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.
Africa wants $67 bln a year in global warming funds
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLO544093
Global warming vs dharma cooling
http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/22402/global-warming-vs-dharma-cooling
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Brute,
I wouldn’t say it was elitist to present the argument that it was illogical to dispute a scientific point without having a good grasp of the science itself. For instance, stem cell research promises wonderous cures for all kind of ailments. I have absolutely no idea how it all works. If there is a scientific elite on that subject, I certainly wouldn’t calim to be part of it. But, the scientific consensus is there, and I’ve no reason to disbelieve what I read in the New Scientist on the subject. Is it all a hoax or a scam, just a way of extracting money from gullible taxpayers? Some would say yes. They’ve probably no more idea than I have on the subject so their motivation can’t be driven by any scientific reservations. So guess what might drive these objections?
Yes you’ve got it in one. A dollar to a cent, it would be ethical disagreements with the whole idea of using stem cells that come from embryos.
Besides, its not just me who is accusing you all of having a poor scienfic knowledge of the workings of the atmosphere. Robin, for one, has admitted that himself.
There aren’t any more than a tiny handful of climate sceptics out there who have anything like a reasonable knowledge on the subject of climate science. So I repeat my question, just what is the driving motivation for the rest? For 99.999% of sceptics? And I’ll repeat my answer to that as well. It can’t be anything else other than a political distaste for the implications that a recognition of the problem will raise.
Max,
I’m not sure whether you are trying to fool just yourself or everyone else too. You’re not backward about posting your views on the net. Can you present any links, or other evidence, to show that your opinions were once not quite the same as they are now?
PS Thank you for pointing out that I had missed out the hyphen in Stefan-Boltzmann. Yes I did know that they were two separate scientists.
Barelysane
Thanks for link to SPPI Monthly CO2 Report, edited by Christopher Monckton.
The charts and texts are all interesting, but I believe the most powerful ones are:
On p.4 the ERBE results on outgoing LW radiation are compared with the climate model results cited by IPCC. This comparison shows that observed empirical data do not support the IPCC estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and, hence, the future temperature projections, and that these are greatly exaggerated. This seriously undermines the IPCC projections for future temperature increases.
pp. 5 and 6 show that, in addition, IPCC has overestimated the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, further exacerbating the exaggerated warming projections.
pp. 7 through 9 show that actual observed temperature increases are far below those projected by IPCC.
The curve on p.12 shows that the ocean has been cooling since Argo measurements were installed in late 2003. This is a key finding, since it directly refutes the IPCC claim that the ocean is storing greenhouse heat in an “equilibrium process”.
The rest of the report is also interesting, but I believe that these are the key points, which effectively undermine the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
Max
Peter
Before I had any ideas concerning the science of AGW and the inherent weakness of the IPCC case, I did not blog on this subject. I simply gathered data and became knowledgeable.
I have told you in some detail how this evolved, so will not repeat this here.
Max
Peter,
You write to Brute
This is a foolish and arrogant answer to your own question. You presume (a) to know what “the driving motivation” is for a Lindzen, a Spencer, a Christy, and all the many others out there, and (b) that this “can’t be anything else other than a political distaste for the implications that a recognition of the problem will raise”.
Have you ever thought that these (as well as others, who, like you or Brute or I, are not climate scientists) are “rational skeptics” in the true scientific sense? That they demand empirical data to support the premise that AGW is a serious problem, and when this empirical data cannot be provided they remain skeptical that the premise, itself, is valid?
Grow up, Peter. You may personally be “politically motivated” to support the AGW premise, but that does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you, including several scientists of world renown, are also politically motivated. It could just be that they seriously believe, based on physical observation, that the “science” does not support the AGW premise (that’s my personal motivation, as well, just so you know).
Max
Max,
You say “It could just be that they seriously believe, based on physical observation, that the “science” does not support the AGW premise”
Could it really?
What about this comment which has just been posted up on the Spectator by one of the ‘intellectuals’ in your camp?
“This ‘global warming/climate change’ garbage is a made-up, contrived lying bunch of ultra left wing extremist liberals trying to extort money out of people. This lying, uneducated puke Gore….”
Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s pretty much what I’d expect to hear in a USA bar on the subject of climate change if I happened to fall into the wrong company.
I doubt very much if I would hear anything like ” Well I do have derious doubts about the science on this one. I was reading a paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen just light on the subject of the length of the solar cycles and I must say they do raise some interesting questions…”
Or maybe I’m wrong? You’ve spent more time in the USA than I have so maybe I’ll have to defer to your superior knowledge on that one :-)
Hee, Hee…….Sounds like something I’d write…….
Who wrote that Peter?
Lindzen?
Spencer?
Christy?
Monckton?
Peter 7208
My my, seldom have I read such intransigent rubbish. Arrogant is just not strong enough to describe what you are writing here. You cannot have it both ways in fact you are trying it on in multiple directions. On the one hand you claim we have no right to be critical of the science as we are not climate scientists yet you don’t come up with the one thing that would go a long way to making us believers; namely some actual observational data supporting all the claims about CO2.
You claim to know what motivates us yet ignore the growing number of those of us who care for the environment that are seeing all the money disappear into this gratuitous grandstanding waste of time. We realise that more harm than good is being done with such narrow focus on a one dimensional approach to the environment.
I am an engineer. Just like Burt Rutan, an infinitely better known engineer than myself, my sceptical antenna comes out every time someone goes for the hard sell with me. I spent many years working on fuel economy on heavy goods vehicles, and Power generation equipment. We measured gains in tenths of a percent at a time. But every now and again some bright spark would come up with a scheme to save 10% or more, and want every other piece of research cut off to support their ideas. This is the real world and seldom do we make such huge jumps on a mature technology without the application of multiple new technologies that are perhaps known but difficult to manufacture or implement. Real data is the way we make progress. And over time huge gains have been made through diligent hard work, most of which goes completely unheralded and that people like you take for granted.
I very much resent the implication that just because I and others are not climate scientists we are not qualified to comment on the science of this subject. Well you are completely and utterly wrong, and with your attitude would be a complete and abject failure in any of the disciplines I have worked in over the years.
Like the others on this forum I used to believe what I heard and read in the media, and it was an alarming BBC documentary back in 2006 that prompted me to look at the actual evidenced that CO2 causes warming. Just like when I watch a movie if I don’t know where it is set I may get out the atlas and check the location out. Some of us are just curious like this. And guess what Peter, even after all this time I have yet to find one single study with real numbers that support the premise that CO2 causes warming, and that man made CO2 is the primary component.
So rather than give us more political nonsense, how about you in your own words try and convince us with some scientific argument. Because I contend that it is you that has precious little understanding of the real world, whether we are talking about climate science, super nova, toasters or how a 747 stays in the air, you are simply not in the same class as any of the so call sceptics that I personally know. And remember it is you that are advocating the spending of billions, not us, so it is incumbent on you to be polite to us and go out of your way to provide the evidenced.
Peter Geany,
You say “I very much resent the implication that just because I and others are not climate scientists we are not qualified to comment on the science of this subject”
I’m not sure why you should. If I were offering unqualified advice on how to build diesel engines, what would you say to that?
Normally if people want advice on their feet they’d visit a chiropodist. On their teeth , a dentist. I’d fix up their computer network in return.
So I’m not saying that non-climate scientists are lesser people but just that their opinion doesn’t really have much weight. And yes, I’d include my own in that. Don’t listen to me, listen to the guys at NASA and the Hadley Climate centre.
Further to my 7180, on Oz-Victorian fires culminating on 7/Feb/09, and the various naïve media claims that they were caused by global warming, it is interesting to compare those more recent wildfires in Greece, now virtually over after the strong winds declined, e.g. today @:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4598674,00.html
Extracts:
“…By Tuesday, [Aug 25], 21,000 hectares (75,000 acres) of forest, olive groves and farmland were reduced to cinders and 150 homes were destroyed…
…A detailed inspection of affected areas has meanwhile begun on Tuesday. A public prosecutor has also ordered an inquiry into whether arson was behind the fire in an area where fires have in the past been set by land developers…” [to clear land that could not otherwise be legally developed]
I also heard on radio that the majority of fires in Greece have allegedly been human caused.
