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 Ridley
It’s true, I never went back to that site after my one post there.
Instead, I got involved at RealClimate, Grist, ClimateAudit and this site. I lurked at ClimateProgress, but gave up on that one pretty fast. RealClimate got on my nerves by censoring out posts that raised questions about the dogma. Then there were also a lot of AGW groupies on the site that kept hurling ad homs at any critics of the AGW party line, so that got annoying, as well.
Montford’s Bishop Hill site also has interesting threads from time to time and I’ve spent some time there.
At the time I collaborated with a blogger named PaulM (and a few others) on ClimateAudit to gather the many cases where IPCC exaggerated, distorted or fabricated data, ignored reports, included errors, etc. in its AR4 WG1 report. This ClimateAudit thread has now been abandoned, but PaulM has put this all together in a handy reference file:
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
I was active on this site (Harmless Sky) for over two years. TonyN kept new topics coming in and the discussion here was lively with no personal insults being tolerated. (TonyN has slowed down right now as he is busy writing a book, but I still check in from time to time.)
Right now I have spent time on Judith Curry’s site, Climate Etc. This site does not have any posters who use ad homs to get their point across, it has a balance of skeptics and believers and does not do any censoring of posts. Curry keeps the topics interesting.
My interest in the global warming debate started around 2005, but I did not become a skeptic until after the AR4 SPM report in February 2007. When I started checking some of the claims there against the published literature, I found major discrepancies, which made me more skeptical of the whole story. That’s also when I started blogging.
One can learn a lot by reading the posts of others (on both sides of the debate). Some are interested and curious about the “science” behind the AGW scare while others are more interested in the political implications. They often cite new studies, which are also interesting to read.
It has also been interesting to watch how the “dangerous AGW” bandwagon has been derailed. It has been a fairly short time since Nobel Peace Prizes and an Oscar were handed out, the media were eagerly publishing scare stories, climate scientists and the IPCC were the heroes of the day, media darlings and Hollywood were jumping on board and the doomsayers were basking in glory.
Since Climategate and the other revelations, the picture has changed. Public opinion has shifted drastically, skeptical scientists are coming out of the woodwork with new data and the media are no longer supporting the climate scare 100% as global temperature has stopped rising despite record CO2 levels and winters have become harsher across the northern hemisphere.
It looks like the multibillion-dollar bandwagon is headed for the ditch. Another few years of “no warming” will probably mean the death blow as the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is falsified by the facts on the ground. But it will be a slow, agonizing death, IMO, because of the billions of dollars involved.
At any rate, it should be interesting to watch.
As far as CO2 is concerned, I think any estimates prior to 1959 should be taken with a grain of salt. TonyB, another poster here, has done a lot of research on historical data, including discussions with the late Ernst Beck. He has also gathered a lot of data on the Medieval Warm Period. There have been many independent studies from all over the world using different paleo-climate technologies, which confirm a warmer MWP than today, along with the historical records as well as physical evidence. Yet IPCC ignores all this and stubbornly sticks to its “warmest in 1,300 years” story, even though the hockey stick, upon which this claim was originally based, has since been thoroughly discredited.
Max
Hmmmmm………………
Another fib by the enviro-maniacs……….no surprise.
Polar bear population – no change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/polar-bear-population-no-change/#more-40323
England Expecting Hot/Cold/Wet/Dry Summer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/20/summer-early-southern-england-national-trust
But Oates said southern Britain could be in for the same sort of long hot summer enjoyed in 1976. It could also turn out to be another 2007 when the jet-stream dropped after a lovely April, causing bad weather and then extensive flooding.
“Whatever happens, this is going to be a memorable summer,” says Oates.
Brute (4078)
That’s the kind of forecast I like – the headline carries the scaremongering message*, but the fine print adds the disclaimers.
*(Although I really can’t imagine why anyone in the UK would be frightened by the prospect of a mild, sunny summer.)
Max
PeterG,
You write “Left wing is bad because it is what Starlin and Hitler were. What you reallly mean is you are judging people on their response to policy choice. Its a bit like racial descrimination Peter.”
You mean Stalin as in the dictator? Hitler too eh? What about Hirohito and the Japanese miltary leaders like General Hideki Tojo? Were they all secret Marxists whose only interest was in spreading worldwide proletarian revolution! You’ll be telling us next that Hirohito had given express orders that he wasn’t to be called “your highness’ or anything like that but instead to use the term “Comrade Emperor” !
Racial discrimination? Oh dear. You feel that you might have to sit in the back of the bus. You’d not be allowed to use the same shops and beaches etc as us good liberal folks! Blood transfusions would have to be kept separate. You might be in favour of that yourself. I give a bottle or two from time to time, and blimey, you wouldn’t want any of that if you were ill would you? You might find yourself wondering if maybe climate scientists had a point after all. You might end up thinking the Daily Mail was all lies and the Guardian was a much better paper. :-)
If you are reading this, the chances are that Harold Camping’s Doomsday prediction hasn’t quite come true. I suppose he must be feeling a bit depressed about that this morning, but hey cheer up, Harold, its not the end of the world:-)
Its easy to take the piss out of religious nutters like Harold but apparently there are 40% of Americans who may not have agreed with Harold over his precise timing, but nevertheless, they still believe that its all going to happen sometime before 2040. And of course if you think that, it hardly seems worth anyone’s while to worry about trivialities like climate change.
I’m just wondering if the idea of universal suffrage may need some slight modification. Should people who suffer from strange delusions actually be allowed the vote? Its a difficult one.
PeterM
Lets just get it straight
Left-wing = Total Government = Dictator, Monarch, military junta.
Right-wing = Minimal Government = Anarchy
The Western world is in between but Europe is sliding left with the un-elected EU.
Policies that any government pursue have to be judged on how they are implemented and whether its by coercion or by agreement. But individual policys do not of themselves determin the flavour of a government.
PeterM can you not see this?
Yes, Peter Martin, Harold Camping’s Doomsday prediction was a non-event.
Everyone knows that he is a false prophet.
Only Jimmie Hansen, Al Gore, Michael Mann and the rest of the global warming doomsday soothsayers know the true actual day of reckoning.
Global Warming: The Gathering Apocalypse
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0802-26.htm
The Apocalypse Vs. The Tipping Point
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/the-apocalypse-vs-the-tipping-point/
PeterG,
So you are saying the Japanese Empire in WW2 and pre-war times was essentially socialist?
Anarchism, as I’m sure you’ll know, was quite a strong force in Republican Spain in the thirties. So according to you, they were the forces of the Right who fought against the Left-wing General Franco and the Spanish Army ?
Have I got this “straight” now?
PS PeterG Maybe I’ve misjudged you! So you’re into this sort of thing?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w0vHVBVsOrU/S7AAcxkYT6I/AAAAAAAAABU/3tjeIp6S0vg/s1600/banner-anarchism-thumb1.jpg
Peter Martin,
Certainly you cannot be this obtuse.
Government control over:
The Means of Production
Media
Property
Movement
In essence, STATE control over the lives and property of the citizenry. Both the National Socialists (Nazi) and the Japanese Empire of the time were Socialist (National Socialist). Socialism is the step before Communism (both under the umbrella of Marxism). Totalitarian Socialism is probably a more accurate description in the case of Germany and Soviet Russia.
A planned economy where activities are regulated, directed and for the benefit of, the STATE.
No rights of the individual.
As much as you would like to deny it, these are the historical political systems that you seek to emulate when you advocate Socialism.
So what about England in medieval times? There was ceratinly government control over all these things (means of production, movement, property) and we can include what could be written in books as ‘media’
So this was socialism in action too?
Solar Highways
Here is an “out of the box” idea that may not be that far “ahead of its time”.
http://www.wimp.com/solarhighways/
PeterM
Re 4087
Believe they called that “feudalism”, but it had many of the same features Brute listed.
Max
PS Don’t think we want to go back there, either.
PeterM
Who defines “strange delusions” ?
Would you include doomsayers, such as James E. Hansen or Al Gore in this category? That’s the hard call, Peter.
Max
Max
Solar Highways.Interesting idea.
I had an idea years ago that motorways could be turned into power stations.
The road itself could respond to the pressure of vehicles by generating power. The central barrier is the ideal place for solar collectors and wind turbines (natural wind and that created by the speed of the vehicles) . Both the road surface and the central barrier could also generate hydro power using rainfall and the water thrown up by the vehicles. The advantages are that motorways are already inj place so would not destroy any more countryside (like wind farms do) and they are well maintained. Patent not pending
tonyb
OK. The “Solar Highway” solution I just cited (4089) sounds good at first glance, but let’s look at it more closely.
Let’s assume that 75% of the US Interstate highways could be converted to “solar highways”.
There are 46,700 miles (75,200 km) of Interstate highways. 75% of this total could support 1,25 billion m^2 of solar panels, which (at 150 Watt/m^2) could generate 188 million kW.
If solar panels have an average “on-line factor” of 25%, this would equal 407 billion kWh/year.
The total US electrical power demand was ~4,000 billion kWh in 2009, so the “solar highways” could generate around 10% of US demand when fully installed.
Solar panels are stated by the industry to cost around $12 per Watt installed. Allowing another $6 for paving modifications, tie into grid, etc., this program would cost $3.4 trillion to install.
Coal-fired power plants have an on-line factor of 90%, so the 407 billion kWh/year would require an installed capacity of 52.2 million kW.
Coal-fired plants cost $3,100 per kW installed in 2009. Assuming 10% higher cost today, this equals $180 billion to install.
Gas-fired (combined cycle) plants also have an on-line factor of 90%, but only cost around $1,200 per kW (2008). Assuming 15% higher cost today, this equals $72 billion to install.
So, at $3.4 trillion (and a less reliable supply) it looks like the “solar highway” solution has quite a way to go to become economically viable. If solar panels can come down to around one-tenth of current costs, it might become interesting.
And, in any case, “solar highways” could only cover around 10% of the total US demand.
Max
Peter Martin,
Re: # 4088
You attended government run/public school………correct?
(Judging by your “grasp” of basic political systems, the answer to my question is patently obvious).
Hi everyone
I see Anthony Watts has just posted an excerpt from my latest article on the history and reliability of Historic temperatures.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/#more-40434
I would be pleased to have your input.
Tonyb
Spanish Socialists hammered in local elections
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/23/us-spain-election-idUSTRE74M2HD20110523
You guys would be more knowledgable about this.
What will be the result of this in regards to Spain’s “green” initiatives?
Tonyb,
RE: Solar Highways
It’s funny because I was thinking about this very thing last summer as I was driving through North Carolina.
The United States has thousands and thousands of miles of interstate highways which occupy massive amounts of land……..not only the pavement itself but the median strip of divided highways, thousands of acres of land off of the shoulders and inside on ramps/off ramps.
I thought…….”what a waste of perfectly good land”……The only things that grow there are grasses……..sometimes trees, but I believe the intent is to keep the shoulders and medians clear of obstructions. Sometimes the state will plant indigenous wildflowers in the median…….which is nice.
Why couldn’t these pieces of land be used to erect solar panels to collect light used for photovoltaic?
In the end, after running the numbers, (as Max did) the photovoltaic generators have no attractive payback. I believe that they would not even produce enough electricity to pay for themselves over the course of their useful life.
Installation costs would be enormous as would maintenance costs. Also, the first drunk driver that ran off the road into a field of panels would sue the state for creating a hazard.
Then I thought about glare blinding people’s vision…….on and on and on.
I snapped myself out of my enviro/”free” energy fantasy and back into reality where the government has no business getting involved with the energy business…….
Hell, government has failed at the government business…………so it was foolish of me to expect anything positive to come of government involvement with anything that would involve accountability or (gasp) making a profit.
PeterM
Neither has Hansen’s.
Guess all “nutters” (as you call them) are alike.
Max
TonyB
I very much enjoyed your article on WUWT.
So did Judith Curry, by the way.
Max
Polar Bear Population Remains Stable
As deadly carbon levels continue to rise due to our slowness in submitting to a medieval subsistence existence imposed on a global level by a socialist oligarchy, let’s check in on the plight of the imperiled polar bears:
The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the organization of scientists that has attempted to monitor the global polar bear population since the 1960s, has issued a report indicating that there was no change in the overall global polar bear population in the most recent four-year period studied.
“The total number of polar bears is still thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000,” the group said in a press release published together with a report on the proceedings of its 15th meeting.
20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide is exactly the same population estimate the group made following its 14th international meeting.
However, just because the population of these human-hunting monsters is regrettably not going down is no reason for bureaucrats to refrain from destroying the economy on their behalf.
In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared the polar bear a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The declaration was not based on an actual decline in the polar bear population but on the government’s conclusion that future declines in Arctic sea ice will reduce the bear’s habitat and put it at risk.
That is, actual numbers don’t matter, because they can be replaced by fanciful suppositions about what might happen in the future if harmless and ubiquitous CO2 isn’t rigorously suppressed.