THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Peter M
To your 8574
Within the already stated reservations on accuracy and reliability of the weather data and the various manipulations and adjustments made in arriving at the HadCRUT record, plus any distortions that may have crept in due to the UHI effect, I would say that I accept this record as the best we have. The record does tell us it has warmed by about 0.04°C per decade since it started in 1850, in roughly 60-year overall warming/cooling cycles, which I can accept.
Do you also accept what I have just written? If not, please be specific about your objections.
The CO2 story is a bit more complicated. I can accept the Mauna Loa measurements since the late 1950s as globally representative. There is more uncertainty about the earlier record, since the ice core data do not correlate too well with actual analytical measurements made (as TonyB has pointed out). But I can accept this cobbled together record, as you stated, for lack of anything better.
These two parallel developments are nice.
However, I cannot simply accept the fact of causation, as it has not been demonstrated based on empirical data derived from actual physical observations.
There are also a number of studies by solar scientists (which I have cited before and will not repeat here) that tell us that a bit more than half of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years), which has incidentally now stopped.
Can you accept that these studies are correct and that roughly half of the 20th century warming can be attributed to increase in solar activity?
If so, I would agree that it is plausible to assume that GH warming may theoretically have contributed the other half over this long-term period, in accordance with the GH theory, whereby the 60-year warming/cooling cycles have not been explained
To paraphrase what you wrote: Its important to know what you do understand to be true, or likely to be true, as well as what think is untrue. There is no point in giving you any explanation at all if you are deliberately going to muddy the waters, later on, by denying the cyclical nature of the temperature record or the conclusion of the many cited solar studies.
Now, Peter, you are aware of what I “understand to be true”, and it is time to put all that aside and for you to bring the empirical data to support your AGW premise as requested many times to no avail by many posters here.
Waffle time is over and “put up” time is here.
Max
Max,
What do you mean by “demonstrated based on …..”? How can it be demonstrated that the warming, which we both agree to have occurred, is definitely due to solar, comic rays or AGW enhanced GH effects?
Climate Science can’t proceed like the sort of Physics or Chemistry lessons you might have had in your younger days when the teacher may have demonstrated Boyle’s Law or the production of hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis.
In many ways, Climate Science is much more like what Robin may be familiar with in the legal system, where the evidence has to be weighed and the most sensible conclusion reached and based upon it.
Yes, of course it is possiblethat often heard claims by defendants such as; that the evidence was planted by police, or that they really did win several thousand dollars on a horse whose name they have forgotten, have lost the betting slip, and can’t remember where they placed the bet, really might be true. No-one can ‘demonstrate’ or state ‘unambiguously’ that these explanations are wrong.
The English and Australian legal system doesn’t require unambiguous proof, but rather that the evidence should indicate beyond reasonable doubt. No one defines what ‘reasonable’ actually means. Is that 80%, 90%, 99% ? Maybe Robin would like to put a figure on it.
What % would you consider reasonable, in the AGW case? Even if were only 70%, or even less, rather than the figure of 90% the IPCC have used, wouldn’t it still make sense to act to reduce CO2 emissions?
Peter:
Yes, it’s broadly correct that in law “the evidence [is] weighed and the most sensible conclusion reached … based upon it”. The scientific method, in contrast, is utterly different.
Darwin, for example, hypothesised that “Species originated by means of natural selection”. He validated that hypothesis by demonstrating that that is what happened in the natural world – not by weighing conflicting evidence and determining probabilities. Indeed, just one example of evolution happening other than by natural selection would have falsified his hypothesis. Likewise, particle physicists who have developed the hypothesis that observed phenomena are explained by the existence of the Higg’s boson have set up the Large Hadron Collider in order to demonstrate that the particle (or particles) does or does not exist in nature. This experiment is not concerned with probabilities – their computer models already appear show that it probably exists. But, until the LHC test is complete, their hypothesis will continue to be no more than a hypothesis. There are countless other examples of this process in science.
And it’s that process that is missing with regard to AGW. There is, for example, no real world evidence that man’s emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Were such evidence to be produced – and verified by independent scientists – then the hypothesis could properly be regarded as valid. But, so far, that has not happened – and you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Indeed, if anything, the empirical evidence we do have indicates the falsification of the hypothesis. For example: temperatures have not increased since 1998 despite an increase in CO2 emissions; there is a lack of correlation over the last 100 years between CO2 emissions and temperature changes; ice core records show CO2 increases following temperature increases; the model-predicted hotspot in the tropical troposphere is not there; and GCMs have failed to predict future climate.
Therefore, the dangerous AGW hypothesis (like the Higg’s boson) is no more than an interesting hypothesis. Probabilities are irrelevant.
