(For nearly a year now, Peter Martin has been a regular contributor to a remarkable thread which started at the New Statesman and is now, nearly 6000 comments later, hosted at Harmless Sky. By energetically representing a point of view that most of the other contributors disagree with, he makes sure that none of us get complacent. Thanks Peter!)
There are many thousands of posts on numerous websites, both arguing for and against the scientific consensus position on global warming, or climate change if you prefer. There is probably no precedent for such a scientific controversy. Previous disputes about smoking and health, or evolutionary theory seem relatively tame by comparison. There have been other scientific controversies over the years, which have been settled, as they should in the way that science should settle them, by a process of discussion and acceptance. Famously, Einstein had conceptual problems with the ideas of quantum mechanics that were emerging in the 1920s and 30’s. Schrodinger, himself a pioneer of quantum mechanical theory, was uncomfortable with some of the philosophical implications, expressed doubts, asked difficult questions and was happy to test his own theories against the general scepticism of many physicists at the time.
There are still unanswered questions. Scientific controversy on quantum mechanics still exists but to a much lesser extent. And yet, no votes have been taken. There have been debates but not in the sense that there are debates over political issues. Science does move along in the way that politics does not. It is hard to imagine that socialists and conservatives will engage in a process of give and take and move along to the next issue in a spirit of a new emerging consensus. It would be hard to imagine George Bush, for instance, even after he had just about nationalised all the US banks, admitting that perhaps he had it all wrong for years, and that maybe Marx and Engels were right, especially in point five of their Communist Manifesto, a call to nationalise all banks. And, equally difficult to imagine Fidel Castro giving a speech on the benefits that a controlled capitalism might bring to a more democratic Cuba.
The debate on the global warming issue, almost uniquely for science, has taken on very much the same characteristics. Trenches have been dug. Positions have been taken. It would be just as difficult to imagine a Lindzen or a Hansen making concessions to each other as a Bush or a Castro. Politics has taken over the AGW debate lock, stock and smoking barrels. On the left, those of an anti-capitalist persuasion have eagerly accepted the scientific evidence as it emerged in the late 20th century, and have very much sought to use it as a means of putting the brakes on a rampant capitalism. On the right, those who were very much enjoying the ride on the juggernaut were equally concerned that too much attention to environmentalist concerns of all kinds, not just the CO2 issue, could jeopardise a record period of continuous growth. Once it is accepted that it is this conflict which has fuelled the debate in the blogosphere, and elsewhere, rather than an intrinsic concern over whether Mann had it right with his ‘hockey stick’ graph or whether Spencer was correct to say that the clouds in general are responsible for a negative feedback effect, which acts to stabilise the climate against the effects of higher CO2 concentrations then the sooner some progress may be made.
It very much looks like the capitalist juggernaut which has flattened all before it in the last twenty years, or more, has finally run out of momentum. All by itself! Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the system have been unable to blame the so far limited introduction of carbon trading schemes, or carbon taxes, for the likely demise of their preferred system. Many are now asking where we should go from here. There are those who will be still hoping that late 20th century neo-liberalism, or laissez-faire capitalism, can be given a period on a life-support system and re-emerge stronger and more vital than ever. There will be those arguing for just about every conceivable alternative, from 20th century Maoism, to a return to a quasi-medieval lifestyle. We could look at moving to something that is totally untried and untested in the same way the post revolutionary Russians tried to implement what they considered to be Marxism but ended up as Stalinism. It might be safer to not experiment too much at this difficult time but look at, and choose, the political system that has worked the most consistently well in the 20th century. Yes, the European mixed economy model of the post war period and which enabled the continent to recover from almost complete devastation in less than fifteen years. On all measures of a healthy society: low crime rates, full employment, equal opportunity for all, an avoidance of too great a gap between rich and poor, but still allowing for those who would wish to set up their own entrepreneurial activities; that system scores pretty well and still survives, if in somewhat diluted form, in many European and other countries, including Australia.
