This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.

The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?

By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.

Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.

Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.

Useful links:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

Pages: « 181 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 » Show All

  1. 4451
    Brute Says:

    Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

  2. 4452
    manacker Says:

    Hi Brute

    Howls of outrage to nail the hacker (leaker)!

    Where were these howls when Wikileaks released their stolen email data?

    Max

  3. 4453
    James P Says:

    Max

    It’s the Grauniad. They can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast…

    (pace Lewis Carroll)

  4. 4454
    geoffchambers Says:

    Something more to worry about:
    http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/11/28/iran-on-the-brink-of-acquiring-wind-farm-technology-warn-experts/

  5. 4455
    peter geany Says:

    geoffchambers, thats a relief, we won’t have to bomb and invade them now.

  6. 4456
    manacker Says:

    Iran with wind farms?

    As I recall from visiting there many years ago, there are a lot of desolate desert areas where the wind howls constantly, blowing a lot of sand along with it.

    Hope their windmills are resistant to sandblast.

    Max

  7. 4457
    Brute Says:

    Iran with wind farms?

    Maybe they’ll use the windmills to pump the oil out of the ground?

  8. 4458
    manacker Says:

    TonyN

    This long thread started out with an article by David Whitehouse.

    Here is a new one by the same author in the Huffington Post on science journalism, which is well worth reading:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-david-whitehouse/science-a-new-mission-to-explain_b_1122560.html

    Max

  9. 4459
    manacker Says:

    Looks like we don’t need all those bureaucrats meeting at Durban.

    Myshelterfoundation.com has found the solution to the global warming threat.

    PET bottle slum lighting!

    http://www.eco.viaexpo.com/en/news/branch-news/solar-bottle-lights-transforming-plastic-bottle-waste-to-light-bulbs

    Brute, you might want to try it out in your Hummer’s garage…

    Max

  10. 4460
    TonyN Says:

    Max, #4458:
    I think that Whitehouse is taking a very cool and astute look at a very important problem, and he is obviously very well qualified to do so, both as a scientist and a journalist of considerable experience. See this thread, where there related issues are already being discussed.

  11. 4461
    Brute Says:

    Brute, you might want to try it out in your Hummer’s garage…

    Max,

    I’m cutting holes in my roof as we speak and installing plastic bottles……..I haven’t discussed this with Mrs Brute yet……I’m certain she will be pleased.

    On a happier note, it seems that these people have lost faith in their bank. Unfortunately, these type stories will become rather routine in the coming months.

    PANIC: BANK RUN IN LATVIA…
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/45637136

  12. 4462
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    Re #4461 we’ve already had to bail out one big bank here (UBS) and a couple of small ones are shaky.

    But there’s been this very successful meeting in Durban and they decided there that “carbon certificates” and global “carbon taxes” will be used to finance the $100+ billion “green development fund” for compensating the governments of underdeveloped nations for past carbon footprint sins of the developed nations (like Switzerland and the USA).

    The good news for Switzerland is that most of the dictators of these underdeveloped nations have their private accounts in Swiss banks and most of this money will find its way into these accounts, thus helping us to solve the bank liquidity crisis here through stronger capitalization.

    It’s what’s known as “synergy”.

    Although Mrs. Max still doesn’t know about it, I’ve put all our remaining francs into “carbon futures”, in anticipation of the inevitable fall-out effect.

    Smart move, huh?

    Max

  13. 4463
    manacker Says:

    News flash

    Canada, who represents less than 2% of global CO2 emissions today, has opted out of the Kyoto agreement.
    http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Canada+opts+Kyoto+pact+favour+voluntary+cuts/5817158/story.html

    Japan and Russia, which together represent a more meaningful 8%, have also indicated that they will not renew their commitment.

    China, which represents a fast-growing 21% today, never was part of the agreement, nor were Brazil and India, which represent 4% and 5% respectively and are also growing rapidly.

    The USA, with 17%, which is growing slowly, was also never part of the deal.

    Most of the other developing nations plus the largely industrially underdeveloped rest of the world never were part of the agreement, either. These represent 10% and 19% of the total emission today.

    That leaves the EU plus other European countries and Australia plus New Zealand, who represent 13% and 1%, respectively, who are still in, for a total of 14%.

