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. Max,

    You need to get out of the habit of taking just one purported reference to justify your pre-existing position. It just isn’t scientific.

    Notice that Judith Curry herself says “Assuming that the Knox and Douglass analysis holds up, it appears that there is no storage of the heat below the ocean surface.” That sounds like a big assumption to me. I may be wrong but I’d say it probably won’t hold up. Certainly much more data is required before that can be said with any degree of certainty. But it would be good news in that the amount of future warming may be less than expected. But still it could be not insignificant.

    Brute,

    You’re not the first person to have reservations on the workings of democracy – describing it “mobocracy” as you do.

    So its OK for you to have these reservations but not “James Hansen”?

    I’ll have to look more closely at just what James Hansen has said but if he is really putting his faith in the future of the PROC then I fear it may just be wishful thinking on his part.

  2. Brute,

    I’ve just Googled your quotations about Democracy above and found they are originally from

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

    who was a Scottish Lord! I’m not sure many Australians, or Americans come to that, would take too kindly towards being lectured on democracy by a member of the British aristocracy!

    Chruchill may have been an old imperialist but he was right when he said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

  3. Max, Reur 3142, further to earlier penguin funnies hypercrap.
    Thanks for the link to new stuff; me shaking head.

    Recently I was shocked to see on TV some biologists scaling a tall tree via rope to investigate the chicks of a rare parrot. They put them into black bags and took them down to the ground where the team measured their vital statistics etc. Then back into the bags, back up the rope, and into the nest, whilst one of the parents looked on from a distance, presumably not amused. (This rare parrot)

    And if you mention frogs, I might scream and tear my hair out. Did you hear that some species of frogs in Oz, that were thought to be extinct due to fungal attack, which was possibly introduced to them in the first place by researchers trying to find them in remote places, have since apparently developed an immunity to the fungus, and are now doing nicely. And when new species are found, which is becoming quite common lately, they are immediately declared as endangered! ARGHH!

    How about this extract from your new penguin revelation from a “scientist” whom disputes the findings:

    Dee Boersma, a conservation biologist and long-time penguin researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle, says she thinks the French team must have used particularly bad bands.

    “All bands are not created equal,” she says. She published a paper last year that looked at 15 years of banding data for Magellanic penguins which found that bands do affect survival rates and breeding success, especially for females, but that properly {filig}tted stainless-steel bands can be used on males with little impact on survival. “To draw the conclusion that we should quit flipper banding and that we can’t tell anything about climate change from flipper banding data is wrong,” she says.

    What arrogance! Why did she not enquire of the French team details of their tags? Shouldn’t she be interested? They probably speak English and it’s a simple question!

    More arrogance follows, that I’ll skip, and then:

    “To draw the conclusion that we should quit flipper banding and that we can’t tell anything about climate change from flipper banding data is wrong,” she says.

    How gobsmacking can it get?

  4. Max,

    You say “the nuclear option is politically dead in Europe”.

    Not quite as dead as you might think. The UK are moving down this route and Germany have taken the step of extending the lifetime of their existing nuclear power stations which, of course, they would have to do if their next step is to build new ones. Japan and China too.

    James Hansen is brave enough to face his critics on the political left as well as those on the right over this issue.

    As always, the problem is those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Judith Curry is largely right in saying that climate change denialism isn’t funded just by ‘Big Oil’ any more. Even Exxonmobil know the score by now or should do. The ‘Big Miners’ and ‘Big Coal’ are the ones to watch. They certainly call the shots in Australia.

  5. Peter 3134 said

    “No-one wanted their properties to be blighted and values slashed by recognising the reality of the situation. There too many vested interests involved for that.”

    You are absolutely correct, this is well known to be a major problem with dealing with flooding-the potential blight.

    Why buy a house that might be flooded when you can buy one that won’t be, so people keep quiet.

    I suspect that as more (highly desirable) marginal land is built on we will see many more instances of flooding.

    Round where we used to live in a river valley we had new houses built in very old locations such as ‘Flood lane’ and ‘River road’. They would be the ones to shout loudest of course when the inevitable happened.

    tonyb

  6. Tempterrain

    If you’re having trouble understanding why a Scottish lord would be speaking on democracy i’d suggest you read a little into Scottish and English history.
    There have been feuds going back to before America and Australia were founded which help put it into context (though i can understand why you might have trouble with anything before 1850 :).

