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.
PeterM
Two tips (your 2774):
First go to an optometrist and get a new pair of glasses.
Second, open the Phil Jones – Harriban (BBC) interview link I provided.
Scroll fown to Harrabin’s Question C and read (slowly – or maybe several times, to let the full meaning sink in), Harrabin’s question and Jones’ answer:
As I pointed out earlier, Jones conceded that it has been cooling from 2002 to the present (the period Harrabin asked him about), but adds the caveat that “this trend is not statistically significant” (since the time period is too short).
Got it now?
Max
PS Enjoy your new glasses! They will help you in future blog discussions.
Max and TonyB,
You are quoting Phil Jones as saying that the Earth is cooling. Yet he says “No” in the answer to this question.
Is there some mistake here?
He’s saying that the variation of data points, in the graph I posted in 2750, between 2002 and 2009 is not significant. And you can see from the graph that same thing happened in the early 1990’s and plenty of other times too.
Do you genuinely not understand the meaning of his words, or are you just trying to twist them to suit your own purposes?
Peter
You call US deniers?
“C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”
Peter. Look at the words ‘negative’ He is saying the trend is not statistically significant but it is still negative-that is its ‘cooling.’
He is right, its not statistically significant but who said that it was?
Tonyb
PeterM
Are you joking with TonyB and me or are you an obstinate fool (I must assume it is the former and you are chuckling all the way).
To Harrabin’s question regarding temperature trend since 2002, Jones clearly stated that it had COOLED since 2002, although he stated that this was not “statistically significant” (because of the short time span).
Is there some part of the statement below that you are having difficulty understanding?
A temperature “trend” that is “negative (-0.12C per decade)” is a COOLING TREND.
In other words, Jones told Harrabin that it had COOLED (with a COOLING trend of -0.12C per decade)
Are you unable to see this?
If so, I’m wasting my time blogging with you on this topic.
Max
Here’s your group of “world renowned” scientists Peter……signing a petition to ban water.
Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/#more-29077
News bites: The Green Energy Collapse
Across the world, unsustainable subsidies for wind and solar are being cut back.—Lawrence Solomon, – Financial Post, 3 December 2010
The French government is planning to suspend feed-in tariffs for new photovoltaic installations above a capacity of 3 kilowatt hours for a period of four months, according to a draft decree discussed at a government meeting on Thursday. –ENDS Europe, 7 December 2010
Solar developers are set to abandon France following the government’s recent announcement that it will freeze all new projects larger than 3kW in order to prick the “speculative bubble” building up around the industry. –ReCharge News, 6 December 2010
Germany will not guarantee that existing rules for feed-in tariffs for solar power will be continued after 2012, environment minister Norbert Roettgen said on Wednesday.—Reuters, 1 December 2010
According to Mr Eberhard Holstein of Vattenfall Europe Sales, the rapid expansion of renewable energy sources under the present regulatory environment in Germany will lead to a collapse of the power market. Mr Holstein at the Energy Brain days in Berlin said that “We need to decide whether we want a planned economy or market economy.” He said that should no changes be made to the current legal framework in Germany, then the country would have moved to a de facto planned economy.- Steel Guru, 7 December 2010
Few will be surprised if the United Nations Cancun climate talks end in failure. The real surprise is that for the last two decades people seriously believed there was a realistic prospect of securing broad international agreement to restrict CO2 by all the major emitters. –Ruppert Darwall, The Wall Street Journal, 7 December 2010
Three years after he led the charge to require consumers to ditch their comfortable old incandescent lights in favor of those twisty CFL bulbs, Rep. Fred Upton now wants to be the man to help undo that law as the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. –Fox News, 7 December 2010
“Gore effect” strikes Cancun Climate Conference 3 days in a row
Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts
From the “weather is not climate department” – New record low temperatures set in Cancun for three straight days, and more new low temperature records are possible this week.
Dr. Roy Spencer, who is in Cancun representing climate skepticism on behalf of CFACT writes on his blog:
Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, dry, cool Canadian breeze.
It was 54 deg. F in Cancun this morning — a record low for the date. (BTW, Cancun is nowhere near Canada).
Al Gore is not supposed to be here…but it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival. We will check into this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/gore-effect-strikes-cancun-climate-conference-3-days-in-a-row/
PeterM
Let’s summarize before we break off this repetitive (and, by now, horribly boring) part of our discussion.
1. The HadCRUT record has shown several cycles of warming and cooling since 1850, with an underlying linear warming trend of around 0.04°C per decade and an overall linear warming of just below 0.7°C over the 160-year period.
2. Notable warming periods were observed in the late 19th century (~1857-1882), the early 20th century (~1910-1944) and the late 20th century (~1975-2000). These periods are statistically indistinguishable.
3. In between these observed warming cycles, there were slight cooling periods of roughly the same length. Before 1857 and after 2000 there have also been observed periods of slight cooling, however these are both considered to be too short to be statistically significant.
4. The observed warming + cooling cycles have had a total cycle time of around 60 years and an amplitude of around ±0.2°C resembling a rough sine curve pattern on a tilted axis.
That is what the record shows.
