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.
Robin,
You’ve never presented any scientific argument yourself, unless you count some story about Egyptians firing arrows into the air! Yes we all know that nothing is going to meet your standards. You’ll just say that I haven’t answered your question no matter what. What’s the point?
Max,
You’ve never once shown any signs of give and take. There was one instance, some time ago, when you’d made an obvious mistake of taking the solar flux of the cross sectional area of the earth and applying that to the whole surface area of the earth. One is four times the other. When that sort of things happens in science, the correct response is to say “Ah yes, I wonder how that affects the final answer”.
But you don’t work that way. You know the answer to start with. Then you work back towards the question and fudge the numbers along to way to try to give it all some semblance of scientific merit. Its all a sham. Your initial ‘Mad Max’ postings just about prove that’s the way you think!
There is no point discussing science with you either.
You are both just a waste of space and time.
PeterM:
If you really think that asking to be referred to the empirical evidence supporting a hypothesis (i.e. the very basis of the Scientific Method) is not a scientific argument whereas continually refusing to answer the question somehow is, all you do is demonstrate your profound ignorance of science. The practice of science demands exacting standards and supporting hypotheses with empirical evidence is one of them. The Peter Martin method of waffle and subject changing most certainly is not.
PeterM
Your reference to some long-ago blogs on solar forcing is a bit out of context.
As I recall, I simply provided evidence based on several solar studies that the combined impact attributable to solar forcing represented around half of the observed 20th century warming or 0.35C.
This has little to do with the solar flux from direct solar irradiance.
You talk about “fudging the numbers”. Are you referring to the GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT temperature records here? Or possibly to the Mann et al. hockey stick and its many “spaghetti copies”?
Can you provide the link to these old blogs to which you refer, or are you just making all this stuff up as you go along?
The point remains that you have not brought any empirical data to support the dangerous AGW premise. As the “bard” wrote: “there’s the rub”.
And you have not answered Robin’s question, which I may paraphrase: since there is almost no hope that China, India and the many other developing nations will curtail their rapidly growing CO2 emissions (and the related increase in standard of living of their populations) and very little hope that the USA will do anything drastic either, do you believe that we are headed for certain disaster due to AGW?
(Hope I got that about right, Robin.)
And let me add. If your answer to the above question is “yes”, what adaptation measures should we be thinking about in case the postulated impending “disaster” is real and when should we undertake these?
Alternatively, if you truly believe that there are no adaptation measures that could save us, when do you think we will all die (human civilization as we know it plus most other species) – at 500 ppmv CO2, at 750 ppmv or even 1000 ppmv (the physical upper limit, as limited by available fossil fuels)?
Just interested in your thoughts on this. I’ll be glad to give you mine, as well.
Max
Yes, Max, you got that about right – although I didn’t make you adaptation point, believing that with Peter it’s best to keep things simple. Let’s see if he answers the basic question: given humans’ continued and increasing emission of GHGs, do you believe that mankind faces disaster?
Why I Am Enlarging My Carbon Footprint
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/why_i_am_enlarging_my_carbon_f.html
Peter,
Just considering your # 364……………
Would you say that a “collectivist”, (more socialistic/less capitalistic) worldwide form of government would better suit the goals of the environmental movement?
If national sovereignty were eliminated and all of Earth’s people were effectively governed under one political system………(i.e. one global set of laws/regulation)………would that better meet the “needs” of the planet in your view?
If all profit were to be considered property of the State, would that be helpful in terms of eliminating “undesirable” environmental consequences?
Brute
I like your carbon footprint article.
Reminds me of a good cartoon (in the International Herald Tribune shortly after Kyoto), showing two older guys in baseball hats and overalls (obviously Americans) sitting in rocking chairs around an old wood-burning stove in a general store.
The one old guy tells the other: “Toss another one of them Ky-oto reports on the fire; it’s gettin’ cold in here”.
[These guys were obviously not from “The Peoples’ Republic of Berkeley”, as is the author of your article.]
Max
PeterM:
There are three possible ways of answering my #357: “yes”, “no”, or “don’t know”. Simple enough. Which is it?
