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.
Guido mentions the ALF; there’s also the SHAC organisation, whose members have been convicted of offences such as burglary, incitement to violence and stalking. A salutary example of when activism crosses the line into terrorism.
On the Greenpeace blog they are doing all they can now to insist that Greenpeace is peaceful, that Gene is a peaceful person who wouldn’t harm a fly, etc. However, his own words condemn him, and it looks as if he has created a PR disaster for Greenpeace. Are they simply that naive, I wonder; did they not realise how “we know where you live”, etc., would come across?
PeterM
You opined to Brute (199):
It all depends, Peter, when you start and end your data series to determine the trend.
You are using the short-term “blip” starting in 1978 and ending today, while Brute is using the even shorter-term “blip” starting two years ago and ending today.
You are both right, based on the “blips” you have chosen.
A more meaningful trend would be for a period starting 100 years ago or more. Unfortunately, we did not have any satellites in the air then, but Russian studies have shown us that the ice was at around today’s extent in the 1930s and 1940s and then grew to the modern-day record extent in the late 1970s, when the satellite record (and your “blip”) started.
Max
PeterM
You asked in 195:
I gave you a straight answer (197)
and provided you with the logic and scientific data I used in arriving at my answer.
You now come back with another curious bit of logic and a new strange question (198):
As you can read from my answer, I have not said that anything was “impossible”. Thinking scientifically, I just do not think the data show that “human kind can alter the climate”.
As far as the premise “that there could never be anything else to worry about”, I have a hard time figuring out what you are trying to get at.
There are always things “to worry about”, but I do not conclude that the data provide empirical evidence to support the premise that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is one of these.
Ergo, I do not “worry about” AGW.
I hope this has answered your questions.
Max
Talking of Greenpeace:
A week or so ago, a gentleman of unusual coiffure knocked on my door, complete with a fairly conventional Mohican style but in luminescent green. Additionally there was an impressive array of nostril and lip-rings etc. Interesting guy I thought, but after the initial distractions, I then noticed in large print, the word Greenpeace across his luminescent green T-shirt. I consequently abruptly informed the gentleman that I was not interested in donating.
Was I being too harsh?
Bob_FJ
No. I do not think you were too harsh with the gent from Greenpeace.
But I would be watchful now.
GP obviously “knows who you are and where you live”
The second wave from GP may be the “climate outlaws” who may now (based on your refusal to donate) have reason to believe you are
“one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission”
These words were apparently written by a gent of the southern Asian persuasion, so if the next guy knocking at your door matches the description, have your defensive weapon of choice ready before you open up.
If the guy knocks on my door I’ll hit him over the head with my alphorn.
Max
Max
Max,
Despite your denial I’m sure you’ve figured out exactly what I’m getting at!
You started out with comments such as:
“The arrogance of thinking that puny man is changing global climate… etc etc etc”
Was that the real Max talking or have you since changed your mind?
We don’t see those sort of sentences now. Instead it’s something like:
“OK human activity may changed global climate a little but not very much. And it may change it a little more in the future but there’s really nothing to worry about! I’ve worked it all out using Boltzmann’s equation!”
The “its all a hoax and con trick” Max, from a few years ago, obviously had some philosophical objection to even the possibility of minor human induced climate change. OK fair enough. That saves a lot of thinking! So why bother with the pseudo-scientific clap-trap now?
Is it that you’ve decided on a different approach? No more glimpses of the real Max? Have you now chosen to hide an ugly argument behind the fig leaf of a few dodgy scientific articles you’ve picked up on the denialists’ blogosphere?
PeterM
You are avoiding a discussion of the scientific points and simply beating a dead dog with your “philosophical objection” talk.
Based on my understanding of the scientific data as I have outlined in 107, I question man’s ability to alter our planet’s climate.
As pointed out, this has nothing to do with any “philosophical objection”; it is simply based on the data as outlined.
These data support neither the premise of dangerous AGW nor the postulation that humankind has the ability to alter our climate.
With all your rhetoric you have been unable to show empirical data to support a) the suggestion that human CO2 emissions have played the major role in the 0.7C warming we have seen since the modern temperature record started, b) the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a serious potential threat or c) the postulation that humankind has the ability to change our planet’s climate.
Bring this empirical data and we’ll have something to talk about, but leave out your silly talk of “philosophical objections”. It simply points out how weak your argument really is.
Max
PeterM
Further to my 207, in order to move our discussion forward rather than getting stuck in futile debates about purported “philosophical objections”, go through the scientific reasoning I outlined in 197 (not 107) and point out where you think there are logical errors and why, from your standpoint.
{The observed compounded annual growth rate for atmospheric CO2 should read 0.4+% rather than 4+%.)
Awaiting your specific comments so we can move this discussion forward.
Max
Max,
If you believe that your primary objection is based on science why didn’t you say so in your early posts? Why say that it was ‘arrogant’ to claim that the 26,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2, which are emitted from human sources every year, might be the cause of the problem?