    The Cancun session last year ended with a loose commitment to “keep global warming below 2°C by 2100”.

    This looks like a “slam dunk”, if one looks at the past warming since 1850 of 0.7°C (of which only a part in due to AGW) and the past increase from ~290 to 390 ppmv CO2 over the same time period.

    Using these data, and the IPCC model “scenario and storyline” B1, A1T, B2 or A1B, of CO2 increase to 584 to 706 ppmv by 2100 based on moderate economic growth, population growth leveling off at end of century (A1, B1) or continuously increasing global population (B2), respectively at between 9 and 10 billion and no “climate initiatives”, we arrive at between 0.9°C and 1.3°C warming to 2100.

    Even the IPCC worst-case “scenarios and storylines” A2 and A1F1, with CO2 increasing at close to twice the current exponential rate to 790 or 860 ppmv, respectively, would only get us to a warming of between 1.6°C and 1.7°C.

    IPCC has higher warming projections for these “scenarios and storylines”, of course (1.8°C to 4.0°C), but, the again, IPCC has based its projections NOT on the past actual observations, but on doubtful model-derived 2xCO2 climate sensitivity estimates.

    In summary:

    - It looks like we will be unable to cause 2°C or more warming from human CO2 emissions, no matter how hard we try (i.e. the “Cancun commitment” is a slam dunk).

    - It looks like the likely temperature increase from human CO2 by 2100 will lie in the range of 0.9°C to 1.3°C, all other things being equal

    - The past decade has shown us clearly that “all other things are NOT equal” (slight cooling due to natural factors despite CO2 levels reaching record heights).

    - Even the worst case scenarios of IPCC would only get us to 1.6°C to 1.7°C by 2100.

    - If the nations that are still signed up to Kyoto (14% of total CO2 emissions) were to shut down their carbon-based economies entirely, they would only theoretically be able to avert around 0.1°C to 0.2°C warming by 2100.

    So much for man’s inability (in real life) to control our plane’s climate and the delusional attempts to do so at Cancun and Durban.

    Max

  14. 4464
    Brute Says:

    Suckers such as Peter Martin believed in this nonsense………How much money did you lose in the carbon exchange Pete?

    Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/story.html?id=5847032

    Monday, December 12, 2011
    By Tom Spears

    Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice because it doesn’t work.

    William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no value.

    The two scientists from Colorado State University will still discuss different probabilities as hurricane seasons approach — a much more cautious approach. But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.

    Gray, recently joined by Klotzbach, has been known for decades for an annual forecast of how many hurricanes can be expected each official hurricane season (which runs from June to November.)

    Southerners hang on his words, as even a mid-sized hurricane can cause billions in damage.

    Last week, the pair dropped this announcement out of a clear, blue sky:

    “We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year … Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.”

  15. 4465
    manacker Says:

    India scuttles Durban deal
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/13/india-proudly-sinks-the-durban-climate-c

    Apart from hardcore greens and hardline hawks, India’s enviro minister Jayanti Nataraj is getting high marks from her countrymen as well as other developing nations for refusing to bow to EU pressure to commit to legally binding emission cuts. As Ron Bailey reported, the Durban talks were saved from total collapse after India and China agreed to language that accomplishes the remarkable double feat of ensuring that the world will never do anything to avert climate “catastrophe”—while keeping alive the illusion that it will.

    Max

  16. 4466
    Bob_FJ Says:

    Brute & Max,
    Hi guys,
    It’s about 3 weeks old now, (and in a way, that’s what makes it more interesting), but I think you might be entertained by this article by Joanne Nova about our great Oz self-sacrifice in order to save the world, with apparently the highest so-called carbon tax, amongst other things.

    Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/australia-picks-last-possible-moment-to-leap-onto-burning-ship/#more-19080

    I see that our Canadian cousins do not have the same intestinal fortitude….. SHAME! But then, they have also abandoned the English language, and play that rather silly “football game” based on the American model

    I think that everyone here thinks the tax is $23/tonne, not as Jo typed; $15. Oh, and BTW the Oz$ has been uncomfortably above par to the US$, apart from in the last couple of days.

  17. 4467
    manacker Says:

    Bob_FJ

    Nice to hear from you again (#4466).