The recent fires in Victoria were modest in area by Oz standards but maybe 20 times larger than in Greece this time. In the past, in Victoria alone, they have been much vaster, being measured in millions of hectares.
There are clearly two kinds of bushfires and grassfires here; 1) those that ignite when conditions are very dry, but otherwise normal, typically after prolonged drought, and in which, assets are usually defendable, and 2) those that later become wildfires blown by very high winds, (unless deliberately lit on the day), usually of short duration when a large area strong weather front quickly comes through. These are the fires that make adequate defence of assets and lives virtually impossible.
In the latter case the windblown flame-front leans forward and superheats the fuel ahead at over 1,000C, resulting in a compound effect of more oxygen being drawn in, and even generation of billowing pyro-cumulous clouds. The wind also carries embers perhaps kilometres ahead, and starts spot fires elsewhere. Some naïve persons have asserted that if it is a very hot day in a wildfire, that this is the reason for the wildfire, but given the immense heat from radiation etc, arising in a wind-driven wildfire, it makes no measurable difference as to the ambient temperature, once the fire has established in dry conditions, and then becomes severely windblown.
Another simplistic alarmist claim is that the rather patchy prolonged six-year drought in S.E. Oz is the consequence of climate change. However, there is nothing unusual about drought in S.E. Australia, and in other regional variations. For instance, those droughts in the S.E. back in the late 1880’s and early 1900’s were very severe indeed, and would have been disastrous had there been today‘s much greater population and world trade back then.
Oh, and just for a chuckle, to end on a lighter note:
There is an individual alarmist still persisting here, with a dual identity crisis, that has denied such things as in the above, and has even denied that some of his past assertions are clearly contradicted by data from the Oz weather bureau, (BOM). He has also insisted that the BOM would “bring it all out” in the Royal Commission: that it is all due to climate change. Erh well, not so far in the interim report that I can find…. Not the vaguest mention of it, after over 6 months of enquiry!
Peter, you said
“So I’m not saying that non-climate scientists are lesser people but just that their opinion doesn’t really have much weight. And yes, I’d include my own in that. Don’t listen to me, listen to the guys at NASA and the Hadley Climate centre.”
So presumably you will listen and agree when Hadley advertise for a glacier science modeller and admit that there are great uncertainties in their understanding of what is happening?
Also do you have no concerns at all about their using only 20 stations worldwide to extrapolate global temperatures to 1850 and them parse the nonsensical results to fractions of a degree?
Is there not a scintilla of doubt that using three tidal stations to represent worlwide sea levels is not logical, especially when they extraploate non existent data back to 1700 in order to demonstrate a rising level?
Does it not concern you that in order to meet the wild sea level rise predictions, sea levels have to increase immediately by 650% and maintain that level for the rest of the century and that much of this rise goes back to glscier melt which Hadley admit is full of uncertainties?
This is a very shaky scientifc proposition perching on very shaky pillars of non fact and supposition.
Tonyb
Peter
You advise Peter Geany:
Or to Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Akasufo, Easterbrook, Shaviv, de Freitas, and the many other physicists, geologists, meteorologists, and other climate scientists who all do not support the premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 missions.
Or to the thermometers out there measuring air temperatures at the surface, even the ones placed next to AC exhausts or in locations of rapidly growing urban sprawl, that tell us it is cooling despite all-time record CO2 emissions.
Or, how about the fancy new Argo buoys, that measure the temperature of the upper ocean and tell us it is cooling instead of “storing greenhouse heat”, at the same time that the air is also cooling.
Peter Geany is 100% right, Peter.
Until you can cite empirical data that robustly support the premise that AGW is a serious threat caused principally by human CO2 emissions (which Robin and many others here have repeatedly asked you to do), you are just blowing hot air.
And that, in my humble opinion, appears to be your track record on this thread.
Max
Max,
Robin, too, has repeatedly asked for this ’empirical data’. That seems to be something of a tautology as all observational data is by definition empirical. There’s lots of that. Hadcrut temperatures. Arctic sea ice extent. CO2 readings. Paleoclimatic records. The ice core records.
Robin has shown that he doesn’t really know what he is talking about by failing to suggest anything that might convince him. He really doesn’t know what he wants or what he is asking for. The best he can do is lamely suggest that he’s not a scientist and its down to climate scientists to come up with something that will convince him.