  7. Peter

    Here in the UK we’re having to look at extending and possibly building new nuclear thanks to over a decade of handwringing by the previous government that decided to hamstring itself with CO2 mantra. Consequently we’re facing an energy shortfall here in a coming years unless something is done quickly using proven and reliable technologies.

    The actual quote from Judith Curry is:

    Accusing climate scientists of pushing an environmental political agenda seems to me about as well founded as accusing climate skeptics as being in the pay of big oil

    The “any more” part you added is extremely disingenuous, so par for the course really.

  8. So its OK for you to have these reservations but not “James Hansen”?

    Pete,

    It’s obvious that you do not understand the mechanisms of the United States government. A law that effects the people first must be passed by the House of Representatives, then the Senate, and then only becomes law if signed by the President. That’s how it works.

    In this case, Obama has an unelected agency director writing policy (regulations) that become De facto law. That’s unconstitutional.

    The people (via their Senators and Representatives) have not had the opportunity to have their voices heard……(government by fiat I believe it’s called). Please refer back to my previous post regarding Bernays and his belief (and practiced by Progressive US Presidents) regarding “enlightened despotism”.

    Regarding my quote i.e. Tytler……..

    I don’t care if he was Jack Armstrong The All American Boy…….I felt his thought regarding Why Democracies Fail was spot on…….so I shared it.

    You, on the other hand, bypassed the statement and attacked his lineage…… which seems to be your method of operating when you’ve been outfoxed.

    I’ve noticed that “green” initiatives must be enacted by force/rule of law……..My question is that if these “initiatives” are so popular and so beneficial, why do laws have to be enacted to force people to adhere to them?

    One would think that these “wonderful” ideas/policies/products/schemes would be embraced by the masses voluntarily………..

  9. Brute

    Good writeup on the differences between a direct democracy and a republic.

    Both the USA and Switzerland are democratic republics, in that they have representative rule with representatives democratically elected (2 houses, one representing the states/cantons and the other representing the districts, based on population) rather than direct rule by the people.

    Switzerland, due to its small size, also has the option for a direct national referendum by the voters on any proposition (gathering sufficient signatures), as does the State of California (I believe).

    The confusion in terminology has arisen when autocratic governments have “borrowed” these names:

    German Democratic Republic (former East Germany) – it was neither “democratic”, nor a “republic”

    People’s Republic of China (may theoretically have a “representative” government, like a “republic”, but the representatives are not elected democratically by the “people”)

    [At least the German Nazi regime did not try to fool people by calling itself the “German National Socialist Republic” – it only deluded itself with the name “Third Reich”.]

    Max

  10. Brute

    The current administration’s use of the (non-elected) EPA to by-pass the will of the (elected) Congress in enacting carbon taxes (that the voters do not support) will be an interesting constitutional confrontation in your country.

    It is, of course, an attempted power-grab by the executive branch to push through its agenda over the will of the people.

    And it may well be settled by the Supreme Court, which will hopefully vote along constitutional (rather than just political) lines.

    On the other hand, President Obama may have read the handwriting on the wall following the last election and abandon his dream of taxing CO2 in favor of doing what he needs to do to get re-elected.

    Max

  11. PeterM

    I sincerely hope you are right when you write that Europe is slowly moving back to accepting nuclear power as a politically viable alternate.

    There was quite an uproar in Germany regarding the postponement of the nuclear moratorium (with the Social Democrats and Greens making a lot of noise).

    It is still unclear to me exactly what the UK will do, even though the politicians seem to still be enthralled with windmills.

    The French must be chuckling – maybe EdF will become the long-term energy exporters for Europe.

    But I predict that the “CO2 bubble” will burst in Europe before Germany and the UK get serious about really building new nuclear power plants, and we’ll all be back to good ol’ King Coal to keep the lights from going out.

    But who knows what will really happen?

    Max

  12. Max,

    If you get into the psychology of it……the scam of global warming is quite fascinating.

    Group think, herd mentality, mass manipulation of the public………Cass Sunstein/the Obama Administration/Environmentalist Zealots have adopted Bernays techniques quite adeptly.

    It’s an organized attempt to hoodwink the general public into buying an idea (as well as products)……..and ultimately an ideology.

    Shallow minded people follow along…..chanting the global warming mantra…………mindlessly believing what they are being sold all the while never realizing that they are being played.

    Democracy

    The big question about Bernays is whether or not he was undemocratic. He actually believed in democracy, but he felt that the public’s democratic judgment was ‘not to be relied upon.’ The masses were inherently irrational and driven by desire. This made them dangerous, so he felt the masses had to be controlled. The good news was that, according to crowd psychology, the masses were relatively easy to control.

    In his famous book, Propaganda, Bernays wrote:

    “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”

    He believed that if you could understand crowd psychology, you could manipulate it. He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the ‘engineering of consent’. Bernays declared that a major feature of democracy was the manipulation of the mass mind by media and advertising. Bernays believed that good PR was necessary in democratic society – to show people the correct cause of action. In this sense, he was socially-responsible, but there is a problem with this attitude. It’s very paternalistic: he saw himself as an enlightened father figure and the masses as children. The assumption is ‘we know best’.

    This is apparent in Propaganda (1928):

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country . . . We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

    To summarize, the masses could always be swayed, as they had in Nazi Germany. He feared that the American public ‘could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing.’ For this reason, he felt that the masses had to be guided from above. Essentially, Bernays believed in a sort of enlightened despotism.

  13. PeterM

    You opined (3151)

    You need to get out of the habit of taking just one purported reference to justify your pre-existing position. It just isn’t scientific.

    Sorry, Peter. You are full of baloney again.

    YOU cited Judith Curry’s article on the “missing energy” (3145) with the snide comment to me:

    She shows quite a bit more intelligence on the question than you do.

    I then simply quoted Curry’s remarks from this site and indicated that I agree with what she has written, namely that the “heat” we are supposed to be seeing from the added CO2 is “missing” and that this cannot be “explained”.

    Trenberth called this a “travesty”.

    I referred to it as a “dilemma” for the supporters of the “dangerous AGW” premise.

    For a long time you simply denied it (even though Trenberth as well as the Met Office have acknowledged it).

    Now that Curry also acknowledges that it has not warmed since “ca 2001/2002”, it appears you have gradually accepted this fact, as well.

    And, of course, it is not based on “just one purported reference” (as you claim), but on magically and secretly manipulated globally and annually averaged numbers based on a bunch of thermometers (some next to AC exhausts, parking lots or airport runways) with interpolated guesses for the places that have no thermometers and some even more dicey sea surface guesstimates plus a somewhat cooler global satellite record, all combined with an upper ocean record based on latest ARGO measurements.

    The surface temperature record is obviously a mess (as TonyB has documented), but “it’s all we’ve got” (with the satellite record “keeping them honest” since 1979).

    And it clearly shows that our planet has been losing energy most recently.

    Curry states that this could be disappearing forever in the vast lower ocean (even though she cites a recent study, which seems to refute this suggestion) or may be reflected back to space by clouds (as suggested by Spencer).

    In either case, it is “unexplainably missing” (Trenberth’s “travesty” – and your “dilemma”).

    Max

  14. Brute

    I read your “Dire Prediction for the Year 3000” and the heaved a sigh of relief when I saw that it was based on “climate models”.

    These are the same “climate models” that can’t even predict six months in advance (“BBQ summers”, “unusually mild winters”, etc.).

    And these yahoos think we are going to believe their forecasts for the year 3000?

    Duh!

    [I just hope that none of my tax money is going into paying these jerks!]

    Max

  15. Brute

    Here is why the Met Office is no longer making forecasts
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/05/mystic_met/

    But, hey, it looks like they are still getting their “bonuses” (thanks to the benevolent UK taxpayers)!

    Max

  16. PeterM

    The Douglass/Knox study, “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance” shows the observed warming and cooling cycles since 1960:
    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

    Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960– mid-1970s (?0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (?0.2 W/m2 ), and are consistent with prior reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

    The last sentence is a key observation – so I’ll repeat it:

    These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

    A “travesty” – or just a “dilemma”? What do you think, Peter?

    Max

  17. Max, Further the new penguin fiasco, I see that Anthony Watts has picked it up, and commenter Ted Gray January 13, 2011 at 7:37 pm provides impeccable information that the problem was fully identified back in mid 2004, (yes, over 6 years ago).
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/another-overhyped-global-warming-claim-bites-the-dust/#comment-573571

    What do you make of that!?!?!?

    Several commenters suggested that the large drop-off in reproduction was because birds generally are rather choosy in picking a mate. Makes sense….I for one can’t stand a woman’s face adorned with rings through the nose or lips, regardless of how pretty she might otherwise be.

  18. Bob_FJ

    Banded penguins dying out more rapidly due to AGW than non-banded penguins?

    Makes as much sense to me as all the other AGW hype.

    Max

  19. Barelysane,

    If Judith Curry had said:

    “Accusing climate realists of pushing an environmental political agenda seems to me about as well founded as accusing climate skeptics as being in the pay of big oil or big mining” ( The italicised words are mine)

    then I would have agreed with her 100%.

    You only need to look at the so called Institute of Public Affairs, their support for leading Australian Climate “Sceptics”, and their links to the mining industry to know what they are up to.

    On the other hand, there are indeed many in Green groups who do accept the reality of the consensus scientific position but are also using it to pursue an active political agenda. I’m not quite sure if they have thought it through, but supporting a world population of 7 billion, and rising, without the benefit of modern means of production is just not going to be possible. Their mistake is in not understanding, or wanting to understand, this.

    But having said that, it doesn’t mean that the science regarding CO2 and the GHE is all wrong. AGW deniers can’t see any reconciliation between the need for modern methods of production and the phasing out of fossil fuels. Therefore they say the scientific position, which is that CO2 is a important greenhouse gas and doubling CO2 levels is likely to result in a dangerous level of warming, must be incorrect. That’s their mistake.

  20. Max, I noticed you wrote in your 3164:

    The surface temperature record is obviously a mess (as TonyB has documented), but “it’s all we’ve got” (with the satellite record “keeping them honest” since 1979).

    Well, it doesn’t seem to keep Hansen’s mob honest! See:

    GISStimating 1998, by Steve Goddard
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/
    See the video…. gob smacking!

    And here is a handy comparative overlay of the big four + NCDC, to common baselines
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979.gif

  21. Bob_FJ

    Yeah. Guess I should have written

    with the satellite record “trying to keep them honest” since 1979)

    But, hey, we all know that there is no possible way to keep Hansen “honest” – he is a dedicated AGW-activist who changes his temperature record as often as most people change their socks following the motto “if you can’t show a warming trend based on today’s temperature, change last year’s”.

    BTW, the keepers of the HadCRUT record do exactly the same “ex post facto adjustment”, as you recall from an earlier exchange I had with a blogger named “Phil” on ClimateAudit.

    I suspect that is one reason why the satellite record shows a much lower rate of warming than the two surface records, even though GH theory tells us it should actually be higher (and IPCC even claims falsely that it is!).

    Max

  22. Max, further my 3171;
    I meant to mention that the change to 1998 super El Nino sticks out likes dogs balls.

    How does Hansen get away with it?

  23. PeterM

    You wrote to BarelySane:

    If Judith Curry had said:

    “Accusing climate realists of pushing an environmental political agenda seems to me about as well founded as accusing climate skeptics as being in the pay of big oil or big mining” ( The italicised words are mine)

    then I would have agreed with her 100%.

    First of all, that’s not what she wrote.

    Adding “mining companies” may make sense (to you, at least – being an Australian), but sticking in the word “realist” is purely judgmental or your part and makes no sense at all. Spencer is every bit as much of a “realist” as Trenberth. Both are climate scientists and one is a skeptic of the “dangerous AGW” premise.

    Secondly, she simply stated that it is just as silly to accuse [all] climate scientists of “pushing an environmental political agenda” as it is to accuse [all] “climate skeptics as being in the pay of big oil”.

    I’d agree that that makes sense.

    There may be the isolated skeptic who works for an oil company just like there are some climate scientists who are pushing an environmental political agenda.

    But if Curry’s statement is correct, these are the exceptions to the rule.

    Max

  24. PeterM

    Just a quick comment on another statement you made (before Barelysane “deconstructs” it):

    AGW deniers can’t see any reconciliation between the need for modern methods of production and the phasing out of fossil fuels. Therefore they say the scientific position, which is that CO2 is a important greenhouse gas and doubling CO2 levels is likely to result in a dangerous level of warming, must be incorrect. That’s their mistake.

    You’ve got the cart before the horse again in your logic, Peter.

    First let’s reword “AGW deniers” to “individuals who are rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise”.

    Then let’s change “the scientific position” to “the postulation of IPCC and the so-called mainstream scientists”.

    Then there is the basic illogic in your premise that these individuals reject this postulation because “they can’t see any reconciliation between the need for modern methods of production and the phasing out of fossil fuels”.

    WRONG.

    The reason is quite simply that it is not validated by empirical scientific data and has very likely been falsified by the recent cooling of our planet despite record CO2 increase.

    Got it?

    Max

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)


× nine = 18

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha