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”

  1. 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.

  2. “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.

  3. 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.

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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?)

  7. (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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. test

  15. 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?

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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. ]

  19. 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.]

  20. 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!

  21. 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!

  22. 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/

  23. 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.

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


× three = 18

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha