The news that 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded in Australia comes at the end of a year in which, to the extent that facts can settle anything, the debate over human-caused global warming has been settled. Worldwide, 2005 was equal (to within the margin of error of the stats) with 1998 as the warmest year in at least the past millennium.
More significantly, perhaps, 2005 saw the final nail hammered into the arguments climate change contrarians have been pushing for years. The few remaining legitimate sceptics, along with some of the smarter ideological contrarians, have looked at the evidence and conceded the reality of human-caused global warming.
Ten years or so ago, the divergence between satellite and ground-based measurements of temperature was a big problem – the ground based measurements showed warming in line with climate models but the satellites showed a cooling trend. The combination of new data and improved calibration has gradually resolved the discrepancy, in favour of the ground-based measurements and the climate models.
Another set of arguments concerned short-term climate cycles like El Nino. The late John Daly attributed the high temperatures of the late 1990s to the combination of El Nino and solar cycles, and predicted a big drop, bottoming out in 2005 and 2006. Obviously the reverse has happened. Despite the absence of the El Nino or solar effects that contributed to the 1998 record, the long-term warming trend has dominated.
Finally, there’s water vapour. The most credible of the contrarians, Richard Lindzen, has relied primarily on arguments that the feedback from water vapour, which plays a central role in climate models, might actually be zero or even negative. Recent evidence has run strongly against this claim. Lindzen’s related idea of an adaptive iris has been similarly unsuccessful.
Finally, the evidence has mounted up that, with a handful of exceptions, “sceptics” are not, as they claim, fearless seekers after scientific truth, but ideological partisans and paid advocates, presenting dishonest arguments for a predetermined party-line conclusion. Even three years ago, sites like Tech Central Station, and writers like Ross McKitrick were taken seriously by many. Now, anyone with access to Google can discover that they have no credibility. Chris Mooney’s Republican War on Science which I plan to review soon, gives chapter and verse and the whole network of thinktanks, politicians and tame scientists who have popularised GW contrarianism, Intelligent Design and so on.
A couple of thoughts on all this.
First, in the course of the debate, a lot of nasty things were said about the IPCC, including some by people who should have known better. Now that it’s clear that the IPCC has been pretty much spot-on in its assessment (and conservative in terms of its caution about reaching definite conclusions), it would be nice to see some apologies.
Second, now that the scientific phase of the debate is over, attention will move to the question of the costs and benefits of mitigation options. There are legitimate issues to be debated here. But having seen the disregard for truth exhibited by anti-environmental think tanks in the first phase of the debate, we shouldn’t give them a free pass in the second. Any analysis on this issue coming out of a think tank that has engaged in global warming contrarianism must be regarded as valueless unless its results have been reproduced independently, after taking account of possible data mining and cherry picking. That disqualifies virtually all the major right-wing think tanks, both here and in the US. Their performance on this and other scientific issues has been a disgrace.
John Quiggin 
Ender, you say “Willis – sorry, wrong again”, but your knowledge of malaria is incomplete. I’ve had it four times, and have consequently studied up on it more than just a bit … see, for example
Note several things:
1. Major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle
2. Prevalent in England during the Little Ice Age
3. The author works for CDC, the article is published in a reviewed journal.
4. The author, who knows much more about malaria than either of us, specifically refutes the idea that malaria will move north in a warmer world.
So … Enders – sorry, wrong again.
w.
Steve, thanks for your incorrect posting. You say:
I guess since you guys think you know everything about the climate, you also think you know everything about whoever posts on the blog. In the past, I’ve been told to talk to people in the tropics to find out the truth (When I pointed out that I live in the tropics, suddenly the topic of talking to tropical folks to find out the truth conveniently disappeared …).
Now, Steve has gained access to a secret listing of where I’ve ever been, I guess, because he thinks he knows my past itinerary. His understanding of my voluminous past travels, however, turns out to be as poor as his climate knowledge.
Steve, I’ve been to France, I’ve seen French homes, I speak fluent French, and your ridiculous claims, once again, are total bullsh*t.
He also claims that spikes in deaths don’t occur during cold spells … Steve, take a look at when the homeless die. Would you guess that more homeless die in winter or in summer?
w.
Willis – I guess it is a battle of citations:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7907685&dopt=Citation
Global climatic change is expected to increase the incidence of vector-borne diseases, especially malaria. This study assessed the contribution of climate to a malaria epidemic in Rwanda, focusing on the catchment area of one health centre where diagnosis was consistent and non-climatic variables well monitored. In late 1987 malaria incidence in the area increased by 337% over the 3 previous years. The increase was greatest in groups with little acquired immunity–children under 2 years (564%) and people in high-altitude areas (501%). Case-fatality rose significantly (relative risk = 4.85, p
Willis Eschenbach has dropped his veneer of civility after being caught telling porkies about the MWP and weather related mobidity, among other things.
In regards to fatalities in France in cold snaps I said I am unaware of any evidence of a spike similar, or in other words equivalent to, the heat wave spike. I didn’t actually deny that cold snaps cause some deaths. Please don’t make deceptive inferences.
In the interests of fairness, I note you are correct in stating that malaria has been present in temperate regions in the past. Ender was mistaken.
