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.
Brute
Orwell’s 1984 was a chilling account of government propaganda replacing truth in a totalitarian system.
The USSR and Nazi Germany were actual examples of the same phenomenon.
It also happens in more democratic societies, where the propaganda is simply the “spin” put on the facts in order to make the public swallow a government-sponsored lie. But without an enforcement system, such as the “Reichspropagandaleitung” under Goebbels, “Glavlit” in the Soviet “workers’ paradise” or the “Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals” in Orwell’s novel, it is more difficult to suppress the truth over longer periods.
As we are seeing, even the powerful forces that are trying to keep global warming alarmism alive in order to support a program of massive taxation are having a hard time keeping the truth on global warming from being exposed.
Orwell’s 1984 was written in 1949, shortly after the collapse of Nazi Germany and during the heyday of the USSR.
But even more important, it was written before the age of the Internet and instant information.
Governments may try to control the free flow of information, but this is very difficult in today’s world. If they, however, find a justification for controlling the Internet, especially the “content” of information flowing over the Internet, then we are moving toward an Orwellian system of thought control. That’s when grass-roots groups promoting the protection of individual liberties (such as your Tea Party) have to swing into action through their democratically elected representatives.
Just my thoughts on this (Peter may not agree).
Max
Brute
Bastardi’s projection for January cold (3063) just confirms the IPCC’s “general inverse C:W relationship”:
Cooling = Weather
Warming = Climate
Really quite simple, as I’m sure Peter will agree.
Max
Brute,
Where did your quote come from in your 3072?
19th century literature and writings is often problematic from our standpoint. Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” is banned, at least in its original form, in many Schools for its frequent use of the word “Nigger”. Mind you , having just watched a couple of series of “The Wire” it seems rather odd that it should be.
Darwin’s writings are available for free on line. See : http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Descent_Of_Man
which contains some of the more controversial quotes. You need to read them in in their original form and decide for yourself what he was getting at.
Modern science wouldn’t say that Darwin was absolutely correct. He was a person not a deity. Subsequent genetic science and DNA evidence has showed that humanity is more closely related than Darwin could have known. But not being absolutely correct doesn’t mean that he was absolutely incorrect or even largely incorrect. But that sort of false logic is naturally employed by creationists.
The real question is: was Darwin largely correct? Modern science would say “yes”, evalgelical Christians and Muslims would say “no”. So, who do you side with?
Max,
I wouldn’t disagree with what you’ve written about Orwell. Except that his last two books 1984 and Animal Farm can only be properly understood if you’ve read some of his earlier works too. Like Road to Wigan Pier and Homage to Catalonia.
You’re right about the net. It should be used as a free source of information.
Its somewhat worrying, though, that there is a lot of stuff on the net from various goups peddling conspiracy theories , extremist politics, holocaust denial, anti-science, anti-evolution, anti IPCC etc.
I guess you can’t prevent people writing what they like in a democracy – even if its crap!
“Sides” Pete?
Is there some sort of competition going on that I’m unaware of? What’s the score? Who’s winning the game?
No Pete…….there is the truth…..there are facts.
No score to keep or settle.
Brute,
I wouldn’t call it a game, but yes there is , in a sense, a competition between those who advocate secularism: rational thought, reasoned scientific explanations etc and those of a fundamentalist religious persuasion who would strongly argue that religion and Church is central to a nation’s identity and cannot be separated. No doubt you’ll have heard competing arguments about this in the USA.
Secularists wouldn’t support the teaching of intelligent design or Creationism in schools for example.
There are clearly two sides. But if you don’t like the word ‘side’, who would you agree with?
PeterM
You are obviously oversimplifying the situation in your “two sides” suggestion in 3081.
There are a great number of rational skeptics of your “dangerous AGW” premise, who would agree with you on “evolution versus creationism”. Which “side” are they on?
By the same token, the supporters of the “dangerous AGW” paradigm (like you) are not the only ones “who advocate secularism: rational thought, reasoned scientific explanations etc.”
