Bishop Hill The climate wars
Sep 7, 2008 BBC Climate: MWP Just finished watching the BBC's history of the climate wars in which a geologist called Ian Stewart manages to emit more carbon dioxide than most people manage in a year. In episode one he managed to visit Hawaii, Greenland, Colorado, the south-west of England, California. A powerboat trip was, of course, essential to his historical case. which was largely a predictable environmentalist take on the last half century. .
It included a wonderful moment where Ian Stewart tried to write off a committee reporting on the issue of climate change by saying its head was "a passionate believer in free markets". Well, that settles it then. He did engage in some pretty grubby innuendo at times.
The programme adviser was Naomi Oreskes, which kind of gives you an idea of the integrity of the piece. Oreskes has a companion piece in the Sunday Times today, which rather suggests that the show is part of a campaign rather than a serious attempt at a history of the controversy.
One interesting point was that when they got onto the subject of temperature reconstructions, they only talked about ice cores and not tree rings. It's possible that they'll cover this next week, but could it be that they are going to skip over the subject of the hockey stick entirely? They couldn't could they?
Reader Comments (38)
Regarding the believer in free markets,, well, free markets is a very ambiguous idea 'kicking away the ladder' etc, free but not that free.
I do believe that the way markets manifest are very problematic,, esp from a christian conservative perspectve (you may find ths laughable, I don't consider myself a christiian, but I was bought up in the faith and still have such bias regarding values, ethics). How conservative, in the Edmund Burke sense, gets conflated with so much of the anti environmentalist discourse is yet another of lifes many, if repugnant, mysteries.
I've become extremely cynical while watching any show on Climate Change, especially those on the BBC.
http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2008/09/challenge-to-climate-change-denialists.html
I'm beginning to think that the best way to get the upper hand away from Oreskes, Gore, Suzuki, King, Hansen, and their ilk is to write a pro-warming, pro-climate change catastrophe book. Just make it up, get it published and then explain that it was all made up. Several people have done the first part, they just haven't admitted the latter.
He seems to have a grudge against you. Do you know him?
Why is he using the nonsense descriptor "climate change denier"?
I am SURE you believe, along with just about every rational scientist, that climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. To deny that would be beyond science. Climate changes. It's what it does. Get over it!
We have had the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age - all supported by documentary evidence. We have not had ice fairs on the Thames for a few years now ...
To deny that there is a concensus that the primary factor affecting climate change is anthropogenic carbon dioxide is a reasonable position but has nothing to do with denying climate change. Does he really understand the words he is using?
I dunno really. He came over here the other day calling me rude names. He now seems to be asking me to defend a view that I don't think I've ever actually advanced. CO2 forcing is negligible? Seems a bit unlikely to me.
Are there *any* AGW fanboys who aren't nasty, egotistical, emotionally retarded leftists?
Thought it might be like that. Accuses a "Climate Change Denier" of cherry picking individual peer reviewed documents and then deletes posts when his "adversary" lists a whole load. I admit to not having read all of them but some I have and they seem to be along the lines of looking back to the recent geological past and showing changes at least as big and as fast as what has been unswervingly attributed to anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
I understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I also understand that the forcing produced by carbon dioxide is far below what is required for the scare stories produced by Dr Hansen and Al Gore. As soon as you require enhancement by water in the atmosphere you run up against feedback that reduces the effect. Otherwise, we would have REAL runaway global warming.
By the by, it is interesting to look at the links provided by punkscientist on his blog. A well-balanced list that includes Real Climate and FOTE but also Climate Audit, Prometheus (Piekle Jnr.) and Piekle Snr (NOT!).
I for one will not be doing his work for him when he asks us to critique the paper he has chosen to review.
Actually, I suspect that it would be unreasonable to deny that there is a consensus amongst 'scientists' that the IPCC warnings are true. Dr Jolliffe, for instance, makes this point even as he is denying Mann's hockey stick.
What such a consensus means is a moot question. It probably means 'I have not studied this in any detail, but I hear it being voiced from everyone, so there must be something in it..". We can deny that anthropogenic carbon dioxide IS the primary factor affecting climate change, but I think we must agree that most people who have not studied the subject believe that AGW has been proven - they just don't know who by.
This, in fact, is our greatest problem. It does not seem difficult to disprove the AGW hypothesis, but that will have no effect so long as everyone believes it has been proven...
http://punkscientist.blogspot.com/2008/09/re-challenge-to-climate-change.html
I'm flattered to have gained the attentions of so many of you. The reason I call you climate change deniers is because you deny anthropogenic emissions have any effect upon climate change. All respectable climate scientists and every academic body in every country on the planet now agree that this is the case so you are clearly deluded if you believe that you have some insight into this problem that they have missed. My post was a challenge to you people to bring evidence to the table to support your position. That is what you seem to be parodying here- an evidence-based debate, yes? Well, I've already destroyed the reference supplied by David Duff. Please feel free to suggest your own reference and I will do the same for you.
Oh- by the way, don't expect to post long lists of references copied from Marc Morano's blog or any other climate change denier. Don't expect to abuse me or deploy extensive sarcasm. I will moderate the comments thread on this post to keep the debate factual and evidence-based and I will delete material I consider to be offensive apart from my own. Its my blog and I can use it to offend people. Put up or shut up. Also, please READ your own references before posting them. Duff did not and as a result was not aware that the closing sentence in the reference he cited in support of his position of denial specifically stated that the review in question was nothing of the sort.
Think you have what it takes to prove your denial? Bring, it bitches!
One would assume you will either ignore the papers referenced; at least you cannot delete posts here although you can as appears to be your forte resort to the language of the gutter.
Go away you silly little boy, I doubt very much a diminutive PhD candidate can teach many here any science...go on your nappy needs changing...run along back to mummy.....
Oh and the failure of GCM's has a rather large effect on "climate panic".
As I've pointed out above, I have no recollection of ever having said that CO2 emissions have no effect on climate. Can you please point me to where I have said this?
And by the way, I would appreciate it if everyone would adopt a less angry tone here. Mr Punk, I've told you about this before. Thanks.
I will show you where you said that CO2 emissions have no effect on climate if you show me where I said that you said that you thought that CO2 emissions had no effect on climate.
Confused? You should be.
Andy: As a visitor in BH's house I will refrain from sharing my opinion of you with those browsing this thread.
When you issued your original challenge you asked me for evidence that "anthropological forcings are negligible in comparison to natural ones."
Just up above you say:
"The reason I call you climate change deniers is because you deny anthropogenic emissions have any effect upon climate change."
I think you'll find you have just contradicted yourself.
I must also note that neither you nor anyone except the malodorous Duff haven bothered to take me up on my challenge. Please do try, Duff is such a burden to deal with and I yearn for more intellectual discourse.
Andy, in response to BH's polite request to refrain from uncouth behaviour I will not respond to any of your comments.
Like I say, you are making no sense whatsoever. You need to express more clearly what you think the position I hold is, and more importantly, why. Quote something I've said.
The inflated, sensitive ego of the leftist is well in evidence.
I wonder if he's similarly suppressed any inconvenient data in his 'research'. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be wise to trust his honesty in matters concerning 'climate change', which his McPhD in marine biology no doubt touches upon.
Such woolly-minded extremists are common in the soft sciences, as everyone with academic experience knows.
You clearly have pre-conceived ideas because you reject the scientific consensus on climate change without actually researching material yourself. I trust you rely upon modern medicine for your healthcare and physics to ensure your computer processor functions? Do you trust the water industry to ensure you a supply of toxin and pathogen free drinking water? Do you fly away on holiday on machines constructed from light weight alloys and powered by fuels separated from the other constituents of crude oil by industrial chemistry? I expect you do. I also suspect you believe the earth travels around the sun in about 365 days and that the sun is mostly a ball of superhot hydrogen nuclei. Why, then, do you specifically single out climate science as the target of your scepticism unless you have made a decision a priori that its conclusions offend your sensibilities and fundamental convictions?
Now, as you seem to take offense when I asked you to post a peer-reviewed reference supporting the position that CO2 forcings are negligible, please note that I have NOT written that you think that this is the case (or if I have I can't find it)- it was an invitation to debate the underlying theme running through your own blog and not an accusation. This seemed clear to me but not to anyone else here.
If you feel I am misrepresenting your position then you would surely be keen to advance your true position. Unless, of course, you were afraid that I might be able to undermine it (surely not). So, BH: What is your position on anthropogenic climate change? Do you feel the scientific consensus is correct and if not, why not? What peer-reviewed data do you have to support your position of denial?
This is open to anyone here. I tried to open this debate over at my own blog but maybe my savaging of Duff has scared you somewhat. So lets see what we can start over here on 'friendly' ground. What do you nthink BH? Its your house- would you start an open thread where people can present supporting peer-reviewed references?
1. CO2 will, other things being equal, warm things up. That's physics.
2. The effect is likely to be small - peer reviewed reference in today's climate cuttings 24, for example.
3. We don't understand feedbacks - particularly clouds.
4. It has not been demonstrated that current warming is unprecedented.
Here's a challenge to you:
Can you find a millennial temperature reconstruction that doesn't use a) the Polar Urals series (b) Tornetrask or (c) Thompson's secret ice core data d) bristlecones?
And while we're at it, would you, as a scientist like to defend the use of secret data? Or how about the adjustments made to the Tornetrask data
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=150
Or how about bristlecones? Do you support the use of bristlecones in temperature reconstructions?
Can someone show me peer reviewed evidence that C02 drives global temperature, and by how much?
Can anyone explain why scientists are claiming temps have not increased since about 2000, in fact may have decreased, whilst C02 levels have increased in the same period?
How do scientists explain the near exact correlation between sun spot activity and temp graphs when claiming C02, as opposed to the sun, is now the main factor warming our climate?
I bet that punk guy knows all about it?
Thanks.
Secondly that, apart from High-C-Footprint trips to selected parts of the world, it never moved its data into the 21st century- or brought up recent refutations of the IPCC endorsed MM stick
Thirdly, that its polemic and dismissive approach (dressed up as Science) was an affront and an injustice to the hard-won history of the BBC (God bless you Raymond Baxter)- and represented, at best, a poor return for the near-monopolistic and involuntary contributions of license-payers and, at worse, a publicly funded platform for hectoring, holier-than-thou fanatics.
Finally, mainly because I cannot be bothered to add other enumerations, I actually like the presenter and am so sad that in ten, or twenty, year’s time this programme will be compulsory viewing for legions of students. E.G. Q3 - "The Climate Wars- Self-deception or pure propaganda - Discuss!- (points will be awarded for recognition of Ad Hominem attacks, Cognitive Dissonance, Selective Evidence and other factors that the student may find relevant – No points will be deducted from students who agree with the conclusions of the programme- Scepticism, backed up with reasoned arguments, is an honourable option )"
What did you do in the Climate Wars, daddy? “I believed that I was right” Mr Stewart, I believe that you are sincere. That’s good enough for me mate. Can’t say that about you script-writers though!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6213/abs/338309a0.html
Finding that took me all of fifteen seconds. I'm reading the Tornetrask thing.
Please don't ask me to incriminate myself by endorsing scientific misconduct. Its offensive.
I see no-one's taken me up on my own challenge. Still.
http://punkscientist.blogspot.com etc
I do so hope that anyone offended by this ignorant piece of garbage hiding behind blogger dot com will press the "flag blog" button at the top of the site - I am sure Google's TOS has something to say about the crudity of language even if the crudity of its mental process is allowed through their filth filter.
Press the "flag blog" button often enough and this POS will have to wipe his mouth elsewhere.
The onus on any entity presenting an idea is to first present the science to back up the claim so that it may be digested and praise or a rebuttal offered.
Where is the engineering quality paper giving the atmospheric effect of the doubling of CO2 with regard to temperature rise?
Where is the engineering quality paper giving the average lifetime of CO2 (both anthropogenic and natural) in the atmosphere?
Where is the engineering quality paper setting out the hypothesis that runaway global warming will result from CO2 reaching levels that have existed prior to this era?
We need not produce anything until it is required to defend the scorn or praise meted out to the science presented as evidence of the theory.
We are committing entire economies to the pit to effect an unworkable cure to a non-existent problem that is the exact opposite of that which is needed to avoid the natural changes that will soon occur.
Buy sheepskins, dry foodstuffs, candles, batteries. Chop firewood.
"We are committing entire economies to the pit to effect an unworkable cure to a non-existent problem that is the exact opposite of that which is needed to avoid the natural changes that will soon occur."
Sorry, are you talking about the failure of neo-classical economics or climate change?
I haven't used the words "scientific misconduct". Are you saying that you think that Tornetrask is scientific misconduct? If not, which study do you feel falls into this category.
The reconstruction you link to is not a millenial study. For the avoidance of doubt, I meant a study of the climate of the last millennium.
Re: Scientific misconduct- you asked me "would you, as a scientist like to defend the use of secret data?".
"Secret data" implies a data set that is not shared. Science relies upon the independent reproduction of experiments to demonstrate the robustness of the reported research. Just google "cold fusion" for an example. Witholding data obstructs such independent verification and comprises academic misconduct. Inviting me to defend it suggests that I endorse such behaviour. This is offensive as I haven't and wouldn't. I don't expect an apology.
I rejected the reference you gave because these kind of long-term reconstructions use proxies that are too low frequency to say anything much about the post-industrialisation period. That's why I specified millennial reconstructions.
Scientific misconduct. I'm sorry that you were offended by my question, which I thought was reasonable under the circumstances. You say I am a denialist, which I assume means that you think that my criticisms of AGW theory are groundless and politically motivated. Meanwhile, mainstream supporters of AGW have been deafening in their silent acquiescence in the withholding of data and code by most of the main players in the science of millennial temperature reconstructions. I welcome the fact that you are not among these people and that you share one of my key concerns with the case for AGW.
So now that we have some common ground - that withholding of data and code is unacceptable - do you agree that we have little or no solid evidence that the current warming is unprecedented?
By the way, did you ever form an opinion on Tornetrask?
I haven't had time to formulate an informed opinion on Tornetrask yet. Watch this space.
Regards & season's greetings,
PS