Ender, The study showing a large increase in malaria incidence in Rwanda in 1987, especially among children under two years and people in high-altitide areas, may well be from a paper cited in Chapter 18 (“Human Population Health”) of the Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (1995). Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, Paris, referred to this citation in his submission to the recent UK House of Lords Committee Inquiry into The Economics of Climate Change, as follows:
“The authors [of the IPCC Chapter in question] also claimed that climate change was ALREADY causing malaria to move to higher altitudes (e.g., in Rwanda). They quoted information published by non-specialists that had been roundly denounced in the scientific literature. In the years that followed, these claims have repeatedly been made by environmental activists, despite rigorous investigation and overwhelming counter-evidence by some of the world’s top malaria specialists.”
In a footnote, Professor Reiter observed that “In 2004, 10 of these specialists published a plea entitled “A call for accuracy” in “The Lancet.” Nevertheless, environmental activists continue to make this claim, undeterred by the evidence.
Steve, you state baldly that I’ve never been to France, and when I call you on your total fabrication, you then accuse me of lying and say I’ve “dropped my veneer of civility” … whoa, doctor, this is getting good.
Let me get this straight. You make up a bald-faced lie about me based on absolutely nothing, and when I respond to your lying about me, you accuse me of lack of civility!?! This is truly an interesting debating technique, one I’ve not seen before. This may be because where I grew up, when someone tells a bald-faced lie about you, you are no longer required to be civil to them.
So c’mon. Let’s get back to civility here. If you’re now going to accuse me of lying, at least tell me what lies about “MWP and weather related morbidity, among other things” you are claiming I have told.
I’ve pointed out your lie about me, chapter and verse. I am not a liar, and for you to make such a scurrilous accusation in this vague and nasty manner is sleazy, lowlife behaviour.
Yes, I make mistakes, and I may have made them about the very subjects you mention. Yes, I’m not always right, and could very well be wrong on any given subject.
But I’m not a liar.
So when you first tell a lie about me, then say I’m uncivil when I call bullsh*t on your lie, and then follow that up by calling me a liar without having the common human decency to say what it is you think I’m lying about … bro, it’s a good thing I’m feeling mellow, because I assure you that you haven’t seen “uncivil” yet …
w.
====================================
Steve said:
PS — for those of you unaware of Cockney rhyming slang, “porkies” = “pork pies” = “lies”. He tried to be cute and say “porkies”. I suspect this was because he didn’t have the balls to call me a liar straight out, but that is speculation. — w.
Oh, yeah, right. Steve claimed I was lying about weather related morbidity. If so, the UK Faculty of Public Health is lying too. They say:
===================================
Faculty of Public Health calls for extra vigilance during cold snap
According to forecasters, next week will see the worst winter weather yet, with freezing temperatures expected throughout the UK. This cold snap is expected to last for several days.
The Faculty of Public Health and the Met Office proved accurate in their prediction that over 2,500 people would die as a direct result of cold weather in the week before Christmas.
Today, Professor Sion Griffiths, President of the Faculty of Public Health, called for extra vigilance over the next week to reduce excess winter deaths: “Avoiding unnecessary deaths from cold is everybody’s responsibility. We know that every year around 40,000 more people die in cold weather. All of us must look out for family, friends and neighbours who may be particularly vulnerable to the cold.”
The Faculty of Public Health has alerted senior public health professionals to the predicted cold snap and urged them to ask members of front-line staff to exercise vigilance and be aware of those who may be at increased risk during this cold snap. Those at risk (particularly older people) are advised to:
avoid unnecessary trips in the cold
wrap up extra carefully when outside
wear warm clothing inside
seek support to make their homes warmer in future
For further information please contact:
Chloe Underwood, Faculty of Public Health, 020 7487 1185, 07717 000681
NOTES
Faculty of Public Health
The Faculty of Public Health (FPH) sets and maintains professional standards in public health practice. The Faculty works to improve the public’s health through its three key areas of activity: professional affairs, education and standards and advocacy and policy contribution. For more information visit our website http://www.fph.org.uk.
Background to fuel poverty
It is estimated that 40,000 more people die in winter (December to March) in the UK than would be expected from death rates occurring over the rest of the year. Over half of these deaths are from cardiovascular and circulatory disease (mainly heart attacks and strokes) and a third are from respiratory disease. Influenza, in non-epidemic years, accounts for only around one tenth of the deaths and hypothermia causes less than 500 deaths.
It is estimated that there are 8,000 extra winter deaths for every one degree Celsius that the prevalent temperature is below the winter average. There is a concomitant rise in morbidity with worsening asthma and COPD rates, increased blood pressure and risk of heart attacks and strokes, worsening arthritis, increased accidents at home and impaired mental health. It is thought that there may be 5 extra admissions to hospital for every extra death.
=======================================
In other words, just what I had claimed — extra cold is harder on people than extra warm, and more people than expected die in winter. 40,000 more, by their count, and an additional 8,000 for each degree colder than an average winter.
Any time you want to point out whatever my “lie” was about temperature related morbidity, Steve, you just go right ahead …
w.
