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.
Sorry, Re my 8075,
I meant to say early in the 20th century
Hi,
Thank you for the replies, I will look up the other thread as suggested.
I have done a closer examination, alongside my ‘sages’ and the errors we are finding are causing them all distress to say the least. I am far from saving carbon in their eyes but close to forcing a real debate, impossible to consider even a year ago. An example of this is that I myself have requested the right to hold a lecture on the IPCC’s structure. Something that should shatter their illusion of a scientific consensus.
I am, as you suggest Max in 8074 insisting on empirical evidence which is causing even more distress because it has basically meant for my dissertation I am more or less throwing the IPCC report out the window.
However I am not someone that is in a position to correct these mistakes. I am studying International Relations, not a science or an engineering subject. So when I tell my peers the real science I am dismissed as someone that cannot know, and therefore should never question, the science. This has left me in the position that picking up on simple things like their lack of maths, which even the dumbest of my car hating peers, can be used as a point of reference to start a debate that they are not willing to hear. The lecturers are willing, but the students? They’re still swallowing the propaganda (fortunately I have a father that has pointed out the lack of science and a natural desire to only accept what can be proven, odd and rare in a political scientist).
Leo:
I understand that you are studying politics. If you have an interest in how the IPCC reports are authored and presented to the public and policy makers, then this is a must:
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12320e.html
This document is the nearest thing I have found to publicly available minutes of the plenary session of the IPCC in Paris which finalised the WG1 SPM in February 2007. Arguably it is the most influential document in the whole AGW debate.
The delegates fell into three categories: scientists, political representatives, and observers from the eNGOs. For the duration of the weeklong meeting, the first two categories were embargoed from speaking to the media; the latter were not, and did so constantly. As a result, by the time the SPM was finally signed off, the press had been extensively briefed that the US had used force majeure to ‘water down’ the report and make it less scary.
The IISD minutes do not in any way support this contention which is based on the scientist’s rejection of a very flaky paper predicting a 7m rise in sea levels by 2100. (This was also the basis for claims made in Al Gore’s film AIT).
What the minutes do show is efforts by various political delegations to sex-up the report. This is particularly true of the UK with regard to the necessity to reduce co2 emissions. A budget, which was due the next month, introduced a new aviation tax and greatly increase road tax on ‘polluting vehicles’ which yielded a crucial £1bn that was required to balance the budget. Germany, Canada and some of the Scandinavian countries seem to have had similar agendas.
The IISD is not a right-wing, Exxon funded anti-AGW think-tank but is closely associated with (and I believe partly funded by) the IPCC.
[Update: I drafted this before seeing your #8077]
A philosophical belief and therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations
I think we should encourage this. The more AGW is seen as an question of faith rather than science, the flakier it looks.
As someone on the Telegraph thread said: “When one person suffers from delusion it is called insanity – when many people suffer from delusion it is called religion…”
Although I prefer this thought from Cliff the postman (in Cheers): “Everyone should believe in something – I believe I’ll have another beer.” :-)
Leo
I am dismissed as someone that cannot know, and therefore should never question, the science
Perhaps you should ask them if they have a view on politics and, if so, how?
I think Galileo had similar problems with the establishment…
Leo:
Do they apply the same criteria to Gore (politics degree), Lynas (PPE), Monbiot (I’m not sure he has one), Harrabin (English), Patchauri (Engineering), Steiner (MBA), Yvo de Boer (sociology) and an endless list of other opinion formers who pronounce on AGW?
Leo:
You might also ask them if they think that, as he wasn’t a tailor, the small boy was ineligible to point out that the Emperor was naked,
Leo
There are several strands you need to consider. The science is very flimsy but I think the vulnerable areas are the statistical nonsenses, the politics used to support them, and the apparent complete lack of knowledge of history, which makes everyone connected with the industry believe everything that happens today is ‘unprecedented.’
