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.
Pete,
I’ve been watching the global induced drought occuring in Australia that you’ve previously mentioned and my advice is to get somewhere safe.
Do not rely on the government to come and save you.
Be self reliant for once in your life.
Sorry………first sentence should read: global warming induced drought……I’m off my game………we have another global warming induced blizzard here tonight.
PeterM
I just used the published HadCRUT and UAH figures, which are not yet complete for 2010.
Once they are complete, we can redo the entire decade.
I’m pretty sure it will still show slight cooling.
But even if it shows no warming or cooling, it will be far off from the IPCC forecast of 0.2C warming per decade.
MetOffice blames this “unexplained lack of warming” on “natural variability” (which has overpowered all that new CO2) while Trenberth calls it a “travesty”.
I call it simply a lousy forecast based on incorrect assumptions.
What do you call it?
Max
Max and Peter
Glad to hear that you are OK Peter-always wise to buy property on a hill :)
In the REAL world-as opposed to Hansens global temperature version-many temperature datasets are showing clearly the reversal. No better example than in the UK where the precipitate decline can be seen here for CET
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
I have also previously posted details of numerous other individual REAL temperature data sets where temperatures are Headng down.
The very first year for CET is 1659 and by a happy coincidence the values are identical to the last full year-at 8.83C-distinctly chilly.
Perhaps Peter could use this opportunty to ask my very reasonable questions I posed last year as to how Global and SST’s are manufactured? They are nonsensical.
Tonyb
PeterM and TonyB
Another youtube of a conversation on AGW between two “environmentalists” (this one from Judith Curry’s blogsite):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4QHatDvoWjU
Dr. Curry’s lead blog, as well as the many comments, are quite interesting and worth reading.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/12/agw-skeptical-environmentalists/#more-1908
She points out that hardly any climate scientists are active environmental activists, that there “is an increasing muddiness between environmentalism and AGW” and that there are “many individual groups that are skeptical of AGW that can be seen as staunch environmentalists”.
She closes her blog with:
Good stuff!
Max
The flood levels in Brisbane and nearby major town Ipswich peaked at less than predicted, and less than in 1974. However, it was a much bigger disaster than the big one in 1974, or the huge floods of 1893 which were about 3 metres higher. This report at WUWT seems to explain why disasters tend to get worse over time even when the drivers are of lesser magnitude, and despite that improved technologies should help. (and loss of memory)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/alarming-report-on-risks-covered-up/story-e6frg6nf-1225986634328
Bob FJ
Invariably disasters can be traced back to peoples short memories. Streams, Ditches rivers are allowed to become silted or blocked by debris, flood plains are built on, cattle compact soil so it doesn’t drain and similarly gardens are paved over, thereby diverting water into a drainage culvert rather than into the ground.
In addition the schemes planned to combat flooding- based on previous events- are put on the back burner as time passes and no new event occurs.
To this can be added that people are much more intolerant of ANY sort of flooding (I’m not talking of the life threatening sort) many cottages next to rivers in the UK were built with tiled floors so water could be swept out and nothing was thought of it-these days that would be a headline in the paper.
Kenton
I use Firefox and have no problems.
Tonyb
TonyB,
I think you’ll find that the Kenton posting about Firefox was a Spam!
So, yes, its fine to be sceptical, but you have to also know what, and what not, to be sceptical about :-)
Bob_FJ,
I do remember the leaked report in your link. I’ve always been of the opinion that the risks of flooding in Brisbane have been greatly underestimated. You don’t even need to be much of an expert to look back at the history of river flooding in the region to know that it could possibly happen again. Even when the report was leaked it didn’t generate much public interest. The topic of conversation at the time would have been more about rising property values than the dangers of allowing totally unsuitable property development in flood prone regions.
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.
Those of us who did speak up were accused of using the issue as part of an environmental agenda to prevent river bank development. In other words we were ‘alarmists’.
Well sometimes alarms do need to be sounded!
The situation in Brisbane can, to a large extent, be rectified and we can all learn valuable lessons from the recent floods. We will get a second chance. The thing about AGW , though, is that it won’t work like that. We get one chance only. Take note of the scientific evidence or else!
Just to follow on from my previous post I should just say that in previous years I’ve writen maybe 5 or 6 letters to my local paper, the Murdoch owned Courier-Mail, and all, bar one, were rejected. No doubt they’ll start to be very critical of the local government on the recent floods.