You fancy yourself as a climate scientist. Maybe you can do a bit better?
Peter Martin
To your 7208 where you opined that I have spent more time in the USA than you and therefore would be in a better position to judge whether the “average” US citizen would be more likely to simply denounce Gore et al. as self-serving political charlatans or to engage in a serious discussion on the unanswered scientific and technical questions surrounding AGW, I’d say it depends entirely where you would seek this “average” US citizen.
Many of the people I have met when visiting there would fit into the latter category (although they might also shake their head about Al Gore, for whom they might even have voted once as a presidential candidate).
I believe the bloggers on this thread are essentially all concerned about AGW (or they would not be here). They appear (from the many surveys taken) to have differing political views.
Most have expressed a real concern (a) that AGW is not based on well-founded science and (b) that there is far too much hype and hysteria surrounding AGW
But it is the “science”, which is the true Achilles heel of the AGW movement, as many scientists are now disclosing daily. This realization will only grow, Peter, like it or not.
And this, Peter, is my principal concern: if the world embarks on a painful course of economic self-strangulation in order to solve a hyped-up virtual future problem that turned out to have no sound scientific foundation, then we have all been fools.
Until those who propose these drastic measures can demonstrate that their premise is based on sound science, I will oppose these measures, as will many with whom I have discussed this issue. It’s all up to the “science”, Peter.
Max
Peter Martin
The physical data you have mentioned (7215) show (a) that temperatures have risen from the mid 1970s until recently, when it started to cool again, as it had prior to the recent warming trend, (b)that Arctic sea ice has receded, at least through 2007, while Antarctic sea ice has grown, (c) that atmospheric CO2 levels are continuing to rise, (d) that there have been warmer and cooler times in our planet’s distant past that appear to have no connection with CO2, and, let me add, (e) that upper ocean temperatures (where the “missing” greenhouse heat is supposedly hiding) are actually cooling, at the same time as the air is also cooling (see (a) above).
But NONE of these observed empirical data tell us that atmospheric CO2 has caused any of the observed changes or that this represents a serious future threat.
This, Peter, is the missing link, which you have, so far, been unable to provide, despite repeated requests by Robin and others here.
Understand?
Max
Max,
You say “It’s all up to the ‘science’, Peter.”
So how does this square with your previously stated opinion that its all a hoax?
But that was before you started looking at the science. So, now that you know a bit more science, you are at least satisfied that there is enough real evidence there to disprove the hoax theory even if you don’t quite go along with the IPCC’s conclusions?
Peter, you are mincing words without saying anything.
It really is “all about the science”.
And you are unable to show that “the science” supports your AGW premise.
Sure all the hype and hysteria is a “hoax” (ex. disintegrating ice caps and New York City inundated under 6 meter waves possibly within the next 10 years, as conjured up by the UN Secretary General shortly before the Bali boondoggle).
Haven’t you been able to notice that, or do you blindly swallow everything you read and hear (as long as it agrees with your own personal beliefs)?
But the key is that it has no sound scientific basis, so (I’ll repeat), “it really is all about the science”.
Max
Max,
I don’t think you’ll find any scientific organisation predicting that NY will disappear under 6 mtrs of water quite that quickly. Its fair enough to correct Greenpeace, Al Gore or even the UN general secretary if they clearly have it wrong.
I remember doing just that about predictions of an ice free Arctic. Its easy enough to plot out the graph of diminishing sea ice and see that it’s quite possible that it will disappear in summer by 2050. More likely later in the century , and quite unlikely by 2030.
But what about the science itself? Do you think that is a hoax? Your early postings on the subject of AGW indicated that you thought it was. Later, you obviously decided there were enough sceptics out there, Al Gore bashing, and decided that you could perhaps do a little better. You’d noticed people like Lindzen and Spencer. That’s when you started introducing science into the argument. But you’d already made your mind up by then, hadn’t you?
Its rather like a Creationist taking an interest in Evolutionary theory. The intention is to look for flaws, and at the same time to try to appear knowledgeable and even minded on subject.