The politics of the matter were contained in an article I sent to your father on 17 Oct and which subsequently appeared in a number of blogs includinf WUWT and can be accessed here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=crossing+the+rubicon
I have an additional article that may be of considerable use to you ‘Invisible Elephants in the climate room’. This deals with the lack of allowance for UHI, Natural variability, relying on global datasets (giss/hadley) that are not fit for purpose, and the apparent reluctance of anyone in authority to point out that if you start a data set from the depths of the Little Ice age )1850/1880) you shouldn’t be surprised when the temperature subsequently rises!
If either you would like to provide your own email address via TonyN or get the OK from your father to send it to his address, I will email it to you.
I visited Southampton University last year with two other sceptics (one of whom had flown over from Holland) to see Dr Ian Stewart give a talk about his TV series ‘Climate wars’ and subsequently questioned him.
It would be very fitting to hold a debate on scepticsm at the same venue and if you need any help from me you just have to say the word.
I am very familiar with Arctic ice variations through the centuries, the politcs of the subject, the overall history of natural variability, sea levels, and the manner in which global datasets were constructed.
Tonyb
Tonyb, you can use my email address, Leo is home for a couple of days as all his lectures have been cancelled due to illness!!!!. You just have to wonder sometimes don’t you.
The judgement in the case of the climate change enthusiasm who claims that his dismissal was an infringement of his rights under legislation that protects religious and philosophical beliefs is here:
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:3VOM3DTWukUJ:www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/09_0219rjfhLBZT.doc+burton+%22grainger+plc+and+others%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
It is not an easy read, but Section 31 is worth having a look at. It would appear that the judge accepts that it may indeed be possible to make a similar case on behalf of a sceptic. If that is so, then presumably a good deal of legislation and regulation that is intended to mitigate co2 emissions may be discriminatory. And would using a term such as ‘denier’ then fall foul of legislation intended to protect people from religious abuse?
Section 32 suggests that the evergreen Mr Nicholson is by no means out of the wood yet, in spite of press comment suggesting that he has won a great victory.
I have a feeling that the judge may have opened a can of worms, and by a coincidence, he happens to be the same Mr Justice Burton who presided in the Dimmock Case, which skewered AIT.
Robin would be better qualified to comment on this than I am.
congratulations to Leo at #8072.
My condolences to all your lecturers who seem to have fallen ill at the same time. The same thing happened to Dr Briffa when Steve McIntyre raised questions about his research.
I can’t help feeling that the mainstream media might like this story. Naturally, they’re not going to run with “Canadian statistician disagrees with dendroclimatologist”, but “University student finds flaw in IPCC report” sounds like a winner. Good luck.
Thanks to all for the information it’s all very useful.
As for all my lecturers falling ill at the same time, that’s not quite true. I have one lecturer still standing.
Tonyb I would love to help organise a lecture on the Climate Change ‘issue’ with you and although I doubt you would get as warm a welcome as the IPCC would predict you would certainly get a decent amount of people attending. As you have done this before let me know what sort of setting you were thinking of and I can get the university to set it up and advertise it.
As for this talk about it all being a religion and discrimination you would all probably have enjoyed what happened in one of my (few) lectures. To set the scene in our lectures there are two people who really talk much. There is me and then there is a girl I call Blondie. Blondie and I only have the ability to argue well and a faith in democracy in common, the rest is almost directly opposite. I arrived early and set up the projector to play the Propaganda clip of theirs with the child in it.
The lecturer didn’t get a chance to stop the argument that unfolded as some poor soul said that, albeit a terrible advert (this was unanimously agreed) we should forgive it because it was promoting a good cause. This lead to the second time in my memory that Blondie and I united forces. We spent the best part of 15 minutes tearing advert to shreds (something the lecturer attempted to stop, but in the face of Blondie and I she couldn’t) pointing out the way it demonised those that didn’t act within government guidelines, etc.
How the establishment believes that they can get away with this advert when it unites climate change sceptics and believers in universal hate for propaganda is totally beyond me.
Leo:
I would be grateful if you would copy the part of your #8087 into a comment on this thread:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=230
Perhaps from “… you would all probably have enjoyed what happened in one of my (few) lectures.”
It may interest people who will visit that thread but will not see it here.
On 19 October, the BBC reported that Gordon Brown, referring to the Copenhagen climate conference in December, said:
But today the BBC reports:
So presumably the British government now thinks we’re doomed.
Greenpeace certainly does. It’s spokesman, Joss Garman, said:
If you haven’t read Peter Taylor’s book Chill: A reassessment of global warming theory yet, then you will find a largish extract here:
The ‘corporatisation’ of environmental activism
I have not seen such a blunt and well argued analysis of the sinister role that the eNGOs have played, and are continuing to play, in the promotion of AGW alarmism elsewhere.
If you have read the book, then there may be questions that you would like to ask Peter, but please limit these to the topics covered in the extract. The science section of the book got a very good airing on a previous thread.
Robin 8089
So all we need is for one of our intrepid reporters to use some part of that grey matter they must have stashed away and ask the blindingly obvious question, “what actual damage are these unchecked emissions doing” Not computer predictions but actual damage now.
We all know the answer, but as I have said before our politicians credibility is at an all time low, and especially in the UK they need to check what they are saying very carefully. It is the right time to remind them of this fact with reference to Climate change, and remind them all to get in line with what their electorates are thinking and why they are thinking it.
Despite never being a supporter of Brown, I once believed in his integrity and his honest desire to improve the UK whilst never being happy with his methods or results. Now I believe he is not that clever at all, having been out manoeuvred by Blair all this time, and having used the vast amount of money generated by the financial sector to mask his financial mismanagement. His utterances on climate change are just the latest in a series of Political faux pas that I believe will see his historical record as one the worst ever.
Rather than logically thinking anything out he seems to only consider political points and how he can out manoeuvre the opposition. If you look at Browns position on the environment prior to becoming Prime Minister he only did things if it was advantageous to raising more money. Many of his measures directly lead to manufacturing leaving these shores. Since become Prime Minister I believe he has viewed Climate change as a Vote winner, (the Labour party are fully signed up believers in there own propaganda) and more importantly as his secret weapon to raise taxes to recover from his continued spending orgy. Agreement in Copenhagen would have given him the green light for a draconian budget hitting the well off and job creators. Any hope that he will see the light and back off is a forlorn hope I think.
Copenhagen – not happening
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/06/copenhagen-not-happening/
TonyN (8090)
Peter Taylor’s article (other thread) is well put, indeed. It gives a good synopsis of how corporate profit motive, political power-grab, a sensationalist press and most of the scientists involved in climate change research have formed a collusion of interests in keeping the AGW behemoth rolling despite almost a full decade of cooling temperature and rapidly dwindling public support.
The “brand name” switch from “global warming” to “climate change” is a brilliant example.
In his book, Peter Taylor covers this topic, as well as the weakness of the science supporting the notion that AGW is a serious threat.
In the The Wall Street Journal, Bjørn Lomborg covered this same topic, coining the expression “the climate-industrial complex” (taking the cue from President Eisenhower’s warning of a “military-industrial complex” during the Cold War 1950s.).
The sentiment definitely comes through that, as an environmentalist himself, Peter Taylor is sad to see the heady, enthusiastic “let’s fix the world” environmental movements of earlier years change into big corporations, with profit and loss statements, administrative staffs, PR departments, marketing groups, lobbyists, deal negotiators, etc.
This “corporatisation of environmental activism” has been real.
But I believe that the basic weakness of the AGW movement is the lack of sound supporting science based on empirical physical data. The entire premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat rests solely on computer simulations, instead, which have been programmed to convey the desired message.
The AGW premise is based on “agenda driven science”.
This is the message that needs to be sent out to the voting public, which has been somewhat bamboozled by the glitzy IPCC reports masking as serious scientific studies and the barrage of sensationalist media releases and paid advertisings in support of the AGW movement.
Max
[TonyN: see other thread for response Max]
October 2009 3rd Coldest for US in 115 Years, What about the Upcoming Winter?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter_of_0910.pdf
Even if the world’s industrialised economies were to cut their CO2 emissions back to where they were 40 years ago – a hopelessly impossible concept – it would make no significant difference to overall global emissions.
That’s the compelling message of this important article in WUWT by Willis Eschenbach. This chart (data source: the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows that the industrial nations accounted for about half of all emissions in 1970, whereas today it’s only a third. In other words, the real growth in emissions is coming overwhelmingly from the developing world – China, India, South Korea, Brazil, etc.
Are they willing to abandon their economic growth to satisfy Western “green” ambitions? Er … I think not.
Robin
You stated (8095):
I went back to the basic data on global CO2 emissions by country from the study you linked to do a “reality check” on what you wrote.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html
From 1966 to 2006:
The “developed world” (N.America, Europe, Japan, Russia, Australia) increased CO2 emisions from 2.4 to 3.6 GtC (billions of tons of carbon equivalent), for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.0% over the period.
The “developing giants” (China, India, Brazil) increased CO2 emissions from 0.2 to 2.4 GtC, for a CAGR of 6.2% over the period.
The “rest of the world” increased CO2 emissions from 0.8 to 2.6 GtC, for a CAGR of 3.1% over the period.
What impact would a drastic mitigation of CO2 emissions have?
If we assume (Case A) that over the next 40 years (to 2050):
The “developed world” gradually reduces CO2 emissions back to 1966 levels. (Ouch!)
The “developing giants” reduce the CAGR of their emissions from 6+% to 3%. (Unlikely)
The “ROW” reduces the CAGR of their emissions from 3+% to 1.5%. (Painful)
If we assume on the other hand (Case B) that everyone merrily continues growing CO2 emissions at the same rates as over the past 40 years.
Case A (maximum CO2 “mitigation”)
Over period 2010-2050, the entire world will emit 467 GtC
If we assume that 60% of this stays in the atmosphere (as is the case today) this will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 132 ppmv.
Which will result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of 0.3°C by 2050 (above today).
Case B (continue “business as usual”)
Over period 2010-2050, the entire world will emit 986 GtC
This will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of 278 ppmv.
Which will result in a theoretical greenhouse warming of 0.5°C by 2050 (above today).
So the net impact of this major cutback in growth of CO2 emissions would be to theoretically reduce the increase in global temperature by an immeasurable 0.2°C.
You are right (as Lord Monckton has also pointed out).
Max
Science moves ahead as new discoveries are made.
Two studies, based on physical observation of empirical data, have been published since IPCC issued its latest AR4 climate report in 2007. These new studies make the climate projections of the IPCC report essentially redundant, and all the “hoopla” at Copenhagen unnecessary.
IPCC projects warming of surface temperature over the 21st century of 1.8° to 4.0°C, with an upper-range value of 6.4°C.
These surface temperature projections form the basis for projections in sea level rise, melting of ice caps and all other changes in climate.
The increase of surface temperature is based upon positive feedbacks from the climate model simulations, which multiply the theoretical greenhouse warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from around 1°C to a range of 2° to 4.5°C (mean value of 3.2°C).
The two more recent studies show that the net positive feedback from the model simulations is not supported by the physically observed empirical data.
One study by Spencer et al. on cloud feedbacks shows from actual physical observations from NASA Earth Science and CERES satellite data that these are strongly negative with warming sea surface temperature in the tropics, rather than strongly positive as estimated by the model simulations.
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
In its AR4 report (Ch. 8, p.633) IPCC estimates that a positive cloud feedback would raise the 2xCO2 impact from 1.9°C (without cloud feedback) to 3.2°C (including cloud feedback).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
Simply changing the sign of this cloud feedback from positive to negative results in an overall 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of around 0.6°C.
