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.
There is a first whiff of something that may become very interesting at the Bishop Hill blog here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/31/leaning-on-north.html
A closing thought for 2009.
I noted a week ago (post 8728) that just before the Copenhagen debacle Ed Miliband, the UK’s Climate Change Secretary, said:
It is a phrasing commonly used by politicians and the MSM to close down discussion. A sceptic’s response might be to query his evidence for an “overwhelming consensus” and/or to point out that, in any case, science is not determined by consensus – and citing perhaps the many scientists who have doubts about AGW. Or he/she might go rather further and refer, for example, to feedback uncertainties, the climate’s vast complexities, possible solar, cosmic etc. effects, current temperature trends, the geological, historic and paleontological evidence, the malpractice evidenced by “climategate” … etc. Or he/she might observe that, even if Miliband is right, Copenhagen confirmed what was already obvious: that the large developing economies (China and India in particular) have no intention of reducing their GHG emissions – therefore any efforts by the developed world to reduce theirs would be an ineffective and illogical misuse of limited resources.
But, although any serious discussion about whether or not the science is in doubt would best be conducted on those lines, we know it can lead to endless sidetracks and futile dispute.
Yet there’s a far simpler response: to hit the warmists with their favourite weapon, the IPCC’s 2007 report (recently described by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco as “the gold standard for authoritative scientific information on climate change“). “Simple” because even it doesn’t support the Miliband claim that there is no doubt about man-made climate change. Again, the best approach would be to review the detailed science – especially Chapter 9 – citing the IPCC’s own admitted uncertainties and lacunae and, of course, the unreliability of models and the lack of reference to empirical evidence. But, as we know, that can also lead to sidetracks and futile dispute.
But that too is unnecessary: as we’ve seen in recent posts, even the pseudo-scientific semi-political Summary for Policymakers (the only part of the report that many politicians and MSM pundits have read) doesn’t support the Miliband contention.
A quick recap. First, we have (page 10 of the AR4 WG1 SPM) the much vaunted but woolly “Most of the observed increase [in recent temperatures] … is very likely due to the observed increase in [AGW] concentrations“ (my emphases). And that uncertain assertion is about only warming – not climate change per se. But wait – it goes on to state, “Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see … Table SPM.2).” OK, now we’re dealing with “climate change” proper – but “discernable human influences” sounds a bit vague. So let’s do as recommended and refer to Table SPM.2 (it’s on page 8). But all that tells us is, for example, that a human “contribution” to (not, note, responsibility for) observed “warm spells/heat waves” and “heavy precipitation events” is “more likely than not”. And a footnote states that this conclusion, already feeble, is “based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies”. In other words, it’s not supported by hard science. And that’s about it.
Therefore, even the IPCC “gold standard” report itself (for all its faults – see Max’s list at 8787) doesn’t support Ed Miliband’s assertion that there is no doubt that climate change is man-made – much less that any such change would be catastrophic. Yet that claim is the basis of a vast and damaging political and economic edifice.
Best wishes for 2010 to all.
TonyN, you’re right, and I think what we’ll see shortly is the first round of what could turn out to be a landmark battle. I suspect at some point there will be a bid to force Richard North’s ISP to shut him down, and also a move to force the Telegraph to print a retraction from Christopher Booker. Who’s to say what wider implications this may have for free speech on these matters?
Robin (8802)
As usual, you are spot on.
I think the most amusing waffle on probabilities comes from the table you cited on extreme weather events (warm spells/heat waves/heavy precipitation events), where (as you point out) IPCC states that there is a >66% chance that these events increased in frequency over the 20th century, with a >50% chance that there was [some undefined] human contribution, based not on studies but on expert judgment, yet the climate models project that there is a >90% chance that the frequency will increase in the 21st century (as a result of AGW).
If the guys in Vegas could parlay the odds like that, they’d all be millionaires.
But, as you say, despite all the bluster and slick salesmanship, there is still a lot of expressed uncertainty in the IPCC report.