Oh BTW, Peter, about Egyptians and arrows, thanks for the reminder. Here’s what I said (way back in February 2008 on the NS Lynas thread):
That’s still my view. Although, considering those self-important politicians who assert that, unless we cut CO2 emissions by x% or y%, temperatures will increase by over 2 deg. C, I now doubt if that “perhaps” in the final sentence is warranted.
The story of King Canute’s courtiers asserting that their mighty king could command the waves is another example of human hubris. Odd, Peter, that you should choose to line up with the ancient Egyptians and Canute’s courtiers.
Bob
Lazy journalist syndrome…
If the new hypothesis is correct, it’s curious that about the only reptile to survive the general extinction was the water-dwelling crocodile.
Robin
You asked PeterM:
As you, in contrast, are sure that increased GHG emissions will cause dangerous, even catastrophic, climate change, you must believe that mankind faces disaster. Do you?
You gave PeterM three choices:
a) yes
b) no
c) don’t know
I think PeterM will object to being limited to these three choices.
I could envision a fourth option, more to Peter’s liking, which goes roughly as follows.
Whereas:
Mainstream science has established unequivocally that our planet is warming, and that it is very likely that this warming has accelerated since the mid 20th century, and more likely than not that this warming, as well as its observed acceleration, have been caused at least partially by human emissions of GHGs, principally CO2 (primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels), and that this accelerated warming, if allowed to continue, will more likely than not cause serious deleterious effects to the very survival of our planet, as we know it.
These same 2,500 scientists have concluded that the rate of sea level rise over the next 100 years is likely to exceed 2 meters (possibly reaching 7 meters), with disastrous impact on coastal regions worldwide from Boston to Brisbane to Bangladesh, that there will more likely than not be more rain, more droughts, more snow and sleet, more cold spells, more hot spells, more storms, hurricanes and tornadoes and generally nasty weather, plus possibly more earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunami disasters than in the past as a direct result of the aforementioned warming.
A second wave of highly qualified experts has warned us that these changes will more likely than not result in a sharp increase in the incidence of vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, bubonic plague (and others too fierce to mention), as well as increased incidence and severity of pulmonary diseases, such as pneumonia, bronchitis, various types of influenza and increasingly virulent common colds.
And yet another set of scientific experts have issued dire warnings that much of our planet’s current fauna, such as polar bears, deer, lions, tigers, zebras, wildebeests, bison, water buffalos, etc. as well as most birds including penguins (of all categories), will likely become extinct as a result of the aforementioned changes, with the mosquito, the common housefly, the tick and the cockroach more likely than not expanding their territories and numbers to fill the vacuum.
This same scientific consensus has told us that the only hope to avert this disastrous development is for all of humanity to be forced by world government edict to (1) pay a “carbon tax” of $1,000 per ton of CO2 generated (to this same world government for discretionary use), and (2) drastically reduce its consumption of fossil fuel based energy and all products, which contain an energy or transportation component.
Now then:
It is, therefore, deemed unacceptable that certain nations or individuals attempt to disregard this forced voluntary change in lifestyle; those that try to do so should be exterminated (in an environmentally friendly manner, of course), thereby helping to reduce our planet’s looming overpopulation problem.
Only in this fashion can we save human life on this planet and make it a sustainable and environmentally friendly place for our children and grandchildren to live again.
(Sorry for being a bit long-winded, but I didn’t want to cramp Peter’s options.)
Max
So that would be
a) yes
b) no
c) don’t know
d) avoid direct answer and waffle
I recently came across this entry from Leonardo da Vinci’s notebook:
(Source: Richter, Literary Works of Leonardo, #1148 A)
An elegant early sixteenth century statement of the Scientific Method – Leonardo was one of the first genuine scientists of the modern age. It’s a pity some current so-called scientists no longer to follow his precept.
Robin
There is a timely article on spiked-online on the theme of scepticism, with a couple of quotes on it from ancient greece. I’ve tried 3 times to post a link but it doesn’t seem to want to work.
Barelysane:
For some reason, the system doesn’t like the link. But it’s worth reading – thanks for the reference. I suggest people Google “spiked online article 8645”.
A couple of quotations:
I think Leonardo would have agree with the latter sentiment.