We can discuss the accuracy or relevance of the record, the possible distortions resulting from many different factors, the many ex post facto corrections and adjustments that are made to the raw data, the suspicion that early data points are probably not as accurate as later ones, the great uncertainty regarding the sea surface temperature record, etc.
These are all points that can be discussed and debated.
But, Peter, there is no debating about what the record itself shows. Period.
Max
Brute
Glad to hear that Cancun delegates have signed a petition to ban “dihydrogen oxide” as a
But hey, you can’t let this bunch of international yo-yos get ahead of the USA, the leader of the free world, can you?
It’s high time for the EPA to declare this dangerous substance a “pollutant” and start to tax anyone who “emits” it.
Maybe EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson needs some help from “Science Czar” John Holdren to get this pushed through rapidly. No need to get Congress or the US voters involved; they would just slow things down, and urgent action is obviously needed here.
Max
Yes Max, it’s a damn shame what a worldwide socialist educational system has wrought on mankind.
Judging by Peter’s reading comprehension skills in your latest series of posts, I’m not surprised that he too was educated by a public school.
This news should cheer Peter up!
GLOBAL WARMING RAVISHES PARIS!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hpL-0qTw5xUpvbYi9C5CntDSQ8vA?docId=e570690e82e14a8495c7ea699da620fc
The climate models are correct……The climate models are correct…….keep repeating that over and over…….
It isn’t cold……It isn’t cold…………
By the way Pete, did you know that “cold” is the absence of heat?
England has coldest opening week of December since 1659…
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
By the way Max, did you know that Carol Browner, Obama’s “Environmental Tsar”, is also the “commissioner” of the Socialist International?
What a coincidence!
Crazy thing that this global warming nut also happens to be a Socialist……Strange!
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2364
This “warming” thing isn’t really going your way Pete is it?
Fort Lauderdale breaks cold record for Dec. 7
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/fl-cold-outside-update-20101206,0,6900801.story
Obama : “What’s snow doing on the ground in North Carolina?”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/obama-what%E2%80%99s-snow-doing-on-the-ground-in-north-carolina/
‘Once in a lifetime’ cold grips ice-bound UK…
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/849754-forecasters-warn-christmas-could-be-cancelled-as-cold-weather-grips-uk
TonyB,
You originally claim that Phil has has said that the “Earth has cooled”.
You now admit that what he actually said wasn’t that at all. Instead he answered “No” to the specific question of whether the Earth had cooled and talked about short term “negative trends” which were “statistically insignificant”.
Now you say “He is right, it’s not statistically significant but who said that it was?”
If you look at the data on the price of gold in the last few years you’ll be able to pick out little clusters of price points which may appear to be showing that the price is falling. Whereas the price has actually doubled in recent years. These clusters are statistically insignificant in the same way as Phil Jones pointed out that just a few clusters of temperature points are insignificant too.
Did you actually realise that this is what Phil Jones was meaning? If you did, and you are genuinely trying to argue your case in a scientific manner, why do you feel the need to distort what he was saying?
PeterM
Again, you have failed to understand (or see) the written word.
Harriban asks Jones (caps by me):
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. THE TREND THIS TIME IS NEGATIVE (-0.12C per decade) [i.e. “COOLING”], BUT THIS TREND IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
GOT IT, PETER?
“Negative temperature trend” = COOLING (that’s the definition of cooling)
I repeat:
COOLING
(But Jones tells Harriban that this COOLING trend is not “statistically significant”, because the period is too short, as Tony and I have been telling you all along.)
COOLING!
COOLING!!
COOLING!!!
COOLING!!!!
Got it?
If not, I can’t help you.
Max
Cancún climate summit talks doomed according to EU President
http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/cancun-climate-summit-talks-doomed-according-to-eu-president-wikileaks-cables/
Looks like EU President, Herman van Rompuy, is gloomy about the Cancún COP16 caper.
Interestingly, he has moved away from rational arguments in support of carbon cuts to pouting about the way the EU is being shunned. As a last resort, it appears that he is trying a bit of old-fashioned fear mongering to keep the fervor alive, but it is all beginning to ring a bit hollow, as the once powerful “climate change” behemoth sputters to a halt.
Of course, there could always be backroom deals and “rabbits pulled out of the hat” at the last moment, but it looks unlikely that anything substantive will come out of Cancún.
Oh well, there’s always COP17 in South Africa – so just wait’ll next year (no taxpayer-funded margaritas, but, hey, they’ve got great wine down there!).
Max
Here’s the youtube for Brute’s 2780
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY&feature=player_embedded
Someone needs to publish the list of these people who signed the petition to ban DHMO. Are they among Pachauri’s “2,500 scientists”?
Max
Max and TonyB,
So why do you think its OK to miss out the bit about “statistically significant”?
Don’t you agree that it completely changes the meaning of Phil Jones’ answer when you do that?
Wouldn’t you also agree this indicates a desire to spread disinformation, rather than information, and is, of course, entirely consistent with your political motivation to try to discredit the scientific case by any means? Fair or foul.
