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.
“World Statesman of the Year”
Well that didn’t last long. Perhaps they forgot to tell us which year…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8272061.stm
Well, from what I read about UK politics it probably won’t be “next year”.
Max
Max,
You say that Dr R Spencer’s ‘paper’ , although it looks more like a blog to me, “shows that the lack of C13 marker could just as well have come from natural causes as from fossil fuels”.
This is R Spencer in his own words
“For example, a decrease in the relative amount of C13 in the atmosphere is also consistent with other biological sources.”
You claim to have a better understanding of this issue. Just how is it consistent? Can you explain to me, in your own words, just how the C12/C13 isotope composition varies? Or are you just BS’ing again?
Peter Martin
Read Spencer’s paper. It explains why the “C13 marker” proves nothing.
Max
Peter Martin
You asked me for my personal understanding of Spencer’s argumentation on the validity of the C13 marker as a “fingerprint” to prove that atmospheric CO2 increases originate from fossil fuel combustion (i.e. are “anthropogenic”).
My better judgment tells me that I should just tell you to read Spencer’s paper (as I have done), without giving you my understanding of this paper, lest this open the door for you to initiate a “nit-pick” discussion of details, but against my better judgment, here goes.
Here is my understanding.
Reading Spencer’s paper on the lack of C13 marker as a “fingerprint” of anthropogenic (i.e, fossil fuel) origin and the attached post from Spencer with additional data on this topic, here is what a came away with:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
The “fingerprint” theory sates that the atmospheric C13/C12 ratio is sinking. Fossil fuels have very little C13. Therefore, this “proves” that the CO2 increase is coming from fossil fuels (i.e. is anthropogenic).
Spencer’s rebuttal (with supporting data and charts):
Vegetation has a similar low C13 ratio as fossil fuels (= past vegetation)
C13 isotope is stable (i.e. no change over time from ancient vegetation)
Therefore, there is no “fingerprint” pointing to fossil fuels anymore than to vegetation decay, forest fires, animal respiration (after eating vegetation)
Atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa goes through an annual variability of several percent due to plant growth cycles primarily in the northern hemisphere. These naturally caused annual cycles show the same C13/C12 relationship as the long-term trend, thereby casting in doubt the C13 “fingerprint” postulation.
In addition:
Vegetation cycle represents an annual CO2 flux (in and out) of around 230 GtCO2, compared to fossil fuel CO2 emissions of around 30 GtCO2.
Small natural imbalances in the huge natural CO2 fluxes in and out of the atmosphere can well overshadow the human impact.
Year-to-year CO2 fluctuations correlate better with temperature changes than with human CO2 emissions
A major part of y-t-y CO2 fluctuation is therefore likely to be “natural”, rather than “anthropogenic”
If this is so, why could a major part of long-term trend not also be “natural”?
Let me say that I am not a climate scientist like Spencer, so I may have misinterpreted one detail or another, but the overall logic and conclusion makes sense to me, i.e. the C13 marker “fingerprint” proves nothing.
Max
Max
I take it from the latest exchange of emails with Peter Martin that he has conceded the point about arctic variability which we both posted extensive links about, as he has suddenly gone off in yet another direction.
Peter
Peter Taylor replied to your various queries on the Chill thread and I would have thought the broader subjects being discussed there would be of considerable interest to you. Hope to see you over there again.
tonyb
Afternoon Gentlmen
I came across this little gem
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps
Apparently a completely true story and a shocking (if written very amusingly) inditement of the journal publication/peer review process. Worth remembering next time you’re talking to someone who belives peer review is some sort of mythical gold standard.
Apologies for the terrible spelling, downside of a liquid friday afternoon lunch.
Max,
You say “It [Spencers Blog] explains why the “C13 marker” proves nothing.”
It doesn’t explain it at all. If he had you might be able to understand him a little better. If he has something useful to say on the subject why doesn’t he publish in a peer reviewed journal instead of on his website?
BTW. It is so tedious for me to have to keep pointing out that science is evidence, not proof, based. For instance, there is no ‘proof’ that light is an electromagnetic wave. But, sometimes, the evidence seems to point that way. Sometimes the evidence seems to point to light behaving more like a particle, a photon. Can it be both? There is no proof but that is what the evidence suggests.