To you and all the others here:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Max
PeterM
You wrote (8796):
Let’s get this straight, Peter. You seem to be a bit confused here, so let me straighten you out.
YOU asked me what it would take for me to have confidence in the findings (i.e. claims) of IPCC.
I answered your question directly, in two parts: first I pointed out why I have no confidence in IPCC today, and second, I pointed out how IPCC (or a successor organization, as suggested by TonyB) would need to change and what it would need to do to regain my confidence.
My primary consideration is the flawed and questionable science, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly. Quite frankly, it stinks.
I pointed out several specific scientific points, where IPCC has ignored or rejected published data that do not support its AGW message, where IPCC has made outright false claims and where it has used bad science to prove trends that do not exist. These must be addressed and corrected.
Climategate has underscored the fact that some very influential climate scientists are not acting in an objective and unbiased manner, but rather act as AGW advocates. The reports authored by this small group of scientists should not be cited by IPCC, until an independent audit can verify that they are based on good and objective science.
The global surface (and satellite) temperature records must be opened to a completely transparent and independent audit, to make sure that they have not been compromised by overzealous AGW advocates or activists.
In trying to figure out why there has been such a distortion of climate science, I do believe that a key reason is the obscene amount of money that is involved in proposed mitigation solutions. The prospect of gaining control over extremely large sums of money can corrupt, and I am convinced that the objectivity of the climate science regarding AGW has been corrupted as a result of agenda-driven science.
You saw at Copenhagen how it was all about the transfer of large sums of money, with representatives from poor nations holding out their hands and then becoming extremely disappointed when there was no large promised handout. The politicians, starting with US President Obama, are all figuratively licking their chops at the idea of having so much money to shuffle around to finance pet projects, etc.
Individuals, such as Al Gore and (it appears) Dr. Pachauri, see a major personal financial benefit from proposed cap and trade schemes, as do hedge fund operators and corporate executives, who hope to get in on the subsidized green revolution gravy train.
That’s why I believe the “big bucks” should be taken out of the equation, so that the science can again be done in an unbiased and objective manner, rather than as support for multi-billion (or trillion) dollar mitigation measures.
So to summarize:
The science come first. It must be objective, open to audit, transparent and not skewed to give a pro-AGW answer.
The multi-billion (or trillion) dollar carbon caps and taxes need to be taken out of the equation in order to ensure that objectivity can return to climate science.
Hope this clears it up for you, Peter.
Best wishes for a happy 2010 (with no major negative climate change impacts).
Max
Bob_FJ
Your 8795 on Algor mortis (Latin: algor—coolness; mortis—of death), rectal temperature reading, hockey-sticks and thermocouples reminded me of a “hazing” technique used on sailors who had not yet crossed the Equator at sea (known as “slimy polywogs”) by those who had already done so (known as “trusty shellbacks”), which was known as the “thermocouple”.
It involved a cup of very warm (but not quite scalding) water and another cup of ice-water. The “polywog” was blindfolded and made to lie on his back with both legs extended upward. Then the two cups of water were poured down the inside of his two extended trouser legs at the same time, one on either side, giving the “thermocouple” effect.
Ah, memories of a misspent youth!
Happy New Year!
Max
Max,
Does AGW present serious risk or doesn’t it? To answer this question scientifically, you have to be prepared for either of two possible answers.
It doesn’t make any logical sense to argue that Carbon taxes, or cap and trade, should be ruled out in advance of knowing the answer.
If your ideally constituted IPCC were to give you an answer you don’t like, and incidentally no-one else would either, what would be your suggested solution?
Max/Pete,
If I may……………
Pete,
What catastrophic consequences attributed to .6 degree rise in temperature have we seen to date?
Sea Level Rise ?
Increased Cyclonic/Hurricane Activity ?
Species Extinction ?
Droughts/Floods ?
Crop Failure ?
Ice Caps/Ice Fields Melting ?
(Have I left anything out?)
None of these “consequences” have occurred 30 years after Hansen prophesized his apocalyptic, doomsday scenario.