Nor are the rational skeptics of this premise (like me) by definition “those of a fundamentalist religious persuasion who would strongly argue that religion and Church is central to a nation’s identity and cannot be separated”.
Remember, Peter, rational skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, and that is what we are talking about here.
The rational skeptic of a scientific hypothesis demands empirical evidence based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation to validate the hypothesis before accepting it.
If empirical data tend to falsify the hypothesis (viz. the recent global cooling of the atmosphere and ocean despite record CO2 levels), then these data must be refuted scientifically, or the hypothesis itself becomes falsified.
“Dangerous AGW” has not been validated by such empirical evidence (nor has “creationism”, for that matter).
Therefore, as a rational skeptic I can accept neither premise.
Empirical data are the key, Peter. [But we have discussed this before.]
Max
PeterM
Ex: James E. Hansens’ writings on “tipping points” leading to irreversible “deleterious changes” to our climate, “Venus effect”, “extinctions of species” occurring at “dangerous CO2 levels” of “450 ppmv”, wait!, only “350 ppmv” if we do not stop the “coal death trains” immediately.
The guy actually claimed he had been “muzzled” (by the Bush administration?), but it did not keep him from putting out all that garbage – that’s what “freedom of speech” is all about.
Now you might argue that he shouldn’t be doing this at taxpayer expense (and I would generally agree), but that is another discussion.
Max
Here are two links, from Judith Curry’s website, which are on topics which you’ll know I’ve long argued are the key to understanding the so called AGW “debate”.
You can argue all you like about Hockey sticks, the Sea Surface temperature, the State of the Arctic ice cap etc. That isn’t going to change anything. Climate change deniers are motivated by a mixture of religion:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/20/understanding-conservative-religious-resistance-to-climate-science/
and politics:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/06/libertarianism-and-the-environment/#comment-29333
PeterM
As Curry’s site points out, there are SOME so-called “climate change deniers” that are either motivated by religion or by politics.
And then there are MANY who are simply rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious threat, until empirical scientific data can be shown to support this hypothesis.
There are many climate scientists as well as scientifically or technically educated non-climatologists in the latter category, many of whom visit Curry’s blogsite regularly.
Check it out, Peter, and you can see for yourself.
Max
Max & Brute,
WRT to the serious floods in Queensland, (Oz), in the past week or so, as reported in “the BBC news et al”:
Did yous guys in the NH hear about the floods last December in that remote part of Oz; that huge state of WA? (Clue: its capital is named Perth, and there was some silly tennis game there called the Hoffnung or Hopman cup I think, something like that, ending with the USA winning it yet again just yesterday)
Well….. some 900+ kilometres north of Perth is the principal regional small town of Carnarvon in the sparsely populated area of the Gascoyne, around which some 30 people were rescued by helicopter in those aforementioned recent floods.
This ABC report covers part of the story, but you may get the idea I discuss below without needing to read it:
Flood-ravaged Gascoyne receives federal fundshttp://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/07/3107985.htm
The huge media awareness difference versus Queensland, (= the rapid growth state**), is the Gascoyne’s low population and infrastructure density.
Of significant note for Queensland, is the huge flood interrupted export of high quality black coal that is essential for steel making and blending with low quality Chinese coal, annat………globally.
Then of course there are damaged bridges, crops, roads, homes, businesses, machinery, and whatnot, in abundance in that area.
The point I want to make is that what tends to “measure” the scale of any natural disaster, is more a matter of what happens to lie in the path of the elements in terms of human values measured primarily in life and assets. (oh, and WORLD trade, and stuff)
For instance, does anyone really recall the bushfires in Oz, in 2004 (?) starting in the ACT and wrecking havoc southward through VAST areas of low population in the alps? In comparison, those awful “world news” fires in Victoria in Feb. 2009 were but an accident in time and location on just one day, where many people just happened to live and farm etc, (including substantially; humans being the unnatural cause and being impedimental). Yet, the far worse Victorian fires of 1939, and the recommendations arising from its Royal Commission are unimplemented and forgotten.