What’s arrogance got to do with it?
The Financial Times – a normally alarmist publication – has published an article that suggests it may be edging slowly towards scepticism. Referring to Copenhagen, Climategate and IPCC errors, it says:
Hmm – “consensus”, “contributing”, “may be”. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of dangerous AGW.
But I liked the three things it said scientists must do: (1) “be open about sharing the data that underlie their findings”, (2) “devote more effort to observation” and (3) “give weight to all the evidence, not just the consensus.” Ahem – and there was I thinking that real scientists did these things as a matter of course. And there’s the problem.
WRT Greenpeace, I wonder if that has now become an oxymoron..?
Shame, really – I used to think they did some good.
This article in The Times (about pressure on the Government to block an aid project that would benefit millions of South Africans) is a perfect illustration of how “greens” are prepared to sacrifice some of the poorest people in the world – their education, healthcare, clean water and the opportunity for their children to grow up in an expanding economy – on the sacred altar of an unverified hypothesis. It’s shameful that, for example, the once honourable Christian Aid is part of a campaign that could lead directly to children’s deaths.
Robin, #212
Your comment on that very interesting article by Ben Webster would have fitted well with the new General Election thread.
It will be very interesting to see which way the cat jumps on Thursday. If you notice anything do please put up a link.
The following would have also been appropriate to ‘The warmists just don’t know what hit them’:
This is the kind of old thinking that might have worked six months ago, but now seems Neanderthal. Just how do the green groups expect poverty to be relieved in southern Africa if you make industries less competitive by clobbering them with higher energy costs for purely dogmatic reasons?
If the UK has the casting vote, and the US is sitting on the fence, I wonder who the other participants are and how their sympathies are distributed. All in all this kind of controversy spells doom for the Mexico climate summit I think.
You are exactly right in what you say about the suffering that such decisions can inflict on the developing nations. Even if the scheme gets last minute approval, the message that this wavering will send to countries that face the same kind of problems as South Africa will not be missed.
And just how long will it be before the rest of the media tumble the fact that the equation comprising fossil fuel energy, alternative energy, competitiveness and employment applies equally in a ruined UK economy?
Here’s Jimmie Hansen, radical activist, spewing nonsense……I thought that Liberals recoiled at people making moral judgments? I thought as far as Liberals were concerned, morality was subjective? It seems that in the Liberal mindset, moral judgments are conditional……
Obama’s Second Chance on the Predominant Moral Issue of This Century
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/obamas-second-chance-on-c_b_525567.html
Bishop Hill has a link to this article. Worth reading.
PeterM
Regarding your 209, I have a question for you. Are you unable or simply unwilling to discuss the “science”, Peter?
I am not interested in entering a silly conversation with you on what you or I wrote in a totally different context several years ago.
In 195 you asked me a question (which you said was not a “trick question”).
I gave you a straight answer in 197, listing the specific scientific reasoning supporting my answer.
Instead of challenging my stated reasoning or data, you then tried (198) to intimate that my conclusions were not reached based on these, but rather on some preconceived “philosophical objection”, which you then use as a “sidetrack” to avoid a discussion of the scientific data and reasoning.
When I point out to you that the basis for my answer to your original question is listed in the specific points I made in 197, you again come with a totally irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with a) the “non-trick” question you asked me, or b) the straight answer with reasons, which I gave you in response.
Either we will discuss the points I made in 197 one by one or we will end this exchange. It has become repetitive and silly.
I suggest we start with point number 1, which I will repeat below. Tell me you either agree or disagree and state the specifics of why you disagree, if you do.
Awaiting your specific answer, Peter.
[Once we have discussed point number 1, we will move on to point number 2, etc., until we have gone through all the points.]
It’s truly time to “put up or shut up”, Peter.
Max
Max,
It might not have actually occurred to you this way, but I’ve actually taken your advice and decided to apply some principles of rational scepticsm!
The first thing I thought I’d try it out on was your claim to be a rational sceptic yourself. Anyone who was a rational sceptic, wouldn’t shoot from the hip when faced with some new scientific information. They would say something like “yes, we need to investigate that further” before coming to any conclusion.
So I’m just wondering why that wasn’t your reaction too? I’m sure you remember quite well why you used the word ‘arrogant’ and terms like ‘puny man’ instead. But now you seem unwilling to tell us!
So your claim to be a rational sceptic just doesn’t fit the facts. Sorry!
PS I should have answered your point about “a totally different context” a few years ago. I’m pretty sure that you were ranting away about climate scientists who were all in on this “big scam” at the time, but have I got that wrong? I’d better go back and have another look!
PeterM
Waffle time is over. Please refer to the last line of my 216.
Max
Max,
I’m sure we have already gone over all the scientific points more than once. What’s the point of doing it all again?
I have heard the same argument before, so you aren’t the only one, about it being ‘arrogant’ , or ‘extremely arrogant’ as you put it, to even think that 7 billion people collectively might be having an effect on the climate.
