Bishop Hill Research is optional
Feb 16, 2014 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Surface Climate: WG3 Guardian columnist Henry Porter has written a very funny column in which he takes a bash at global warming sceptics:
Hearing Lord Lawson argue with the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC Today programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man's activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on.
Until such a conference is held and people such as Lawson, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, Samuel Brittan and Viscount Ridley – names that begin to give you some idea of the demographic – are required to provide the proof of their case, rather than feeding off that of their opponents, they should be treated with mild disdain.
This is rather hilarious. I don't think Brittan takes a view on the science, but I've definitely heard all of the other named sceptics say quite clearly that they think that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and/or that mankind can affect the climate. It looks as though poor old Henry Porter is struggling to even determine what the sceptic case is. Comment is free, but research is optional, at the Guardian at least.
Perhaps I can be of assistance. I think I'm right in saying that those named would all argue that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it could be expected to have a small warming effect on the planet. Temperatures have gone up, indeed, but we cannot detect any statistically significant changes in the surface temperatures, which were rising long before mankind's carbon dioxide emissions became large enough to have a plausible effect. The case is that warming is likely to be small and largely benign and that the costs of mad mitigations schemes are going to vastly exceed any reliable estimates of cost.
Really, you would think after all this time that a senior columnist at the Guardian would at least be able to criticise people for the things they say rather than having a go at the rumours of what they believe, as put round at metropolitan dinner parties.
Reader Comments (35)
Every single person who assaults me where I post my climate articles, starts off with the assumption that I know nothing of the 'greenhouse gas' theory, that my beliefs on the matter are religious / conservative, etc, etc.... even when I spell out right at the top of the article, exactly what I believe.
They DO. NOT. Want to give us the slightest credibility. So they find it easier to just STRAIGHT OUT LIE TO OUR FACES ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE.
*ahem* sorry for shouting.
Bishop Hill at his most devastating.
He wouldn't be the first journalist in the UK appearing to think that all this scepticism is just a wicked plot hatched by Lord Lawson. But if that is what the Guardian thinks its readers want to hear, then I guess that is their choice.
Nearly every Alarmist make Strawman arguments. Henry Porter is just one of many who make agruments against statements that have not been made. Past masters have been Gavin Schmidt. Lord Rees tried to make out it was "simple physics" CO2 is a greenhouse gas implying that sceptics are arguing against that.
It is a very old tactic to make it appear that your adversary has said something stupid.
The Alarmist use it because a public debate would expose the public to their incompetence and lack of scientific argument. So therefore, they take the coward's way out. You will never get someone like Henry Porter in a public debate as he hasn't the bottle for it!
So this middle class Guardianista thinks that 'climate change' is a class issue pitting 'denialist' upper class toffs against the 'warmist' working classes?
Sounds like yet another pampered middle class kidult who thinks his own mediocrity qualifies him as working class.
@Jake Haye
I took it that he meant that the sceptics were old. Perhaps the Guardian has a young readertship?
The article is funny for another reason. The writer has no notion of how science works.
Once upon a time there was the belief that climate is more or less constant over periods longer than several millennia.
That was the null hypothesis my professor believed in 1958 and I cannot now recall why I thought he was wrong. Something about the rise and fall of empires or the Mongols or the Pueblo Indian sites in the USA.
Then came the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) which operated from 1968 to 1983 with precise measurement of climate proxies over shorter periods of two millennia or so. Then the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP, 1989-1992) followed by the Vostok Ice Core from Antarctica (1998). By 2000 we had proof of natural multidecadal climate change and multicentury climate change.
So climate change is not the issue.
What is at issue is that mankind has become such an important factor in driving climate change that regional and global environments are threatened. The threat is so great that our social and economic systems are under threat. Nay, even our survival as a species.
How does science approach such an issue? Not by proving the nul hypothesis, but by proving the hypothesis that human induced global warming will be exceed natural global warming to the extent of causing environmental, social and economic catastrophe.
The journalist has got the science backwards: the onus is upon the opponents of the nul hypothesis to prove their case.
Imaging if a lawyer rose before the court to present the prosecution case. He says that the accused must prove himself innocent.
Well we know that at least up to now that is not the way it is done in Britain, the US, Canada and Australia. And we know what we think of the places where a persons has to prove his innocence.
Bad science and bad journalism.
Has he never heard of the Hartland institute and the detailed and excellent NIPPC conferences and reports ?
If only he knew the truth about sceptics!
'Really, you would think after all this time that a senior columnist at the Guardian would at least be able to criticise people for the things they say rather than having a go at the rumours of what they believe'
cows ,moo , cats meow and Guardian journalist spout poorly researched BS , such is the nature of things .
Feb 16, 2014 at 10:58 AM | Fred Colbourne
Perhaps I am a bit thick this morning but the tone of your sixth paragraph seems to be totally at odds with all that has gone before.
Shouldn’t you have said something like:
What is at issue is [whether] mankind has become such an important factor in driving climate change that regional and global environments are threatened. The [said] threat is [claimed to be] so great that our social and economic systems are under threat. Nay, [it is conjectured that] even our survival as a species [is in the balance].
A fine Gurdain column indeed. What a shame so few people will see it - take number of copies sent to BBC away from number of copies printed and you get...er...about six.
Mark, when Fred says something is "at issue", then all those "whethers" and "said to bes" are implied.
At least that's the way I would read it.
The "senior columnist at the Guardian" has also missed the experiment that Mother Nature has been conducting for almost two decades now. She has risen CO2 levels dramatically and yet the temperatures have remained flat or declined even with the "adjusted" data sets compiled by the alarmists at the government agencies.
Because it's not science until there's an international conference and everyone can swan around in nice hotels and feed off each other's self-importance.
To simply point out that the predictions are wrong. The temperature is not rising. And there is nothing with climate change that hasn't occurred before within natural variability.
Well, that just doesn't stack up to a get-together in Bali.
Maybe someone ought to point him to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change
...and then this...
http://scef.org.uk/index.php/climate/the-sceptic-view
...and finally this...
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Probably a waste of time though: the article was clearly written to inflame, rather than educate.
I still cannot figure out if commenter BigBear63 is for real, or just extracting the Michael:
The remainder suggests he IS being serious… but that could still be part of the joke!Once it is commonly accepted that the data shows the influence of CO2 on global temperature is unmeasurably small and the error bands include the statistical possibility that the overall influence is cooling, my work will be done. But, what do I know? I'm just a buffoon.
Darn it, I've been banned from commenting at the Guardian again. Going to have to create yet another email account and silly 'handle' to get back. If you see 'Green is God' pop up you'll know its me.
This seems to be the starting point for every political discussion nowadays. At least from my perspective as a conservative in the US. I supposedly care about big business more than children. I'm racist because I oppose our presidents policies. I hate the poor and I don't care about the environment. Oh and don't even start about my misogynous beliefs. So how do you have a relatively reasonable argument with someone that doesn't have a clue about your point of view and your motives? And more importantly probably doesn't care to know. Now here's the real question.
Am I doing the same? I don't know.
Wouldn’t all sceptics welcome a debate such as the one proposed by this Guardian journalist? On every occasion it is the ‘warmists’ who seek to avoid it, claiming ‘the science is settled’ whilst secretly fearing that their unfounded alarmism will be shown for exactly what it is – unfounded. So, bring it on!
In particular, the Guardian allows no free speech on this topic, in spite of claiming ‘Comment is Free’. So Henry Porter, have a word with your editor as a first step to opening your mind.
Bish,
In your penultimate paragraph you use the word 'costs' twice.
It is true that the costs of mad (CO2) mitigation will exceed the estimates of those costs. Nonetheless, it seems you intended to end with the word 'benefits'.
Still, it works either way.
MikeB
I come here to debate the science because that is my interest and I encounter different views. Unfortunately some of the responses I receive could better be described as political.
Past public debates on global warming/climate change have tended to go the same way. The warmists want to talk about the science; the deniers want to score political points. With the two sides arguing past each other the exercise becomes pointless.
Is the author actually Henry Porter, or Harry Potter?
- - -
Surely he has access to a dictionary and could compare `denial` to` skepticism` but he probably does not think the distinction useful. Or maybe he is thinking of Einstein, who was not just skeptical about Quantum Mechanics but denied it could be possible.
I got as far as "Guardian", and then shut down.
And ...................... Miliband on the front page of the Observer - warning that climate change is an issue of national security - UK is failing to recognise that climate change is causing extreme weather that is blighting the country .............Well I guess that makes his position clear. P*lonker extrondinaire !!
Entropic Man.
The science of the satellite data and balloon sondes indicate there has been no warming over the last 13- 16 years while carbon dioxide has increased .
If you believe that deniers are anti-science I suggest you read Lindzen, F Dyson, Morner , Roy Spencer and Bob Carter .
http://www.drroyspencer.com/-
When R Feynman said that when the theory was different to the data, then the theory was wrong.
Entropic Man.
