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.
Now this is very interesting
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/23/met-office-pushes-a-surface-temperature-data-do-over/#more-16655
TonyB and PeterM
The similarities between the ozone hole / CFC connection and the current AGW premise are there, but there are major differences as well.
Switching to new refrigerants cost some money at the time (even if in hindsight it may not have accomplished anything as far as the ozone hole is concerned, as JamesP points out), but this is nothing in comparison of what AGW “mitigation” schemes would cost the world. And, worse yet, it has been shown that no actionable mitigation schemes, which have been proposed to date, will cause any discernable change in the rate of warming of our planet.
So we’d better be a lot more certain we’re right this time than we were with the ozone hole scare.
As it looks today, the “science” supporting the AGW premise is beginning to unravel before our very eyes, as revelation after revelation of sloppy science, data manipulation and outright lying / scare mongering are exposed.
Most importantly, as Robin has pointed out repeatedly (most recently in 9675), the AGW premise does not stand up to the basic principles of scientific inquiry in the first place.
So it looks like the “climatologists” need to get their story together before we embark on destroying the world economy to theoretically reduce global warming by 2100 by 0.5deg C (maybe).
Another difference between “then” and “now”. During the ozone hole scare, the “vested interests” you mention, Peter, were on the side opposing the CFC ban.
Today, the “vested interests” are on the side of the AGW movement, with trillions of dollars at stake. These “vested interests” had built up quite a bit of momentum before the current series of Climategate scandals began taking their toll.
So there are similarities, as Peter points out, but lots of key differences, as well.
Max
PeterM
The “tobacco/AGW” connection is an artifact that has been created to provide a polemic argument in favor of the multibillion dollar AGW premise.
Almost all of the many scientists who do not support the AGW premise had no connection whatsoever with “tobacco”.
Watts is right in calling this a ludicrous comparison.
Sachs has a hard time arguing for AGW with logic and reason, so he has to throw in emotion and polemic instead.
Just points to the weakness in his argument.
Max
PeterM
You state (9673):
This sounds like exactly the current “vested interests” supporting AGW are using to try to counter the Climategate revelations.
Is that what you were getting at?
Max
This is the paper that Ravetz (WUWT thread) links to in defending post normal science. It is a truly astonishing and deeply disturbing litany of the means employed to use science as a political tool to promote their own beliefs.
If anyone wants any evidence that science has long ago been abandoned in favour of politics and beliefs just read this.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Ozone Hole:
Interesting that Susan Solomon became vice-chair for WG1 in AR4
I seem to remember that the hole was reported to be the largest ever in 2006
Max,
You say the “AGW premise does not stand up to the basic principles of scientific inquiry in the first place.”
And, of course , that is exactly what was said about tobacco, acid rain, CFCs etc.
One of the common objections to the CFC/ozone depletion theory was that CFCs were heavier than air and therefore would not rise high enough in the atmosphere to cause a problem. That sounds quite plausible and most people would have accepted it to be true. It is one of those ‘common sense’ arguments which turns out to be quite wrong.
Yet, even though this was pointed out time after time, it continued to be repeated. Just like all the well worn arguments against the AGW/CO2 link continue to be corrected but are then repeated!
Don’t you see the pattern? I’m sure you do!
PeterM
You wrote:
Yes, Peter.
It is also “exactly what was said about” creationism, intelligent design, and many other unproven hypotheses.
In the case of tobacco and cancer, there have been many clinical trials and other direct empirical evidence that smoking increases the risk of cancer. Such empirical evidence does not exist that human CO2 emissions cause dangerous climate change.
Acid rain was shown by empirical evidence to have been caused by SO2 emissions, as I recall. There are some striking examples of the effect of SO2 emissions on forests, which are well documented.
The CFC / ozone hole hypothesis was never supported by empirical evidence (although the chemical reactions in a laboratory environment pointed in that direction).
It appears that most recent developments actually tend to refute the CFC / ozone hole link, tying this to natural changes in cosmic rays rather than human CFCs.
So the record shows that those hypotheses that were not supported by empirical evidence turned out to be questionable, while the others turned out too be real.
The premise of dangerous AGW just does not yet have the support of empirical scientific evidence, as Robin has pointed out to you repeatedly, so it is questionable rather than real.
Max
Max,
Re: 9677
Have to disagree with you here my friend.
Service tools and equipment had to be specially designed and purchased to deal with CFC/HCFC reclamation.
A typical service visit has been compounded due to the cumbersome (and pointless) exercise of reclaiming and recycling Freon (equipment and additional man-hours).