The second study by Lindzen and Choi goes one step further. Using empirical data from the NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), the authors show that the total outgoing SW and LW radiation from our planet increases with higher sea surface temperatures, rather than decreasing as estimated by all the model simulations cited by IPCC. This means that, with warmer surface temperatures, more energy escapes into space rather than being trapped by an assumed increased greenhouse effect. The net overall feedback with warming is therefore strongly negative, rather than positive, and the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is around 0.5° to 0.7°C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
The more realistic IPCC assumptions on increased atmospheric CO2 concentration result in a projected net doubling of the estimated pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv to a year 2100 value of 560 ppmv.
Other IPCC model “scenarios” and “storylines” put this much higher, with extreme cases even projecting values that exceed the amount of CO2 theoretically generated from the combustion of all the known and optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves on our planet (~1,000 ppmv)!
But, staying with the 560 ppmv estimate we have an IPCC model estimate of 2° to 4.5°C greenhouse temperature rise from 1750 to 2100, of which we have already seen around 0.5°C, leaving a theoretical increase from today to year 2100 of 1.5° to 4.0°C (the IPCC estimate, see above).
With the newly corrected 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.5° to 0.7°C, based on actual physical observations of empirical data rather than simply model simulations, we have a theoretical 1750-2100 GH warming of 0.5° to 0.7°, of which we have seen around 0.2°C to date, leaving 0.3° to 0.5°C theoretical GH warming from today until 2100.
This should be truly good news for those worried about our planet’s future.
But will they see it this way, or are they disappointed?
Max
Max et al
I have posted a brief overview of my latest project over at Air vent-complete with graphs
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/invisible-elephants/#comment-11678
The project covers the gathering together of as many Historic instrumental records as I can find-I call them the Little Ice Age thermometers as they actually record this event-and the warm periods either side.
It is clear that James Hansen and Hadley started recording from the bottom of a temperature dip but failed to mention the summits prior to the 1850/1880 readings.If you start recording temperatures from the trough of the Little Ice Age no one should be surprised when it subsequently warms up again.
I have assembled the history of many of the stations and it is very apparent that natural variability is the main factor behind temperature changes, overlaid in the modern era with severe cases of UHI.
The IPCC make a laughable calculation for UHI which is a by product of population growth and land use changes.
What we also fail to notice is that the purpose of a station was to record the local micro climate and if you move the station-to say an airport-or delete the data altogeher and gather it from another station hundreds of miles away- you will end up with a complete mess. Both historic global data sets are nothing of the sort and can not be parsed to fractions of a degree to make exaggerated claims of co2 armageddon.
Would be pleased to have comments (here or there) on any aspect, particularly UHI and the evidence (backed up by contemporary accounts) that the modern era is simply an extension of the temperature sumnmits and troughs recorded throughout history.
TonyB
to Max #8097
I wish I’d had this comment of yours in front of me Saturday when I was posting at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/04/network-climate-change-scepticism
There was a particularly nasty exchange between a number of warmists (all claiming to be scientists) and three or four sweetly reasonable sceptics. A reference to Lindzen’s research drew the response that it must be rubbish, because his figure for CO2 sensitivity couldn’t explain ice ages. I made the point that shouldn’t empirical findings have precedence over theory? but I wasn’t sure enough of my ground to hammer the point home. Then one anthonythompson tried to resolve the question by e-mailing Lindzen himself, and got a prompt reply!
The thread was promptly closed, but not before one of the “scientists” suggested that sceptics like me should be sodomised. Strange are the ways of climate science.
(In correspondance with a moderator I learned that challenging the existence of global warming is only permitted on threads which specifically treat scepticism, which explains the high number of comments deleted on Guardian Environment articles recently)
Geoff:
I thought that there was not much that could surprise me now, but:
Does the moderator really mean that if The Guardian publishes articles supporting AGW, and not acknowledging that scepticism exists, then no reader can challenge their view?
For a relevant take on the increasingly authoritarian (and desperate?) way that opposition to orthodox views are being treated see Roger Pielke Jr here:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/australia-prime-minister-kevin-rudds.html