The science of the satellite data and balloon sondes indicate there has been no warming over the last 13- 16 years while carbon dioxide has increased .
If you believe that deniers are anti-science I suggest you read Lindzen, F Dyson, Morner , Roy Spencer and Bob Carter .
http://www.drroyspencer.com/-
When R Feynman said that when the theory was different to the data, then the theory was wrong.
The problem is that the sceptics you mention are spinning the data, During the Challenger investigation Feynnman was equally rude about that sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Go to the primary sources.
Also, go beyond the global temperature data. You will find that the energy content continues to increase, and metrics like Arctic ice extent, mass loss from ice sheets, ocean heat content and sea level continue to rise. The pause is an illusion.
Bish wrote: The case is that warming is LIKELY to be small and largely benign and that the costs of mad mitigations schemes are going to vastly exceed any reliable estimates of cost.
Are you using the IPCC's definition of "likely"; a 70% chance that warming will be small and largely benign with a 30% chance the warming will be large and catastrophic? Perhaps a better answer is that we don't know. I'd be a lot happier if I were sure that warming another 1 degC would be beneficial and that things would only get worse above +2 degC. Anyone who looks at the 2-3 km thick Greenland Ice Sheet on a polar projection ought to ask: Why is this relic of the last ice age still here this far south and how much warming can it survive before collapsing? (It won't happen this century, but may become inevitable then.)
I have to agree with your comments mad mitigation schemes that are destine to fail until the cost of alternative energy drops below that of fossil fuels. Chinese CO2 emissions will be double US emissions in 2014. If the Chinese economy and emissions grow at 10% a year and the US were to cut back emissions by 80%, 3.5 years of growth of Chinese emissions will negate all of the reduction in US emissions. If the Chinese economy grows at 10% a year and their emissions intensity improves by the projected 3% a year, 5 years of growth in Chinese emissions will the US reductions. And if the Chinese economy grows by 7% a year and energy intensity improves by 3% a year, 8.5 years of growth in Chinese emissions will negate the US reductions. It will take only 2.5-6 months for the growth in Chinese emissions to negate the 34% reduction in emissions called for in Britain's Climate Change Act. An equal number of Indians want to follow China's economic footsteps as well as twice as many people in other developing and undeveloped countries. The chances of any of us seeing any benefits from mitigation efforts are small no matter how much it warms.
Unfortunately we do not have the money of government for such conferences but if Mr Porter would care to stage one I am sure that the three people he snarks at would be happy to turn up and wipe the floor with him and his high priests.
"you would think after all this time that a senior columnist at the Guardian would at least be able to criticise people for the things they say rather than having a go at the rumours of what they believe"
No you wouldn't.
"It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case ... that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive, underlying evidence that man's activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on."
Tilting at straw deniers as a ruse to avoid addressing sceptics. A sure sign of desperation and dishonesty.
"It is surely now time for the deniers to make their case...that man's activity has had no impact on sea and atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea levels and so on."
No, that is reversing the burden of proof. Those who claim causation are the ones who must make the case. The default position for any progress in science according to scientific practice is that there is no cause-and-effect linkage, the so-called null hypothesis, the 'sceptical' case. The alarmist claim is that man is having a significant effect on the climate. The null hypothesis would thus be that man is having no statistically significant impact on climate. Disproving the null hypothesis is all that is required. They have not disproved it - there is no statistically significant data that has disproved the standard default null hypothesis.
Anyone who wants to circumvent this procedure or reverse the null hypothesis should not claim to be speaking as a scientist or about science because this standard procedure is foundational to modern science. Journalists and activists who gnash their teeth on those who want to follow proper procedures are entitled to do so, but they thereby show their ignorance of basic science. Such persons would not like the null hypothesis reversed in any other field that affects them, for example in pharmaceutical research and medicine, where they rightly expect proper scientific procedures to be followed.
Unfortunately most alarmists simply aren't listening to their own side. For instance has EntropicMan actually even looked at IPCC AR5 especially the data in the WG1 report? He still seems to be parroting the party line from the old hockey stick days. We are not deniers. And, more to the point, we are not skeptics. We merely look at the science - and the science (even the cherrypicked IPCC reports) does not support the alarmist position.
Where I see denial is among the warmists who to this day will not accept that the hockey stick, and its attendant alarums and excursions, has been completely discredited in both its data and its methodology not once but multiple times.
Genuine climate scientists would love to have the same opportunities to make their case that the CGW crowd have had for years but the fora have been denied them BY THAT SAME CGW CROWD.