The other thing I said about temperature related mortality was that cold was harder on the vulnerable population, which I said included the aged, children, and the ill. In this context, it is interesting to look at what the British call “fuel poverty”, a term I had not heard before. They say:
Which again agrees with what I had said. Note in particular that this condition is a type of poverty. As I said before, it costs money to fight the cold, and for people without this money, it can be lethal.
And Steve, where’s the lie in this, or in anything I said about temperature related mortality?
w.
More on hot and cold:
Again, as in the example from the UK, cold is seen as causing more deaths than heat.
w.
Ian – actually I put in a couple more however my comment got cut off somehow.
Ender, thanks for posting, and sorry that your other postings got cut off.
Among the clearest and most authoritative discussions of this malaria question is the one mentioned by Ian Castles earlier in this thread. This is Dr. Paul Reiter’s testimony before the UK House of Lords Committee Inquiry into The Economics of Climate Change.
Dr. Reiter is a widely acclaimed expert in the field, and was a contributory author of the IPCC Third Assessment report. His discussion covers the IPCC view of the malaria question, along with the scientific view of the question.
Dr. Reiter’s testimony is online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm
I would be very interested in your comments on what Dr. Reiter says about the malaria question which we are discussing.
w.
Willis – the main problem I have with the study is this: (hope this does not get cut off)
” The identity of diseases described in early literature is often uncertain, but fevers with a periodicity described as tertian or quartan are highly suggestive of malaria. Descriptors in the context of such accounts are often supportive. For example, in temperate regions, epidemic transmission of malaria tended to occur in late summer and autumn, giving rise to the common terms aestivo-autumnal or harvest fever for tertians and quartans.
During the Medieval Warm Period, mention of malarialike illness was common in the European literature from Christian Russia to caliphate Spain: “As one who has the shivering of the quartan so near,/ that he has his nails already pale/ and trembles all, still keeping the shade,/ such I became when those words were uttered.” (The Inferno, Dante [1265-1321]). ”
So even though Reiters idea is entirely based on anecdotal evidence and by his own admission that “The identity of diseases described in early literature is often uncertain” he still manages to construct a whole premise on this. The disease in question could have been almost anything. Many diseases are malarialike.
http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/ClinicalFeatures.htm
“Malaria is a febrile illness characterised by fever and related symptoms. However it is very important to remember that malaria is not a simple disease of fever, chills and rigors. In fact, in a malarious area, it can present with such varied and dramatic manifestations that malaria may have to be considered as a differential diagnosis for almost all the clinical problems! Malaria is a great imitator and trickster, particularly in areas where it is endemic.”
And again “For example, in temperate regions, epidemic transmission of malaria tended to occur in late summer ” confirming the premise that malaria is temperature related. Your reference only confirms that warmer temperatures will increase the incidence of malaria so I don’t really see how it helps you.
If my reference was widely critised how did this one go?
Oh boy, is this thread getting the hot and cold treatment. 🙂
Two points:
Even if malaria does not spread, it is not the only infectious tropical disease we have to be concerned about. The geographical range of many viral, bacterial, fungal, and parisitological diseases may well be increased by sustained global warming.
And I wonder if data on mortality rates due to temperature extremes may currently be biased towards colder temps simply because we may currently be living in a cooler period, relative to the temp range humans can survive in. If the mean, median, and peak temps rise high enough I am sure the mortality rate per degree of increase in temp will climb and eventually equal the rate for temp decrease.
Ender, thanks again for posting. Did you read Dr. Reiter’s testimony in full?
If so, you will now know that:
a) the IPCC mis-information on malaria was given by people who did not know much about malaria at all, not by the “world’s top scientists”.
b) the IPCC mis-information on malaria was strongly repudiated by the experts in the field, the ones who actually are the world’s top scientists.
c) the experts in the field said that despite their repudiation, that the wrong claims (such as malaria spreading in a warmer world) were still being used. To try to stop this stupidity, they published in Lancet, the major British medical journal, a special plea to lay people like yourself not to keep spreading the false information.
d) despite the published pleas of the world’s top scientists, both you and the IPCC are still insisting on spreading the false information …
What does that suggest to you about the IPCC? And perhaps more to the point:
What does that suggest to you about your own claims and your own actions regarding this question?
AGW adherents are always going on and on about the alleged “consensus” on global warming. Me, I think the “consensus” claim is spurious, first because consensus is not science, and second because polls of cimate scientists say there is no consensus. But you guys seem to think it’s important.
However, here we have a scientific consensus on malaria, with the top experts going so far as to write a special paper published in a peer reviewed journal, pleading with you to stop spreading the mis-information. Despite the pleas of the people who actually know something about this subject, you are blithely ignoring their pleas, and once again you are repeating the foolishly incorrect and totally discredited IPCC claims … curious.
w.
Willis – I find it equally curious for you to take the word of one person who might have other motivations for saying what he is saying. The paper that this person wrote does not correctly identify that the disease was in fact malaria. In the paper was also the quote that if the disease was malaria it was more prevalent in summer times when it was warmer.
The parasite needs a certain temperature to survive and therefore it does not take much to think that in countries where it is endemic the areas that are free from it at the moment are free of it because it is too cool for the parasite to survive. If warming makes these areas warmer then this protection will vanish.
Ender, did you actually read what Dr. Reiter said?
1) It’s not just one man’s opinion. Remember that 10 top malaria specialists wrote to the Lancet, to protest about people doing exactly what you are doing.
2) You say that Dr. Reiter did not correctly identify that the disease “was in fact malaria”. Let’s follow the article here …
Dr. Reiter is a specialist in the natural history and biology of mosquitoes, the epidemiology of the diseases they transmit, and strategies for their control. His entire career, more than thirty years, has been devoted to the subject.
His research has included malaria, filariasis, dengue, yellow fever, St Louis encephalitis and West Nile encephalitis, and has taken him to many countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Pacific.
He spent 21 years as a Research Scientist for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At present, he is a Professor at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and is responsible for a new unit of Insects and Infectious Disease.
He has been a member of the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control since 1998, and a consultant for several WHO Scientific Working Groups.
He has worked for the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and other agencies in investigations of outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases, as well as of AIDS and Ebola haemorrhagic fever and onchocerciasis.
He was a Lead Author of the Health Section of the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.
He was contributory author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
He was been Chairman of the American Committee of Medical Entomology of the American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, and of several committees of other professional societies.
Now you claim that Dr. Reiter can’t recognize malaria … and your authority for this claim would be … (insert your malaria/mosquito credentials here).
3) You claim that “it doesn’t take too much to think” that the limit on the spread of malaria is temperature. Since Dr. Reiter explicitly denies this, and states that “In truth, the principal determinants of transmission of malaria and many other mosquito-borne diseases are politics, economics and human activities,” it is clear that your claim is at least correct when you say you haven’t thought too much about this …
Sceptics are often accused of ignoring the science, but man, sceptics have nothing on you in that regard.
w.
Willis – If Dr Reiter is correct in this then this is good. As you say his credentials are impecable and is an authority on the subject so I bow to his superior knowledge.
I do have reservations about the diagnoses of malaria from anecdotal evidence also there are other researchers and studies that do not agree with Dr Reiter.
Some of the studies that I have seen are:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.1365-3156.1997.d01-210.x
“The interannual variation in malaria cases in Colombia between 1960 and 1992 shows a close association with a periodic climatic phenomenon known as El Niño Southern Oscilation (ENSO). Compared with other years, malaria cases increased by 17.3% during a Niño year and by 35.1% in the post Niño year. The annual total number of malaria cases is also strongly correlated (r = 0.62, P
Willis – “Now you claim that Dr. Reiter can’t recognize malaria ”
No I am not saying this at all. I am sure that confronted with a patient with suspected malaria Dr Reiter could order the specific tests to confirm the diagnosis. However I doubt that ANYONE however qualified can read some physician from 16th century accounts and say for absolute certainty that the disease is malaria. Even today a doctor would not make a diagnosis without examining the patient and as as I said in my previous post malaria is not easy disease to diagnose.
Without further evidence such as blood tests etc the only thing that anyone, however qualified, can say about the diseases from the MWP is that they are malarialike. Anything else is opinion/guess and would not be accepted by any responsible physician as a correct diagnosis.
Ender, The argument in Professor Reiter’s submission to the House of Lords Committee does not rest on the question of whether or not it is possible to say for absolute certainty from a 16th century account that a patient was suffering from malaria. He also says, for example:
“The most catastrophic epidemic [of malaria] anywhere in the world on record occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths due to falciparum infection (the most deadly malaria parasite) in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle. Malaria persisted in many parts of Europe until the advent of DDT. One of the last malarious countries in Europe was Holland: the WHO finally declared it malaria-free in 1970.”
It seems rather bizarre to invoke scientific consensus and expert judgement on a minor point (in the context of the climate change debate) like the distribution of malaria, while rejecting it on all the main points at issue.
It certainly appears that the 1995 IPCC report overstated the evidence on malaria, but, as Reiter concedes, this was largely corrected in the 2001 report. This is the way the process is supposed to work
By contrast, despite overwhelming evidence on issues like temperature trends, and the absence of any support in the peer-reviewed literature, contrarians continue to deny (depending on their level of stubbornness) either the existence of a warming trend, or its uniqueness in the recent historical record or its highly probably anthropogenic origin.
It’s interesting seeing what John Hunter http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/ found out about one of the “papers” published by Willis in the the social science journal, Energy & Environment. In http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=109&c=1 he writes (20 Jan 2005):
“8. You may be interested in my recent experience with the social science journal, Energy & Environment (E&E). In 2004 (Vol. 15, No. 3) E&E published a paper on sea level rise at Tuvalu by Willis Eschenbach, an amateur scientist and “Construction Manager” for the Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji. The paper was entitled “Tuvalu not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise” which gives a general idea of the content. While most readers would assume that the paper had been peer-reviewed, on closer inspection it appears that the paper is what the Journal calls a “Viewpoint Piece”. The Editorial at the beginning of the Journal, also notes:
“A fascinating story by a local resident, engineer and private scholar, Eschenbach offers a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands. As we could not find any reviewer for his paper, we hope that it will attract responses from those who still believe that the compensation demanded by Tuvalu (with the help of Greenpeace and environmental lawyers) for damage caused by “global warming”, is indeed unjustified.”
