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.
Hmm, Peter – “unnamed” eh? Like “tempterrain”?
I quoted it because I found it interesting and cogent. When I wish to state my views, I do so.
I missed this – an article about AGW and especially ClimateGate. Also interesting and cogent. And well-informed.
Robin
Very good analysis (8974).
The instantaneous knee-jerk reaction of PeterM is all too typical.
Rather than reading the analysis and rebutting or commenting on specific points made, he attacks the “messenger” (you) for quoting someone else when “you are quite capable of writing this sort of crap yourself”.
Oh well.
Max
BTW, Peter, your 8970 is an excellent example of strawman argument. I thought we’d persuaded you of the illogic of that approach long ago. But I suppose that, as usual, you weren’t listening.
Here’s another interesting comment by “tayles” (about ClimateGate):
Robin
Thanks for link to article by Steven F. Hayward on Climategate fallout (8977).
I think it gives a very balanced chronological analysis of what has happened to climate science, as revealed by the leaks.
I would agree with Hayward that Climategate has resulted in a “tipping point”, not only for climate science itself, but also for the whole AGW hysteria.
As Hayward put it:
Hayward wrote this before the final failure at the Copenhagen fiasco, but his prediction that this would fail was spot on.
The wheels have come off the AGW bandwagon and it is only a matter of time until the whole gravy-train ends up in the ditch.
Max
PeterM
To your 8970 strawman for “climate change deniers” (BTW I do not “deny” that “climate has changed”, Peter, I am just skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious threat – got it?)
Let’s see if I can clear this up for you:
1) It has warmed since the record started in 1850, in multi-decadal warming/cooling cycles, with an underlying warming trend of around 0.04degC per decade. Studies from many locations show us that some of this apparent warming, at least since around the 1950s, could be the result of an upward distortion to the record caused by urbanization and poor siting of the measurement stations. Currently (after 2000) it is not warming, but cooling instead.
2) A significant portion of the causes of this warming may well be natural; we know, for example that there was pre-industrial warming and cooling in response to changes in solar activity, and that the level of solar activity in the 20th century was unusual in at least the past 8,000 years.
3) Yes it has warmed slightly over the entire record (see 1), and the causes could be partly anthropogenic (see 2), but there is nothing we can do about it; so far, there have been no actionable mitigation proposals, which would have any perceptible impact on future warming; the proposed carbon taxes (direct or indirect) will have absolutely no climate impact at horrendous cost to everyone in the industrialized world.
4) See 3 above. It’s not “too late” to change our planet’s climate; we just do not have the ability to do so.
Hopefully this has cleared it up for you, Peter (it’s really not that complex).
Max
PeterM
BTW, my 8982 is just an extension of Robin’s 8973, so it appears you have (oh, how I love that word!) “consensus”.
Max
As Gerald Warner says (link in my 8967), it is now the warmists who are the deniers*, especially people like Susan Watts, whose extraordinary defence of the Met.Office reads like a blend of Orwell and Kafka.
*Not a term I would normally use, but I’m quoting it here, both from the article and Peter M’s remark in 8970. To my mind, the unspoken but often intended reference to the Holocaust invokes Godwin’s Law, i.e. once you mention Nazis, you’ve lost the argument.
PeterM
You mentioned the “urban heat island” effect.
Some questions for you:
1. Is the “urbanization” we have seen in the industrially developed world, particularly in the second half of the 20th century, “anthropogenic”?
(Yes or No)
2. Do “urbanized” locations generally show warmer temperatures than nearby rural locations, which have not seen any “urbanization”?
(Yes or No)
If you have answered “Yes” to question 2:
3. Would you conclude that the increased warming observed in “urbanized” locations is “anthropogenic”?
If you have answered “No” to question 2:
4. Do “urbanized” locations generally show cooler temperatures than nearby rural locations, which have not seen any “urbanization”?
(Yes or No)
If you have answered “Yes” to question 4:
5. Would you conclude that the increased cooling observed in “urbanized” locations is “anthropogenic”?
If you have answered “No” to both question 2 and question 4:
6. Would you say that nearby “urbanized” and “non-urbanized” locations show no statistical difference in temperature?
(Yes or No)
Just curious how you see this all.
Here are my answers (just as a hint):
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. na
5. na
6. na
Max
JamesP,
Did anyone mention Nazis? Apart from you that is.
Denial isn’t just about the Holocaust. Denial, in the sense we are discussing, occurs when people just can’t face the reality of a bad situation in the face of all evidence. Its a better description than scepticism.
Scientists are naturally sceptical people. Most would subscribe to the views of the sceptics society.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/
However, you won’t find anthropogenically induced climate change included in their list of scepticisms.