Sure, you can build up your knowledge, but having those pre-conceived ideas means you can never be even minded. And so I’m afraid, that means your scientific credibility is just about zero. No matter how many papers you read and equations you solve.
Peter
I fear that you somewhat missed the point when it comes to who can comment on the science of AGW. Anyone can comment on anything, and as long as they are prepared to argue their case either with their own research or that of others then that is OK. I have had all sorts of people giving me advice on how I should do my job, and what conclusions I should draw from a situation some of it good and some bad. That I am more often correct rather than wrong means I still have my job. Politicians all around the world are about to start losing theirs because the electorate will be merciless with those politicians who continue with the current almost religious adherence to AGW.
I have applied my engineering mind to what I can find on CO2 research, and I have come to the conclusion there is no substantive proof of any kind that CO2 plays any sort of significant role in driving our climate. Anyone who looks honestly back at past climate data will see patterns of warming and cooling that do not in any way correlate with the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. My brain tells me that what we see in the recent history is purely co-incidental, and therefore it is wrong to draw the conclusions that are being drawn. I have solved enough tricky and obscure problems in my time to confident of my conclusions. Peter this is not hard. As problem solving goes sifting through the available evidence and finding a conclusion is relatively straight forward. I truly believe that this entire subject is being deliberately obscured so as convince many that it is too complicated for them to follow.
One of the most glaring examples is the way all the charts that are published have their scales drawn to exaggerate the rate of change and are therefore misleading to those that are not familiar with the subject. And this is the conundrum for the likes of Gore, the UN and Brown and Obama. They know that the more familiar the population at large becomes with the subject the more they will see through the flimsily evidence and realise the whole thing is a charade.
And lastly, feel free to comment on how to build diesel engines, because almost everyone else I know already has. Whether it is unqualified or not only depends on what you comment about. If you were to say that your diesel powered car had no power and used more fuel than its petrol engine predecessor, would be taken as a qualified comment and bear some investigation. If you were to say the engine had no power and this was because it was produced on Thursday using the wrong pistons would not be so qualified. You may be correct but for the wrong reason. These are the sorts of arguments that we are all having over AGW. And the only way to resolve it is to examine the data in an open an honest way, something that is most definitely not happening at present where we are subject to FOI refusals and “the science is settled” political comments.
Peter Geany,
You say “I have applied my engineering mind to what I can find on CO2 research, and I have come to the conclusion……….”
I’d say you came to the conclusion before doing any research or applying your mind to anything.
I don’t suppose that you diagnose engine problems like that. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense would it?
Peter Martin
Your latest post reveals that you have some sort of a fixation on whether or not I have “changed my mind” since starting blogging on various climate sites a couple of years ago.
Everyone (who does not have a dogmatic and unchangeable religious belief) learns new things as he/she reads new scientific reports or exchanges posts with others, so I am sure that this was the case for me, as well.
I did not start posting until after I had come to the conclusion that the science supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat was weak and flawed.
While I have learned a lot of new things since then, I still believe this is the case.
You have even confirmed my belief by your inability to provide the empirical data to support the AGW premise.
If these data were there, surely you would have been able to cite them, in order to support a premise in which you so strongly believe.
But you haven’t.
Max
Peter Geany
Not to get too far OT, but you mentioned to Peter Martin the “diesel engine produced on Thursday”.
Several years ago one of the Detroit car makers (GM?) made a study of quality problems in their cars. They found that cars assembled on Tuesdays through Thursdays had fewer quality issues than those assembled on Mondays (when workers were still hung over from the weekend) or Fridays (when they were already anticipating the next one).
But I agree with your conclusion that “there is no substantive proof of any kind that CO2 plays any sort of significant role in driving our climate”.
Max
Max,
I wouldn’t say that you were the only one by any means. You start off by railing against Al Gore, like its all his fault, like his film has made a difference and caused the problem, then turn your attention to NASA, NOAA, Hadley Climate center, The Royal Society, the CSIRO, the IPCC, all the world’s scientific bodies.
Your exact words of a couple of years ago were “its all a hoax”.
So ‘all’ presumably includes the science as well? So why is it worth discussing science with someone who thinks its a hoax anyway? What’s the point?
Or have you now changed your mind and no longer think so?