
NASA have calculated that the current very quiet state of the sun has knocked 7 years off the warming trend. The IPCC are quite right, the level of scientific understanding of solar cycle is not well understood. No-one predicted that it was going to be so quiet for so long. But if NASA are right about the two factors being equal and opposite, isn’t the current levelling off of temperatures exactly what we should expect?
Like I said, we scientists are never wrong!
Hi Peter,
I liked your “IPCC sales pitch for dummies” (or rather “IPCC sales pitch for kiddos”), but find it appalling that this one-sided drivel is being taught to schoolchildren in Australia as fact.
Looks like the kiddos are being brainwashed to swallow the IPCC party line, i.e. that AGW is a real and serious threat.
Too bad there is no balance. Who decides the teaching material in your country? Are the parents at all involved?
Sounds like “big brother” at work at the schoolchild level.
For shame!
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote to Brute (with great feigned concern):
Let’s analyze your statement.
First of all it is highly arrogant to think that “we” have the ability to “allow” CO2 to rise to 450 ppmv or stop it from doing so. We do not. This is a pipe dream.
But more importantly, what would happen if CO2 did indeed rise to (Hansen’s “dangerous” level of) 450 ppmv?
We saw based on the 20th century temperature record and 20th century solar warming estimates by solar scientists that the 2xCO2 temperature impact is around 0.8C.
We have an excellent cross-check on this estimate based on the IPCC estimates of CO2 radiative forcing (Myhre et al.), which also shows a 2xCO2 temperature impact of around 0.8C.
I have walked through this calculation many times, so do not believe it needs to be repeated here.
It is also confirmed by the recent physical observations by Spencer et al. on clouds, which show that the total net effect of “feedbacks” is likely to be negligible, so that these can be ignored.
We are at 387 ppmv today (your figure).
387 = CO2 today
450 = CO2 future
ratio = 450 / 387 = 1.1628
ln(ratio) = 0.1508
2xCO2
ln(2) = 0.6931
dT (2xCO2) = 0.8C
dT (temperature rise when reaching 450 ppmv) = 0.8 * 0.1508 / 0.6931 = 0.17C
Peter, you must admit that even Goldilocks would agree that this is nothing to worry about.
Forget Hansen’s shrill wolf cry. It’s a sham.
Regards,
Max
PS That’s why the Australian school children should not be bombarded with such garbage, just because it happens to be the IPCC party line.
Hi Peter,
You wrote (6092):
Your memory is a bit weak here, Peter.
Temperature has been “flat” since January 1998 (11.25 years so far).
“Over this century” (i.e. starting January 1, 2001 or 8.25 years to date) temperature has cooled based on all four records, at an average rate of 0.1C per decade. (No “tiny rise” here Peter, but pretty sharp cooling).
Just to refresh your memory, I have updated the graph.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3506877797_296eb4a5b2_b.jpg
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
Since I know that you are particularly fond of the Hadley temperature record, I have plotted a graph showing the 2001-2009 trend as measured by Hadley.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3515424308_f2bb5c5f16_b.jpg
As you can see, the 21st century cooling trend has been -0.126C per decade.
This is comparable to the late 20th century warming trend of +0.124C/decade over the period 1976 through 2000.
Admittedly the 21st century trend (if you will) is only over 8.25 years, while the late 20th century trend was over 25 years or 3 times as long, so is probably 3 times as relevant, too.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I know you love charts, so to complete the story, here is the Hadley record for the late 20th century warming period, 1976-2000.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/3515994284_98f67daafc_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Max
Re your comment 6093 about the brainwashing in Aussie schools. About a month ago I did a series of postings on this, whereby the UN ‘Agenda 21’ a related programme for achools, and the IPCC, are all linked.
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/ks4citizenship/cit12/12q1
This agenda is being taught to all schools whose Govts have signed up for the Kyoto Protocol. I seem to remember it drew no comment from either yourself or Peter at the time-you might possibly have been playing with kangaroos.
The link above is good as it leads to others, but I also discovered the individual minutes for some of the meetings that feed into agenda 21 and many of the members and chairs were renowned environmentalists with an ‘agenda’ that ranged from destroying capitalism to genuinely wanting to ‘save the world.’ Maurice Strong was involved in the early days so it indicates the nature of the beast. Their next meeting was I think this coming June.
I called it sinister but no one else seemed that bothered. If you are interested I will try and dig it all out as it explains the rationale behind the desire to promote AGW as fact.
Tonyb
Hey Peter,
I need some help on definitions in climatology. Maybe you can help me.
I know that you do not consider yourself one of the “2,500 scientists” representing the overwhelming mainstream majority in the scientific community who support the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat, but still, as a very active supporter of this premise, I hope you can help me.
I have posted the temperature graphs of the Hadley data previously, but am still at a quandary, which you may help me resolve.
Over the last 25 years of the 20th century (1976-2000) our planet experienced a period of unusually rapid warming, following a slightly longer period of much slower cooling (1944–1976).
Not too much is said about the 30+ year period of post-war cooling, but the late 20th century warming period has received an inordinate amount of attention by climatologists as well as the IPCC.
It is recognized by experts, such as Trenberth, as a period of “climate shift”.
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 (p.240) tells us authoritatively:
Wow! This is strong stuff, indeed. Our climate began a sharp warming trend from 1976 (to around 2000), and we are told confidently that this was at least partly attributed to GHG concentrations.
The record (Hadley), upon which this observation was based, now shows us that since 2001 this warming trend has stopped. In fact, it has actually reversed at the same rate of cooling as the earlier warming trend.
Is this the start of a ‘climate shift’? Does 2001 seem to mark a time when global mean temperatures began a discernable downward trend despite continued increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere?
I have seen rationalizations that tell me that a 25-year period (such as the one we witnessed from 1976 to 2000) represents consequential “climate”, while a period only 1/3 as long from January 2001 through March 2009 only represents inconsequential “weather” or “background noise”. This differentiation is difficult for me to understand.
Peter, can you help me understand the differences in climatological terminology?
What is “climate”? What is “weather”? When does a trend become consequential? Does it depend on whether the trend follows the accepted AGW theory?
Thanks!
Regards,
Max
Hi Max, re your 6093 and the one-sided drivel taught to schoolchildren, this is not only in Australia. I did some youth counselling in London a few years ago and I recall one of the kids coming out with some rather bizarre statements, e.g. that in the near future we will all be scrambling onto the rooftops to escape rising water levels. This was 2006, just before I started to become aware of the AGW debate. Didn’t understand what the kid was on about at the time, but now, looking back, it seems to me this was possibly some garbled reference to a school science lesson based on An Inconvenient Truth. My personal view is that quite a few confused and worried children may grow up to become seriously angry adults in the next decade or so, and that we’ll begin to hear plenty of complaints along the lines of: “why were we all fed this stuff?”