Its really not a trick question when I ask why. I am genuinely curious to know the line of thinking, or belief, that is behind this sentiment. I was hoping that you might be more helpful but if your mother has called you in, and you have to take your ball home, then of course I understand.:-)
PeterM
For the reasoning behind my statement on the 7 billion humans and our planet’s climate, see below:
GH theory tells us that CO2 is a GH gas.
This theory also tells us that all GH gases have caused a natural GH warming of our planet of 33C, mostly as a result of water in the atmosphere, and that GH warming from CO2 represents around 7C of this total. Based on this and the logarithmic nature of the GH relation, these scientists tell us that a doubling of CO2 would result in theoretical GH warming of 1C.
Humans emit CO2. This is more prevalent in the wealthier industrially developed regions (N. America, Europe, Australia, etc.) than in the underdeveloped impoverished regions (N.Korea, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.), so it is clear that CO2 emissions are related to wealth or standard of living. As the world develops industrially, the CO2 emissions are expected to increase (viz. China, India, Brazil, etc.), so it is likely that atmospheric CO2 levels will probably continue to increase at the same 0.4% annual growth rate as they have since WWII.
A portion of the CO2 emitted annually by humans (around 50%) appears to cause an increase in the atmospheric CO2 content. Whether or not this is the cause is unclear, but atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1958, so we can assume that the increase is anthropogenic.
“Pre-industrial” CO2 level is estimated (based on somewhat sketchy ice core data) to have been around 280 ppmv, and today it stands at 390 ppmv. It is estimated that it will reach a level of 560 ppmv (or 2x the “pre-industrial” level) by year 2100.
This should cause a theoretical GH warming of 1C, of which we have seen 45% today, leaving theoretical GH warming from CO2 of 0.55C from today to year 2100.
The first nine years of the 21st century have shown cooling at a rate of 0.1C per decade, despite record increases in CO2. At the same time, the upper ocean has also cooled since more reliable Argo measurements started in 2003. This raises serious doubts as to whether the theoretical GH warming from CO2 is real or not. It also tells us that other, more powerful, natural factors are at play, which may also have been the cause for any warming we have seen to date.
And, most of all, it tells us that we cannot “control” our climate. If we cannot even cause warming with maximum CO2 emissions, how do we expect to be able to influence our planet’s climate by curtailing CO2 emissions?
Finally, there have been no actionable proposals for specific changes, which would result in specific decreases in CO2 levels with specific decreases in global warming. All we have seen is nebulous political “reduction targets in % of some year’s level” and a ludicrous politicians’ “target” of “no more than 2C temperature rise”.
So, as a practical matter, I would agree “that human kind cannot, no matter what, alter the climate”.
Max
Yes, yes, yes we’ve heard all that before.
I could have understand that, having looked into the problem, the verdict of mainstream science may well have turned out to be very close to what you are describing. That is: AGW is real but not a serious problem. Unfortunately it didn’t.
What you are still not willing to tell us, and I would very much like to know the answer, is how anyone could dismiss the possibility that AGW might be somewhat worse than in your account as with words such as “insignificant humans” and “extreme arrogance”. I’ll ask again: What were your sentiments behind them?
We should always rationally sceptical: especially of people who claim the mantle of rational scepticism themselves. Their arguments for an improvement of science are quite bogus. Their true and hidden feelings are so strong that there is no hope of fruitful discussion of evidence and uncertainty, because their inner beliefs are driven by economic interests, politic, ideology, or philosophy, and not by science.
PeterM
I agree than one should always be rationally skeptical (in the scientific sense) and demand empirical evidence to support any claims that are made. This is true whether one is debating with a proponent of “Intelligent Design” or of “AGW”.
This is actually the crux of rational skepticism, as both Robin and I have pointed out to you repeatedly.
For this very reason, we have repeatedly asked you to provide empirical evidence based on actual physical observations or experimentation to support your premise thae AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has caused a significant portiion of the observed warming to date or represents a serious potential threat for the future.
So far, you have been unable to show such evidence.
As far as “arrogance” is concerned, here is a definition:
Arrogance:
· having or showing feelings of unwarranted self-importance or excessive pride in oneself
· overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors
· feeling of superiority showing itself in
a) claiming more importance than is actually due
b) claiming to be always right
Examples (related to AGW):
“Humankind [is so important that it] is the principal cause for global warming”
“We [are so important and powerful that we] will hold global warming to no more than 2C”
“[We are so knowledgeable that we are certain that] anthropogenic warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
“The scientific consensus in support of the AGW premise [which we personally know is right] is overwhelming”
“Those [inferior or ignorant souls] who deny that AGW is a serious threat are ‘flat-earthers’ who oppose ‘science’”
Probably there are other examples, but these were just the first that came to mind (along with Einstein’s quote on ignorance and arrogance, which I will not repeat here).
Max
PeterM
PS For the part of “insignificant humans” vis-a-vis Earth’s climate see post 221.
Max