PeterM
Others who have spent more time studying the finer facets of the English language may have more to add on this subject, but I believe your view (8986) on “denial versus skepticism” is a bit warped, Peter.
Some definitions of “denial”:
Definitions 2 and 3 would apply fairly well for almost anyone on either side of the ongoing debate surrounding AGW.
You, for example “refuse to accept the validity of” (a) the Spencer et al. or Lindzen and Choi observations, which point to a net negative feedback with warming or (b) the many solar studies concluding that half of the observed 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity.
Many AGW believers also “refuse to accept the validity of” the observed fact that it has cooled after 2000.
Many AGW skeptics “refuse to accept the validity of” the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potentially serious threat.
So the use of the word “denier” for one or the other side of the AGW debate is a poor choice, as it fits both sides equally.
Forgetting the religious definitions, “skepticism” is defined as:
The first two fit fairly well for AGW skeptics.
Wiki defines “rational skepticism” (or “scientific skepticism”) as follows:
This is probably the most appropriate description of many AGW skeptics, including myself.
Max
Peter, I think that depends on your version of reality! I would say that the warmists are in denial, as evidenced by their recent change of terminology from ‘global warming’ (which seems to have stopped) to ‘climate change’, which has been with us since the world began.
We’ll have to find an alternative to ‘warmist’ soon!
Looks like quite a few “mainstream” scientists now agree global warming is over
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html?printingPage=true
http://www.rightsidenews.com/201001128144/energy-and-environment/forget-global-warming-mini-ice-age-may-be-on-its-way.html
Rejoice, Peter! You don’t have to sell your SUV or fry.
Max
Tony B et al,
I thought you might be interested in the plots of our second heat-wave in Melbourne this summer.
We had the hottest overnight temperature for 107 years according to the ABC radio.
Still no bad grass or bushfires though, probably because winds were relatively modest.
There is uproar because authorities warned of catastrophic conditions, the highest highly publicised official state of alert, causing people to flee, but these conditions did not materialize. And, apparently, a woman with two children were all killed in a car accident when returning home after fleeing thus, reportedly attributed to wet road conditions.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2774/4270407219_702f17fac7_o.gif
Bob Fj 8990
The max/min thernometer has been around for many years but whether they were used is another matter as they were rather fragile and the mercury column had a habit of separating.
Generally more robust thermometers were used that were read at specific times-a 6am reading was common which would not pick up night time peaks-just what it was at 6am-assumed to be the coldest part of the night.
Of greater note would be to know where the 1902 thermometer was actually sited. It is very common for modern thermometers to be located in very different places to their site 100 years ago, with the result they are now measuring a completely different micro climate.
For example a favourite location these days is an airport-a very different environment to the original location. This was often a field or parkland on the edge of what then often a small town rather than a city.
Another very big effect is UHI.
I have been following the conversation here on this subject and wonder why Peter has such difficulty with the concept?
Yet again I would point out that UHI was a very well known effect even in Roman times when that city became so warm that Beech trees could no longer grow, and people such as Pliny fled the city in the summer. Also Nero was petitioned to erect ‘high buildngs and narrow streets’ as that was a known method of reducing the UHI effect.
Once again we are ignoring history with this pretence that buildings have no great impact. It is nonsense.
A great deal of the temperature points around the world are either in different locations these days so are reading a different micro climate or/and are in urban areas so are affected by the ‘Ancient Rome’ effect.
I examined Perth regarding these micro climate effects in my 8868
Tonyb
We should use the term ‘denier’ exclusively for those who argue against the scientific and/or established consensus, and the term sceptic for those who are in favour of non-scientific concepts. So we’d have:
Evolution deniers
Holocaust deniers
HIV causing Aids deniers
Moon Landing deniers
AGW/Climate Change deniers
Spherical shaped Earth deniers
Whereas we’d have:
Astrology sceptics
Paranormal sceptics
Alien Abduction sceptics
Alternative/pseudo medicine sceptics
Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster/Yeti etc sceptics
Dowsing sceptics
Past life regression sceptics
You might like to check, but I would say that I’m pretty much in agreement with the Sceptics Society on this. Wouldn’t you agree too?
TonyB,
You might want to read up on the UHI effect here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Yes it exists. And Yes it is taken account of in surface measurements.
Global warming is most noticeable in depopulated areas. There aren’t many urban heat islands in Alsaka for instance.
Yes, a jolly good idea, Peter (#8992), to clearly distinguish those things we are and those things we aren’t meant to be sceptical about. Really I think the UK should lead the world here (as in so much else!) and establish an approved list of them, maintained ideally by a new taxpayer-funded organisation, whose important job it would be to determine which subjects we are permitted to have a questioning attitude towards and those we aren’t.
Humans are naturally curious about the world, but a little curiosity can be a dangerous thing and can lead to all kinds of subversion, denialist tendencies and unhealthy attitudes, such as believing that we can think for ourselves about matters best left entirely to (preferably government-appointed) professionals. After all, experts of all kinds know best; that’s why they are the experts. If they didn’t know best, they wouldn’t be experts. And if you or I knew better than the experts, we would be experts too; but we aren’t, so we’d better really just shut up and leave all the important thinking to them. After all, that’s what they’re paid to do, and very handsomely too.
A synod made up of experts drawn from knowledgeable and authoritative organisations such as the Environment Agency, the Met Office, WWF and Friends of the Earth should be assembled to determine exactly what we can be sceptical about and to what degree. This is no laughing matter. I mean, if everyone thought they could start questioning fundamental things such as global warming, the nature of the universe, the meaning of life or the divine right of bureaucrats, where would we be? It would be pure anarchy. Every denialist Tom, Dick or Harry would be constantly asking bothersome and intrusive questions like: “Why is he in charge?” or “When are we going to see this global warming, then?” and nothing would ever get done.
So it’s about time the scepticism industry was properly regulated, supervised and brought under strict control. We in Europe know what damage unbridled blue-sky pondering about things can do – just think of Western civilisation, which has been an unmitigated disaster for the entire planet! The history of science (and politics too!), moreover, is littered with any number of half-educated people working things out for themselves, and asking ridiculous and awkward questions, which has led to all sorts of horrible upheavals over the centuries.
In future, when any concerned citizen feels an attack of curiosity and unauthorised scepticism coming on, they ought to be able to pick up the phone and call the experts for instant guidance and reassurance – the watchwords should be: “refer, confer and defer.”
Peter
Don’t you think I have already read about the UHi effect on Wiki? And on Real Climate? I see Wiki quotes Gavin.
I have also looked at thirty other studies including Karl et al-some of the studies are on my web site.
The UHI effect is calculated at 0.006 Degrees C and is averaged out over the whole globe instead of directed towards the .25% of the globe that is urbanised and whose data is included in the ‘Global’ temperature measurements.
Urban areas contribute around 75% of the Giss records and the warming is therefore grossly underestimated.
Personally I think the UHI effect can be exaggerated-the bigger a city gets the more likely it is that the heat will be diffused over a wider area rather than become concentrated. However differences of several degrees are very regular occurences particularly in areas with a considerable night/day temp gradient.
Averaged over a year the UHI effect is very real and measurable.
Relocation of thermometers so they are measuring a different micro climate is also a big factor in inacurate records. A particular problem when they are relocated to Airports.
Tonyb
Max,
I notice that you are referencing (if that’s the right word for it) such organisations as “Right side news”. Could that be Correctside news? No I don’t think so.
I think some groups on the left hurl around the epithet of fascist far too freely. However, it is quite justified with the Daily Mail. They openly supported the small fascist party (the BUF) which existed in Britain before WW2.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
They don’t, at least openly, support the current fascist party in the UK the BNP but they aren’t far off in their opinions.
Its like I said: Climate deniers are motivated by politics not science. They don’t understand science so how can it be otherwise?
Peter M
Wouldn’t you agree too?
I’m certainly sceptical of pseudo-science, which is what AGW appears to be.
PeterM
reur 8996:
I have no love for the Daily Mail, being a brit i get the displeasure of reading it occasionally.
But if the best arguement in your arsenal involves bringing up what affiliations a paper had 70 (70 for gods sake!) don’t you think you are seriously, and i mean seriously, clinging at straws?
This BBC report (Concern over Europe ‘snow crisis’) from the Alps and Moscow was a shade premature (it was dated 17th December). Note how it was OK to observe then that “Many believe global warming is to blame for the lack of snow“. Contrast that with the hysterical denunciations (not least by the BBC) of anyone who dares to suggest that current low temperatures might possibly raise questions about the AGW hypothesis.
Incidentally, today’s reports on Alpine snow conditions are uniformly “excellent” and temperatures in Moscow yesterday ranged from -8C to -19C.
PeterM
Falling into the typical AGW-believer’s trap (when the facts on the ground do not support the AGW premise), you do not debate the points made in the article I cited (which all made perfect sense), but rather try to discredit the source. Not a very intelligent way to debate an issue.
If you will notice, you will see that the article originates from The Times (online), a generally accepted source.
You then state:
I would agree with you that anyone who is dumb enough to “deny climate” or “deny that climate changes” does not understand “science”.
I do not fall into that category.
As I explained to you several times, I am simply rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a serious threat.
Max