Barelysane, just to say re your #7633 – excellent link! I found it amusing/horrifying in equal measure. But alas, not surprising.
Peter Martin
The Spencer paper points out very well why the C13 marker “fingerprint” postulation is flawed. It’s quite simple really, Peter.
Here is the principal reason: The C13/C12 ratio for CO2 from plants (decay, fire, animal respiration after digesting plants, etc.) is the same as that for fossil fuels (which come from ancient plants).
Therefore, both have the same “fingerprint”.
This is borne out additionally by the fact that the annual variations in atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa, which are accredited to the NH plant growth cycle, show the same C13/C12 ratio.
Forget this one, Peter, it’s a “red herring” (or rather a “dead duck”).
Max
science is evidence, not proof, based
There’s no real explanation of how anaesthetics work, but I wonder how many warmists would demand proof before undergoing surgery?
Barelysane
Thanks for your 7633 and attachment.
This should be a “must read” for anyone interested in how the peer review and publishing process works (or doesn’t work). It is both hilariously funny and depressingly sad.
But best of all is the section at the end on “how to fix the broken system”.
This includes suggestions of how to address the problems of conflicts of interest, irresponsible reviewers and editors and correct the flawed the peer review process, itself.
At one point the author considers a lawsuit briefly, but is advised against taking legal action.
The “cleanup” will not automatically come from the inside, just as it is illogical to expect legal prosecution of corruption if the police force and legal authorities themselves are part of this corruption.
The best way for the author to succeed in bringing “truth” and “honesty” back to the system is through the “truth”, itself, making certain that this “truth”, as he has exposed it in this humorous (but dead serious) exposé, gets wide circulation, so that a thorough reform of the system can be forced due to outside pressure.
Max
Jason Hart
I liked your tennis player story.
Here is another version:
Like your story, mine has a bitter-sweet ending. It is also about as applicable to the current discussion on the precautionary principle as your story.
I think the key argument against the precautionary principle is that the draconian effort and resources it will require will be distracted from some other, less virtual but more real, problem of today (see the Goklany paper I cited earlier).
In a world of unlimited wealth, one could consider chasing virtual hobgoblins with massive resources. We do not live in such a world, so we need to make choices and thus require more evidence than just questionable model outputs of future disaster to support the postulation that these virtual hobgoblins are real.
The creators of this hobgoblin do not get an automatic “free pass”, simply because the disaster they predict is so horrible that “it cannot be allowed to happen”. That is a cheap shot, Jason.
The “burden of proof” of the reality is upon those making the claim of the future disaster, not upon those who are rationally skeptical of this claim.
And that is actually the key point here (which neither “tennis story” really addresses).
Max
Max: even in a world of unlimited wealth it would be foolish to chase virtual hobgoblins if doing so had deleterious consequences. And, of course, action to overcome the dangerous AGW hobgoblin has many such consequences – as Peter Taylor has shown, threats to landscape, wildlife, biodiversity, community and human values. But, of course, where wealth is limited, you must add the misery resulting from imposing further damage on an already weakened economy thereby increasing our inability to cope with threats from a naturally changing climate and making countless people vulnerable to increased poverty and famine. That’s why the Precautionary Principle is positively dangerous.
Robin,
What would you say was a typical amount of insurance paid by UK households? Is this on the precautionary principle too? How does this compare with the 1% or so of world GDP whicI is required to address the AGW issue?
Max,
How stupid can these scientists get? Whatever gave them the silly idea there was any evidence at all to show that the 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, emitted from human sources into the atmosphere, made any significant contribution to the 15 gigatonnes per year increase that we actually observe.
They should listen to people like TonyB who provides his words of wisdom for free. Who needs NASA or the Hadley climate centre?
Robin (7642)
Yes. You are 100% right when you point out that not only the direct cost but also the longer term consequences (and their costs to humanity and the environment) must be included in assessing the cost of implementing the Precautionary Principle.
As Lomborg points out, there are also the consequences of not having the resources to address other imminent (and pressing) problems.
What will be the cost in premature deaths and other impacts on our society of having to defer or cancel action on these problems because the resources have been committed to climate mitigation programs?
It is unbelievably arrogant and egocentric of the AGW crowd to insist that the world cannot afford not to apply the Precautionary Principle to AGW, because the consequences for our society, our environment and our planet will be so horrible if we do not do so.
This is like pushing and shoving your way to the front of the line (or queue) because you believe that your need is so much greater and more important than that of those who are ahead of you in line.
And finally, I believe that most people in democratic societies, when asked if they are ready to pick up the tab for implementing the Precautionary Principle on AGW, will answer “not with my money”.
Max
How is it, Peter, that you always manage to choose hopeless and inappropriate analogies? I pay household insurance but, if (a) my finances had just taken a big hit and the premium risked pushing them over the brink and (b) in any case, the insurance company was planning to use my money to despoil the local environment and impoverish my neighbours and, in any case, had advised me that I was covered only for fire (but only if I was personally responsible for it) and not for, inter alia, theft, flood and subsidence, then I – like all sensible householders – would terminate the premium immediately.
Peter Martin
As usual, you are changing topics.
We discussed the Spencer paper, which shot down the C13 marker “fingerprint” postulation as proof that human fossil fuel burning was the source of increased atmospheric CO2. I believe that our discussion on this point can be closed off now. There is no fossil fuel C13 marker “fingerprint”.
Spencer also presented a good case for a 80/20 split on natural and anthropogenic cause for increased atmospheric CO2, but that is another topic.
Now to your last point: NASA and Hadley may be all we have, but they are not unbiased sources of scientific information related to AGW. Both agencies have decided to push the AGW cause. Both are very heavily financed by taxpayer money, funneled to them by politicians eager to get their hands on increased revenues from carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes being proposed to mitigate against AGW. Hadley is in the process of setting up marketing units to profit from the AGW craze by selling mitigation concepts. We are talking big bucks here, Peter, which makes unbiased and objective thinking (and reporting) very hard. Don’t be naive here, Peter, where you are usually so critical and cautious. It is all about the money trail. Read Peter Taylor’s book about the “collusion of interests that can propel an untruth forward to such an extent that people cannot afford not to believe it”. And open your eyes.
Max
Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan…..(How To Get Rich Promoting A Hoax)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
Max,
The C13/C12 marker is good evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having an effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Tree ring studies it has not been as low as it is now for many thousands of years.
The burning of fossil fuels is not the only anthropogenic influence on climate. The burning of forests and agricultural practices all make their contribution. Are you saying that the CO2 increase is more to do with this than burning oil or coal? Or are you saying that it is a big co-incidence that CO2 levels rise at exactly the same time as a large scale burning of coal and oil? And that somehow the earth mangages to soak up allthe human annual emissions of 26 Gt of CO2, but then produces another 15 Gt annually from somewhere else which is of course nothing to do with us?
According to my arithmetic, this still means that CO2 levels would be falling by 11 Gt per year without the 26Gt human contribution.
Why are you so keen to deny the link between human CO2 emissions and rising CO2 concentrations anyway? I thought it was supposed to be a benign, or even beneficial, substance no matter what the atmospheric content. Are you the same Max who did all those dodgy calculations to show that it was safe to burn all the known coal and oil reserves?
Or have you changed your mind about that now?
Robin,
You raised the topic of the precautionary principle. I’d say insurance was a pretty good example of that. But I’m open to other suggestions if you don’t like insurance.
How about this? What would you say the chances of mainstream science being wrong on the AGW issue. I’d say maybe 10%. You guys would be more the other way, of course. Would you say 90%?
And, if you knew that there was only a 90% chance of every plane reaching its destination, would you ever get on one again?
Hey Pete,
Is the lack of any hurricanes this year proof that global warming is a “real and imminent” threat to the world?
Yes, Peter, insurance is “a pretty good example” – and I’ve demonstrated at 7644 precisely why it doesn’t help your AGW obsession. Surely you’ve learned by now that you always unerringly choose unhelpful (to you) analogies. You don’t really want me to turn your aeroplane analogy against you as well? Do you?