    I am so relieved that you and your countrymen – including our Brisbane buddy, PeterM – are making this noble sacrifice to save the world.

    Let’s accept your government’s (rather convoluted) notion that a carbon tax will result in lower CO2 emissions. If your supreme sacrifice results in a 50% reduction in your CO2 emissions (1.2% of global total), I have figured that this will reduce global warming by 2100 as follows:

    Let’s accept the IPCC estimate that without “climate initiatives” we will reach around 580 ppmv CO2 by 2100. This is based on “business as usual”, with most future growth in China, India, etc.

    And let’s figure the impact of your remarkable sacrifice to freeze your CO2 at 50% of today’s value. This amounts to a total net reduction of 20 GtCO2 over the next 90 years.

    Half of the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere, so your noble initiative will result in a net reduction of 2.6, let’s say 3 ppmv CO2 (i.e. from 580 to 577 ppmv).

    Using IPCC’s estimate for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, your sacrifice will cut the global warming by 2100 from 1.83°C to 1.81°C – or a net reduction of warming of 0.02°C.

    Let me thank you [as well as Peter], in the name of my yet unborn great-grandchildren for your noble sacrifice, Bob. It is a true life saver.

    Cheers!

    Max

  18. 4468
    Brute Says:

    Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship

    Good for the Aussies! Well played! You guys mind your kilowatts and carbon footprints down there! We Americans are behind you to the man!

    (If you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna throw another log on the fire, turn up the thermostat on the oil burner a few degrees then take the monstrous V-8 powered, carbon spewing Brutemobile® down the road to buy a greasy burger and some ice cream………………)

    Keep fighting the good fight Bob!

  19. 4469
    Brute Says:

    You guys keep “saving the planet” down there Bob………..we’re with ya!

    Congress to Approve Keystone Oil Pipeline Provision

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/source-congress-approve-keystone-pipeline-provision-budget-deal_613448.html

    Rejoice: Incandescent Light Bulb Ban Suspended By Congress

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2011/12/16/rejoice_incandescent_light_bulb_ban_suspended

  20. 4470
    Bob_FJ Says:

    Hi Max & Brute, Re 4467/8/9.
    Firstly, let me say that I’m proud that me, a Brit, has long adopted the Oz nation that has recently led the world with the intention to reduce global warming by a whopping 0.02 degrees C, by 2100. (Re Max’s 4467). My breast bursts with pride, but then Oz is well known locally for “punching above its weight”! Well, anyway, according to a popular TV beer advert at least!

    Brute, thanks for your support, and I assume that you agree that American & Canadian “Football” games are not very good? (BTW, “not very good” is an English expression of understatement). The silly energy expended therein adds to your wasted carbon footprint gadzooks!

  21. 4471
    manacker Says:

    Bob_FJ

    As a displaced Brit, you will be even prouder to know that your old home country is also pitching in to save the planet by plopping expensive windmills all over the countryside and rationing electrical power to consumers.

    The remarkable aspect of all this is that the UK has a carbon footprint, which is almost 40% higher than yours in kangaroo country!

    So this self-sacrificing effort by your ex-countrymen (women and children) to freeze CO2 emissions below 1990 levels would result in a net reduction of warming by 2100 of 0.03C

    I thank you (and also the many other Brits on this thread who have joined in the fight to save our planet).

    Your sacrifice is heart-warming and has not gone unnoticed.

    Max

  22. 4472
    Brute Says:

    Max,

    Check out how the environmentalists live………….very nice.

    22,000 square foot mansion………..

    I guess duping people in the name of global warming is paying off handsomely for this climate crusader.

    (This chick is pretty hot also).

    Gisele Bündchen goodwill ambassador for the UN Environment Programme

    The new home includes eight bedrooms, six-car garage, a lagoon-shaped swimming pool with spa, a weight room and a wine cellar, reports the Boston Herald. The house that Brady built also comes loaded with — get this — a covered bridge connecting two wings of the home, an elevator, a nursery for his son Benjamin, and a gallery.

    The price? More than $20 million. That’s in addition to the $11 million that was spent to buy the 3.75 acres of land in Brentwood, Calif.

    Now for the green part:
    Gisele Bundchen, wife of the Patriots legend and the money maker in the relationship, is a United Nations environmental ambassador. So she’s under pressure for building a giant, energy-eating palace.