This of course begs a number of questions:
1. What qualifications did the Editor (Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen) have to claim that the paper was “a convincing and well documented explanation of the problems facing many Pacific islands”? In a later exchange, the Editor remarked to me that the paper “was reviewed by a few people he selected himself, ….. and also by me”.
2. Is the general reader expected to read the Editorial of the journal just to check which papers have been peer-reviewed?
3. Why on earth could the Editor not find a reviewer for this paper? (or could she just not find one sympathetic to her own views?)
4. Isn’t the Editorial clearly soliciting comments ONLY from those who have one specific political view of sea level rise at Tuvalu?
Boehmer-Christiansen further perverted the process by later stating in a paper at an international conference (see http://www.hwwa.de/Projects/Res_Programmes/RP/Klimapolitik/Papers%20Workshop/Boehmer-Christiansen.pdf):
“I just happen to be publishing an article by a scientist who lives on Tuvalu and who shows that the real problems already being experienced by people there (salination, sinking because of sand excavation) while ascribed by politicians seeking aid to global warming, are in fact due to over population, natural local causes and above (sic) development on what is little more than a floating patch of sand in the Pacific.”
which cites Eschenbach’s paper in E&E. So a paper, which has no more authority than a letter published in a local newspaper was now being cited at an international conference as “an article by a scientist”– with the natural implication that it had been peer-reviewed.
There are two pieces of good news to this story: (a) the Editor subsequently published a comment by myself on the original paper (E&E, 2004, Vol.15, No. 5; this was also not peer-reviewed, even though I requested it to be) and (b) thankfully, if you do a Google on (Eschenbach Tuvalu “sea level rise”) you only get three hits, so Eschenbach’s paper was virtually ignored.”
I think we should follow the example of virtually all scientists and just ignore Willis.
In terms of temperature of morbidity, poor Willis ignores the elephant in the room. That is, generally cold states like Finland, Japan, Norway, Iceland and Sweden are perennial life-expectancy table toppers.
I won’t bother cherry picking a study like Willis has done with Kilbourne. Its a mug’s game.
Willis’s babble about methane and plants is embarrassing to read. I’m sure he would retract it if he could.
Once again I can only urge him to visit http://www.realclimate.org. Here he can put his zany musings to practising climate scientists like Will Connelley, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.
No Steve, you’re the one who’s ignored the elephant in the room. It’s true that Japan tops the life expectancy table, but it’s followed by Hong Kong (which is in the tropics). Australia ranks above Sweden, Norway and Finland (which are all much colder). And sunny Italy and Spain have longer average life expectancies than Britain and Germany (data for 2003, from the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2005).
E&E is not a proper peer-reviewed journal, and is not taken seriously by most natural scientists, social scientists or economists. It’s a vehicle for the editor to get stuff into print that is consistent with her contrarian views on climate change. If you look at a recent issue like this one this one you’ll see what I mean.
John,
Ad Hominem attacks are not an invalid form of argument. However they are amoungs the weakest. You seem to rely on this style not much less than those contrarians.
For a debate that is all but over this one seems to still be kicking a little. Die you damn debate, die.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje, the question of whether research is properly peer-reviewed is central to the scientific process. A ‘journal’ like E&E corrupts the distinction between peer-reviewed research and advocacy.
Just to kick this along (sorry Terje) since I ducked out for a few days there.
On my original argument concerning the parameterization of GCMs (General Circulation Models) and the potential for overfitting and hence introduction of bias into the models. I checked out whether realclimate.net had anything to say about that, and it turns out there’s a whole thread devoted to the subject: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100
(Is Climate Modelling Science?)
Comment number 4 said much the same thing as I did upthread:
The responses to that comment by the climatologists on realclimate.net were inadequate. They pretty much avoided the question altogether, or referred people to a second post concerning climateprediction.net results that demonstrates a similar lack of understanding of the issue (“gavin” the climatologist argues that the climateprediction.net results are “unscientific” because the parameter settings used in their simulations produce unphysical results. But that is precisely the problem: the parameter settings themselves _are_ physical as far as we know, so if the model produces unphysical results, isn’t that a problem with the model? Who decides which settings should be thrown out? You are on very dangerous ground indeed if your only reason for rejecting a particular set of parameter settings is because the model doesn’t give you the results you want).
It seems like at least the realclimate folks just don’t get it.
John,
I merely observe that you are adopting a weak form of argument.
I observe that your blog is not a proper peer-reviewed journal. Anybody can contribute content. An argument or position that is stated on johnquiggin.com may not be central to the scientific process in the way that a peer reviewed journal article is, however it is still a valid part of the debate about global warming science. We would make little progress in any of these discussions if we merely dispensed with arguments because they were not printed in Nature magazine.
As I stated, an Ad Hominem attack is not invalid. It is merely weak. You have asserted that you don’t respect right wing think tanks or E&E which is or course your perogative. However your perogative does not form the basis of a strong argument.
The science behind the global warming theory needs to be defended on the strength of the actual scienentific evidence. Not on the mere basis that it is science. Otherwise it becomes religious doctrine.