Yet, around the WORLD, when there are reports such as of: “The worst for 50 years or 100 years”, whatever, there is still the nonsensical attribution of increasing frequency caused by CO2. (BTW, check out the frequency and interval in severe floods in disastrous Rockhampton in my 3049 graph above)
But hey, there have also been some massive forgotten floods in the USA, and I find this pre-CO2 horse photo from 1937 to be rather
poignant….. Dunno if that‘s the best word! (and this was by no means the biggest OR most disastrous flood in the USA)** Many people are heading north from the southern Oz states, towards the tropics with some enthusiasm to escape the global warming down south. (and I’m also thinking of doing it)
Oh Bum,
I’ve done this before and posted the wrong link.
This should be the horse image, intended in my 3086, sorry!
Max,
I don’t think Judith Curry does refer to “some deniers” and “many deniers” in the way you suggest.
These two quotes are quite telling:
“what is going on is that I am trying to illuminate the different political and cultural and economic issues that contribute to skepticism on the climate issue (above and beyond the nuances of the science, which aren’t all that well understood by the vast majority of the public). This attempt will hopefully illuminate the complexity of opinions and ideas behind skepticism, with the hoped for end result that anyone who disagrees with the IPCC/UNFCC consensus (in terms of science, impacts, and policy) that they authomatically aren’t labeled as “deniers”, and that people appreciate the diversity of factors (scientific, political, cultural) that go into this disagreement”
“well actually my motivation for the interview with David Gushee was to separate out the evangelical (mostly Young Earth Creationist) skeptics from the libertarian/economic skeptics and the scientific skeptics. By evangelical/religious skeptics, i mean those that use primarily religion as the basis for their skepticism (e.g. dominion theology). Of course not all skeptics are religious or conservatives, nor are all religious people skeptical, etc. The reason for trying to do that is that yes, there is a group of anti-science deniers out there, who distrust science (young earth creationism is usually a sign of someone who distrusts science.) Once this is acknowledged/ identified/understood, then the libertarian and scientific skeptics are taken out of the same “denier” category as those that are truly anti-science. The political power of this group in the U.S. is non trivial; it was the Reagan revolution that formed a political coalition between evangelicals and the economic libertarians.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but Judith Curry seems to be suggesting that YEC sceptics can truly be called deniers but Libertarian sceptics shouldn’t be. I don’t quite understand the rationale for that. Surely anyone who rejects the scientific evidence for other than scientific reasons must be a denier. It shouldn’t make any difference whether the motivation is religious or political.
Pete,
I ask questions. I look for answers. I’m on my “side”.
Judging by your comments here over the last couple of years, you blindly accept the AGW premise not based on evidence, but because it fits nicely with your worldview.
But I have another dilemma. Mrs. Brute and I have decided to turn ourselves over to the religion of environmentalism. Normally, during this time of year, we keep the bird feeders located on our estate filled with seed in order to aid the local bird pollution. Being that I’ve now converted to the doctrines of environmentalism, my argument is that we are upsetting the natural balance of the ecosystem……much in the same way as using electric lights and driving an internal combustion engine impacts the “natural” environment contributing to global warming with the planet overheating and melting like a popsicle on the sidewalk in July.
Giving the weak and feeble “useless eaters” birds an unfair advantage against the elements would ultimately result in the species mutating into dependence on “unnatural” food sources resulting in the less capable birds procreating to the ultimate demise of the population and hence, the world will come to an end.
I see the bird feeders as “death trains” or “”gas chambers” much the same as Hansen describes freight cars filled with coal………
As I know based on your comments that you are a faithful follower of the religion of environmentalism, should we continue to feed the birds?
PeterM
You are again beating a dead horse by claiming that Judith Curry classifies ALL of the many people who do not support the “dangerous AGW” premise as “climate deniers” who are motivated by either politics or religion.
This claim is quite obviously false.
Judith Curry recognizes that there are MANY people who, for SCIENTIFIC REASONS, are rationally skeptical of the “dogma” (as she has referred to it), which supports the dangerous AGW premise, and, even more importantly, she has engaged with many of these individuals on her blogsite, agreeing with much of the criticism of IPCC and the “insiders, who are defending the “dogma”.
Check the many threads out for yourself and you will see that this is the case.
Max
PS
Curry has been referred to as a “climate heretic” by some “dangerous AGW” aficionados, such as science writer Michael D. Lemonick, of Climate Central, Inc. Isn’t heresy a term used in “religion”? Hmmm…
PeterM
Let’s get this conversation back to the “science” surrounding the climate debate (rather than a discussion of less relevant “religious” or “political” issues).
IPCC AR4 WG1 tells us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 should result in global warming of 3.2°C (±1.2°C).
Let’s do a “sanity check” on this claim.
First let’s look at the “late 20th century” (1975-2000) – the “IPCC poster period” for “proving” serious AGW:
330 ppmv = CO2 in 1975 = C1
369 ppmv = CO2 in 2000 = C2
1.118 = C2/C1
0.1117 = ln(C2/C1)
2.000 = 2xCO2
0.6931 = ln2
3.2°C = dT (2xCO2)
3.2 * (0.1117) / (0.6931) =
0.52°C = theoretical GH warming from CO2 (1975-2000)
0.38°C = observed HadCRUT linear surface warming (1975-2000)
0.24°C = observed UAH linear tropospheric warming (1975-2000) = observed linear rate 1979-2000 taken over entire period 1975-2000
0.31°C = observed average warming (1975-2000)
So the actual is only 60% of the theoretical according to IPCC. But let’s say that Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” hypothesis is correct, and that the “pipeline” is the upper ocean as Hansen postulates. Upper ocean temperature records are so poor and spotty over the period 1975-2000 that there is no way to validate Hansen’s assumption, but let’s assume it is correct for this period.
Now let’s look at the 21st century data
369 ppmv = CO2 in 2000 = C1
390 ppmv = CO2 in 2010 = C2
1.0569 = C2/C1
0.0554 = ln(C2/C1)
2.000 = 2xCO2
0.6931 = ln2
3.2°C = dT (2xCO2)
3.2 * (0.0554) / (0.6931) =
0.26°C = theoretical GH warming from CO2 (2001-2010)
-0.07°C = observed HadCRUT linear surface cooling (2001-2010)
-0.09°C = observed UAH linear tropospheric cooling (2001-2010)
-0.08°C = observed average cooling (2001-2010)
OOPS! What’s wrong here?
Could it be the magical “hidden in the pipeline” explanation?
ARGO measurements tell us the upper ocean has been cooling (= losing heat) since they replaced the more questionable XBT spot measurements in 2003, so this explanation does not pass the “sanity test” and there has been a net loss of heat from our planet, despite record increase in CO2 levels.
OUCH!
Looks like the IPCC model predictions do not pass a basic reality check using actual observations.
I explain this simply by stating that the IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity assumptions and Hansen’s “hidden in the pipeline” suggestion have both been falsified by the actually observed empirical data.
Met Office explains it by blaming “natural variability” (i.e. natural forcing), which allegedly overwhelmed the warming caused by the increased CO2; this explanation raises serious doubt concerning the IPCC AR4 claim that “natural forcing” is essentially insignificant, compared with GH forcing (primarily from CO2).
A dilemma for “dangerous AGW” believers.
How do you explain this Peter?
Max
Max,
No, Judith Curry isn’t saying that all sceptics can be classified neatly. There is always the odd one. I’m sure there will be a YEC creationist somewhere who accepts AGW theory. Or a university professor who doesn’t.
But she isn’t saying most in the way you would like her too either. Unless you can show me where you mean. Maybe I’ve missed it.
What she does actually say is:
“there is a group of anti-science deniers out there, who distrust science (young earth creationism is usually a sign of someone who distrusts science.) Once this is acknowledged/ identified/understood, then the libertarian and scientific skeptics are taken out of the same “denier” category as those that are truly anti-science.”
Yes, it’s fair enough to exclude genuine scientific sceptics form the denier category. Mind you, I’m not not sure that there are many who would have sufficient scientific knowledge to fully qualify.
But, why should libertarian sceptics be excluded too? Surely anyone who rejects a scientific argument or conclusion for any other reason that the scientific merit of that argument must be a denier. It doesn’t matter whether their motivation is religious or political.
You seem to understand what Ms Curry is driving at. Can you explain it?
Brute,
I’ll answer your question. Yes. Feed the birds if you like but just remember that they may come to depend on your supply of food so you shouldn’t change your mind at some point in the future.
So maybe now you can answer my question of whether you believe in Biblical tales of the Creation and Noah’s Ark etc.
PeterM
One last time (in response to your 3093).
Dr. Curry recognizes that there are serious individuals who are rationally skeptical (in the scientific sense) of the science supporting the premise that AGW represents a serious potential threat. [I’m glad to read that you concur.]
She also recognizes that there are other individuals whose skepticism is based more on religious or political considerations.
A similar grouping probably also exists within the AGW supporter camp. Some have rationally analyzed the science, others are acting emotionally or politically. Some even see this as religious “dogma” with skeptics as “heretics” or “deniers”.
I am personally more interested in the science, because without a sound scientific basis the whole premise is simply an uncorroborated hypothesis, with a major political and multi-billion dollar economic impact (and hence, a lot of irrational emotions on both sides.)
Hope this has explained it to your satisfaction.
Max
PeterM
Brute will certainly give his own answer to your question (3094) regarding “Noah’s Ark”, but let me give you my take on this.
The ancient Jews got the story of the “great Flood” from a much earlier Sumerian chronicle, adding their own “sin and retribution” angle for this climate disaster (much like the current DAGW-believers are doing), so there is that anthropocentric parallel (man taking himself, his importance, his actions and their consequences a bit too seriously).
Marine biologists and other scientists have come up with a hypothesis of how this “great Flood” may have occurred 7,600 years ago in what is now the Black Sea basin, when the swollen Mediterranean Sea broke through a natural dam (the Bospourus) separating it from what was then a freshwater lake (the Euxine Lake) with human settlements along the shore.
It’s all written up in a book, Noah’s Flood, by William Ryan and Walter Pitman.
Is this the “true story” of “Noah’s Flood”?
Who knows?
Max
PS There is another hypothesis of a similar, much earlier, flooding of the Mediterranean Sea basin from the Atlantic via Gibraltar, but this occurred long before there were human witnesses.
I told you Pete, I’ve converted to following the religion of environmentalism. I now believe that mankind sprang from inanimate rocks, or on the backs of crystals, (or possibly seeded on the planet by intergalactic space travelers).
Scientists Confirm Extraterrestrial Genes in Human DNA
Research findings continues work of DNA Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Francis Crick
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn08.htm
Doctor Crick won a Nobel Prize I’ll have you know………………just like Apostle Al Gore.
Max,
National Geographic has a similar theory…………
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
Sorry Max, same study.
Max,
It’s certainly possible that there was a flood in the Black sea region happening as you describe. But that wouldn’t wipe out dinosaurs in North America. Its also supposed to have caused the extinction of sea reptiles, according to the creationists, but that seems unlikely too. Or, at least to me it does, but not to these guys apparently:
http://creationmuseum.org/
Look, I wouldn’t have mentioned all this stuff about creationism, but I know you’re keen on the sort of stuff that Judith Curry likes to discuss, and she thinks:
“It is important to understand this group, in terms of the politics of the climate change issue and also in terms of how scientists can communicate with this group.”
“The political power of this group in the U.S. is non trivial; it was the Reagan revolution that formed a political coalition between evangelicals and the economic libertarians.”
So if Judith Curry thinks its important you wouldn’t want to contradict her, would you?
So how about answering my question on whether it should only be just YEC’s who should be classified as deniers and not those who object for political reasons?