So, to start with, not only has the IPCC temperature increase prediction failed to rise to their projected levels, the consequences of the (supposed) rise have not materialized either.
I think we’ve refuted every sub-catastrophe thoroughly. Hurricane activity is at its lowest level in 30 years.
Tonyb has demonstrated for you that there has not been any appreciable sea level rise correlating to a .6 degree temperature increase.
The Arctic ice cap has recovered……waxed/waned as it has throughout history.
The Antarctic icecap is at historically high levels.
Droughts/Floods have occurred with historical regularity; however, these regional occurrences are sporadic and the area(s) recover.
Crops fail as they have throughout time eternal; but this is the nature of the beast. Higher and lower crop yields have occurred; but the widespread food shortages and epic famines predicted by the Domsday Cult haven’t happened.
Time and time again, we hear from the likes of the IPCC, Mann, Jones, Gore, Hansen, Romm and the rest of the cabal of Alarmists that these catastrophic events are “likely” or “may” occur………they never do…….not even close.
You’ve convinced yourself that these end of the world predictions/myths are or “will” happen………take a step back and objectively take a look at the evidence.
The reality of the observed data compared to the prophecies of global warming soothsayers is quite sobering.
Pete,
The “regional anomaly” excuse isn’t working for the Warmists anymore.
The “weather is not climate” defense is no longer valid. We’ve had years of “weather” that contradicts the IPCC projections.
Cold weather kills scores
January 01 2010 at 12:15PM
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20100101113458666C113855
Dublin airport suspends flights in cold weather
DUBLIN, Jan 1 (Reuters) – All flights to and from Dublin were suspended on Friday after heavy snowfall on New Year’s Eve which also disrupted bus and rail services in the Irish capital.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60002120100101?type=marketsNews
Peter M
You ask (8807):
Brute has answered this question fairly succinctly in his 8808. There have been NO negative consequences that can be directly or indirectly attributed to the 0.65°C temperature increase we have witnessed since the modern temperature record started in 1850. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Rien.
On the contrary, a comprehensive study by Goklany has shown that climate related deaths have decreased dramatically over the 20th century worldwide.
Medical studies show that far more people die from cold-related deaths world-wide than from heat-related ones, so there is no reason to believe that a slight warming would have any negative impacts.
Studies show that a modest increase in atmospheric CO2, such as we have already experienced and are expected to experience over the next centuries, is actually beneficial to the growth of many crops and forests.
As a result, it is extremely naïve to assume that a similar future temperature increase will cause any negative consequences.
As far as the IPCC projections of 5 to 10 times the actually observed temperature increase to date occurring over the next 100 years, this is model-based virtual reality. Recent studies on feedbacks show that the models are wrong on the assumed 2xCO2 temperature impact: instead of the simulated 3.2°C, physical observations show that this should be closer to 0.7°C.
In addition, it has been cooling since 2000, despite all-time record increase in CO2 and model projections of significant warming, further demonstrating that the model projections are not reliable.
There is no real cause for panic, Peter.
And, as a result, there is no justification for panicky reactions, such as the levying of massive carbon taxes (direct or indirect) on the people of this world.
Finally, (a) these taxes and any proposed carbon cuts will not result in any discernible reduction in temperature and (b) the prospect of such obscene amounts of money being put into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats to shuffle around only provides an incentive for a corruption of climate science, as has been witnessed with the Climategate revelations (possibly the “tip of the iceberg”).
Finally, you posed the hypothetical “what if” question:
It depends on the answer, Peter.
Here is one answer I would definitely not like (see Peter Taylor):
“It is likely that our planet is headed for a prolonged period of much cooler temperatures, which will likely reduce the growing season in many northern temperate locations and wipe out a significant part of the more northern agriculture in places such as Canada, etc.”
In this case I would think it would make sense to try to fast-track the development of hardier grain species, which could survive these harsher climates, in order to avoid major crop failures and famines, as we experienced during the Little Ice Age.
Hope this answers your questions.
Max
An amusing (and interesting) piece by Joe Bastardi here. Some extracts:
There was a programme just now on Radio 4 about predictions for the coming year, which touched on climate change. The panellists didn’t say too much, but all the public comments broadcast after the programme were sceptical, so much so that the host, Stephen Sackur, moved on rather briskly.
It would have been fun to have aired this prediction from 2000, based on the comment by Dr David Viner of the CRU that “within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event'”.
link
If the CRU can be that wrong over a ten-year period, how much faith can anyone have in their grander 50 or 100-year predictions?
Robin (8811)
After reading the latest Met Office “forecast” of imminent ecord snow and cold in UK, I can only laugh.
The “ink has barely dried” on this Met Office forecast of 2010 becoming the hottest year on record:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/next-year-forecast-to-be-hottest-on-record-1838184.html
How utterly stupid are the Met Office people who make these predictions almost every year, only to have to swallow them when they do not come to pass and then to actually claim that “the average error in the predictions has been 0.06 of a degree” (in the above cited article)?
How stupid do they think the public is to believe this crap?
The Met Office has consistently missed “next year’s” climate since 2005, predicting “barbecue summers”, “record warmth” and other nonsense, which failed every time to materialize.
It has missed the cooling trend which started after 2000 (projecting a warming trend instead).
Yet Met Office still continues to make the same claims, hoping (to no avail) that they might be correct, at least once.
Why should we have any confidence in long-term projections of this group, when they cannot even get forecasts for one or ten years in advance right?
Answer: we shouldn’t.
Max
COLD, COLD, COLDER
http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2010-01-02_17:05
More extremely cold temperatures………
Britain facing one of coldest winters in 100 years…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of-the-coldest-winters-in-100-years-experts-predict.html
Fourth Death Related To Cold in Chicago…
http://cbs2chicago.com/wireapnewsil/Chicago.man.s.2.1400772.html
Robin (and others),
Its been said many times before but you shouldn’t confuse UK weather with global climate.
It may be the “middle of winter” in the UK but its actually the middle of summer over 50% of the earth’s area.
Perth has recently experienced a heatwave of temperatures as high as 39degC which is over 100 degF.
And because Australia is many times the area of the UK the temperatures measured over the whole of Australia have much more influence over the global average too.
The complete figures for 2009 aren’t yet in, but its looking like 2009 will be about the 4th or 5th warmest on record. That’s globally – not the USA (2% of worlds surface area) and definitely not the UK (hardly any of the worlds total area!)
Max,
You do seem to be having some difficulty with the concept of scientific objectivity. For instance you are quite insistent that people like James Hansen be excluded from the scientific process. Presumably for ‘political’ statements along the lines of coal trains equating to death trains etc?
But doesn’t this beg the question of whether he’s right , in the first place about the science? I’m not sure about his politics , maybe he’s a Democrat? But, its pretty obvious that he does genuinely believe what he’s saying. So, doesn’t he have a duty to speak up on the issue? And shouldn’t he be applauded for that instead of being subjected to death threats?
Peter M
You are changing the subject again.
Both Robin and I have commented on the terrible Met Office record on forecasting local UK as well as global climate just one year in advance, as well as their dismal failure to predict the observed global cooling since 2000.
This is all the more dismal, since they “variance adjust”, “ex post facto correct” and otherwise massage the raw data to get the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” anomaly they want to report, in a totally non-transparent process.
This has absolutely nothing to do with 2009 being the 5th warmest year.
Met Office has shown that it cannot forecast next year or the next 10 years.
How can it forecast 100 years in advance?
Answer: It can’t.
Max
PeterM
Jaames E. Hansen is paid by the US taxpayer to provide accurate and unbiased data on weather and climate.
He is not paid to be an AGW-advocate or activist, organizing pro-AGW civil disobedience actions, publishing fear-mongering press releases, etc. on government expense.
It is OK for Al Gore, an ex-politician no longer on the taxpayer payroll, to do such things, even if it is apparent that he enjoys personal financial gain from his efforts and hopes to cash in even more if carbon caps become a reality, but not for paid servants of the public to do this at taxpayers’ expense.
If he wants to be an AGW activist, he should resign his government job first.
I think you get the picture, if you think about it a bit.
Max
Peter M
BTW, my comment on James E. Hansen also goes for IPCC Chairman, Dr. Pachauri, also a publicly-funded so-called servant of the public.
If it turns out, as some press releases have indicated, that Pachauri stands to cash in personally from the carbon caps he is insisting the world implement in order to save itself from itself, then he should resign as IPCC chair.
Max
PeterM
You pulled a recent warm day at Perth (39°C) out of your hat to demonstrate that Australian temperatures are rising.
First: Perth is not all of Australia.
Second: Perth average temperature does not appear to have changed much since around 1975
http://www.waclimate.net/giss-bom-perth.html
Third: Wiki tells us: The hottest ever recorded temperature in Perth was 46.2 °C (115.2 °F) on 23 February 1991.
This was 19 years ago, so the recent 39°C does not mean much.
Fourth: Perth apparently had the coldest September (2009) in terms of daytime temperatures since records began at the current site in 1994
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/category/australia/perth/
Looks like you picked a poor example to try to prove a point.
Max
PeterM
Back to your post 8817 on the significance of Perth temperature (which you extrapolated to Australian temperature) versus UK temperature on “global” average.
Australia has a surface are of 7.74 million sq. km. (msk), versus only 0.24 msk for the UK, so your point is well taken
North America, with a surface are of 24.71 msk (roughly 3x Australia), has had a period of record cold, as this study confirms: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL041188.shtml
Now, admittedly North America represents only around 17% of global land mass (148.94 msk), but the “decade-long fall in global mean temperatures” is acknowledged in the study, as is the “precipitous drop in North American temperature”, which certainly exacerbated the observed global cooling.
Just to put it all into better perspective, Peter.
Max
Pete,
Is the recent flooding in Australia an ominous “sign” of global warming as you stated that the Australian drought was in previous months?
Sorry Pete. I get the climate is not weather argument; however, as we say here in the United States……..you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
Every single “weather” event is attributed to “catastrophic evidence of global calamity” by the Alarmists (due to climate change)……I figure turnabout is fair play.
Sensationalism rules the airwaves…….as they say in the media business, “If it bleeds, it leads”. TV news loves a good catastrophe story and global warming is no different. I plan on spreading the record cold media stories to the global warming faithful wherever I go.
10 years, 30 years or 150 years is a blink of an eye compared to the “climate history” of this planet. Further, a .6 degree rise AVERAGED over the entire globe AVERAGED over 150 years is meaningless nonsense as is record cold, record rainfall, record hurricane seasons and record heat waves.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think .6 degrees even satisfies the instrumental margin of error.
I just throw in the anecdotal “climate” stories to antagonize you; but you’ve never been able to address the fact that the winters (and summers) are getting cooler (on average).
As far as any “science” or data that is sourced by the MET Office or NASA GISS, they’ve lost all credulity………the collusion detailed in the climate gate e-mails and the codes have been made public. Their prophecies and prognostications are farcical. It’s obvious that these guys are on the take and have no interest in conducting proper science………just fattening their own budgets and attempting to make a fraudulent case for their political handlers so that they in turn can create taxpayer funded slush funds.
The majority in the US Congress will shift (hopefully) this year and Congressional investigations on what these charlatans have been up to will be thoroughly exposed………publicly.
I’d also add that they, (Mann, Jones, Hansen) are promoting their personal ideological (religious) beliefs.
Peter: is it (as Max believes) that you are deliberately changing the subject or do you simply read what you think people are saying rather than what they are really saying? Take my 8811. Here’s a condensation of Bastardi’s observation. Addressing the UK’s Met Office he asks how it can do no better than
Understand now? It’s not about confusing “UK weather with global climate”, it’s about the competence of the Met Office.