Greenfieldsite (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} greenfieldsite) wrote,@ 2009-01-03 22:54:00 |
|
The Booker Review: 1
I tend to alternate between the broadsheet newspapers and have recently noticed an increasing disconnect between them on the reporting of global warming issues. In particular, the Daily Telegraph seems to have a much more sceptical stance than other newspapers. Much of this seems to be led by the articles of its columnist Christopher Booker.
I find it disheartening that there there seems to be little scrutiny of such views. So in this blog I want to start investigating them. I will start with Booker's article on 31 December 2008 headed 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.
The title in itself seems misleading to me. I can find nothing in the article that backs this headline up. I think what Mr Booker means is that he thinks that there is insufficient evidence to link observed global warming to man-made activities. Even so, in his article he does not point to evidence that indicates that this is definitely not (or even probably not) the case.
As an introductory comment, I do not think anyone would deny that solar activity affects the temperature of the planet. Let's take it to extremes: if the sun were extinguished then the planet would gradually cool regardless of how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. Similarly if the sun temperature increased massively the planet would warm. Therefore over short time periods it seems evident to me that solar activity might be the most significant factor affecting global temperatures. However, if we accept, as I believe almost all scientists do, that the planet benefits from a greenhouse effect to some extent from various gases in the atmosphere, then the issue as I see it is whether we have created (or are creating) a gaseous state that will result in possibly dangerous warming given normal long-term levels of solar activity.
If we have then it is very dangerous to assume that we are safe because temperatures are cooling in the short-term.
I turn now to Mr Booker's arguments. He starts by drawing attention to two articles. One (from May 2008) reported that snowfall in Alpine regions had declined significantly. The other (from December 2008) reported record levels of Alpine snowfall.
This is true, but in terms of strength of argument it is surely no more than "anecdotal" and of limited relevance. Global temperatures vary year-on-year and temperatures in different regions can vary to an even greater degree. Also, as I argue above, short-term fluctuations do not help us understand the trend.
Mr Booker writes that "After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century." However, he provides no reference to support that assertion, and it appears contrary to a report from the Met Office dated 16 December 2008 that states that the global mean temperature for 2008 is the tenth warmest year on record. I don't know what information Mr Booker was referencing, but it feels to me as though his article would have been improved by addressing the discrepancy between his unreferenced statement and that of the Met Office, a reputable institution.
After some rhetoric, Mr Booker then refers to the 2008 Manhattan Declaration, introducing it with "2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a 'scientific consensus' in favour of man-made global warming collapsed.".
The Manhattan Declaration can be found here.
The declaration "recognises that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community" and declares that "there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change". That is a selected extract and I would recommend you read the full declaration as there is much more.
The list of 'climate experts' who signed the declaration can be found here. At the time of making this post there were 197 such signatories. I have not sought to review their credentials, but have assumed that they are experts. I admit I do not know how many people in the world could legitimately be clasified as 'climate experts', but having read the summary biographies on the list this appears to me to be a small minority of such people who could have signed up.
Nevertheless, it seems valid to say that there is not 'scientific consensus' if 197 scientists disagree. That does not mean that there is not a 'scientific majority view', where the majority is probably very large. If there is a 'scientific majority view' then is it good journalism to disparage it in such a one-sided way?
I intend to write further posts on this subject and will defer any conclusion until I have done so. I would welcome any comments or criticism on this - my aim is to get to the truth.
I tend to alternate between the broadsheet newspapers and have recently noticed an increasing disconnect between them on the reporting of global warming issues. In particular, the Daily Telegraph seems to have a much more sceptical stance than other newspapers. Much of this seems to be led by the articles of its columnist Christopher Booker.
I find it disheartening that there there seems to be little scrutiny of such views. So in this blog I want to start investigating them. I will start with Booker's article on 31 December 2008 headed 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.
The title in itself seems misleading to me. I can find nothing in the article that backs this headline up. I think what Mr Booker means is that he thinks that there is insufficient evidence to link observed global warming to man-made activities. Even so, in his article he does not point to evidence that indicates that this is definitely not (or even probably not) the case.
As an introductory comment, I do not think anyone would deny that solar activity affects the temperature of the planet. Let's take it to extremes: if the sun were extinguished then the planet would gradually cool regardless of how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. Similarly if the sun temperature increased massively the planet would warm. Therefore over short time periods it seems evident to me that solar activity might be the most significant factor affecting global temperatures. However, if we accept, as I believe almost all scientists do, that the planet benefits from a greenhouse effect to some extent from various gases in the atmosphere, then the issue as I see it is whether we have created (or are creating) a gaseous state that will result in possibly dangerous warming given normal long-term levels of solar activity.
If we have then it is very dangerous to assume that we are safe because temperatures are cooling in the short-term.
I turn now to Mr Booker's arguments. He starts by drawing attention to two articles. One (from May 2008) reported that snowfall in Alpine regions had declined significantly. The other (from December 2008) reported record levels of Alpine snowfall.
This is true, but in terms of strength of argument it is surely no more than "anecdotal" and of limited relevance. Global temperatures vary year-on-year and temperatures in different regions can vary to an even greater degree. Also, as I argue above, short-term fluctuations do not help us understand the trend.
Mr Booker writes that "After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century." However, he provides no reference to support that assertion, and it appears contrary to a report from the Met Office dated 16 December 2008 that states that the global mean temperature for 2008 is the tenth warmest year on record. I don't know what information Mr Booker was referencing, but it feels to me as though his article would have been improved by addressing the discrepancy between his unreferenced statement and that of the Met Office, a reputable institution.
After some rhetoric, Mr Booker then refers to the 2008 Manhattan Declaration, introducing it with "2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a 'scientific consensus' in favour of man-made global warming collapsed.".
The Manhattan Declaration can be found here.
The declaration "recognises that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community" and declares that "there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change". That is a selected extract and I would recommend you read the full declaration as there is much more.
The list of 'climate experts' who signed the declaration can be found here. At the time of making this post there were 197 such signatories. I have not sought to review their credentials, but have assumed that they are experts. I admit I do not know how many people in the world could legitimately be clasified as 'climate experts', but having read the summary biographies on the list this appears to me to be a small minority of such people who could have signed up.
Nevertheless, it seems valid to say that there is not 'scientific consensus' if 197 scientists disagree. That does not mean that there is not a 'scientific majority view', where the majority is probably very large. If there is a 'scientific majority view' then is it good journalism to disparage it in such a one-sided way?
I intend to write further posts on this subject and will defer any conclusion until I have done so. I would welcome any comments or criticism on this - my aim is to get to the truth.