    So Bundchen declared she had the home built with solar energy, energy-saving lighting, rainwater recovery systems, waste reduction and recycling programs, energy-efficient appliances and sustainable building materials, according to the Herald.

    http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201112/nfl-stars-environmentally-friendly-palace

  23. 4473
    Alex Cull Says:

    Happy New Year, all! Here’s a recent interview you may find of interest – Robyn Williams of the ABC’s Science Show talking to Lord May; worth a listen/read, in my opinion. An excerpt (emphases mine):

    Robyn Williams: So what do you make of someone like Lord Lawson, with whom you sit in the House of Lords, who has for many, many years, having been Chancellor of the Exchequer, a brilliant man, but nonetheless talks about climate change consistently over the years as if it is highly questionable. What do you say to him?

    Robert May: And particularly amazing more recently is Andrew Turnbull, who I always thought of as a very sensible person. He was the Cabinet Secretary, a civil servant, not a politician. So his career was taking advice from people who knew more about it than him, and he is right up there as a denier. Polly Toynbee wrote an extraordinarily cruel thing about him.

    I do find it puzzling, but I do have one perhaps unsound potential explanation. These people are all economists, and more recently I’ve come to learn a little bit more about economics and I realise it is very largely (and I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way, it’s just a statement), it is largely faith-based. It doesn’t have much in the way of testable hypotheses and things. It does have things in the way of simple models but they tend to be grounded on beliefs, and the discussions they have would have been a more familiar in Socrates’ Athens than in today’s scientific colloquium.

    And so I have some sympathy that just as you may believe in perfect markets or general equilibrium or hidden hands, you could have a belief that the climate can’t do that. That is a charitable explanation. There are less charitable ones, that it ultimately derives from other kinds of motives.

    I had a look at columnist Polly Toynbee’s article, which I think he might be referring to; it’s from August last year and about why Britain must resist “Tea Party madness” (where else would it be but in the Guardian?) and it, too, is I think worth a read, from a climate change psychology perspective. She writes:

    On matters of fact, those of us who are not scientists can only listen to what scientists say and trust such an overwhelming global consensus.

    Now that’s what I call faith.

  24. 4474
    temp-terr-ain Says:

    Alex Cull,

    You may have heard of Fermat’s last theorem which was recently proved by the Cambridge mathematician Andrew Wiles:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles's_proof_of_Fermat's_Last_Theorem

    Or was it? There may only be a handful of people in the world who understand the ‘proof’ well enough to be able to know if Prof Wiles has got it right and I’m not one of them.

    So, what to think? I must admit that I do believe that Andrew Wiles has come up with a genuine proof. But, would you say that ‘faith’ would be a more appropriate word?

  25. 4475
    Alex Cull Says:

    Peter, that’s an intriguing comparison, but I don’t think it’s quite the same sort of thing.

    1. For all the complexity of the maths, the question of the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem boils down to a simple yes/no proposition – either Wiles proved it or not. With the climate debate, there is no similar either/or “climate change is/not happening” proposition (in serious circles, anyway.) Did Wiles prove the theorem? Like you, I don’t understand the maths well enough to test it for myself. But based on the little I’ve learned about it, I think that there’s a strong likelihood that he did (barring new developments, of course). With climate change, there is no similar pair of “happening”/”not happening” alternatives to choose from. What is climate change? What is happening? It’s a vast, messy subject, where the abstractions of mathematics and physics collide with a vast array of natural processes that interact with one another in ways that are, as yet, imperfectly understood. It can’t be boiled down to a yes/no question.

    2. Do I have faith that Wiles proved the theorem? No, I wouldn’t put it that way. I consider it likely that he did. What do I base that on, given my lack of mathematical expertise? For want of a better phrase, I’d say that for me, at the moment, it passes the “sniff test”. Actually, so did catastrophic man-made global warming, once – for me, during 2005 and part of 2006. Then it started to fail. There are quite a few reasons why Wiles’s proof currently passes the sniff test (for me) and why CAGW hasn’t for a long while; it’s late and I don’t want to list them all right now, but some are: a) no equivalent of the IPCC and its flaws, b) no equivalent of the Climategate emails with all their implications and c) no industry devoted to changing the way I live, based on some sort of dogmatic, simplistic interpretation of the Fermat solution.

    That’s not all I wanted to write, and could be expressed better, but will have to do for the moment (it’s now after midnight here!)

  26. 4476
    temp-terr-ain Says:

    Alex,

    Faith is possibly an approximate synonym for belief. If I were doing a crossword puzzle I would possibly think of one given the other, but the two words do have a different nuance.

    I would say that faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    Now, as far as Wiles’ and Fermat’s theorem goes there is a proof but it is just that we don’t understand it! With climate change, and the extent to which it is caused by human activity , principally the increase in CO2 which has been observed over the last 150 years, there is a considerably body of evidence.

    Of course for many people, there will never be enough evidence. They’ll always reject the scientific arguments. Not because they are too weak, but because, and as you put it, they don’t want to change the way they live. They don’t want to face up to the potential difficulty.

    So, belief is the correct term – both for an acceptance that Andrew Wiles got his proof right and an acceptance of the mainstream scientific position on AGW.

  27. 4477
    Alex Cull Says:

    “So, belief is the correct term – both for an acceptance that Andrew Wiles got his proof right and an acceptance of the mainstream scientific position on AGW.”

    The two are very different kinds of creature, though, aren’t they. One is the sort of straightforward fact (like the existence of the electron, the albedo of Jupiter, the structure of DNA) that most people I think would provisionally accept, in the absence of having the means to verify it – there’s no whiff of scandal about it, as far as I know – no hint of a massive dispute brewing up in mathematical circles – and no political organisation using it as a pretext for pushing through radical changes to the way we use energy.

    The other, though (as far as it exists), appears to be more a sort of ragbag, a mixture of relatively reasonable propositions – that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the heating effect of such gases is logarithmic and not linear, that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, that the Earth has undergone uneven warming over the last century and a half (and went through other warming and cooling episodes before that), etc. – and some relatively shaky and controversial ones as well, relating to such things as runaway positive feedbacks and dendrochronology. It’s a curious bundle of very different things, that most people don’t have the time or inclination to unpack, hence the tendency not to look at it too closely and to treat it rather like an article of faith.

  28. 4478
    Brute Says:

    The other consideration is the colossal amount of money to be made through the promotion of the global warming agenda.

    Peter Martin blindly follows the enviro- religious dogma and overlooks the obvious base human motivation behind it………power and greed.

    Mr. Martin is the archetype useful idiot.

  29. 4479
    Hayden Pollom Says:

    I was reading some of your posts on this site and I believe this web site is real informative ! Keep putting up.

  30. 4480
    Brute Says:

    Network News Coverage of Climate Change Collapsed in 2011
    By Joe Romm on Jan 9, 2012

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/09/400795/network-news-coverage-of-climate-change-collapsed-in-2011/

    On Joe Romm’s page………..I’m laughing.

    I think back in 2008 I wrote that the global warming fad would die when people realized it to be a fraud.

  31. 4481
    Alex Cull Says:

    Brute (#4480), many thanks for this, reading it brightened up my morning.

    Some of the suggestions from commentators (as to how the media should be forced to focus on climate change) are realistic indeed. “Loudly and rudely accusing them of systematically and deliberately deceiving the American people” would I am sure put media companies in a very co-operative frame of mind, and render them instantly eager to restore climate change to top news story.

    The best one, though, is this: “All climate extreme disasters should now be attributed to GW climate change unless otherwise proven… scientist have to say that extreme incidents are primarily being caused by GW (yes they are) and then quantify the details and uncertainties with less enthusiasm behind the headline.”

    Genius!

    (Could it be, though, that some of those helpful comments on Climate Progress are – how to put it – somewhat tongue-in-cheek?)

  32. 4482
    Brute Says:

    (Could it be, though, that some of those helpful comments on Climate Progress are – how to put it – somewhat tongue-in-cheek?)

    I don’t know Alex but I’m still laughing………..I see Romm sitting at his keyboard………typing furiously……. trying to save the last shreds of his defunct agenda. A broken man………janitors sweeping up, vacuuming and emptying the trash cans……half the lights are burned out………..Poetic justice……

    On another note, we acquired a new development project last month……..the previous owner had a design and the go ahead to break ground but (sadly), they lost funding so we picked it up cheap.

    The first thing that I got rid of was the “green” roof and the “eco-friendly” water wall. The storm water reclamation and cistern to water the landscaping……………….gone……………

    We should make big money on this one.

  33. 4483
    tonyb Says:

    Five years on from the start of this thread-as a result of an article by David Whitehouse ‘Has Global Warming stopped’ – it seems appropiate to confirm that he won his bet-the world hasn’t warmed

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/the-standstill-not-the-increase-is-now-this-warm-periods-defining-characteristic/#more-54705
    tonyb

  34. 4484
    Alex Cull Says:

    Today’s broadcast of the BBC’s “More or Less” programme can be found here (h/t GWPF by way of WUWT.)

    I’ll post a full transcript tomorrow but here’s the last bit:

    Tim Harford: I hesitate to leap in at this point, but there is of course an obvious way to resolve this disagreement. We could go double or quits. Will we have a record year in the next four years? James, are you tempted?

    James Annan: I think there’s every possibility that’ll happen, yes.

    Tim Harford: David, would you be tempted?

    David Whitehouse: There is a possibility, but remember, if we extend the bet to nine or ten years, there is a chance – due to statistical fluctuations – that one of the years might be high, just to fluke. So I would say yes, I’m up for double or quits, but I would like to see evidence of sustained warming, which means more than one year, more than one standard deviation above the straight line of the past ten years.

    Tim Harford: We’ll nail you down, over email, about exactly what you are or are not going to agree to. James, if you lost this bet again, would that start to make you question what you believe about climate change?

    James Annan: I think it would start – yes, if the record temperature in 1998 isn’t beaten in the next four years, then it would certainly start to point towards a slightly lower warming trend. It wouldn’t, however, change the fundamental fact that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere, which I think even David Whitehouse would agree.

    David Whitehouse: Yes, “even David Whitehouse” would agree, because I’m not a sceptic – it’s not a question of whether carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere. It’s a question of the greenhouse effect in the real world, and the only way you determine that is not by models, but by measurement, and measurement shows that the temperature of the last ten years is flat. But I’ll let the data do the talking.

  35. 4485
    Brute Says:

    Funny thing about Eco-Chondriacs……….even when faced with the facts that they rely on so heavily……..that clearly shows that their hypothesis is incorrect, they refuse to accept it.

    The term “denier” seems to be misapplied when presented with the evidence concerning the topic.

    Mr Martin is curiously silent………….which is particularly unusual considering his penchant for wager ……..the sore loser.

  36. 4486
    peter geany Says:

    Ever wondered why no one is able to explain the greenhouse effect correctly? Ever wondered why all the feedback calculations are immediately shot down with explanations that are then themselves shotdown? Every time we think someone on the sceptic side has found the answer, someone finds fault in an assumption, or calculation. Have any of you ever thought perhaps their is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? I have but to say so get you branded as worse than Hitler in this day and age.

    Well finally I think the answer is starting to form. There is no greenhouse effect, so providing numbers is of course impossible. We have been subject to poor science and closed minds and attitudes that run counter to common science for far too long.

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html

    You have to read all the comments where you will learn more than just reading the article.

    Another little article I came across is this about the atmosphere during the time of the Dinosaurs. Interesting to think about this in relation to the above.

    http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html

    E

  37. 4487
    Brute Says:

    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krFMSPWt

  38. 4488
    peter geany Says:

    Hi Brute, not a word of this in the BBC but they do have a story on how Volcanoes caused the Little Ice Age http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16797075
    Funny thing is weren’t we told there was no such thing as the little ice age? Also weren’t we told Volcanoes couldn’t change the climate, and were insignificant?

    My own view is they are still way off the mark. Whilst the warmist are scrambling to understand what has happened to the warming, and looking at what may be causing the hiatus, our sceptical understanding, or more correctly our realisation of the limits of our current understanding has moved on, and I suspect that in 5 years time we will be looking at the climate in a whole new light. It may prompt science to re-examine a whole range of views where new data has been challenging the consensus.

  39. 4489
    Brute Says:

    Peter Geany,

    Send this around to your warmist friends…………bypass the BBC.