That is not to say that there should be no attempt at improvement. Everyone will have their own opinion. I would suggest a much greater degree of industrial democracy to avoid the replacement of private capitalism with a kind of state capitalism. It has been difficult to resist the temptation to tease some right-wing Americans over the ‘socialism’ of their government’s actions in nationalising USA banks and insurance companies in recent weeks. And yet, no one refers to Singapore as a socialist state even though it is quite normal for Singaporean banks and industry to be government owned. Maybe that thought will allow some Americans to sleep a little easier at night!
If, and when, a new political consensus does emerge over the direction to be followed, as it did in the post war period, it should be possible to review the science in a much less partisan manner. If climate change is then considered likely to be on the higher range of IPCC predictions then it could very well be too late to prevent serious consequences. On the other hand if we are lucky, and the levels look to be on the lower side it is quite likely that a genuine worldwide consensus can easily emerge on that issue too and sensible mitigation measures adopted. It will probably displease the more backward looking greens and die hard sceptics in equal measure, and that in itself will be a good indication that we have finally got it right.
This isn’t a political question. And I’m not sure that I can answer for the IPCC either. I wouldn’t expect the IPCC to necessarily repeat the same graph from one report to the next. Just a simple reference back would be all that was needed. Are you saying that Mann had become a non -person? Are you saying he wasn’t mentioned or his 1999 paper referenced?
You might be interested in this link
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
in which Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code.
Pete, Reur 26,
I’m flummoxed by what you say, which presumably is in response to my third F/U to my yet unanswered #15. I guess your purpose in your #26 was to change the subject and thus avoid the plainly political question that I originally asked of you. You even charged that it was NOT a political question!!!!
(That makes me think of those Centurions in “Life of Brian” slowly shaking their heads at observing some quarrelling Jews!)
I am utterly NOT INTERESTED in your attempted distractions from my #15 question!
I have rechecked my #15, and cannot find any ambiguity in it. It contains background in normal font, but the question itself was specially emphasised in bold font. Here it is again, copy-pasted without change, below the line:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please note that the actual question above is in bold font, and that the regular font is background, which in itself, you need not address.
On a FOURTH ask: would you please answer that question shown in bold font above?
Bob
I’ve moved your test comment to Admin
Bob_FJ,
For a start Mann, his papers and famous diagram weren’t dropped. They were referenced several times.
Secondly the paleontological temperature record is a purely scientific issue. I doubt that you’ll find it included in the curriculum of any university course on politics for instance.
I’ve not yet contributed on this blog.
The questionably scientific Aryan “super race” theory became political when it was espoused by Adolf Hitler, the “Führer” of Nazi Germany, particularly when it became the justification for enforcing the political agenda of “racial cleansing” of Germany (and the rest of Europe) of “non-Aryans” (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.) in order to “purify” the race.
Although admittedly much less sinister, the questionably scientific AGW theory has also become political today, now that it has been espoused by politicians to enhance their power by enforcing the implementation of a political agenda of imposing draconian taxes on all of humanity to allegedly “force” a reduction in its use of fossil fuels in order to “save the planet”.
Is there a difference between the two? Certainly.
Is there an inherent similarity as well?
Yes, there obviously is.
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 29,
I find your post to be either a confused or disingenuous response to my 27, which was a fourth follow-up to my question @ 15. Crikey, how many times need I ask!
OK, let’s try another way, by re-shaping my POLITICAL question and adding some more background:
The discredited MBH99 Hockey-stick as partially modified by the IPCC, for their TAR (2001 report), appeared in slight variations, in six (?) different sections of the report.
Just like Manna, it was VERY POPULAR around the IPCC, and it had massive political impact around the world with policy makers, the media, and even in a famous movie by Al Gore. (Apparently still required viewing by some “educationalists“).
Below is a close simile in terms of actual size, of how it appeared as Fig 5, on page 29, in the WG1 Technical Summary. (The exact original from there is more difficult to transcribe). Yes, indeed, this “White Charger” was posted at stand-out full-page width in the technical summary, just to make sure presumably that no one failed to notice it there.
If no image, try:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/3093871071_2c4a1b9802_o.gif
OK Pete; are you able to see the image OK? It is known as the Hockey-stick. (AKA hockeystick, Manna-graph, etc). It appeared many times in the TAR (2001) but NOT in AR4, the 2007 IPCC report.
Here is the question, expressed immediately below in bold font as one whole single sentence:
Please advise why you think the hockey-stick, as elaborated above, was dropped from the AR4?
No semantics or distractions please; just answer the question.
Bob_FJ,
It strikes me that you haven’t actually read the 2007 IPCC report. The graph in question hasn’t been dropped but appears on page 467 of Chapter 6.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Maybe you should at least read this chapter.
A couple of things:
First, our new president-elect said today that
For those of us who seek truth ‘wherever it may lead’, we have our work cut out for us.
Secondly, to Peter: In the fall you wrote on numerous occasions about the large US debt, and how the Chinese are funding it, and that they may not wish to do so in the future. You also mentioned several times how the US dollar might not be the “reserve currency” in the future, based on its weakness against other major world currencies. I responded to your former position that (at that time) the Japanese are actually the largest holder of US government securities.
The financial crisis has changed everything. Due to uncertainty the world financial experts are turning in droves to the safety of US Treasury Notes. So much so that the yield on some debt instruments is now a net negative. In other words, people are desperate for the safety of US Treasuries, that they are willing to not just buy the notes at record costs, but take a net loss on the interest. The US Treasury is actually making money lending!
So much for the demise of the US as a financial powerhouse.
JZ,
Yes, there doesn’t seem to be much justice in the world’s financial system. For the last decade the the Australian government has loudly proclamed its virtue in balancing its books and accumulating a budgetary suplus. On the other hand, you guys have been spending money , like its going out of fashion, and running a deficit of getting on for half a trillion dollars per year.
And yet, when the excrement hits the fan, it’s the Aussie dollar, not the US dollar, that falls by 40%!
Of course that can only happen because the USA dollar is the world’s reserve currency. The US economy is fortunate to be in the same position as Citibank and other US financial istitutions. Too big to fail.
Can it last? I would say not. But if I could correctly forecast the movement of the world’s currencies I wouldn’t have to do anything else and soon would be a multi-millionaire.
Peter Martin, Reur32;
You claim that the image I posted in my 31, that is widely known as the “Hockey-stick“, appears on page 467 of chapter 6 of AR4 WG1”.
However, it DOES NOT appear there OR in any other section of AR4 (IPCC 2007)
You apparently claim that the following image, (on page 6-467), is the same:
IF no image click following URL
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/3098911389_9aa376b796_o.jpg
But very clearly it is visually NOT the same, and it contains a HOST of SCIENTIFIC differences. (please visually compare it with 31 above)
In fact, your pseudo version claim is widely known affectionately by another name as; “The Spaghetti Graph”. Furthermore it has been discussed repeatedly on the parallel “NS-continued” thread, and elsewhere, as being in a different context to the “Hockey-stick“.
Consequently, you have not answered my question originating at my 15 above. Before I ask that POLITICAL question yet again, on YOUR political blog, for the sixth time, I should add some more background, just in case you still do not understand what the question is.
In the TAR (3AR) 2001, the hockey-stick, as copy-imaged in my 31 above, appeared I believe six times. (with minor variations throughout). The most important section in terms of its very powerful impressionism on policy-makers and media et al was probably the WG1 SPM 2001, and to a lesser degree, the TS 2001, and it is doubtful that the “politicians“ had the interest or stamina in ploughing through the other and vaster areas of the 2001 IPCC report, or specifically the WG1 Ch.6 that you quote.
The “Hockey-stick”, does not only NOT appear in the vast main “Scientific Basis” 2007 section, but neither in the lesser sections such as the POLITICALLY important WG1 SPM in 2007.
However, for an example of “the alarmist world” out there, when it comes to the great oracle Gore, I see from extracts that he hugs the “Hockey-stick” in his mockumentary movie. I have not seen the whole movie, but does he also embrace the “Spaghetti Graph”? (I guess NO! …. Now why could that be!)