But they need to accept responsibility too. One of those letters was on the risks of river flooding in the region. I should admit that all of my rejected letters, on this and other topics, would have carried my usual left-of-centre ‘take’ on matters.
It could well have been argued that my prose style was poor or that my letters were uninteresting. So, as an experiment, I decided to write quite a boring, though worthy, letter to the Courier Mail on a road safety issue. It was accepted! Of course that doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, but you’ll know what I think of scumbags like Murdoch, and I don’t need proof as far as he’s concerned!
TonyB
The worst floods of all time (by death toll) are listed here:
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_worlds_worst_floods_by_death_toll/
The worst tropical storms (again by death toll)
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp
This link lists all kinds of disasters, including six deadliest droughts from 1181 to 1943:
http://across.co.nz/WorldsWorstDisasters.html
What these data show quite clearly is that there is no correlation between catastrophic severe weather events and the recent global warming.
Max
PeterM
You opined to Bob_FJ
What a fatalistic and pessimistic opinion!
In actual fact, you have no earthly notion what AGW is going to do to us. Nobody does. The uncertainties are simply too great.
Moreover, there is no empirical support (i.e. “scientific evidence”) for the notion that it will be catastrophic, simply a bunch of questionable model simulations based on loaded assumptions on positive feedbacks and accelerating CO2 increase.
And “taking note” of these model projections would not solve any problems, even if these problems were to exist in real life. This would take “action” instead.
There are no actionable proposals that I am aware of, which would have any measurable impact on our planet’s future climate. If you can propose any, please do so.
Otherwise admit that we do not have “one chance only” to save our planet, as you wrote.
We simply do not have the ability to change our planet’s climate at will. So moaning and groaning about it is not going to change anything. All your rhetoric is solving nothing.
Wake up, Peter!
Max
TonyB
Looks like Kevin Trenberth is getting defensive and desperate:
Communicating Climate Science and Thoughts on Climategate
http://docs.google.com/gview?url=ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2.pdf
But he will undoubtedly get his strange comments published on one of the “AGW friendly” rags.
Yawn!
Max
TonyB
Here is a good commentary on Trenberth’s strange remarks (previous post):
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html
Ouch!
Max
This is worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
Before we badmouth human CO2 emissions too much and yearn for a pre-industrial economy again, we need to look at the Industrial Revolution and its impact on human wealth and life expectancy.
And while we are working on developing economically and environmentally viable alternates to eventually replace our planet’s dwindling fossil fuel supplies, we need to make sure that the billions of humans that have still been left behind with no energy infrastructure can develop one that is cost-effective and based on locally available fuel sources – so they can enjoy that same affluence and life expectancy that we now enjoy thanks to the fossil fuel economy that got us there.
Max.
Brute
Looks like Hansen has figured it out: we cannot rely on US democracy to deal with the global Global Warming threat – it can only be done by Communist China:
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/hansen-us-democracy-not-competent-to-deal-with-global-warming-calls-on-communist-china-to-save-humanity/
I wonder when he is planning give up his US taxpayer-funded job and move to Beijing?
Max
Bob_FJ
You cited a funny study on the plight of the poor penguins (resulting from AGW, of course).
Here’s a new take.
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/doh-declining-penguin-population-study-blames-research-scientists/
Looks like it’s the scientists that are to blame – and not the climate!
Max
Max,
Here’s the thing………the global warmist agenda is not about saving the planet, saving energy or saving polar bears……it is about manipulation behavior and social engineering…………a power play.
Edward Bernays is the father of the propaganda mechanisms. He was originally hired by (Progressive) president Woodrow Wilson to shape American public opinion during World War I.
These tactics are put to good use to this day. Bernays was the guy who taught Joseph Goebbels the tricks of the trade.
His beliefs were such that only he (and like minded individuals) were “enlightened” and capable of making decisions on behalf of large groups of people…….a very sick dude……Antithetical to a free and open society.
Peter, and countless others like him, have been duped by this slick marketing ad man’s disciples………Obama has hired Regulatory Czar Cass Senstein, (an unelected position), to circumvent the will of the people (the majority of which reject the AGW theory) and implement regulation that are not subject to the approval of Congress (the American peoples’ representatives).
So, because the people refuse to be duped, and wholly reject the agenda driven “science” of the Warmists, the “Enlightened” Despots of the Obama administration and the professional Left will impose their will on the citizenry.
Hansen is another useful idiot…….an ideologue/activist that will use his position, falsify data in order to forward the agenda.