Regards,
Terje.
Energy and Environment IS taken seriously. It was taken seriously by the Chairman of the IPCC three years ago, when he accepted the Editor’s offer to publish a response on behalf of the Panel to the initial Castles and Henderson critique. He described E&E to the IPCC Bureau as “a leading international journal.â€? Fifteen members of the IPCC writing team co-authored the first reply to C&H, and 18 members co-authored a second response. A number of related peer-reviewed papers have subsequently appeared in E&E, Climate Policy, Climatic Change and World Economics. Among the authors of those that have been published in E&E are the principals of both of the leading Australian academic econometric modelling groups that were identified in the Australian Joint Academies’ 1995 report on climate change science as international leaders in that field.
The reasons why the initial C&H papers in E&E were not peer-reviewed were explained in the journal, both in our Author’s Preface and the editor’s note. In its unanimous report on “The Economics of Climate Change” (July 2005), the all-Party Committee of the UK House of Lords expressed the view that we had “helped to generate a valuable literature”. This week the OECD is conducting a workshop on one of the issues raised in the C&H critique, and David Henderson is addressing the European Parliament on the wider aspects of the economic and statistical work of the IPCC. A surprising outcome for a process which might not have occurred but for the initiative of the editor of a journal which John Quiggin thinks no one takes seriously.
In “Economics, Emissions Scenarios and the Work of the IPCC� (E&E, July 2003), David Henderson and I wrote that “In our view, public debate on issues of policy cannot reasonably be confined, or even largely confined, to writings that have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed summaries of such writings.� Subsequent developments have fully confirmed that judgment.
More pearls from realclimate, this one from the “scientist” known as rasmus:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=228#more-228
That’s gobbldegook that even the editors of Social Text would be proud of.
A system as simple as a double pendulum exhibits chaotic behaviour, without appeal to quantum mechanics, and completely according to (very well understood) laws of physics. Chaotic behaviour is indistinguishable from stochastic behaviour. So questioning whether the climate is stochastic (or chaotic) as rasmus does above shows a depressing lack of understanding of physics.
Realclimate is written by climate scientists who sit on the IPCC panels.
Ian, in your first comment on this topic, you said “So far as I know, Professor Quiggin’s contrary assessment has not been published in the academic literature. I see no need to take it seriously until it is.”
Now you say
“In our view, public debate on issues of policy cannot reasonably be confined, or even largely confined, to writings that have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed summaries of such writings.�
I agree with the latter view, certainly as far as policy is concerned.
But a journal like E&E which appears as if peer-reviewed while in fact either not reviewing material or using an ideological filter to subvert the peer review process is damaging both to science and to public debate.
Thanks John. In my view, the most serious danger to science and to public debate in this area is the demonstrated capacity of the IPCC to manipulate the processes of peer-review both of journals and in its assessments of the literature.
As an example of the former abuse, consider the decision of the relevant IPCC Task Group in June 2002 to post downscaled SRES socio-economic data on the Panel’s Data Dissemination Center (DDC) “once an article describing the method was accepted for publication.” In my presentation to an IPCC Expert Meeting in January 2003 (never published by the IPCC, but published in E&E), I warned that the methodology was wrong, and that the results would be worse than useless and would mislead researchers. Without consultation with me or any one of hundreds of economic statisticians who would have advised that I was correct, the article was duly accepted for publication in Global Environmental Change (then edited by Professor Martin Parry, co-chair of IPCC Working Group II), posted on the DDC and published (Gaffin et al, Downscaling and Geo-Spatial Gridding of Socio-Economic Projections from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, 14: 105-123). When inconsistencies with IPCC storylines became apparent even to the IPCC milieu, the Panel removed the database from the DDC (October 2004). But it was retained on the CIESIN website at Columbia University, New York, with the IPCC taking the view that “If researchers would like to use the downscaled data from CIESIN they can do so, but it has to be clear that IPCC does not endorse or recommend them…” The paper and accompanying database which the IPCC has now disendorsed is co-authored by the Co-ordinating Lead Author of Chapter I of the WGII Contribution to the IPCC’s next Assessment Report, due in 2007. Many papers that have used the flawed data have been published in GEC and elsewhere. The conclusions, though invalid, will doubtless be useful for advocacy purposes.
As an example of the latter abuse, the IPCC did not select any statisticians or economic historians for the writing teams of any of the relevant chapters of AR4, in spite of the urgings of C&H and the recommendations of a well-considered submissions by the Australian Government. I wonder why.
I’d be interested in any evidence you have that E&E uses an “ideological filter” to subvert the peer review process: certainly It has published many papers with which so-called “contrarians” would disagree. I agree that it should be made clear if papers have not been reviewed, as happened with C&H and Nakicenovic et al. Incidentally, the IPCC formally urged the SRES authors to respond to C&H in journals in addition to the responses that have appeared in E&E, but to my knowledge none has done so. Nor have there been responses, in E&E or elsewhere, to the papers published in E&E supporting the C&H critique or elements of it.
I think Dogz might be most in tune with the standard of science at this site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Terje Petersen as I said earlier what JQ and others are doing is not considered Ad hom as it is relevant to the argument.
Agreed this forum isn’t really the place to ague over the details of AGW but Terje
“The science behind the global warming theory needs to be defended on the strength of the actual scienentific evidence.�
who would you have debating the basis of AGW the climate scientists themselves-where there is a working consensus- or those outside this field you think they are qualified to dismiss their work and often have a monetary or ideological bent?
Terje Petersen as I said earlier what JQ and others are doing is not considered Ad hom as it is relevant to the argument.
Agreed this forum isn’t really the place to ague over the details of AGW but Terje
“The science behind the global warming theory needs to be defended on the strength of the actual scienentific evidence.�
who would you have debating the basis of AGW the climate scientists themselves-where there is a working consensus- or those outside this field you think they are qualified to dismiss their work and often have a monetary or ideological bent?
BTW Willis hmmm, listening to the Science Show and reading other quality sources of science journalism the working consensus on AGW always seems to be the norm. Did you have a link for that info that when polled there is no consensus?
Steve, how about you avoid attacking me and address my arguments instead? Or do you simply take AGW as an article of faith, and hence do not see any need to engage in constructive debate? If so, that site is right up your alley.
Simon,
I think you are using a slightly different meaning for “Ad Hominem” to what I typically encounter.
Consider a few hypothetical examples:-
1. “Fred is wrong about Global Warming because he is a homosexual”
2. “Fred is wrong about Global Warming because he does not have a degree”
3. “Fred is wrong about Global Warming because the data contradicts what he says”.
Clearly example one is Ad Hominem in the worst form. And clearly example three is not Ad Hominem at all. However you seem to suggest that version two is not an Ad Hominem attack because a proponents qualification or reputation is relevant. Whilst I would argue that it is a valid point, I would also assert that it is a weak point and either way it is still an Ad Hominem attack.
Have I understood you correctly, or have I missed the mark?
Regards,
Terje.
P.S. “Ad Hominem” arguments can be contrasted with “Appeals to Authority”.
Did anyone note The Guns Germs and Steel episode last night concerning malaria antibodies in tropical Africa? One wonders that if malaria wasn’t climate zone dependent in some way and indeed followed the various climatic zone habitat ranges of mosquitoes why Europeans didn’t also get these antibodies?
Using a lay understanding since the parasite thrives in wet and warm- but also exist but to a less degree in colder- the earth gets warmer and wetter in some regions which seems to be the conclusion of
Global Warming and Potential Changes in Host-Parasite and Disease-Vector Relationships
ANDREW DOBSON AND ROBIN CARPER http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-364/001-364.html it will have some effect.
As a lay person one could reasonably conclude yes malaria has been around in colder areas but is not as prevalent as the tropic zones due it being out of its optimal zone-therefore Europeans didn’t develop the antibodies as did the Africans.
& yes there are other social environmental factors which should be studied before Reiter’s argument is considered knockdown.
http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020218/full/020218-12.html;jsessionid=073ABFB1375865FBAC3BB09913546C68
Hey Willis just letting my confirmation bias have its way 😉
BTW Willis what is your stance on other global environmental problems which of these are myths or overblown?
Terje-Saying Fred is wrong because he works a energy funded scientist or lobbyist is Ad Hom, saying there is a reasonable expectation, due to conflict of interest, maybe certain past history factual errors and that he is in the minority of that scientific community, that he is wrong or that his work is contaminated by bias, is not.
Same goes for creation scientists just because they are fundies doesn’t make them automatically wrong on evolution but the circumstances of the debate calls into question their intellectual honesty.
BTW I posted earlier that I did indeed check with a prof who lectures in logical & critical thinking and has his own fallacy page and he advised background and history is relevant.
I also talked about using fallacies in isolation. Another point heuristics are useful but not full proof. As a lay person relying on Appeals to Authority is a fallacy given we cannot all become qualified in very information and time intensive fields, but it is a good bet and one we all live by by a large extent
One I’d be more likely to make the further away from social or monetary factors like the physical sciences or medicine less so in the social including psychology.
Cheers ï?Š
Dogz says: “Steve, how about you avoid attacking me and address my arguments instead? Or do you simply take AGW as an article of faith, and hence do not see any need to engage in constructive debate? If so, that site is right up your alley.”
I merely did what you did in respect of the folks at realclimate.org, and in particular the Norwegian physicist Rasmus Benestad, which is to employ sarcasm and ridicule.
Realclimate.org has provided thousands of replies to questions about climate science. It requires little brain or skill to troll through the answers and quote a particularly sloppy one, taken out of context, from someone whose second language is English. Shame on you.
By refering to this professor you are posing an argument by “deference to authority”. Not invalid but weak.
Oh give me a break. That quote was from an article posted by rasmus, not from any of his comments. While I may have ridiculed him, I did so because his statement shows a clear lack of understanding of physics (it has nothing to do with a language barrier – have you been to Norway? Their command of English is better than most native English speakers). And I explained precisely why. I did not make a blanket ad hominem attack as you did. No decent physicist would have written what he wrote, unless they were pushing an ideological line.
Elsewhere on realclimate the scientists demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of (or at least a clear refusal to address) the overfitting problem that I have clearly explained earlier in this thread, and that others it turns out have also raised. Further, the realclimate folks label anyone who voices valid concerns a “septic” (oh, how very amusing).
They set themselves up as disinterested and objective scientists but in reality, if you read the stuff there, they are anything but. And these people sit on the IPCC.
Again by itself yes but I also did my own reading and thinking it through.
It is not meant to be by itself the knockdown but like going to my doctor to see what that lump on my arm, is talking with someone best qualified in that area is the logical place to start and not the end story. Would rather I spoke with a history prof? 🙂
Like conflict of interest it doens’t mean they will do or have done the wrong thing just that if we want that judgment to be beyond reproach background info muct be taken into consideration.
I agree.
Dogz, After much thought I’m starting to warm to your theory. I think you owe it to humanity to publicize your clever and cunning theory far and wide. It can only be a matter of time before the World Meteorological Organisation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences in the US, Britain, Australia, France, Germany and so on wake to what you are saying.
I suspect a Nobel Prize might be in the offing. Although you may face some stiff competition from Bob Foster and his “cosmic rays in the magnetosphere” theory and Willis Eschenbach and his …….
Why does the issue of global warming bring out the wackiest in so many underachievers? Is it “tall poppy syndrome”?
Please forgive the sarcasm, but I think I have by now read well in excess of a hundred different wacky theories from people who have never made a worthwhile contribution to any scientific field of endeavour.
Can’t you guys find something more constructive to do?
Ah we evil skeptic beasties. But at least we’re not stark-raving-bonkers. From leading environmentalist James Lovelock in the Independent Weekly yesterday (the guy is an FRS):
I don’t recall _any_ skeptic that has even come close to making such an outrageous claim, yet this is from one of the leading figures on your side of the debate JQ.
But let me leave you with something much deeper and exquisitely beautiful, from the same article:
[snigger]
Steve Munn, I can only conclude from your persistent failure to address a single substantive point that I have made that you are either driven by faith or simply do not understand me. Feel free to carry on with your denigration, but until such time as you do address the points of my argument I won’t bother responding.
Dogz, while Ian Castles, Willis Eschenbach and Bob Foster may be grumpy old Methuselahs, at least they have sufficient ticker to use their real name.
Come on mate. Stop sniggering, step out of the closet and smell the fresh air.
Dogz, I agree that Lovelock is talking nonsense, but is equally nonsense to call him “one of the leading figures on my side of the debate”. AFAIK, the IPCC has not made any use of his work, in fact he has done any actual climate science, as opposed to misty speculation about Gaia, for many years. Leaving Gaia to one side, Lovelock’s primary contribution to the debate has been to call for a rapid shift to nuclear energy. NNTAWWT, but it’s not exactly my view – I think there’s a lot of room for conservation and reductions in energy use before nuclear power becomes a cost-effective option.
As regards comparative silliness I can point you to dozens of contrarians saying that Kyoto will destroy the economy, ruin capitalism and so on, not to mention Peter Walsh saying that it was the greatest threat to Australia since the Japanese Fleet entered the Coral Sea.
The problem for you is that nearly everyone on the contrarian side who isn’t just a paid shill like Milloy displays symptoms of crankiness very similar to those of Lovelock. All the real science supports AGW.
Ian Castles in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2147 expresses the view that James Hansen is not at all concerned about the dire prospects for the planet arising from the prospective warming in the present century and a further warming which would still be “in the pipeline” in 2100.
This view is based on the presumption that Hansen’s “alternative scenario”, under which global average temperature increases by no more than 1 degree C in the next 200 years is likely to happen. Well, here follows Hansen’s alternative scenario from http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html .
“In the alternative scenario, delta CO2/year decreases linearly from 1.7 ppm per year in 2000 to 1.3 ppm per year in 2050 and then linearly to zero in 2100;”
i.e. CO2 emissions will decrease to zero in 2100 and there will be zero emissions from feedback effects at that time.
So far this scenario has failed to occur, i.e. CO2 increased by more than 2 ppm in each of 2003 and 2004 as I recall. There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 production is decreasing or will decrease anytime soon.
There is no consideration of the effects of the decreasing relative significance of natural carbon sinks or the feedback effect on these from higher temperatures. Accounting for these would require even faster decreases in anthropogenic CO2 production.
I would love Hansen’s alternative CO2 growth scenario to be implemented but the way things are going at the moment it is very very optimistic for the immediate future.
Ian Castles can criticize the IPCC for being overly pessimistic but the obvious caution when doing this is not to be too optimistic either.
And I can point you to dozens of AGW proponents saying that the latest Hurricane was caused by global warming, as was the latest heatwave, the latest cold spell, that humans are doomed within 100 years, that global ecological collapse is imminent, and so on. I’m not condoning skeptic silliness, but if we line them up, I’m sure your side will win in the silliness stakes.
Oh come on, Lovelock isn’t cranky, he’s insane. I agree that there is a lot of supporting evidence for AGW, but there is also a hole in the modelling arguments that hasn’t (to my knowledge) yet been adequately addressed. So for me the debate is not yet over.