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.
MOST SNOW ON RECORD IN Washington DC…
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/?hpid=topnews
Funny thing today……a Global Warming cultist at work asked for a ride home. It seems that they set aside their revulsion for the massively powered, 4 wheel drive, noxious gas producing Brute®Mobile when the choice between driving a Prius through a blizzard or riding in an unstoppable, colossally horse powered mechanical monster…………I didn’t rub it in………(although I savored the irony).
I drove them through the teeth of the raging tempest with confidence and gritty determination………the Brute®Mobile didn’t even break a sweat.
Brute
Glad to hear of your successful, daring, dangerous, charge through the (AGW-caused) extreme weather conditions in your unstoppable, CO2-belching Brute®Mobile to safely deliver the Global Warming cultist to his cozily heated home.
I’m sure your environmentally aware passenger can link you to a site where you can purchase carbon indulgences to offset the carbon footprint of your emissions.
Maybe Al Gore can help.
Happy shoveling!
Max
ALL: Comparison of HADCRUT and GISSTEMP 2009
Click URL IF NO IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4348424128_5f72186c8a_o.gif
My earlier post is also relevant to note #8
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=57#comment-36670
Robin Guenier and Tom Kennedy
I believe we are in “violent agreement” on the Ravetz essay on WUWT.
Ravetz is pushing the AGW agenda. First he points out all the failings and deceptions of the IPCC and the “mainstream” scientists, then he calls for a cleansing, finally resorting to a non-scientific philosophical justification for the “precautionary principle”, which he calls “post-normal science”, which involves abandoning the tried and true principles of “normal science”.
This is, as you have both observed, a thinly veiled “scam”.
After throwing in a bunch of “mea culpas” to draw in the AGW skeptics, Ravetz simply tries to sell the AGW dogma with a new name, that’s all.
I agree with you that Ravetz’ “post-normal science” is not traditional “science”, where empirical data based on observation or experimentation are required to provide evidence to support a theory – it is pure politics, instead (with a fancy name).
Max
Brute (9526)
the choice between driving a Prius through a blizzard or riding in an unstoppable, colossally horse powered mechanical monster
I thought it was the Prius that was unstoppable.. :-)
Nice to see we’re all agreed about Ravetz. What gives him away is the “post” in post normal science. Like the post-modernists, he’s essentially saying “the future starts here” (i.e. with me). Not science. Not even sensible.
I fear Watts is impressed because he somehow feels what he does, in exposing the surfacestations project for instance, is somehow inferior, since it can be understood by a intelligent 12-year-old. Wrong. That is precisely where Watts and the whole sceptical movement is superior to the theorisers.
Max:
At the beginning of your long and interesting 9523 you say, re the Ravetz article, that “lot of it makes good sense”. But your following analysis demonstrates clearly that a lot of it is also dangerous nonsense.
I think the reality of his (unnecessarily) long essay boils down to his comment that “Issues of uncertainty and quality are not prominent in ‘normal’ scientific training” and his inference that that is why climate science has lost its way and we need to move to a “post normal science” (PNS) solution. What nonsense. Climate science has gone wrong precisely because its practitioners have chosen to ignore the issues of uncertainty that are the essence of science, deliberately fostering the false certainty about AGW that has done so much damage. Far from its being the adoption of PNS, the solution is a return to the normal science that has served us so well for so long.
What I am now beginning to understand (and Ravetz’s essay has done a service by helping me to see this) is that many climate scientists actually believe this PNS nonsense. You noted, for example, his call for a PNS approach when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” – isn’t that exactly the approach adopted by the CRU emailers and other alarmists?
No – as you point out, when facts are uncertain and values in dispute we cannot possibly know whether or not the stakes are high or a decision is even needed, let alone that it is urgent.
PS: I think it’s a misinterpretation to suggest (9525) that, re AGW, PNS is “a thinly veiled justification for (or rewording of) the ”precautionary principle””. Ravetz wants us to believe that AGW is a real, not a possible, threat (that’s why “stakes are high”) – therefore, he asserts, PNS is needed because “normal science” has failed to communicate that reality.
Re: Ravetz on post normal science.
I haven’t read his paper yet, but did take a considerable interest in what Mike Hulme had to say on the subject a couple of years ago.
Harmonic Oscillator (Paul Dennis) has an outstanding post on this subject at his new blog:
Jerome Ravetz and Post-normal science
Given where he is coming from I think that this is an outstanding ‘must read’, and this extends to the comments too, particularly Dennis’s responses.
Pete Martin,
Your #43 psychobabble at the “The warmists just don’t know what hit them “ thread is plain wrong. As well as massive winter snowfall the temperatures here have been below average also. The argument that CO2 causes atmospheric heat retention therefore causing colder temperatures and blizzards is the ultimate attempt to deny the overwhelming evidence that the “global warming theory” has been proven to be flat wrong.
Time to call it quits Peter……the cult of global warming has been thwarted.
Feb 10, 2010
The Big Snows in the Mid Atlantic the Result of Global Warming?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Big_Snows_in_the_Mid_Atlantic_the_Result_of_Global_Warming.pdf
MEDIA SPIN ZONE
Time Magazine tells us record Mid-Atlantic snows are consistent with or even resulting from global warming. The equally grumpy and empty headed reporters at MSNBC agreed
The last few years, they ignored the snow that set all-time records further north in much of western and southern Canada, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine and overseas in Europe, south China, Middle East, South America and New Zealand. But when it falls in the normally bare ground Mid-Atlantic and especially in the capitol where the politicians, environmental NGO and alternative energy lobby calls home, it can no longer be ignored (see story here). Especially on a day when NOAA had planned a press release on their new Climate Service, formed to help us deal with a warming world, which instead was done via a phone teleconference.
So to try and save their agenda, the green media and alarmists spin the tale that these storms are what you expect during global warming. Actually friends they conflict with statements from the IPCC and EPA Technical Support Document that drew on the NOAA CCSP.
EPA TSD ES3 “Rising temperatures have generally resulted in rain rather than snow in locations and seasons where climatological average (1961-1990) temperatures were close to 0C. (32F).”
IPCC FAQ 3.2 Observations show that changes are occurring in the amount, intensity, frequency and type of precipitation. More precipitation now falls as rain rather than snow in northern regions. For a future warmer climate, models project a 50 to 100% decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks relative to the present in NH winters in most areas.
A DOSE OF REALITY
Preliminary all-time seasonal snowfall records were set at the three major climate sites in the Baltimore-Washington area…The Washington- Baltimore January average temperatures are near freezing (BWI 32.3F, DCA 34.9F, IAD 31.7F) with at least a month of winter to go.
In February in Dulles, the coldest spot, it averages 34.8. They are running 6.8F below normal so far not warmer. Dulles month-to-date has had 38.6 inches not including today. IAD was 0.8F below normal in December when the first snow came (35.2F vs. 36F average).
As of 2 pm today…with the 9.8 inch two-day snowfall total measured at Ronald Reagan Washington National airport…the seasonal snowfall total stands at 54.9 inches. This would break the previous all-time seasonal snowfall record for Washington DC of 54.4 inches set in the winter of 1898-99. Official snowfall records for Washington DC date back 126 years to 1884.
As of 1 pm today…with the 11.9 inch two-day snowfall total measured at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall airport…the seasonal snowfall total in Baltimore stands at 72.3 inches. This would break the previous all-time seasonal snowfall record for Baltimore of 62.5 inches set in the winter of 1995-96. Official snowfall records for Baltimore date back 118 years to 1893.
Finally…as of 1 pm this afternoon…the two-day snowfall total at Dulles is 8.5 inches…which would make this year’s seasonal snowfall total 72.0 inches…. This would break the previous seasonal snowfall record of 61.9 inches set in 1995-96. Official snowfall records for Dulles date back 48 years to 1962.
More storms are in the El Nino chorus line out into the Pacific, the next as early as next Monday.
Though less snowy this year, recent years have seen big time snows in cities further north.
New York City’s Central Park has a January (their coldest month) average temperature of 0.1C and winter average of 1.0C. For the first time since records began in the 1860s, Central Park reported four successive years of 40 inches of snow or more ending in the winter of 2005/06. On February 11-12, 2006, Central Park broke the all-time single snowstorm record with 26.9 inches of snow. Also in 1995/96, Central Park and most other cities in the central and eastern US had all-time record seasonal snowfall. In Central Park, that winter brought 76 inches of snow.
Boston, MA where the winter temperature averages -0.1C, the 12 year average snowfall in the winter ending 2004/05 was 51.3 inches, the highest in their entire record dating back into the 1800s. A new all-time single snowstorm record was set on February 17-18, 2003 with 27.6 inches and a new all-time seasonal snowfall record of 108 inches was set in 1995/96. Since 1992, Boston has recorded their 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 12th snowiest winters.
We are also told “The extent of NH snow cover has declined”. (IPCC4.2) They go on to say it will decline so much as to endanger the winter sports industry. Well two years ago, Michael Berry, President of the National Ski Areas Association told the AP that “This could very well be the record year”. Across almost all of North America, 2007/08 was the best, or one of the best seasons ever for those who enjoy winter sports. Practically every ski area from Alaska across Canada in the Western U.S. – the Midwest and New England saw plenty of snow; many places reporting all-time record snow.
And January in 2008, a new record for snowcover was set for the hemisphere.
February is likely to set a new record or be among the top snowiest Februarys in the hemisphere. We were in 4th place in 5th week of the year (in 31 years) (below enlarged here).
This is reminiscent of the day in January 2000, when NOAA’s NWS had a press conference to state that they had just made operational a super-computer that should ensure they never again would miss another major storm. The very next day a major nor?easter dumped heavy snow on all the eastern cities not forecast by their super computer and their models just 24 hour ahead. This heralded the Gore effect which is spreading.
By the way while the deal with mail box hiding snow in DC, Northern New England west to Michigan is seeing much below normal snows though it is cold. This is typical in El Ninos but the real driver for locking in the storm track so far south was the 5 standard deviation negative AO in December and again this month. This forces cold air to middle latitudes feeding cold air into the southern storm track especially as El Nino weakens.
BUT ALARMISTS HOLLER “WE PROMISED GLOBAL WARMING WOULD BRING STRONGER STORMS”
The IPCC and NOAA/EPA reports talked about the movement of the storm track to the north. This year we have had snow as far south as Miami and Naples Florida with snow possible Friday in the Gulf States down to the panhandle. More freezes are likely through early last week, where the January cold set records for duration and did serious damage to the citrus (worst freeze damage since 1989).
They also stated the warming would be greatest in higher latitudes. Actually that would decrease the contrast in temperatures north to south, which is what feeds the mid-latitude storms. They should grow weaker not stronger and with warming and the jet stream retreating north not south.
Cooling is what produces clouds and precipitation. The oceans are slowest to cool and give off their heat that feeds the stronger winter storms. The earth is cooling, the folks in the Mid-Atlantic and southeast will attest to that. No media spin to the contrary or data manipulation by NOAA, NASA can convince them otherwise. Read more here.
Climate Götterdämmerung
http://article.nationalreview.com/424508/climate-gtterdmmerung/the-editors
TonyN: re “Ravetz on post normal science” (your 9533). I’ve read Paul Dennis’s take on this – and the interesting comments that follow. It’s heartening that it (and they) accord with the views that I and others have expressed on this thread. What amazes me is that so many WUWT commentators have been duped by Ravetz: see my Trojan Horse comment (9519).
Robin
Don’t you think that most people merely ‘read’ a long convoluted article like that of Ravetz rather than READ it.
Tonyb
From an applied scientist perspective the Ravetz article is absurd. He says:
As engineers we deal with uncertainty all the time. That’s our job. The path forward is usually to collect more data or make a decision based on the data available. One option is always the “do nothing option”. If the uncertainty cannot be reasonably quantified that that is normally the best option.
It seems to me that with AGW, the world is moving towards the option that includes collecting more data and in the meantime the “do nothing” option. This makes sense to me as there is no point in making large expenditures that may turn out to be not required. For example, given the current inadequacy of many of the world’s flood protection works, adaptation is a rational approach. If the data eventually show increased risk of floods we can add more freeboard to the dykes. Many floodplain areas do not have dykes for the existing hazards anyway.
We do not need “post normal science”. We already have the tools to deal with uncertainty.
It’s worth taking a look at Bishop Hill’s take (link) on today’s announcement about the Russell review re the CRU emails. Not encouraging.
TonyB
Yes. And therein lies the danger.
AGW skeptics read about the misdeeds of the scientists in their transition from objective, rational scientists to non-objective, irrational activists, and like what they read, including the self-flagellation and the many implied “mea culpas”.
The underlying message is that we are in a world where “normal science” can no longer provide the answers we need, because “facts are uncertain and values are in dispute”.
And then comes the hammer. Because of these uncertainties, and the fact that the “stakes are high and decisions are urgent”, we must invoke “post-normal science”.
This is obviously a scam. It essentially absolves policy makers from presenting sound empirical evidence based on “normal science” to support the postulation of potentially devastating AGW in order to back their desired political agenda.
The “stakes are so high” that “urgent decisions” are required (and “Big Brother” knows what’s best, a.k.a. “governance” of science by policy makers).
By this time most skeptics have dozed off, having enjoyed the first part of Ravetz’ essay without absorbing the more ominous second part, which, in effect, is the key message Ravetz wants to convey.
Max
Max #9540
Yes, that was my point-many people read something superficially, especially when it is long and complex, and quickly form an impression based on this quick skim and their understanding of the first few paragraphs. This being an article on WUWT most people assumed it would be sceptical and read it on that basis.
PNS doesn’t excuse the intellectual absurdity that underlies it, but its use enables its proponents to create the urgent and compelling message that we have to do something NOW or ELSE!
The evolution of our climate happens slowly and has many precedents, so there is no need for panic measures. Indeed I don’t believe there is any excuse for PNS in ANY branch of science, let alone one that unfolds as slowly as the climate.
The punch line was- as you observed- in the second part of the paper, by which time peoples assumptions had already been made.
It is remarkable how many people re read the piece once a few people had pointed out that their initial perceptions were incorrect.
It was however an interesting and thought provoking paper but perhaps ultimately illustrates the fragile nature of climate science if they need to believe post normal science is an appropriate alternative to REAL science.
Tonyb
Update on my 9539: one member (Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature) has withdrawn from Russell’s panel – following (according to Channel 4 News (link) the revelation by Bishop Hill of his prejudicial views. This a major embarrassment for Russell: he’s taken 3 months to set up this panel yet already one of its members has had to withdraw. And Russell knew nothing of his views? Who’ll go next? Bishop Hill thinks Geoffrey Boulton, the ex-UEA man who has spoken out strongly in the past in favour of the global warming position, may be a candidate. As BH puts it,
“Post Normal Science” – isn’t it just a fancy name for now-ism that we discussed a few weeks ago ?
See also “year-zero”, “Pol Pot”, etc
Re Ravetz and PNS, I suggest (again) that those who haven’t done so read this Scientist for Truth essay.
TonyB (9541)
Not only is “post-normal science” perceived to be an “appropriate alternate” to “REAL science” in the eyes of AGW-supporters, it is the absolutely essential alternate, since the premise that AGW is a serious threat is nor supported by “REAL science”.
Post-normal science is (as another blogger has opined) “PONZIscience”. I would call it “agenda driven science”.
It rests on the flawed suggestion (and circular logic) that “the State” has the (“Big Brother”) duty to provide “governance” of the scientific method to ensure that “urgent decisions” are taken (and implemented) to avert a postulated disaster, even when the “facts are uncertain” and the “values in dispute”, based on REAL (or “normal”) science, because the “stakes” (as postulated by these uncertain facts and disputed values) are so “high”.
It is astonishing that the RS, once a strong proponent of the scientific method as practiced in “normal” (or REAL) science, now supports the totally non-scientific concept of “post-normal science”.
Max
Robin 9544
Very interesting article, especially bearing in mind it was written prior to climate gate
Max
The Royal Society was hijacked by an activist and much of their tired and risible web site belongs to that era. It will be intriguing to see how it will develop in future. Perhaps it will reflect recent revelations and thus get closer to their motto once more ‘take nobody’s word as final.’
Tonyb
TonyB/Max:
Re the RS motto, it seems it has been quietly changed: from Nullius in Verba (usually translated as ‘on the word of no one’) to the authoritarian ‘respect the facts’. See this article.
BTW it’s well worth continuing to read the comments on the WUWT Ravetz essay – especially the exchange between tallbloke (who set up the essay) and Willis Eschenbach and ScientistForTruth (see my 9544).
Robin
Sounds like another example of post normal science as what the motto is really saying is ‘respect OUR facts!”
I am afraid my respect for this organisation diminished when they took on their eco activist (who was last seen being alarmist at an insurance co) Their web site is frankly a disgrace. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Ps I am still following the original thread-it was interesting to see the identity of ‘Tallbloke’
Tonyb
TonyB:
Commenting on the RS, a WUWT contributor says,