If you haven’t already, read up about Bernays. He was extremely effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
“Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there’s a lot that can be done to manipulate them…” – Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein
TonyB,Yes indeed, poor memory, lack of awareness or rejection of the past, is a disaster waiting to happen. For instance, after the vast bushfires of 1939 in Victoria, the Royal Commission recommended greater adoption of fire protection bunkers. I forget the details, but there was one timber mill where management wisely excavated a big dugout. I seem to remember that reportedly 37 lives were saved at that mill, that there were others saved elsewhere in crude shelters, but there were some failures. But that was without the benefit of modern technologies
The 1939 recommendation was virtually not implemented in the areas affected by the bushfires in 2009. Surprisingly, since then, various experts have argued against bunkers suggesting that they are potential death traps, including that people will use them for storage, ideal places for redback (black widow) spiders, and it’s not just radiant heat that is a problem, there’s also asphyxiation.
Peter Martin,Congratulations for your activism on potential repeat flooding. Given that the floods were about 3m higher in 1893, that was a very sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, it seems that many developers and policy makers etc believed the CAGW alarmists that drought conditions would continue and worsen in Oz because of global warming.
This is despite that the Oz BOM rainfall records clearly show great monsoonal volatility. Incidentally, it has been seriously peeing down here, and there are floods and evacuations in the North and West of Victoria. Can’t blame it on Queensland though, the cloud stream came down from NT.
Unlike the 1893 flood evidence, given that CAGW is not based on any evidence for a connection between CO2 and global warming, it’s a pity you can’t devote your activism, and I suspect trolling, to something more worthwhile.
Max,
Just a couple of points:
Who is arguing for a return to a “pre-industrial economy”? Not me. Not James Hansen certainly.
You might want to look at: http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/
She shows quite a bit more intelligence on the question than you do.
Brute,
There is nothing wrong with democracy per se. The problem is more that Americans, strangely enough, do seem to believe they actually live in one!
Bob_FJ,
The argument about AGW isn’t so much about whether droughts will increase, or storms or hurricanes, cyclones will worsen. They are both possibilities, of course, and quite likely even, but livable with. The main concern is of a general warming leading to an irreversible melting of the polar ice caps.
There has been never been any suggestion, from any scientific group that I know of, that Australian floods are a thing of the past either due to global warming or for any other reason. Either in Brisbane or anywhere else.
PeterM
I’ll come to your statement on a “pre-industrial” economy later, but thought I’d respond to your other point first.
In the article (about “Trenberth’s travesty”), which you cited, Judith Curry commented:
To summarize:
Even though this could be masked by short-term climate variability, we should expect surface temperature to rise from added CO2.
But both the upper ocean and atmosphere have not been warming recently.
Studies show us it isn’t disappearing below the ocean surface either.
There appears, therefore, to have been a “climate shift”, which occurred “ca 2001/2002”.
This could be caused by a “change in global cloud amount or a redistribution of clouds”, which has “changed the earth’s radiation balance”, as proposed by Spencer.
This makes very good sense to me.
If you will check back, this is essentially what I have written earlier.
And I called this unexplained “lack of warming” despite record CO2 increase a “dilemma” (while Trenberth referred to it as a “travesty”).
Max
PeterM
As you know, Hansen has made the proposal that a) no new coal-fired power plants be built in the USA and that b) all existing coal fired plants be shut down by 2050.
This would cost around $1 trillion.
But there would be no measurable decrease in global temperature.
It is, therefore, a hare-brained scheme.
We have gone through this before, so there is little sense in rehashing it again.
As you can see from the UK example as well as Germany, no practical alternate to “coal death train” fossil fuel generated power is being considered; the nuclear option is politically dead in Europe (except in France).
Show me a specific actionable proposal for reducing our planet’s temperature, along with a cost/benefit analysis (how many degrees C will this save and how much will it cost to implement) or admit that we are unable to change our climate.
Ball’s in your court, Peter.
Max
That’s because America is a Constitutional Republic……….not a Democracy.
TM 2000-25 118-120 CITIZENSHIP
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting of any other form of “direct” expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. Whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
(No. 3 fac simile)
TM 2000-25 120-121
CITIZENSHIP
Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brough within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny of mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) and executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. – Atwood.
121. Superior to all others.- Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and
democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”
(No. 4 fac simile)
(A. G. 014.33 (4-28-28).)