    No Need to Panic About Global Warming

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

  40. 4490
    tempterrain Says:

    test

  41. 4491
    tempterrain Says:

    Just testing if TonyN has allowed me back on! Maybe he has? Or was it just a glitch in the software that meant I had to put a hyphen in may name previously and use a different email address?

  42. 4492
    peter geany Says:

    Looks like you are back on. TonyN must be very busy at present.

  43. 4493
    TonyN Says:

    Peter and Peter

    There is another reason for my neglect of this blog at the moment.

    At the end of Jan Dec [the pain-killers are making me very woozy] I injured my left knee seriously and I am just out of hospital after an operation intended to make some repairs. Although I can type without using my knees, medication etc leaves me with little inclination to do so at the moment.

  44. 4494
    peter geany Says:

    Tony, I’m sorry to hear this and hope that you are fully repaired soon. Knee problems can be a bit of a bugger for mobility. Maybe the news that the Huhneatic is toast will cheer you up.

    [TonyN says: Many thanks Peter and, after the 'Cash for Honours' scandal, I find it rather reassuring that Huhne will be charged. ]

  45. 4495
    Alex Cull Says:

    TonyN, hope you get better soon. Best to take it easy for a while, and also stay warm (a challenge, at the moment, admittedly.)

    Chris Huhne may have departed, but here’s a glimpse of his successor in office – Ed Davey (yes, we have another “Ed” in the role.)

    [TonyN says: Very many thanks Alex. No choice about taking things easy at the moment, but we have a very good stock of wood this year and I'm spending most of my time toasting in front of a blazing fire.]

  46. 4496
    tempterrain Says:

    TonyN,

    I do hope that your knee is on the mend. I have a continuing problem with one of mine too so I do genuinely sympathise. I’ve got damaged ligaments and loose cartilage. The only thing that does it any good are those fish oil capsules and lots of cycling exercise to build up compensatory muscles.

    This film clip may cheer you up slightly. It shows our friend Christopher Monckton trying to put wrongs to right in the Australian media, and how he has similar plans for the UK too. All you need is, he says, for the super rich to buy an existing TV station or set up a new one, employ the likes of Joanna Nova and hey presto, you’ve got balanced coverage.

    http://www.getup.org.au/minersmediaplan

    Simple really. I wonder why no-one thought of it before!

    Maybe he can ask Roman Abromovich to stop wasting his money on Chelsea football club and buy up the BBC instead?

    [TonyN says: Very many thanks Peter. At the moment I have my knee in a brace and it is likely to be months before I find out how successful the operation has been. Very frustrating!

  47. 4497
    tonyb Says:

    TonyN

    Very sorry to hear of your accident-hope you are telling people you got it skiing down a black run in white out conditions and that it mends soon.

    Great news about Huhne-with luck we might get a sensible energy policy instead of one intended to tax us back to the dark ages.

    Peter M is right about the tv station. ‘Scepticvision’ has a certain ring to it

    Tonyb

    [TonyN says: Many thanks Tony. As it happens I was taking my usual short-cut, via a very steep and slippery bank in a wood, down to the village on a gloomy, wet, and dismal afternoon when I went arse-over-tit with quite disastrous results. Problem was the date I did it. Given what happened, try convincing anyone that you were sober at 2pm on New Year's Eve!

  48. 4498
    Brute Says:

    Peter Martin should stop listening to his “climate prophets”…………..

    Australia where semi-permanent drought was promised repeats major flooding of 2011

    http://www.weatherbell.com/weather-news/australia-where-drought-was-projected-repeats-major-flooding-of-2011/

  49. 4499
    Brute Says:

    Germany in skeptical turmoil on both Climate and Solar/Windfarms

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/06/germany-in-skeptical-turmoil-on-both-climate-and-windfarms/#more-56069

  50. 4500
    tempterrain Says:

    Brute,

    You should be careful to distinguish between what scientists say about climate change and what some people say scientists say about climate change.

    This is what they actually said in 2006

    http://csiro.au/files/files/p6fy.pdf

    Maybe you’d like to write a detailed critique? Or I suppose you could just say it was load of crap if you don’t understand it.

Pages: « 181 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 » Show All

Leave a Reply

*Required


3 + = eight

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha