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.
Global Sea Surface Temperature continues to drop
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/global-sea-surface-temperature-continues-to-drop/#more-30866
Just as Al Gore Predicted!
James Hansen 2008: Warm Winters “Clear Sign” of Global Warming.
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/james-hansen-2008-warm-winters-clear-sign-of-global-warming/
Chicago Climate Exchange Closes: The ‘first experiment in carbon emissions cap-and-trade has come to an end’
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/01/03/03climatewire-chicago-climate-exchange-closes-but-keeps-ey-78598.html?pagewanted=all
German Climate Professor Slams Climate Religion
http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/27/german-climate-professor-slams-climate-religion/
Brute,
I see you are now grouping “Darwinist religious beliefs” together with what you’ve often referred to here on this bog as “Climate Religion”.
Max won’t be very pleased with you when he gets back but I’d say you were being very consistent!
Bob_FJ
Your link (3005) to the plant stomata study on historical atmospheric CO2 levels versus temperatures by David Middleton on WUWT is interesting. The conclusions shatter some of the more popular AGW myths.
It is clear to me that Peter will ignore these findings, as they do not support his personal opinion that human CO2 has been a major driver of recent climate, but they do raise serious questions about the dangerous AGW premise to anyone with an open mind (and a rationally skeptical disposition).
Max
Brute and PeterM
I read (and heard) the entire interview (3029/3030) with Professor Werner Kirstein in German, and there is nothing in there about Darwinism – only about the “Climate religion” (i.e. the “religious belief” espoused by you, Peter, that human CO2 emissions have caused significant global warming and represent a serious potential threat for humanity and our environment).
Peter, you are (as usual) trying to deflect the conversation away from the topic here. But this tactic simply does not work. Sorry.
Stick with our topic here: anthropogenic global warming.
Max
PeterM
Since you like to divert to Darwinism when it becomes too difficult to defend your position on “dangerous AGW”, you should be aware of the most significant difference between Darwinism and “dangerous AGW”:
Darwinism has been validated by empirical data; DAGW has not.
Darwinism has successfully withstood several attempts at falsification; DAGW has not.
As a result, Darwinism has successfully passed from being an uncorroborated hypothesis (following the scientific method) to being corroborated, and then passing on to becoming “reliable scientific information”; DAGW is still an uncorroborated hypothesis.
Recent cooling of both the atmosphere and the oceans despite record increases in atmospheric CO2 raise serious doubts about the validity of the DAGW hypothesis; these have not yet been successfully refuted or explained. As a result, DAGW is in serious danger of becoming a falsified hypothesis (along with cold fusion or phlogiston).
Our topic here is not Darwinism (or cold fusion, resp. phlogiston), but DAGW.
Until you can provide empirical data based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation, which support the DAGW hypothesis (and refute the most recent empirical data falsifying this hypothesis), your DAGW premise remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.
Ball is in your court, Peter (as it has been for over a year on this thread).
Max
Max,
In March 2009 you conducted a poll designed , if I remember rightly, to show that you guys were all rational sceptics. You’d all thorough read the evidence as presented by the IPCC and your considered opinion was that the case hadn’t quite been made as claimed.
I, in turn, did have my suspicions that wasn’t quite the case and you were primarily motivated by other considerations than the merits, or otherwise, of the scientific case.
You claimed, at the time, that “We are not conducting a poll on ‘religion’, but on whether or not respondents:
(a) believe the Darwin theory of evolution is valid, and
(b) believe that AGW is a serious threat.
It sounds to me that Brute has voted YES on (a) and NO on (b).”
It now sounds to me that you were wrong in saying that! And it now sounds to me that Brute is indeed a prime example, of the sort of religious right wing type, who is behind what they would no doubt consider to be some sort of moral anti-science crusade.
Being anti the scientific consensus on AGW is only a part of it.
hi, perhaps this post is known as a bit off topic but in any event, I have been surfing around your web site but it looks truly tasteful..I’m making a new blog and now im hard-pressed to make this appear great, and supply quality content. I have learned significantly here and I await more updates and might be returning.
PeterM
You are waffling again (3035).
The topic here is “dangerous AGW”.
You have been asked to provide empirical data to support your belief that this represents a serious threat. So far, you have not been able to do so.
Brute and I both apparently agree that Darwinism is “reliable scientific information” while your premise of “dangerous AGW” is still an “uncorroborated hypothesis” until it can be validated by empirical data.
Quite simple, actually.
Max
Max,
You always use the “you’re waffling” line when you are in some difficulty.
You’re obviously interested in the possible connection between anti AGW and other forms of anti-scientific attitudes. Hence your so called “vote” on the matter.
And now here we have Brute denouncing Darwinism as just another religion. Exactly as if it were global warming!
Have you no words of reproach for Brute?
PeterM
Guess I missed
as you claim.
Can you refresh my memory where he specifically did that?
Thanks.
Max
PS This has nothing to do with the validity of your DAGW premise, as I pointed out above; the basic differences between this uncorroborated hypothesis and the well-validated Darwin theory of evolution are there for all to see (and have been previously posted to you).
PPS It appears to me, Peter, that you are the one who is “in some difficulty” in this debate (and hence resorting to “waffling”).
PeterM
You seem to have an obsession with religion, politics and the “dangerous AGW” premise.
On the P. Gosselin blogsite quoting German Professor Werner Kirstein (cited by Brute) a blogger named Myk Taylor wrote a very concise summary of how these topics all hang together:
Can you identify with this statement, Peter? (I have observed on this site that it seems to fit pretty well for you.)
Max
PeterM
Ferdinand Engelbeen (whom you cited to TonyB) has stated the following concerning his skepticism of the model-based “dangerous AGW” hypothesis:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/climate.html
This all makes perfect sense to me, Peter. How about you?
Max
Max,
Ferdinand Engelbeen made a good job of reviewing the available evidence for the human causes of CO2 increase. However, all I could find on the implications of that increase, were woolly statements along the lines you’ve quoted. He needs to review this evidence in a similar manner too. Telling us that he’s “read a lot about climate” just isn’t good enough!
But maybe I’ve just missed it. TonyB can let us know when he gets back.
You’ll have to ask Brute for his opinions on Evolution. He’s asked me for some info on the dating of fossils and seems to think that Darwin suggested that one race may be more evolved than another. See posts 3018 and earlier.
In the 60’s and 70’s it seemed that Creationist beliefs belonged to the 19th century. They lingered on in some of the more less enlightened regions of the world but, they on their way out. As education levels improved it was just a matter of time before they disappeared altogether.
Or so we thought. Now it seems that nearly half of the world’s richest country still believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Noah’s Ark and all that guff. It’s a staggering thought. Not much different from the percentage of Americans who think like Brute on the AGW issue. Are they the same group? Largely yes. If its possible for 40%-50% of Americans to disbelieve the scientific evidence on Evolution why should we be surprised if they disbelieve the evidence on AGW too?
As far as they are concerned, God has made the Earth for our benefit. That’s their world view. Why shouldn’t we use all the fossil fuels and increase CO2 levels as we see fit and for our convenience? Who are these “elitist scientists” who come along and question God’s wisdom?
Max & TonyB
Thought you might be interested in what I’ve just posted over at WUWT……. An interesting Roy Spencer article on SST’s per full year from satellite.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/global-sea-surface-temperature-continues-to-drop/#comment-566915
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s interesting to compare the La Nina data from the Oz BOM. Among other things it suggests a relatively cold 2011 year, and I was surprised by the small lag between ENSO and the global SST’s
Below is the Nino 3.4 comparison; Nino 3 is even more dramatic, but I think is less used.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5328413916_5d953c3ded_z.jpg
Oddly, there appears to be a small x axis scale error with the last 6 months being slightly over-length, so the curve should be slightly steeper-down than shown ?
PeterM
Thanks for your sermon (3042) and your candid admission that you have no idea what Brute’s thoughts on evolution really are, despite your earlier statement to the contrary.
I can accept the “evidence” (i.e. empirical data) supporting Darwinism, but as far as the “evidence” for dangerous AGW is concerned, I am still waiting for you to provide it. So far you have not been able to do so.
[We have discussed precisely this topic ad nauseam on this thread, as you are fully aware.]
Max
Max,Reur 3031.….. Plant stomata. Also TonyB & TonyN
Yes, it’s all interesting stuff, but I don’t think it will hit the media or register with the CAGW church. One would think that the well known centuries lag between T and CO2 found in ice-cores, (and a few other things) would discourage so-called scientists from making unbalanced claims. But no.
Here is an extract from a complaint I made to the ABC on one story broadcast by them in its so-called “The Science Show “ (1 of 5 points)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[To the CRU/ABC] Here is my third of four complaints of bad journalism/ bias in recent radio “Science Shows”.
The science of climate change. From transcript “The Science Show of 21, August, 2010
The Australian Academy of Science has produced a booklet summarising our [= their?] understanding of climate science. The aim is to provide the public with an authoritative source of information from those who work in the field.
Here, italicised, are extracts of some of the seemingly more cogent points in the transcript. (The programme only covered the first few out of seven Q & A’s contained in the actual booklet) :
a) “…The blue dots here are all measurements, they match up almost perfectly [? see footnote 1] with the ice core record, so we have a record going back here 2,000 years but overall 800,000 years to show us that past history. And this level of CO2 we have now at over 380 parts per million is greater than any concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for 800,000 years…”
Comment: It is true that ancient ice-cores contain entrapped air bubbles which when chemically analysed give a proxy inference of varying CO2 levels that are lower than those actually measured in recent decades. However, there was no mention of the parallel proxies whereby air temperatures at the time of deposition were also inferred via gaseous isotopes analysis. Putting aside some controversy about the accuracy of these two types of proxy, there are nevertheless abundant scientific papers giving that past temperatures were a response to changing CO2, showing significant lag*. (That is to say: whenever CO2 levels rose, it was some hundreds of years later when the air temperature then followed upwards, and vice versa). This was not mentioned, and it very strongly contradicts the conclusions made in the programme. It gets into the highly controversial estimations of various feedbacks and CO2 sinks, that are claimed by “the consensus” . (and that are assumed in the various ensembles of climate prediction models that are the main basis for IPCC opinion on the potential magnitude of AGW)
*For example, check out ‘Caillon et al 2003‘: http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf There are a swag of other studies describing lags of differing magnitudes, and in different ways, but they are all broadly in agreement. Here is a good summary of the various papers: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other 4 points were probably even harder for them to justify, and the interesting thing is that they have failed to give any ruling, and the statutory 60-day time limit has provenly been exceeded because we have exchanged correspondence on it.
Two of my other complaints have been rejected, I think because the Code of Practice can be interpreted any way you like. I have another complaint that is up in the air, I think. (All on “The Science Show”)
Oz largely shuts down for school holidays until around January 20, so I’ll pursue matters more at that time. There are two additional courses for appeal beyond the CRU (complaints rejection unit)
Hey Pete,
How’s the global warming imposed drought going down there in Australia? Everything still dried up and turning to dust?
In the end Pete, it doesn’t matter what I believe……I don’t write policy that affects/effects billions of people.
This guy on the other hand, admits that he is “an activist” first, scientist a “distant second”……so, Oppenheimer doesn’t seem to care much about the “science” of AGW as long as he can further his “activist” agenda.
UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer: ‘An activist first — A scientist a distant second’ — Scientific work ’roundly trashed’ even by fellow warmists
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9297/UN-IPCCs-Michael-Oppenheimer-An-activist-first–A-scientist-a-distant-second–Scientific-work-roundly-trashed-even-by-fellow-warmists
Aw c’mon, Brute. Don’t give poor PeterM a hard time (3046) about the record floods down there in Queensland, while he is bailing himself out.
Remember, IPCC warned us (AR4 WG1 SPM report) that we would “very likely” have increased “heavy precipitation events” and, at the same time, “likely” have “increased areas affected by droughts”, which will both “more likely than not” be a result of “a human contribution” (non-quantified), all “based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies”.
Going to a Vegas crap game with a bet like that you can’t lose, no matter what the dice do.
[BTW, IPCC also warned us that it was “virtually certain” that we would have “warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” for the same non-quantified reason, but Europe has just suffered through the coldest December on record with record deaths. Oh, well – that’s only “weather”, not “climate”.]
Max
Researchers from ETH, Zurich and the Paul Scherrer Institute have developed a solar reactor to convert CO2 and water to synthesis gas (a mixture of CO and hydrogen), which can then be converted to liquid hydrocarbons for motor fuel via the commercial Fischer Tropsch process.
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wissen/technik/Wie-aus-Sonne-und-Wasser-Benzin-wird/story/10677947
No estimate of capital investment or operating cost is given.
[Sorry, the linked video clip is in Swiss German.]
Max
Hi Brute,
Reur 3046 teasing your Queensland fruitcake friend as to how AGW was desiccating his region;
I guess you’ve heard that it has been flooding in substantial parts of south Queensland, with damages currently estimated at $5-6 billion. The most threatened city was declared to be Rockhampton of population around 75,000, and there has indeed been serious flooding from its Fitzroy river at around 9.2 metres gauge. Of course there have been the “usual media pronouncements” about it.
I saw several TV news reports wherein behind the reporter was visible a flood gauge showing much higher flood levels in prior years, but there was not a skerrick of mention about this.
Out of curiosity I Googled around and found this graph:
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/fitzroy/fitzroy.shtml
So, of course, the flood levels are not unprecedented, but population growth and constructions in flood-prone areas have dramatically increased. Then there are also the disabled coalmines contributing to huge export losses.
And, BTW, there has been much flooding in other states in the last quarter, which seems to be related to the 2010-2011 La Nina; see my 3043 above
Max and Brute,
I think we can do a little better than hazard a guess about someone’s own religious beliefs when they use such phrases as “your Darwinist religious beliefs…”.
Brute is right in saying that what he believes doesn’t matter as he doesn’t write policy affecting billions. However, what are the beliefs of those who do write such policy? James G Watts, a Secretary of State for the Interior, under President Reagan, is often quoted as saying:
“We don’t have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.”
President Reagan himself once said:
“For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ.”
Some 40% of Americans think along these lines apparently and expect a “second coming by 2050”.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3909431,00.html
So why should anyone who holds this sort of irrational belief worry in the slightest about AGW? If Jesus can’t fix the problem on his own, he’ll just need to ask his Dad to give him a hand!