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.
Max,
You’re right. Dismissing the scientific evidence because it cuts across pre-existing political beliefs is illogical. But it’s not just me who says that this happens.
Judith Curry, who once again discusses the issue with far more intelligence that yourself, writes:
“Libertarians view themselves as rational and supportive of science. Seems like Libertarian support for cap and trade would be a natural. So why do Libertarians seem generally to be opposed to the idea of AGW and policies like carbon cap and trade?”
Why indeed? Why are Libertarians generally opposed? Why, if politics plays little or no role, as you claim, should those of a particular political disposition be opposed to the “idea of AGW”? If you’d got it right then there would be no correlation at all between political views and the interpretation of the scientific evidence.
I know that’s not the case. Judith Curry knows that’s not the case. Why do you have such a problem seeing it?
Just checking in again, guys… looks like you are still at it!
I’ll try to read up and post sometime soon.
Hope you all had a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year!
JZ
PeterM
This discussion is becoming a bit repetitive and tedious, but I will humor you one more time.
You ask me why “libertarians” might be opposed to a carbon cap or tax.
Duh!
Although I do not classify myself as a “libertarian”, I can think of two primary reasons:
1. There is no empirical scientific evidence supporting the notion that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been a primary cause of past warming and represents a serious potential threat for our climate (in fact, the most recent observations tend to falsify this premise)
2. Imposing a carbon tax will have absolutely no impact on our future climate (no tax ever did)
Moreover, there are no specific actions we can take that would have a discernable impact on our planet’s climate, as I have pointed out earlier.
So now it’s my turn to ask you a question again, which you have so far been unable (or unwilling) to answer):
Awaiting your reply, Peter.
Max
PeterM
Now to part 2 of your last post.
You wrote:
I agree fully.
However, I observe that this is precisely what you are doing:
– The “scientific evidence” shows that our planet has not warmed over the most recent decade despite record increases in the powerful GHG, CO2, over this period.
– However, this “cuts across” your “pre-existing political belief” that we must implement a (direct or indirect) carbon tax on humanity.
– As a result, you “dismiss the scientific evidence”.
– Therefore, your position is “illogical”.
Agree?
Max
jz smith
Welcome back!
Max
Max,
Yes, of course its illogical to put religious and political beliefs before science -but why does it happen. You know, as well as I do, that it does. Evangelicals do it on Evolution and Climate Science. Right Wing and Libertarian types on Climate Science only. The left aren’t immune either -they have their own problems with nuclear energy. You’ve just got to recognise that it’s all human nature and that sometime people can be irrational and illogical.
Why would anyone feel the need to advocate a carbon tax, or cap and trade scheme – just for the sake of it? Why would almost the entire scientific community want to be “in on” some hoax? It just doesn’t make any sense for anyone to think that.
We would anyone feel a political need to create such a problem out of nothing? Everyone knows that politicians, when they want to, are super adept at working out ways to increase taxation – they just don’t need scientists to give them another angle. They can manage quite well on their own.
All you can do is nibble away at the edges of the scientific position. You don’t have a coherent scientific position yourself. None of the so-called sceptics do and for the simple reason that they don’t understand enough science to create one. So, if they don’t understand enough science, how can they possibly know that organisations like the US National Academy of Sciences have it all wrong?
You’re the one, along with Right Wing Zealots like Snr Inhofe who’s said “Forget those so- called experts – its all a hoax”. Well it isn’t. Sorry about that. To think that way shows that you, too, are in the grip of irrationality.
PeterM
Exactly.
Check Mencken.
Wrong, Peter. I have outlined it several times here, so will refrain from repeating it (unless you insist).
Max
PeterM
Regarding the ongoing scientific debate on AGW you opined (3181):
This is obviously untrue, as past posts here have shown.
To clear up any confusion you may have on this,, I will repeat my position:
– CO2 is a natural trace gas in our atmosphere, essential for all life on our planet.
– Along with water vapor and other minor trace gases, CO2 is greenhouse gas.
– The greenhouse theory tells us that GHGs absorb and re-radiate outgoing LW radiation, thereby warming our planet.
– Human activity emits CO2 – primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels.
– The natural carbon cycle is several orders of magnitude greater than the human emissions.
– Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased since continuous measurements were installed at Mauna Loa in 1958; prior to this we have a less reliable record from ice core data, which suggests a steady, gradual increase since around 1750 and various analytical results since the mid 19th century, which show greater fluctuation.