An entirely new industry had to be created to deal with recycling and repackaging these chemicals.
As refrigerants were phased out new refrigerants had to be developed.
Wholesalers must pay a “floor tax” for any refrigerants that they happen to have on their premises at any given time.
As Freon 11 and Freon 12 we’re phased out the commercial refrigerant plants/equipment that utilized these compounds had to remove the existing equipment and install upgraded equipment that was capable of dealing with the new “cleaner” (highly toxic) refrigerants that have been developed since.
Don’t even mention Halon…………
All of the costs associated with these enacted laws/guidelines were passed directly to you and me………we paid for it through higher service costs, utility bills, operating expenses and higher taxes (and we are continuously paying for it).
The next time the air conditioner in your car stops working think about how much it used to cost to recharge it versus what it costs now.
If anyone ever took the time to calculate the costs associated with this little exercise, they’d find the costs staggering.
The funny thing is, the process of dealing with compliance to CFC laws has certainly increased emissions of (the dreaded) CO2.
Moscow Mayor Promises a Winter Without Snow
Friday, Oct. 16, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1930822,00.html
Russian capital Moscow covered by record 63cm snowfall
22 February 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8529506.stm
More snow in Dallas, approaching all-time winter record…
23 February 2010
http://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/stories/More-Snow-Expected-Tonight-84994822.html
Max,
“Empirical” just means information obtained by observation or measurement. The obvious “empirical” examples would be the surface and satellite temperature records of the Earth’s surface.
You keep parroting on that there is no empirical evidence for AGW but of course there is. I agree that it is not proof. It is just possible that the rise in CO2 levels is just co-incidental with late 20th century warming. It is possible that it could be something like Cosmic rays. Possible but unlikely.
The mainstream scientific position is that the evidence, which is not the same as absolute proof, does point to the most likely explanation being that the build up of GHG’s has caused the recent warming.
Further my 9681 titled Ozone Hole:
All: Whoops, I described Susan Solomon as vice-chair for WG1 AR4, whereas the correct term is I believe: Co-Chair…. No pun was intended.
I see that she is also a co-author, one of 17, (yes seventeen) in the following paper, that Max may be reviewing for the Chris Colose blog:
Fact Sheet for “Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature
Trends in the Tropical Troposphere”, by B.D. Santer et al, (championed by RC)
(Ben Santer, Peter Thorne, Leo Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante,
Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, Peter Gleckler, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, Steve Klein, Carl
Mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steve Sherwood, and Frank Wentz)
Has anyone seen such a huge authorship of all the usual suspects before? It must be a really good paper what?
However, Steve McIntyre has some pretty heavy critiques; see links on next 2 posts:
Link 1 & 2 for 9867 http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/28/santer-et-al-2008-worse-than-we-thought/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/16/santer-et-al-2008/
Link 3 for 9867
http://climateaudit.org/2008/12/28/no-data-archiving-at-the-international-journal-of-climatology/
Peter #9686
But the flaw in that argument is that temperatures have risen and fallen before without the help (apparently) of heightened CO2. In effect we are steadfastly ignoring numerous pieces of historic evidence demonstrating that the basic proppsition is flawed.
Do take a trip over to Chiefio to see how temperature measurements are concocted.
Tonyb
Peter (9673)
Please try to distinguish between authors – I didn’t use the word ‘unproven’, I quoted it! Still, as you seem to have a fixation with the word, I would point out that ‘proof’ is not as absolute as you maintain. Dictionary definitions are not that rigid and include “factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something” which seems to fit Peter and Max’s calls for a causal link between CO2 and AGW very nicely.
The old meaning (as in ‘proof of the pudding’) was simply “having been tested or tried”, which also suits the scientific case. Absolute proof, which seems to be your interpretation, is a nice idea, but vanishingly rare.
To return to CFC’s, the effect on the ozone layer is due to chlorine, which (rather like CO2) occurs naturally in far larger quantities than was ever man-made and whose replacement, as Brute notes, has cost a fortune; and for what?
The ozone layer appears not to care whether we produce CFC’s or not, while the ban has inconvenienced everyone except the producers, who have simply switched to supplying other refrigerants and propellants, and have passed the cost on to us. Among other things that Brute mentions, the ban has effectively tripled the cost of managing asthma!
Fairly interesting article on peer review.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8227/
Links in nicely to the use of topics like ozone hole and tobacco with.
It looks like you guys, in continuing to attack the science behind the banning of CFCs are agreeing with Jeffrey Sachs. You are a bunch of recycled critics!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science
Max won’t be pleased. He’s saying that Jeffrey Sachs is lying!
There is a legal phrase of “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. That’s not really proof at all. It means that the balance of evidence is sufficient to find someone guilty. And, of course often a guilty verdict turns out to be wrong when new evidence comes to light.
If lawyers were as honest as scientists they would talk about the balance of probabilities. However it’s difficult to send someone to prison, or even execute them, if the court classified guilty vedicts as 99%, 95%, 90% safe or whatever. But that’s the reality.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. That means yes or no. Once a mathematical theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will ever threaten its status as a proven theorem, unless a flaw is discovered in the proof. Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory, which embodies scientific knowledge, is final.
All scientists know this. The problem is, especially the last sentence of the above paragraph, that a genuine explanation does allow you guys to twist the real meaning of scientific evidence in your campaign of disinformation.
PeterM
You wrote:
Sorry, Peter. You’re wrong again. Read my 9683 again.
The “science behind the banning of CFCs” was a bit less convincing than that on smoking and cancer or acid rain and sulfur emissions. This is being confirmed by recent new “science”, which shows a link between the ozone hole depletion to cosmic ray activity. We’ll see if banning CFCs really does cause the ozone hole to recover or not. That will be the real test.
But this all has absolutely nothing to do with the “science” supporting the AGW premise. Sachs is using the usual irrelevant side track approach employed by those who have no convincing arguments to support their premise(i.e. “climate deniers” are the same as “smoking causes cancer” deniers).
Are you falling into the same trap, Peter?
If so, is it because you have no good arguments to support your AGW premise?
Max
Peter your 9693
You didn’t read what I said in my #9674.
I took the time and trouble to consult the best brains in the world on CFC’s. They are the Max Planck institute, Cambridge University and Qing Bin Lui.
The observational and instrumental evidence is that the ozone hole has not reduced. Both Max Planck and Cambridge confirm they have no idea how big the hole was pre 1950 and that it might have been bigger, smaller, or non existent. Qing bin lui has bneen studying the hole for years and believes that cosmic rays are a partial cause.
What investigation have you done? You have simply assumed that man has been responsible. Where’s the evidence? What has been achieved by banning CFC’s? Have you any idea at all whether or not a hole existed prior to it being discovered in the 1950’s?
It is you that is being irrational. Ironically the hole over the Antarctic has been partially caused by lower than normal temperatures-for that reason a hole doesn’t tend to form over the Arctic-its generally not cold enough for long enough.
Tonyb
PeterM
You digress in your dissertation concerning the differences between legal proof of guilt and scientific evidence supporting a hypothesis.
The scientific process is well defined, so no comparison with other processes is required.
Validation of a scientific hypothesis is based on empirical evidence obtained through actual physical observations or experiments.
The premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potential threat, has not been validated by this process.
And that is the subject here, Peter, not the legal process.
Max
PeterM
You opined:
Leave out the judgmental accusations, Peter.
We are not accusing you of “twisting the real meaning of scientific evidence in your campaign of disinformation”, although our justification for doing so would be just as good as yours.
Stick with facts, Peter, not silly accusations.
Max
PeterM
You wrote:
The surface temperature record goes back to 1850. Over this period there have been cyclical warming and cooling periods of around 30 years per warming or cooling cycle, with no apparent correlation with increased CO2, which occurred at a steady, gradually accelerating rate.
The satellite record started in 1979. In the short “blip” since then we saw warming until the end of 2000 and cooling since then.
The surface record also shows this late 20th century warming trend, albeit at a slightly faster rate than the satellite record.
The cyclical nature of the temperature record versus the slowly accelerating rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 points to something else being the principal cause for the temperature increase.
The unusually high level of 20th century solar activity has been cited by several solar scientists as a major part of the cause.
Other scientists have pointed to changes in various ocean circulaion patterns, such as ENSO, which is recognized as having been a major cause of late 20th century warming, including the warmest year, 1998.
The fact that the most recent “blip” after 2000 shows a cooling trend despite record increase in CO2 also does not not strengthen the case for the AGW premise.
The rationalization by Met Office that the current cooling is caused by natural forcing factors raises the question of whether or not these same natural forcing factors could not have been responsible for the early and late 20th century warming cycles, further weakening the case for the AGW premise.
As can be seen from the above, the record certainly does not provide any empirical evidence that (a) AGW has been a significant factor in the observed warming or (b) that AGW is a serious threat.
So the observed empirical facts are really not very supportive of the AGW premise.
Max
This is a couple of weeks old, but it looks like US President Obama is backing off of linking “cap ‘n tax” with “job creation”.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041632860721438.html#articleTabs=article