Robin,
You should clearly stick to the law. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to science.
Its quite wrong to say that “Probabilities are irrelevant” in science or that science is “utterly different”. Probability theory is fundamental to the scientific method.
Having said that, any half decent lawyer should know the rudiments of the scientific process. Imagine, you are defending council, and the prosecution’s expert scientific witness pronounces that DNA found at the scene of the crime matches your client’s DNA, and that the probability of it being by chance were one in a million. I hope you’d have the wit to point out to the jury that there would be 59 innocent people in the UK with that same DNA and just one guilty one.
You’ll probably remember it better than I do but wasn’t there a case a few years ago of a mother, convicted of infanticide, freed on appeal? She’d be convicted on some very dodgy scientific/statistical evidence which should have been picked up her defending council.
No, Peter, as usual you’re confused.
We are concerned with the validation of a scientific hypothesis, not with the application of established science (e.g. DNA) to a practical problem. Obviously legal principles apply when science is relevant in a court of law. But they are not relevant in relation to the verification of a hypothesis, such as Darwin’s theory and the existence of the Higg’s boson.
Now I suggest you go back to my 8578 and deal with my points – especially the lack of real world evidence that man’s emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Thanks.
Robin,
As usual uou are just totally wrong.
Its not just in a courtroom where the same scientific principles of balancing the available evidence apply.
For instance, all pharmaceutical drugs are field tested before release. You don’t get the simple clear cut results you imagine. They are not simply deterministic but the result of stochastic processes. You need to read up on what this means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
In simple term: some patients will experience a benefit, some will experience negative effects. All the available evidence has to be weighed, just the same as in a court of law. . I guess it would be difficult for the courts to say that we think the defendant is guilty to a 95% level of confidence but , otherwise, the principle is just the same.
I can’t believe you can’t see that.
Peter:
It would be helpful if you were to try a little logic – just for once.
The application of established science to the practice of law or the practice of medicine is completely different from the application of the scientific method. The latter, by definition, is not concerned with established science but with the method by which a scientific hypothesis becomes established. Put simply, that is achieved as follows: a problem is identified, a refutable hypothesis explaining it is proposed and the hypothesis is thoroughly tested against physically observed (not theoretical) evidence; if the evidence supports the hypothesis (something that can be confirmed by independent researchers), the hypothesis is validated – and remains that way unless subsequently shown to be false.
Dangerous AGW is still at the untested hypothesis stage. Therefore, instead of creating diversions, I suggest you deal with the points made in my 8578. Thanks.
Robin,
You seem to have to have blinkered viewpoint that science is some sort formulistic based process which never varies.
You mentioned definitions. The scientific method can be be defined from the words:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.
And Method: Which is a process. A series of steps.
But those steps do vary according to the nature of the problem being studied. Your idea of the scientific method doesn’t seem to extend beyond the test tube approach.
Not everything can fit into one of course. So does this mean that there can be no scientific investigation of anything that doesn’t? Its total nonsense to suggest that Climatology and Meteorology aren’t sciences, which is what you are effectively saying.
Peter: your comments are drifting yet further away from reality.
The scientific method (outlined in my post 8582) was first propounded by the Iraqi scientist Ibn al-Haitham 1,000 years ago, developed during the Enlightenment and codified by Karl Popper. It has been basic to all scientific disciplines for centuries. There is no reason for the practice of climatology to be any different.
So, Peter, no more diversions: just deal with the points made in 8578. Thanks.
Just arrived back in the UK from Japan (limited internet access where I was, so haven’t kept up with events much). However, I have a letter from ASA, dated 8th December – not about the Bedtime Stories ad but about the falling polar bears ad by Plane Stupid, which I also complained about. The letter isn’t marked confidential, so I guess it’s okay to quote from it:
“We received a number of complaints about it [the ad] and approached the advertiser for their response. They confirmed that they had received a large number of complaints directly and were understandably concerned at the response to the ad. They therefore took the decision to withdraw the ad early and have given us their assurance that it will not be used again.
As the ad is no longer being shown, there would be little to achieve by investigating further. We are satisfied with the action Plane Stupid has taken to resolve the concerns raised. Brief details will appear in a list of informally resolved cases on Wednesday 23 December.”
Anyway, that’s all from me for now, and am off to bed, after what seems like 24 hours with no sleep.
Alex,
You didn’t miss much. Leaked E-mails and source codes exposed the anthropogenic global warming theory as a hoax (as I’ve always thought)……..other than that, it’s been rather quiet.
