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.
Scientist Behaving Strangely? The Case of James Hansen
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/01/scientist-behaving-strangely-the-case-of-james-hansen-nasa-giss/
Brute
Thanks for linking an interesting article comparing the drama queen predictions of 40 years ago with today. The paragraphs below summarize the take-home message for me. And show me why the current AGW hysteria is just another foolish doomsday scare.
I hope Peter reads this (and can understand it).
Max
You all seem very coy about acknowledging Glenn Beck. How about Ann Coulter? is she more your cup of tea?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/anncoulter.htm
Don’t suppose you’ve heard of her either?
How about Ann Coulter? is she more your cup of tea?
Never heard of her………
But from the link you posted….she’s hot!
Please provide the source of the quote that you posted regarding Beck in #3944.
Hey Peter,
It seems that every time you are in the corner regarding the flawed science supporting your “dangerous AGW” nightmare, you waffle over to a new subject.
Suddenly it’s all about Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, instead of a flawed Hansen “hidden in the pipeline” suggestion (me) or the notorious unreliability of the sea surface temperature record (TonyB).
Your evasive tactic is clear for one and all to see. You do not want to discuss the science behind DAGW because (deep inside) you know that it is flawed, yet you hate to admit it openly.
Don’t think people cannot see through your ruse.
Ann Coulter, indeed!
Max
Max,
Peter has lost every debate…….
Again though, his blind devotion to the AGW religious doctrine will not allow him to concede.
His mind is closed to everything except the party line…….he is the emitome of the “useful idiot”
Brute,
I’ve made the point many times before , so I can’t say its new, but even though I give you all the scientific arguments you clearly are either incapable, or more likely unwilling, to even take them seriously, much less actually accept them.
I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of Rush Limbaugh either?
He comes over as a total idiot but at least he does have the honesty to say that , for him, its not about scientific argument.
After identifying himself as a creationist he says, “I simply cannot accept the fact that we would be created to do things that would destroy our environment…”
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002020036
Such a person would never ponder the possibility that he or she might be wrong. Or that their own denial is part of the problem. Sadly, its a train of thought (for want of a better word) which permeates the entire US Republican party and science has little or nothing to do with that party’s position.
On topics of God, global warming and politics their minds are made up.
You’re babbling Pete……and you source Media Matters (snicker)…………you’ve reached bottom.
Now you’re referencing Rush Limbaugh.
You are so incapable of independent thought that you can do nothing but criticize marginal media persona.
Doesn’t Australia have any radio or television personalities?
Answer Max’s and Tonyb’s questions………………
And you’ve failed to provide a source for your Beck quote in #3944.
If you don’t provide corroboration, I’ll assume that you lied (as I suspected from the start).
I’m not sure that Rush Limbaugh is quite so marginal as you suppose. At least we are talking about someone you’ve actually heard about now which is good!
It is a sad state of affairs, I would agree, but people like Rush Limbaugh, and his Australian equivalents, like Alan Jones, who you’ve probably never heard of either, are the opinion formers for many people of a certain mental predisposition.
To say that their audience is scientifically illiterate is a slight understament. I suppose intellectually challenged is the correct PC term.
I think I got the Glenn Beck quote from here. :-)
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-glenn-beck-conspiracy.htm?PS=584%2C569%2C329%2C750%3A2
In case anyone is still claiming that its all down to Hansen and no-one agrees with him:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5716/1769.full
Peter
Who on earth are these people you keep referencing and why do you keep doing it? I don’t know them and have no interest in their views. For reasons best known to yourself you keep trying to equate us with extreme right wing politics, tobacco campaigners and evolution theorists and its getting tiresome as the cap doesn’t fit, no matter how many times you try.
Have you ever heard of this person-referenced in my earlier post- who reinforced what we have been trying to tell you?
“Don’t know if you saw this (also listen to the audio) from An Aussie Govt climate spokesman?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/andrew-bolt-scores-the-quote-of-the-millennium/
Whilst you’re about it, why don’t you answer some of our questions, repeated here by Max;
“Suddenly it’s all about Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck, instead of a flawed Hansen “hidden in the pipeline” suggestion (me) or the notorious unreliability of the sea surface temperature record (TonyB).”
tonyb
TonyB,
“Who on earth are these people”? You might well ask!
They are known in Australia and the US as “right wing shock jocks”. The come out from under their stones now and again and can then be heard sounding off on the radio. You may not suffer from them in the UK – more radio channels are run by the BBC and there are more rules about political content.
I doubt if they’d allow this sort of stuff in England:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtjvEXr6J-4
Needless to say, they sound very much like Brute on climate change.
Brute, pretends not to know them but he does really. Everyone knows them in the USA and Australia.