Yep, it’s all about science, helping polar bears and saving the planet………..
More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/?singlepage=true
This morning I learn from the BBC (story here) that
So we have yet another example of, as I say in my #357 [BTW I’m still waiting for an answer, Peter], Western countries showing little sign of reducing their emissions with overall global emissions being set to increase for many years to come – whatever Western governments, pundits and institutions (and Peter Martin) may say.
Yet another of the assumptions of AGW debunked by that pesky old empirical evidence.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/27/soil_microbe_peril_no/
Further to my #392 (about Australia shelving its emissions trading scheme), Spiegel Online reports that “German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quietly moving away from her goal of a binding agreement on limiting climate change ...” Another example supporting my #357 contention that even Western countries are unwilling to take a stand on limiting GHGs.
Robin (394)
German Bundeskanzlerin Merkel has a bit of a dilemma, as last weekend’s news revealed.
The 120-km human chain protesting a possible delay in the shutdown of a north German nuclear power plant puts a new “anti-AGW” slant on the word “green” in Germany.
Merkel is intelligent enough to know that you “can’t have it both ways”.
The alternates appear to be:
– sign a long-term contract with France for nuclear power coming from across the Rhine
– sign a long-term contract with Poland for new coal-fired power coming from across the Oder
– say “to hell with it” and install new coal-fired plants in Germany, using some token German coal (and importing the rest at lower landed cost from South Africa)
[Note: For all three alternates, it is important to sprinkle a few “feel good” wind turbines around.]
The 2°C maximum warming target is a “red herring” in any case.
Odds are extremely high that it will never be physically reached as a result of AGW.
Odds are even higher that Merkel would not be around if it were ever reached.
Max
Alex Cull (358), James P (385)
I mentioned earlier: WTF… fossil Ammonites… they’re everywhere aren’t they?
Well knock me over with a feather, but there was a TV report here in Oz about Antarctica, and Ammonites were featured. There was also another fossil that appeared too; Brute’s friend Jimmy (Hanson) ….. I wanted to go and have a puke.
But, I find, Ammonites ARE everywhere!
A real live and prolific one has turned-up at WUWT starting here.
Actually, it’s an interesting thread topic on sea-ice, and I’ve been having fun there, whilst avoiding Ammonite. (groan…. Others are handling that OK)
Bob, it looks like your humble ammonite is fast becoming the poster child for ocean acidification (the next big terror if AGW unaccountably fails to terrify us for much longer…) :o)
Good thread on WUWT. Re sea ice, it’s my impression that there’s a curious lack of “ice-free Arctic” stories in the mainstream media so far this year. Of course, I shouldn’t really say that, as it’s tempting fate…
This has the potential to bring down the Obama regime………not much air play yet; however, momentum is building…….
The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531731
Der Spiegel made recordings of some discussions at the Copenhagen Summit – original article (in German) here and (part) translation here. If accurate, it would seem that the gulf between the West and China/India was even wider than has been reported. And, interestingly, there’s a suggestion that Obama doesn’t really see climate change as a major priority. He’s reported as having said, “…everybody here has other much more important business to take care of.”
(Perhaps Max might comment on the accuracy of the translation from German to English. Note: the original discussion was in English which Der Spiegel translated into German for the article.)
Robin
The translation looks good to me. Just reading the two, the German version sounded a bit more “pointed” (but maybe that’s just the German language).
It’s clear from both versions that the EU hopes to get a commitment from China and India were completely thwarted, that Sarkozy lost his cool for a moment, that Merkel was disappointed, that Obama tried to “pour oil on the troubled waters” (but was miffed that China just sent a mere delegate), and that the whole meeting was a total fiasco.
The official statement at the end was so thin (as Will Rogers once said) “that you could read a newspaper right through it”.
Is this a preview for the next boondoggle in Cancun? If so, why even have it?
The EU politicians (as well as Obama + co.) have to get it through their heads: AGW is a “rich man’s luxury”, which the leaders as well as the populations of the developing nations are not concerned about one iota.
Now that it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone on this globe (except maybe these politicians) that the whole AGW craze was based on flawed science, it will become even more difficult to sell carbon cutbacks (or taxes) to the rest of the world.
Max