Alex; don’t take any notice of Brute. He’s in another hemisphere. The Mail has an intelligent investigative report on the emails; there’s a theory going round that Briffa is Deep Throat (or the weakest link in the Fellowship of the TreeRings, if you will); Ben Goldacre of Bad Science has kissed Pachauri’s hand and accused us all of being party bores. Yer man from Not Evil Just Wrong has been manhandled by an armed guard for daring to ask a question of a climate scientist. Otherwise nothing. Bit like July 1914, in fact.
Peter
Your diversionary waffle (8577) adds little to the discussion.
Bring the empirical evidence to support your AGW premise, as requested by Robin, or concede that you cannot do so.
Max
Robin,
Instead of quoting some 11th century Iraqi scientist, you would be better reading some real science to keep yourself up to date.
Your ‘test tube’ {mis}conception of science seems to be based on the sort of chemistry sets children get given for Christmas. Pour acid onto metal filings, it all fizzes, hydrogen is given off which can be collected to produce a small bang when lit. Works every time and John Dalton’s theory of elements and the periodic table is the theoretical basis for it all.
Some science is still like that. The new Hadron collider at CERN will produce results which will be able to be duplicated, at least in principle, by anyone else with the necessary finance to build another one.
But a lot of science isn’t like that. For instance there is a limited fossil record of human ancestry collected over the years from sites in several continents. These are unique and can’t be replicated. Whatever theories are suggested for the evolution of humans are debated in the scientific community in much the same way as lawyers debate points of law. The oorrectness or otherwise, of their theories, cannot be ‘proven’, or even tested, in the simple way that you suggest. Some are considered likely, some less likely, some are ruled out as new evidence is found. Is it still science? Yes of course.
I think you know all this anyway. A poor horse may not have any choice over wearing its blinkers. You do. You just choose not to see what you don’t want to.
Peter:
I mentioned the application of the scientific method over 1,000 years – via the Enlightenment and up to today. It’s how science is done and has nothing to do with your weird obsession with test tubes. Did Darwin use a test tube to validate his hypothesis? No. Did Einstein? No. Are the “tests” scientists use simple? Usually not.
Of course, postulating and debating hypotheses is the heart of science – the process is an essential component of the scientific method. The uncertainty of the fossil record of human evolution is a good example. Our understanding is improving with time – but there are major uncertainties and the science is far from established. And that is where we are with AGW: there are major uncertainties and the science is far from established. The question is not concluded as you (and warmist campaigners) seem to think.
Robin
I know you didn’t equate the theory of evolution with the hypothesis of AGW, but I think it’s a racing certainty that Peter will read it that way! :-)
Robin,
Well its good that you now allow for some uncertainty in science. That’s good. Its shows your understanding is improving. Much better than your silly comment about probabilities being irrelevant. You wouldn’t make much money on the horses, or in merchant banking, with that idea in your head.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘established’? Is that when everything is pretty much certain? Evolution theory is established but there are lots of uncertainties, as there is with AGW too.
The problem is that politicians need certainties. So they say. The IPCC say that there is a 90% certainty that they are right on climate change. This get translated by you guys to mean that there is no agreement on climate change with the implication nothing should be done until there is. Too late by then of course.
So lets give you climate change doubters some scope. Suppose you are right that there is no agreement. Lets say, just for the sake of argument, that it was only 50-50. What then? Do governments act or don’t they? Would you buy a house if there was a 50% chance of it disappearing down a mine shaft in the next 100 years? That’s a small risk. 0.5% per year. Nothing to worry about surely?
Oh dear, Peter – we’re right back at the beginning.
Of course, it’s obvious that science is concerned with uncertainty. Consider, for example, the stages that established the link between smoking and lung cancer. Stage 1: an apparent link was observed (for example by medical practitioners). At that point, scientists were uncertain about the science explaining the phenomenon. Stage 2: a hypothesis (that smoking causes lung cancer) was propounded. But, at that stage, the validity of the hypothesis was uncertain. Stage 3: empirical data was acquired – confirming, for example, that the link exists throughout a range of demographics and societies. But uncertainties remained because, for example, there might have been bias in the collection of data. Stage 4: independent researchers were able to confirm the evidence and were unable to falsify the hypothesis. Only at that stage was the hypothesis considered to be verified. That was not the end of the matter, however: it is still possible that, one day, someone may produce evidence that falsifies it. So uncertainty remains.
The problem, Peter, is that the scientific process concerning a possible link between man’s CO2 emissions and dangerous AGW has, so far, completed only stages 1 and 2. It is still no more than an interesting hypothesis.
Robin,
Of course the causality between observed high rates of lung cancer and cigarette smoking was dismissed just as readily by the tobacco companies, and cigarette smokers alike, in the 50’s and 60’s. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Leonidas_Terry
There is a strong parallel between the attitude of smokers then and AGW deniers now. We are are all smokers now, so to speak, and we don’t want to give up our profligate use of energy any more than the 60’s generation wanted to give up their nicotine fix.
Just a hypothesis , people said. ‘My Uncle Arthur has smoked 20 cigarettes a day since he was 14 and that was 70 years ago.’ We’ve all heard the arguments. It took 40 years to win that one, and even now, I’m not sure that there is the kind of deterministic link which you are seeking. What is the most harmful constituent of cigarette smoke? Is it Nicotine, Tar, Particulates? I remember it was suggested that it was nitrates in the paper at one time and that pipes and cigars were much safer. I doubt if its all been resolved.
Of course, we don’t have 40 years to waste arguing the toss about causality on AGW. We do know that C02 is an important GH gas. We know the mechanism of the GHE much better than the mechanism of cancer cells in human tissue. We know that it is ‘very likely’ that the measured warming, which we all seemed to agree was real a few posts ago, is the result of increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.
I go back to my question. Isn’t 90% good enough for you? What would be? I wouldn’t play Russian Roulette even at 10%!
Peter:
Your smoking parallel is, if anything, the opposite of the truth: the attitude of the tobacco companies is remarkably similar to the attitude of warmist scientists today. The tobacco companies knew, from their private research, that there was strong evidence that smoking was linked to cancer (i.e. that Terry was right) – but they kept quiet about it, refused access to their data to independent researchers and pretended that their research indicated that smoking was safe. It was, quite rightly, a major scandal. And it’s the lack of transparency re climate research and scientists’ refusal to release data to independent researchers that is causing concern today.
Breaking: Copenhagen climate summit negotiations ’suspended’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/breaking-copenhagen-climate-summit-negotiations-suspended/
I’ve said it before and I’ll said it again. You/we are wasting our time here chatting in our exclusive little club, while out there in the frozen wastes of Guardian Environment, George Monbiot is preaching to the multitudes.
Go and see. There’s a Falstaffian grandeur to the man. He’s unstoppable, unbeatable, unputdownable. Sceptics outnumber warmists on Guardian threads by about 3 to 1. With a little effort,that could be thirty to one, and the whole warmist project could be drowned in a tsunami of ridicule. Give it a go. Please. Do it for Michael Crichton, for the anonymous CRU whistleblower, for Keith Briffa. Do it for Shakespeare and the English sense of humour. Do it for a laugh.
Robin,
Your last posting was even more nonsensical than usual.
Major climate change deniers and the remnants of the pro-tobacco lobby are one and the same:
http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/24312/Issues_in_the_Current_State_of_Climate_Science.html
Hello Brute, Geoff, I’m now fairly up to speed again on the ClimateGate stuff – the Briffa-as-mole theory is an intriguing one. If this was a le Carre plot, he would be a good choice; however, real life being what it is, the actual source might well be some surprising person no-one would ever have thought of! Re July 1914, it’s an interesting analogy – we look back on WWI with 20/20 hindsight and see much of that conflict as inevitable from the Franz Ferdinand assassination onwards, but would very many of the casual newspaper-readers at the time have recognised this?
In Japan there has been regular coverage of COP15 in the TV news on NHK (Beeb equivalent) but not in much depth (could be wrong, as my Japanese language comprehension is not great) – the much bigger story over there in the last week or so appears to have been a dispute between Tokyo and Washington over the relocation of a US Marine Corps air base in Okinawa.
Looks like the walkout is over for the moment – lost them the best part of a day, though; IMO they’ll attempt to cobble together something positive-sounding for Friday, if only to save face.
Peter M
You ask me:
This is your dilemma, Peter, not mine.
But before you can even begin to show causation of atmospheric CO2 on warming, you have to demonstrate robust correlation.
I see that the observed warming occurred in 30 year warming/cooling cycles, while CO2 concentration did not.
I am told that a 30-year period is long enough to be considered “climate” rather than “weather”.
I see that ~30 year cycles of large warming occurred when CO2 increase was very small and that other cycles of rapid CO2 increase actually showed cooling.
In fact, I only see one half-cycle, the late 20th century warming (and the IPCC poster period), that correlates well with increase in atmospheric CO2.
So the correlation is not at all robust.
This makes the case for causation extremely difficult.
It makes your dilemma even greater.
But Robin has spelled your dilemma out even more succinctly:
Bring the empirical data based on actual physical observations (stage 3) to support this “interesting hypothesis”, if you can.
Max