– It is probable that human CO2 emissions have been a major cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
– Over several years, roughly half of the CO2 emitted by humans ends up “remaining” in the atmosphere, with the balance either absorbed by the biosphere, the oceans or lost to space; on a year-to-year basis this varies from under 20% to over 80%.
– Globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature records show that Earth has been warming since they started in 1850; this warming occurred in three statistically indistinguishable multi-decadal periods of around 30 years, followed by periods of slight cooling, also of around 30 years each, similar to a rough sine curve with an amplitude of ±0.2°C, on a slightly tilted axis with an overall warming trend of 0.04°C per decade.
– The observed warming/cooling cycles show no statistical correlation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
– Over roughly the past decade our planet has stopped warming, both in the atmosphere (surface as well as troposphere) and in the upper ocean (since more comprehensive and accurate ARGO measurements were installed in 2003). This has occurred despite record increases in CO2 and has been attributed to natural variability.
– IPCC assumes that all natural climate forcing factors are essentially negligible (less than one-tenth of anthropogenic factors).
– It is estimated that the natural greenhouse effect has resulted in warming of Earth of about 33°C; around two-thirds of this is estimated to have resulted from water, with around 20% attributed to CO2 and slightly smaller percentage from minor GH gases. GH theory tells us that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 should result in an increase in average temperature of around 1°C. The relationship is estimated to be roughly logarithmic.
– IPCC forecasts of future warming are based on model-simulated strongly positive feedbacks from water vapor, clouds and surface albedo, which would more than triple the warming impact from doubling CO2 alone. These assumptions are highly uncertain and are not supported by empirical data from real-time physical observations, but rather by model simulations based on theoretical deliberations.
– In addition, these warming predictions are based on model-simulated growth “scenarios” with an acceleration in the compounded annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 from its current rate of around 0.4% per year to 1.5 to 2 times this CAGR, despite the fact that human population is expected to increase much more slowly than it has from 1960 to today.
– So, all in all, I can accept the GH theory, that CO2 is a GHG, that humans have been at least partly responsible for increased CO2 levels and that these may have been responsible for a portion of the warming observed since 1850, with the rest attributable to natural forcing.
– I have some reservations regarding the accuracy of the global surface temperature construct, as there are indications this may have large uncertainties with relation to past sea surface temperatures, the lack of data for many locations and a possible spurious warming signal from the urban heat island effect, the shutdown and relocation of stations and poor station siting (near AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, etc.). In addition, the tropospheric (satellite) record, which does not suffer from these problems, has shown a slower rate of warming despite the fact that GH theory tells us it should warm more rapidly than at the surface.
– I am rationally skeptical of the IPCC premise of strongly positive net overall feedbacks, which would triple the theoretical warming from a doubling of CO2, as these are not supported by empirical data derived from physical observations or reproducible experimentation and have, in fact, been put into serious doubt by recent satellite observations.
– I am also rationally skeptical of the IPCC notion that all natural climate forcing factors are essentially negligible, as the lack of warming over the past decade can only be explained by natural factors, which have overwhelmed the warming impact of record CO2 increases.
– And finally, I cannot accept the IPCC “scenarios” whereby the future CAGR of atmospheric CO2 should be 1.5 to 2 times the CAGR actually seen from 1958 to today (or over the past 5 years), as the estimated future growth in population is projected to be only a fraction of the growth since 1960 and because there are active programs all over the world to improve energy efficiency and move away from increasingly scarce fossil fuels.
– As a result, I have concluded that the maximum warming we could expect from added atmospheric CO2 by year 2100 is at most 0.5°C and nothing to be concerned about.
So I am not what is often referred to as an AGW “denier”, but rather a “luke warmer”.
Hope this gives you a clear picture of my “coherent scientific position” on AGW.
What is yours?
Do you have one?
Max
Max,
So you’re a “lukewarmer”? And lukewarmers think its OK to use phrases like “forget these so-called experts – its all a hoax!” So what sort of language do the real hard core deniers use?
I notice that Judith Curry says, referring to the US State of Georgia, that she lives in a “hotbed of scepticism [on climate change]”. Why would that be I wonder? Are Georgians particularly sceptical people? Is there a much higher than the National Average percentage of Georgians who thoroughly scrutinise scientific papers on the subject?
If I took a cab in Atlanta, and the driver was sceptical on climate change, would I be more likely to hear him ranting about Al Gore and an international communist conspiracy, or is it more likely would he start to say that he’d just been reading a paper on the Earth’s energy balance and in his opinion he’d found the the argument that it had been influenced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions somewhat unconvincing for the following key reasons… ??
Stop your rambling, Peter – it just makes you look foolish. Atlanta cab drivers? What a load of rubbish! For shame, Peter.
If you read my “coherent scientific position”, you’ll see the key areas where I have concluded based on the available data that the “so-called experts” of IPCC are perpetrating a “hoax”.
Do you have a “coherent scientific position”?
I’m beginning to doubt it, Peter, based on the silly rubbish you are posting.
Max
Max,
There is no coherent scientific position with climate change deniers. You’ll see them move up and down the following list of arguments. In fact, you’ve done it yourself.
* The Earth isn’t warming. The records haven’t taken into account the UHI or they just are faked. If anything the Earth is cooling and heading for an ice age.
* The Earth is warming but its just part of a natural cycle. Nothing to do with human influences at all.
* The Earth is perhaps warming slightly due to CO2 and other GHGs but nowhere near what the IPCC claim. Nothing to worry about at all.
* The Earth is warming and that’s a good thing. Humanity does better in a warm climate.
* CO2 levels have increased recently but they were higher in the 19th century. Therefore the recent increase may not be man made
* CO2 levels have increased. Yes, it is likely to be man made but they will have only a small, if any, effect on the climate.
* CO2 levels have increased due to human influences and a good thing too. Plants grow better when CO2 levels are higher.
* The Earth is warming maybe due to higher CO2 and other GHG’s but there are many benefits to that. Who wants colder weather anyway?
* The Earth is warming. Yes human influences may be the cause. Yes there may be problems ahead. However there is nothing much that can be done about it. It’s better to spend the money later to deal with real problems as they happen rather than worry about it now.
See what I mean?
Max,
You’ve never heard journalists say that the quickest way to gauge local opinion is to chat with the cab driver on the way from the airport to the hotel? Maybe not.
Still I’m just wondering why Judith Curry should say that Georgians are more climate-sceptical than the average American. Are they smarter than the average American too? What’s your take on that?
PeterM
Cutting through the waffle you just posted regarding the various views of what you call “climate change deniers”, I believe the accepted definition of a “lukewarmer” in the climate debate today is one who accepts that CO2 is a GHG that can cause some warming, that natural factors also play an important role and that there is no empirical evidence and too much uncertainty to support the premise that human-caused warming represents a serious threat.
If this is, indeed, the definition, then I fall into this category.
My “scientific position” is quite “coherent” and clear, as I stated in 3183. I’m still waiting to hear yours (if you have one).
I believe that one well-known “lukewarmer” is Steve Mosher. As he wrote on 28 April 2008:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/lukewarmer-new-word/
Although Judith Curry has not identified with this group, she stated in a recent interview:
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/08/judith-curry-middle-ground/
“Lukewarmers” are differentiated from those referred to as “deniers”, who deny that CO2 emitted by humans can have any effect whatsoever, and that all climate changes are naturally caused.
In other words, it is a “middle ground” between “deniers” and party line “alarmists” in the ongoing scientific debate surrounding AGW, as Curry has stated.
Max
PeterM
Let’s see if I passed your strange test:
*The Earth isn’t warming. FALSE The records haven’t taken into account the UHI MOST LIKELY TRUE or they just are faked.AT LEAST PARTIALLY TRUE
If anything the Earth is cooling ONLY MOST RECENTLY and heading for an ice age. PROBABLY NOT RIGHT AWAY
*The Earth is warming TRUE but its just part of a natural cycle. PARTIALLY TRUE Nothing to do with human influences at all. FALSE
*The Earth is perhaps warming slightly due to CO2 and other GHGs but nowhere near what the IPCC claim. TRUE Nothing to worry about at all. TRUE
*The Earth is warming TRUE and that’s a good thing UNDECIDED BUT PROBABLY TRUE. Humanity does better in a warm climate. PROBABLY TRUE, BASED ON PAST HISTORY
*CO2 levels have increased recently TRUE but they were higher in the 19th century. POSSIBLY TRUE BUT UNLIKELY Therefore the recent increase may not be man made PROBABLY FALSE
*CO2 levels have increased. TRUE Yes, it is likely to be man made but they will have only a small, if any, effect on the climate.TRUE
*CO2 levels have increased due to human influences TRUE and a good thing too. PARTIALLY TRUE Plants grow better when CO2 levels are higher.TRUE
*The Earth is warming TRUE maybe due to higher CO2 and other GHG’s PARTIALLY but there are many benefits to that. Who wants colder weather anyway? PROBABLY TRUE (SEE ABOVE ABOUT PAST HISTORY)
*The Earth is warming. TRUE Yes human influences may be the cause. ONLY PARTIALLY Yes there may be problems ahead. HIGHLY UNLIKELY However there is nothing much that can be done about it. TRUE It’s better to spend the money later to deal with real problems as (or rather IF) they happen rather than worry about it now.TRUE
How did I do (as a “lukewarmer”)?
Max
PeterM
You ask: Are Georgians smarter than the average American?
I can’t answer your question. Ask Judith Curry (she lives and teaches in Georgia).
One recent US president, Jimmy Carter, came from Georgia. He is undoubtedly intelligent (as a US Naval Academy graduate and nuclear engineer), but most historians rate him pretty poorly as a president.
Another famous Georgian was Martin Luther King. I’d say he was both intelligent and an inspirational leader.
Past Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and past Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich were both Georgians, as is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
All “smart” guys, I’d guess.
How would Queensland hold up in comparison?
Max
Max,
So you’ve no theories as to why Judith Curry might be saying what she is about the number of climate sceptics in Georgia.
How about because the State has a larger than average number of Republican voters, a higher than average number of evangelical Christians, and a lower than average number of tertiary educated voters?
Oh dear,
I see that Hansen has done the anti-clockwise, it’s worse than we thought rotation of data also on the USA temperature records. (in addition to global):
If no moving flip-flop image appears below, click:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/gw-us-1999-2011-hansen.gif?w=400&h=300
How does Hansen manage to “correct” data created long before he was born?
How does this fraud get away with it?
Tax payers protest!
Brute, do you feel cross (or crossed) by any chance?
hardly a trivial “correction” wot?
See WUWT for full story.
Brute,
I’m not sure of the Americano, but in English, of the many meanings of ’cross’, I meant in 3192:
angry: feeling or indicating anger …. exchanged a few cross words
ALL:Further to my 3192, I’ve just read through the comments to the WUWT lead article concerning GISS “corrections” to the temperature record, and consider the following two to be rather exemplary gems:
(1) Baa Humbug says:
January 16, 2011 at 4:37 pm
fredT says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“How many more times are you going to post the same false information?…..
…..This is despite the fact that a) the hansen et al 2001 paper shows very clearly that the TOBS adjustments intoduced into USHCN2 are the biggest component of the change and b) all the Gistemp code and data is online and replicated.”
Lets work through this together Fred.
1st adjustment: OK, adjustments may be needed as new information comes in.
2nd adjustment: Still OK, further new info may have come in.
3rd adjustment: Hmmmm, getting a little suspicious but OK we’ll accept it.
4th adjustment: C’mon guys, do you know what you’re doing?
5th adjustment: Is this incompetence or something else?
6th adjustment: In the private sector, these guys would be fired
7th adjustment: Fred is confident that these new numbers are totally correct and reliable despite the fact that GISS effectively admits their previous 6 attempts were wrong. The rest of us think there is something fishy going on, but that’s because we are natural sceptics and not gullible lemmings.
Do I have that about right Fred?
(2) Ira Glickstein, PhD says:
January 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm
fredT says:
January 16, 2011 at 3:12 pm
How many more times are you going to post the same false information? Each time you take some change, spend zero time investigating why something might have changed, imply something sneaky is going on and encourage your readers to get all hot and bothered about it. This is despite the fact that a) the hansen et al 2001 paper shows very clearly that the TOBS adjustments intoduced into USHCN2 are the biggest component of the change and b) all the Gistemp code and data is online and replicated.
When does omission of important details become equivalent to simply lying?
Thanks fredT for showing up here and for your interest in WUWT. Only time will tell if we need people like you here to straighten us out, or if it is the other way around :^)
Please re-read my Topic. Be specific about what I may have said that was false information. We have the email from Dr. Makiko Sato to Dr. James Hansen detailing the seven updates, over nearly a decade, plus another update that occured after the email. Some differ by over o.5ºC between 1934 and 1998. If any one of them are right, all the others are wrong, some by 5/8 of the total warming they are trying to measure.
You and others put it all down to TOBS (Time of Observation) for the old data. OK, but, if the old data included actual TOBS, why recalculate it seven times? If it did not include TOBS, how could they ever account for it? See TOBS Climate Audit debunking.
If a corporation, between 1999 and 2007, changed their profit reports for their 1934 and 1998 seven times over the course of a decade of recalculating, and all but the last two indicated profits in 1934 were higher, would you suspect they were cooking their books to show false profit increase? What if their supposed profits were $800M and the delta in their calculations was $500M. I’d sell my stock immediately, if anyone would buy it!
But, you may wish to hold on to your investment in Hansen, Inc. Good luck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a good chuckle all!
PeterM
Nope. My “theories” on this would probably be about as absurd as yours (so it’s better to avoid such stupid “theories”).
Why don’t you instead answer the questionnaire you posted (3186), which I answered (3189).
BTW Bob_FJ just posted evidence for the statement on the questionnaire:
So I guess my answer (AT LEAST PARTIALLY TRUE) was CORRECT! (I’m sure you would have answered the same, right?)
Max.
Georgians may have had their global warming faith shaken as they have been brutalized by historic low temperatures over the last several years and most recently a blizzard that has shut down the entire state.
Quite unusual for a region as far south as Georgia……
But, not to fear Peter, I’m certain that the agenda driven scientists will come up with a plausible explanation such as “global warming causes global cooling”.
Bob_FJ,
Regarding Hansen…………..I suppose I should be outraged that my money is being wasted on fraudulent data manipulation and the illegal carnival barking of Hansen promoting his worldview………
However, as Hansen is the poster boy for all things global warming and the depths of his deceit are being publicized, his lunatic ranting serve the purpose of tainting the Global Warmist’s credibility.
Increasingly, the charade is being exposed and Hansen’s “adjustments” display a desperate attempt to resurrect his failed “divinely inspired” prophesizes of apocalyptic global warming catastrophe.
I’m just waiting for the day when Peter denies ever supporting (knowing) Hansen……(supporting his work).
Has the cock crowed three times yet?
Peter Denies Christ Three Times
Brute and Bob_FJ
Yes. I’m sure that even Peter has by now seen that James E. Hansen is a charlatan and that his continuously manipulated GISS record is a hoax.
He is just too stubborn to admit it.
But you are right, Brute.
Hansen is the best argument the “dangerous AGW” skeptics have. He is so blatantly corrupt that even the most naive and devote “climate alarmist” must be able to see through him.
The proposal he recently co-authored to “save humanity” by shutting down all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030 would result in a theoretical reduction of “global” temperature of 0.08°C by year 2100 at an all-in investment cost of $1.5 trillion! (Of course, his proposal did not include a cost/benefit calculation, just a lot of vague rubbish about saving the planet. Duh!)
Interestingly, another long-time “alarmist” guru (Kevin Trenberth) is also helping the skeptics’ cause by giving a transparently defensive and silly talk on Climategate at a meeting of the American Meteorological Society, which has even other climate scientists, like Judith Curry, rolling her eyes with the comment:
.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/14/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iii/#more-1946
It appears to me that the “party line alarmists” are getting desperate as they see the wheels coming off their bandwagon.
But, as history has shown us, all hoaxes eventually get exposed (and disappear into the sunset).
This one is no different.
Max
PS But I have to admit that it’s fun watching!
Brute
Googled answers to the question: Does global warming cause colder winters?
[Believe it or not!]
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071030184224AAburJw
Yep. The writer is “no scientist”.
And the comment: it’s getting colder all over but GLOBAL temperature is increasing tells me all I need to know about the validity of the GLOBAL temperature construct.
This second answer does not attempt to “explain” the recent colder winters – it simply skirts around them by invoking 12-year averages:
http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/24588.aspx
Ouch! So much for the validity of “NASA” (= GISS = Hansen and his merry men).
And here’s another one:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1952080/climate_change_could_mean_colder_winters/
Translation: It’s getting colder where everyone lives (and, as a result, where all the thermometers are located); but out there where nobody lives (and there are no thermometers) our manipulated interpolations show us it’s warming like crazy – believe me, baby!
Do we have a credibility problem here? Is a hoax being covered up? Or is it simply a case of flawed logic?
Max
PeterM
What do you think of this latest boondoggle?
NOAA plans to add “attribution of extreme weather events” as part of its proposed National Climate Service.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/15/attribution-of-extreme-events/
Here’s a comment by Judith Curry on this:
The lady makes sense to me.
IMO the (taxpayer-funded) NOAA “attribution service” is simply a thinly disguised bit of “AGW activism” to gain support for “mitigation” (i.e. carbon taxes) through fear mongering.
What do you think, Peter?
Max