See how the discredited “Hockey-stick” still lives “OUT THERE” in doomsland, and yet the IPCC has dropped it like a scolded cat?
And, do politicians show a habit of changing their stance after once having committed publically to such?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of background~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here again for the SIXTH time, is the question, expressed immediately below in bold font as one whole single sentence:
Please advise why you think the hockey-stick, as elaborated above, was dropped from the AR4?
No semantics or distractions please; just answer the question.
I’ve just replied but lost it all to the spam filter!
Tony, can you retrieve it? Otherwise I’ll have to retype it.
Thanks.
Second go!
Bob_FJ,
The one I was thinking about was this one:
The subject of the graph is the paleoclimatic record. And the title of the relevant IPCC chapter is, er, “Paleoclimate”. So I can’t see any problem, or cause for whinging, there.
Mann himself is referenced 8 times in this chapter alone. However, his is not the only hockey stick. There are others, some showing a more pronounced MWP, some showing that there was not much of one at all. I agree that it is curious that a farm has been found under the Greenland permafrost and that there is 1000 year old evidence of human activity in Alpine glaciers.
It is important to know if these warmer conditions were localised to Europe and the North Atlantic or were indicative of generally warmer global temperatures. However, the rabid attacks that have to be suffered by you lot, when they dare to suggest the the MWP wasn’t as warm or as global as you’d like it to have been are not conducive to a constructive discussion on the matter.
It is quite likely that the conditions in 10th century Greenland were just about the same as they are now. It is also quite likely that ocean currents were at least partially responsible and that global temperatures were slightly cooler than they are currently. Whatever the truth does turn out to be, it won’t change the CO2 induced warming that has been seen in the last 40 years.
Bob, I know that you are desperate to have a debate on the lack of a hockey stick in IPCC 2007. But, I don’t think I’m the person you are looking for. You really need to find someone who agrees with you that it has indeed been omitted and that the IPCC have fundamentally changed their position.
Re: #34, Peter
No sign of a comment from you in the spam filter I’m afraid.
Peter Martin, Reur 37
You have confirmed above that your purpose in opening this your thread was to discuss political issues in the AGW debate. However, you seem to be determined either to avoid answering my POLITICAL question first raised in my 15, (by you using various distractions), OR you still do not understand what the question is.
Here is an analogy discussing an advertising sign that has been used by another big business, but which has been criticised by some observers whom have suggested that it is overtly sexist in nature. Despite that it has been wonderfully successful, beyond belief, but aware of criticism and possible religious problems in some opening markets, McDonald’s are rumoured to be exploring the possibility of a new sign which is labelled B below, in order to TOTALLY replace A.
Here is a guidance question for you, following in bold font:
Peter, can you see any difference between sign A and sign B in the image below?
If no image, click link: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/3103063649_800cfa312c_o.jpg
If you are able to respond to this question OK, we can perhaps return to my original question.
Bob_FJ,
As I’m in a good mood I’ve drawn in a nice hockey stick for you in the graph.
I’m somewhat Agnostic on whether there will or will not turn out to be a worldwide MWP. I accept that there was one in the North Atlantic, but it could just a displacement of heat from the Tropics.
Is the MWP really a political issue? I don’t remember ever getting into a heated argument with anyone about this. I can’t see the new Labor government in Canberra giving it debating time in the House. There won’t be demonstrations on the streets. Can you imagine? A guy with a megaphone leading the crowd:
“Medieval Warm Period!” And the crowd chant back “Out!”
“MWP!”… “Out!”
“MWP!” … “Out! Out! Out!”
Or “What do we want?”
The answer comes back ” No Medieval Warm Period!”
“And when do we want it?” ….. “Now!”
Or maybe that should be 1000 years ago.
Peter Martin, Reur 40
Were you trying to open a NEW discussion?
I can’t see that your dissertation, (although fairly entertaining), was related in any way to my question in my 39, so let me first remind you of the question that I posed, which was an expanded ask on your suspect ability to understand an earlier question.
Please refer to the following illustration:
If no image, click: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/3103063649_800cfa312c_o.jpg
The basic question was, (rephrased), is the figure on the left, different to the figure on the right. (Seems a fairly simple question?)
I would expect as a simple lucid answer, you might respond acceptably with:
A) Yes they are different. (or words to that effect)
On the other hand, a much deeper thinking response, not anticipated of you, might be something like:
B) Yes they are different in this respect: The original eye-grabbing sexy “Big M” symbol has been replaced by a rather modest M buried within a host of other alphas in a spaghetti in subtle colours that are hard to distinguish between. And….
Pete, is there any chance that you could actually answer the question I posed in my 39?
Hi Peter,
From your exchange with BobFJ, I can see that you love hockey sticks.
Here is an updated one for your enjoyment.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur # 3230 on the NS thread: you wrote to me:
As usual you are not good at referencing what it is you are actually responding to, but I think you were intending it to be to my # 41 above. (a different thread)
Let me try and make it clear again that I asked you why in my # 15 above if you would explain why the hockey stick known as MBH99, in accolade in many places was not used again by the IPCC after the TAR (IPCC 2001).
You can wriggle as much as you like, by claiming they used something else, in 2007, and various other waffle, including some “scientific” aspects, but that does not answer this political question. (If they used something else, instead of the Gorey original, it means they did not use it again…. Got it?)
This is my ninth attempt to get you to answer a very simple political question on your thread which you raised to address political questions.
Please answer that question starting in #15, and perhaps pay special attention to the full scale graphic of the hockey-stick per TAR/2001, at my #31, so that you are not confused about what it is, per its UNIQUE visual and misleading impact on policymakers in 2001, was not used again in 2007.
Bob_FJ,
Maybe you are referring to this type of political pressure on the IPCC?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2191
It describes how “Robert Watson, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, has been ousted from his job as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This followed the withdrawal of support by the US government, apparently at the behest of the oil company ExxonMobil, which had lobbied against him.”
Of course it is quite possible that the IPCC assessment reports are being ‘watered down’ as a result of political influences. There must always be worries that the messenger is going to be shot instead of listened to.
avec http://www.inutiledepayer.com j
Peter Martin, in your 44 to me you wrote in part:
Well, absolutely no: that was NOT what I was asking! You could have sensibly answered either yes or no to the actual question…. Very simple! I have asked you a series of NINE questions before this, NONE of which you have sensibly responded to. For instance, if you are unable to tell the difference between the two MacDonald’s signs in my 39 and 41, perhaps it is time to examine you with an intelligence test on another. Please exercise your grey matter and study the following image:
It is an Oz roadside sign, approaching the township of Yass.
Here is the IQ test question:
Can you see something that is amusing/funny about this roadside sign?
Hint; (Clue); be aware of American spelling!
Peter Martin, Remy 46,
I realise it may be a difficult question for you.
Do you need more time to ponder?
Look, I’m a generous guy; here two more clues:
1) Toilet.
2) Rude and crude.
Hey Pete,
This ‘ere is the “political” thread that you instigated!
I posed you with one “political question” at #15, and you subsequently waffled and evaded that question for over 30 additional posts.
Wherefore art thou on that question, and a couple of tests I presented to you on your ability to perceive variances in the physical shape of certain graphics?
Bob_FJ,
Thanks for reminding me about post #15. I did think for quite a while that you were being your usual inebriated pain-in-the-arse about this.
But, after some reflection I do now realise that you may well have had a point. The IPCC may be more subject now to political pressure than they were in 2001.
Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC’s leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.
At last we seem to be able to agree on something!
Peter
Can you post a link to that memo from Exxon? I missed it.
The IPCC’s remit is to provide objective assessments of climate research. Watson is now an adviser to our Environment Minister and for a while after his appointment the government PR used his extraordinary pronouncements quite a lot, but we have heard nothing from him for a long time now. Perhaps Hillary Benn got a memo from Exxon too.
Objective Watson ain’t. Perhaps that is why advocates of AGW saw his exit from IPCC as such a great loss to the cause. Only when the IPCC has an objective chairman and still manages to produce alarming assessments will it become credible. But can you even begin to imagine the IPCC with an objective chairman?