You might think they are irrelevant, but people like Brute listens to them and then regurgitate what they’ve heard on blogs like these. They are much more influential than Lindzen, Spencer and Curry. Needless to say, anyone who might be expected to be too close to the mainstream scientific line just doesn’t get a look-in on these channels.
Peter
Your 3962
Once again you are totally confusing sceptics with deniers. I note that I actually tried to set you right on this point a couple of years ago-I kept it in its enirety as I have used it elsewhere. Here it is again-i have added nothing today, its as I wrote it.
Peter said;
“My theory would be that nearly all sceptics, and I can’t see any exceptions on this blog, start off being sceptical, usually for political reasons, and any science they later bring into the argument is done to try to bolster their preconceived position.”
Surely this is completely contrary to what James said? Most people start off believing the party line-that there is AGW-and only after looking at it properly do a proportion then realise all is not what it seems.
They have looked at the facts and changed their minds, so how is that bolstering their pre conceived position?
I think what you have failed to appreciate is that there are two main types of disbelievers of AGW.
The first are ’sceptics’ who have thought deeply about it, read the papers and often changed their original position from a ‘believer’, but based on actual facts and observations. This group tend to have a limited interest in politics or may be drawn from a variety of political colours-they just want the truth.
The second group are ‘deniers’ (lower case and non pejorative) who hate the govt, hate authority, believe they should be able to do whatever they want. AGW is just one of many things they automatically disbelieve because they think it is a govt attempt to control them. There is a political element here, but equally very many hate govt of any complexion.
The latter group would go on denying until their last breath- no matter the proof, whilst sceptics are perfectly rational people and would look at the evidence presented to them, but based on the past performance of some of those involved in promoting AGW-and the exaggerated claims made-would want to delve behind the headlines before accepting anything as factual.
When there are so many question marks about the reliability of data-sea level rise, arctic ice variation through the centuries, global temperatures to 1850, Ocean temperatures, Co2 levels, and so many unknown facets- such as the real effect of the sun etc, it is rather arrogant of anyone to believe that the science is settled.
Your group also has similar schisms. The quote you are trotting out about ‘puke gore’ is replicated in numerous green blogs where the green believer has as much made up their mind as the ‘denier’. There was a prime example of that this morning from the latest climate group interviewed on the BBC who said they ‘just know’ that man is wrecking the planet.”
Ends
Now how about dealing with the science and give us your view on the precise accuracy of global temperatures back to 1860 with specfic references to SST?
tonyb
As I suspected, you lied.
Peter,
The fact that you despise and fear the aforementioned commentators must mean that they’ve wounded your agenda quite seriously.
Are they publicizing things that you’d prefer not be exposed?
I’ll have to look these two up………..monitor what they have to say more closely.
“worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/#more-36776
Brute
We have been telling Peter this for two years. I quoted Simon Holgate of Proudman who had observed the same lack of acceleration during the 20th Century and this study updates it.
Max had even drawn a graph showing the static/falling nature of the supposed dramatic sea level rise which is yet another part of nature that hasn’t read the IPCC script.
Tonyb
PeterM I feel the need to remind you of a couple of things, but firstly please answer the questions you have been asked by Max, tonyb and others. Your evasion is indicative of a politician. You also need to recalibrate yourself about the misused terms left wing, right wing liberal etc.
Most dictatorships are left wing in Nature including that of Hitler’s Germany. In these Dictatorships most economic activity results directly from central government and is ultimately why they fail. When government employment exceeds that of the productive part of the economy that country usually runs short of resources and has to start borrowing money to sustain public services and the countries standard of living. Ironically this is where the democratic West is stuck at present and is why history will record that we are living in “democratic dictatorships” locked into a spiral of decline and no matter how we vote unable to change fundamental thinking. In the case of Hitler he chose to steal the resources he needed. A common factor in all left wing governments, whether dictatorial or democratic is an intolerance of any alternative views on how to achieve their ends, and a need to coerce the population to their view.
A right wing dictatorship is where everyone is “free” to get on and earn money however they can and the state provides very little, whilst sucking out taxes that keep everyone poor and those that rule well provided for. Those looking for change find they are unable to form a credible opposition. These dictatorships care very little what their people or others think and force is often used to maintain control. There have been very few right wing dictatorships because of the extreme measures needed to maintain order.
Liberals have traditionally been pro freedom, which means less government interference, less regulation and greater reliance of the market and the individual taking responsibility. You call this right wing, but that is wrong. None of the so call liberal politicians in the UK are in fact liberal in Nature as they all promote greater Government regulation. Many people think of liberals in terms of “liberalisation” of social behaviour, but this is a shallow view and this sort of change can and does come about in all flavours of government and is a factor of greater education.
Politically those on the left are more active, with those with true liberal or centre right views being more passive. However because the left knows no bounds when it comes to control and coercion those opposing their views often have to take an extreme opposite view in order to balance matters out. Also when passive people are pushed too far those in control are often surprised at the reaction. They should not be as history is full of exact copies of this behaviour.
Peter this is I suppose is a long winded way of trying to stop you characterising anyone who opposes your view of Climate as right wing, as at the end of the day it exposes you as a shallow thinker unable to see the intricacies of human behaviour. This then leaves you open to the claim that your thinking on climate is just as shallow and not to be take seriously.
One last point it a favourite tactic of the left to paint everything they don’t like as right wing, as it conjures up negative images, but it is hugely ironic that these images usually originate from the greatest excesses of the left.
Peter Geany,
Peter Martin’s intellectual shortcomings regarding political science are only exceeded by his lack of understanding regarding basic physics.
I’ve posted this here before………I believe that it explains things succinctly.
Mr. Martin must have been out sick on the day they taught this in grammar school.
The Political Spectrum Easily Explained – Basic Forms of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ
PeterG,
Its quite common in the present day US right wing circles to try to portray German Nazism as a product of the left. The emphasis would be on the “Socialism” of National Socialsm.
However, to work out where the Nazis stood in the 30’s, and later, you really need to look at who were their friends and who weren’t. You could start with Franco’s Falange who’d received Nazi help in overthrowing democracy in Spain. Were they socialist too?
The British establishment, including large sections of the Tory party, the Royal Family, were largely pro-Nazi and pro Mussolini in the pre war period. After the war, the so called de-Nazification program was a sham in the FDR and openly opposed by the ruling CDP and CSU, both parties of the right, who formed the government in the pre war years. The British and American occupation authorities generally turned a blind eye to all Germans with a more than suspicious Nazi background.
All but the most prominent ex Nazis were given a full amnesty by the FDR in the post war period. Those who felt it necessary fled to America , South America and Australia where few, if any, questions or investigations were made into their past. Werner von Braun was even made head of the US space program!
The crime in the US in the 50s was to be too far to the left, and membership of the Nazi party was never used as evidence of that then! So why the change now?
Brute,
There are various Glenn Beck quotes floating around on the net. Some people seem to have had quite a bit of fun making up better ones than Beck himself can manage , but they are all pretty good. One of these is the real thing and two are made up. Can you tell which is which? And which do like best?
‘‘This is not comparing these people to the people in Germany, but this is exactly what happened to the lead-up with Hitler. Hitler opened up the door and said, ‘Hey, companies, I can help you.’ They all ran through the door. And then in the end, they all saw, ‘Uh-oh. I’m in bed with the devil.’ They started to take their foot out, and Hitler said, ‘Absolutely not. Sorry, gang. This is good for the country. We’ve got to do these things.’ And it was too late.”
“All you need to do is connect the dots to understand that ACORN and Obamas Czars are coming after all of us and they won’t stop until they turn the US into a province of Iran”
“Radicalised gay vegans and liberal elites,are perverting our culture so they can spread their global warming hoax and help Al Gore spread his final solution to eradicate capitalism”
PeterM You are getting confused, a bit like weather and climate really. Read carefully what I wrote.
I’ll give you a modern day equivalent. The Labour government of Tony Blair and latterly Gordon Brown were very left wing, as they set out the greatest expansion of the UK public sector there has ever been. However many of their actions were what many such as yourself complain about as being right wing, such as a mountain of restrictive legislation using terrorism as an excuse, and other legislation that sort to criminalise almost everything of a petty nature. To many of us it felt like a police state, something many associate with right wing politics. We even had new legislation to jail parents whose children absconded from school; like this was such a major problem involving the whole country.
The legislation on climate change is just another facet of this control model. Regulation on business activities in the UK has hit new heights that are stifling business. Regulation has its place to safeguard the public’s interest, but in the West it has stopped innovation, destroyed competition and created monopolies. This is all left wing stuff and we are all the poorer for it. It creates the problems we have had with the financial system where Banks are too big to fail. This is the opposite of capitalism where the fear of failure imposes its own discipline’s and promotes innovation to remain competitive.
I say again it is those on the left that have the greatest difficulty in opening their minds to fact and reason, and who find any challenge to their point of view unacceptable. It is why we are getting useless windmills that don’t work requiring huge subsidies just to encourage some one to build what other wise is seen as a dead loss. Picking losers should be the slogan for the west at present. Peter just study a bit of history, and not the fairy tale stuff we learnt at school.
Take your pick. As FDR (?) said: “where you stand depends on where you sit”
Max
PeterM
AGW, anyone?
Max
Brute I like your you tube link. Yes it does explain things very well and I will send it on to a few people who don’t seem to understand these things.