It’s just a joke to claim you have any scientific curiosity. It’s just an insult to anyone’s intelligence to claim that you are genuinely trying to understand the science involved in the issue.
Peter
This is getting bizarre, do pay attention.
You are doing your usual trick of putting speech marks around a phrase as if to imply those are the actual words said by someone, in this case that I am claiming that those words were actually said by Phil Jones.
If he had said those precise words I would have put speech marks around them myself wouldn’t I?
He says the trend is negative. That means it has cooled. Neither he nor I claim that it is long enough to be a trend nor that it is significant.
The fact that you are parsing the words to the nth degree demonstrates that you realise this point as much as anyone.
If you want some proper trends let us look at the overall trend that shows the earth generally warming (in fits and starts) since the beginning of instrumental records.
Here it is from 1660
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi
Here it is from numerous other old records.
http://i47.tinypic.com/2zgt4ly.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/125rs3m.jpg
Here is where I collect such information
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Global Trends and averages showing the equivalent of the upward ‘gold price’ over many hundreds of years disguise what is happening in individual stations. Here is a study showing numerous places that have cooled for at least thirty years in direct contradiction to IPCCS assertions
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Strip aside the nonsenses of global averaging with a database largely made up of stations affected by uhi-which is very poorly accounted for despite the protestations of Real Climate- and you start to see some interesting things.
In Phil Jones home country and mine we are able to see much more clearly the negative direction of travel of which Prof Jones speaks.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
Now it is not long enough to be a trend (as I previously said) but it is significant in its size. Whether it will continue I have no idea because it may just be a blip in a general 350 year observed upward trend. A trend that did not start with Giss.
tonyb
Peter #2794
What seems a million years ago now (but was only Dec 6th) Max said in #2738
“In his interview with Roger Harrabin at BBC, Phil Jones (former keeper of the HadCRUT record) stated that the recent surface trend showed cooling at -0.12C per decade, but that this was not “statistically significant”, because the period was too short.”
In 2771 he gave a link to the original BBC interview which also says this(perhaps you didnt read it?
In 2779 Max said
“To Harrabin’s question regarding temperature trend since 2002, Jones clearly stated that it had COOLED since 2002, although he stated that this was not “statistically significant” (because of the short time span).”
We are all reading the same posts-how many times does it need to be said-the first time back on December 6th? The trend is not long enough to be statistically significant-who is disagreeing?
You can huff and puff all you like in your silly 2794 Peter but if the rest of us can make do with three references AND the original BBC transcript in order to carry on a discussion why can’t you?
Have you any comment on the very long term trends, or the numerous ‘cooling stations,’ or even the sharp drop in the UK over the last few years? (interesting but not statistically significant)
tonyb
TonyB,
Well you’re actual words were “…….disagrees with Phil himself when he says the earth has cooled”
So in the light of all the talk about statistical significance are you still saying that Phil Jone has said that the Earth has cooled.
He clearly hasn’t. He has said “I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. “
I’m just curious to know why you are so keen to make out that Phil Jones on your side when he clearly isn’t?
It’s obvious to everyone with a reading age of ten that AICC deniers have blatantly misrepresented and distorted Phil Jones’ views and comments.
If you were true sceptics you wouldn’t do that. And that’s why denier is an accurate term for those who adopt this sort of tactic.
Steven Schneider was criticised for his comment about ” Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
However, he was warning that words should be chosen carefully. There are many newspapers and websites, run by unscrupulous scum, who enjoy twisting and misrepresenting comments made in good faith by climate scientists.
Peter #2797
You are just making yourself look foolish.
Phil Jones said what he said, which has been repeated ad nauseam above. Anyone with a reading age of five can read what he said and know the meaning of negative even if its not in your Lexicon.
You failed to see that the phrase ‘statistically significant’ was used in the ensuing discussion, and made your silly assertions in 2794.
No one said Phil was on ‘our side’. Nobody is saying it is statistically significant-interesting yes, particularly bearing in mind the person who used the words as reported, in as much the word ‘negative’ was mentioned.
What about replying to my points in 2795 and stop trying to squirm your way out of this one It fools only yourself.
tonyb
Peter #2797
“There are many newspapers and websites, run by unscrupulous scum, who enjoy twisting and misrepresenting comments made in good faith by climate scientists.”
Name them-with examples-after commenting on the highly signifcant trends shown in my #2795
Tonyb
TonyB,
No, I didn’t fail to see the phrases “statistically significant” or “statistically insignificant” where they was used, either in Phil Jones’ original interview or in other reports of the interview, in which a genuine attempt was made to convey Prof Jones’ original meaning.
Top of the list of “scum” for engaging in deliberate distortion misrepresentation of Phil Jones’s article would have to be, none other than, the UK’s Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
If you need to see why it was deliberate distortion:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/rosegate-dailymail-error-riddled-articles-misquote-credibility-science/
Is “scum” too harsh a term for journalists, and others, who deliberately misquote, distort, and misrepresent the opinions of others? I don’t think so. It’s fair enough to argue any case in a logical fashion, but deliberately creating a false impression and spreading disinformation has got to be considered the foulest of tactics employed by deniers of any kind.