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
Below is link to letter by 255 climate scientists published in “Science” (with the phony polar bear photo), per earlier post.
http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf
Max
Fairly interesting post over at Roger Pielke Jnrs site
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/definative-denier.html
Particularly interesting is the quote
And yet, while a sensible idea, we see it used again and again throughout the media and this blog.
Max (449):
Many thanks for referring me to the article in The Economist citing the Hartwell Paper. Most interesting – although, from the perspective of a dangerous AGW proponent, I would imagine the article is rather depressing: the article notes how the Paper correctly identifies the failure of the current “act now to reduce emissions” strategy and proposes a new, more indirect approach, only to conclude that that’s hardly going to work either. So, if that’s right and if the dangerous AGW hypothesis is valid, (as I keep telling PeterM – who refuses to hear) catastrophe is unavoidable.
But I like (and could sign up to) the “easy opportunities” mentioned by Hartwell as part of that indirect approach: eliminating black carbon, reducing deforestation, helping the billion of the world’s poorest people get electricity (even if that means burning fossil fuels) and, instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive and subsidising renewables, developing strategies for secure low cost energy for all by developing new technologies. I would add developing strategies to enable us to adapt to whatever changes the climate might have in store.
Perhaps there’s an opportunity here for building bridges between sceptics and alarmists.
There’s an interesting article in the current New Scientist. By the paper’s Brussels correspondent, it’s headed Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth.
Here’s an extract:
Now this sounds like a view that would appeal to PeterM. But to anyone else?
Robin
The “New Scientist” article you cited on “denial” is interesting. The author, Debora MacKenzie , is a “science journalist”
There are one or two basic fallacies in the logic (at least in hindsight).
“Denial” of vaccine efficacy “before the fact” can well be put into the category as described. However, there is no doubt that smallpox was once a major killer, which was essentially eradicated as a result of the smallpox vaccine, as the medical records show. The same is true of polio. To deny the efficacy of both of these vaccines today is to deny the overwhelming observed facts on the ground.
“Fear” of the side effects of a vaccine is something totally different than “denial” of its efficacy. The medical records are very sparse and inconclusive on the postulation that autism in children can be caused by the measles vaccine, for example. Yet it is very clear that the incidence of measles has been reduced significantly as a result of mandatory child vaccination.
The link between smoking and cancer has also been well demonstrated today. It is possible, however, when the US legislation first had the surgeon general’s warning put on cigarette packages, that the evidence was not yet conclusive at that time. The initial warnings were also cautiously worded. Now that the physically observed data demonstrating the smoking/cancer causation are firmer, the warnings are also more direct.
The author rejects “rational skepticism” of a scientific hypothesis (i.e. the “scientific process” at work) out-of-hand and equates this with “denial” (a non-scientific attempt to “gain control” over nature, as she puts it). This is actually the weakest argument.
It is precisely the AGW proponents who seek to “regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature”, by promulgating the premise that man can actually control our planet’s climate by reducing the amount of coal we burn.
Putting “smoking” (a well-established killer, based on exhaustive physical observations from clinical studies) in the same category as “burning coal” (an imagined danger, conjured up by theoretical deliberations and computer simulations, but not supported by empirical data based on actual physical observations), the author, herself, falls into a trap of illogic.
To extrapolate the “denial” reasoning to the current AGW premise by comparing it with the medical examples above or with the theory of evolution is a stretch.
The medical examples have been covered above.
The principles of the evolution theory have been demonstrated in laboratory experiments with simple life forms. Longer-term observations have confirmed the theory in practice with more complicated life forms.
The premise of potentially dangerous AGW has not been supported by such empirical data (a point you and I have made repeatedly to PeterM).
One could just as well apply the author’s reasoning on “denial” to the premise of “creative design” (which, like potentially dangerous AGW, has not been supported by empirical data).
The author states:
This may be true for the medical cases described by the author, but certainly does not apply for AGW.
Try telling Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer or many of the other scientists who are rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW postulation that their “explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control”.
They would laugh you out of the room.
The article is a fairly transparent attempt (based on flawed logic) to put those who are rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise into the same boat as those who believe in “creative design”, reject the efficacy of vaccines or the link between smoking and cancer.
The author obviously “believes” the dangerous AGW premise and is trying (in vain) to sell the concept that anyone who, unlike her, is rationally skeptical of this premise is not “scientific”.
Sorry. No sale.
Max
I’m pleased to see that Global Warming (Anthropogenic or otherwise) is not fooling our epidemiologists…
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2010/05/20/malaria_no_excuses_climate_change/
Sorry, that was a link to the discussion, not the article, which is here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/20/malaria_no_excuses_climate_change/
Max (455):
Well said.
How do you find the time to write this excellent stuff? How about a comment on the NS website?
Interesting…….I hope this graph is sized correctly……
Despite The Predictions & “Hot” Rhetoric, The Evidence Shows Real Global Warming Is In Its Death Throes
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/03/despite-the-hot-rhetoric-real-global-warming-is-dying.html
I don’t want to go OT too far, but WRT vaccines, I do feel that they have been given uncritical credit for improvements, smallpox and measles in particular. Smallpox declined as soon as isolation was thought of, and as less than 10% of the world’s population was ever vaccinated, that can hardly have been wholly responsible for its eradication. In the UK, the mortality from measles reduced by over 97% in the first half of the 20th century, well before vaccination was introduced, simply as a result of improving diets and sanitation.
The links between the early (DPT) vaccinations and cot deaths, not to mention ‘shaken baby syndrome’, are also still under consideration, despite enormous resistance from the same medical establishment that refused to acknowledge the real cause of stomach ulcers for over 20 years. If you want examples of ‘consensus science’ at work, look no further than the medical schools.
Are we doomed by Peak Rare Earth Metals?
Sorry to start yet another new topic (but Max seems to have disposed adequately with the “denier” item) but I just heard on the BBC’s “Costing the Earth” programme (here) something of which I had vaguely heard but no more. It seems that most “green” technologies, and especially electric cars, low energy light bulbs and windmills, depend entirely on rare earth metals (REMs). Yet there are serious suggestions (link) that they might not be available to us as early as 2012! It seems that China has a monopoly of REMs and will need all it has (a dwindling resource anyway) to cope with its own increasing demand.
Gulp – is Peak REM a far more serious problem than the dreaded Peak Oil?
PS: it seems that the mining of REMs can itself cause severe environmental damage – perhaps that electric care is not so environmentally friendly after all.
PPS: it seems that Peak Lithium (also needed for “green” technology) may be another threat.
Hmm – maybe as nuclear energy is so unpopular, the only solution is Ol King Coal after all. Or back to the Stone Age.
In my first PS of 461 I meant to refer to “electric car” not “electric care”. But, as drivers of these vehicles think they are caring for the planet, maybe it’s the right word. Little do those drivers know, but as is pointed out in the article I mention above (second link),
Robin – I shudder to think what the disposal costs of large numbers of high-capacity Lithium batteries will be! It seems reasonable to assume that they will need replacing more than once during the life of the average electric car (unless they’ve been designed to fall apart after five years) and that will make up, in all senses, for the alleged savings. I like electric power for its tractability and ease of application (e.g. a motor in each wheel) and would welcome a vehicle with smaller batteries and an on-board generator that could be switched off in towns or heavy traffic, but I shall probably have to build it myself!
I also agree entirely about the light bulbs. Has anyone done a proper audit of the TCO (total cost of ownership) of these? I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that tungsten (or better still, halogen) bulbs have the least overall impact…
Robin – I’m sure the REM problem is real enough, but I have to swallow hard before taking too seriously an article written by “an award-winning natural health author with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health” who “regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates” and who “shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at http://www.HealthRanger.org”.
A prime candidate for Pseuds Corner, IMO.
James (464):
Perhaps – but Mike Adams isn’t the only person writing about the REM problem. See this, this and this for example. And, of course, the BBC.
BTW, if windturbines and electric cars truly depend on scarce and depleting commodities that are controlled by a single supplier and the production of which causes great harm to the environment, they are hardly renewable, sustainable – or green.
Robin
Your report on “peak REM” could well be an example of a “black swan” (an unforeseen “outlier” that changes all the predictions, as described by Nassim Taleb in his book, “The Black Swan”).
If a reliable and rapidly growing supply of REMs are the key to developing cost effective sustainable “green power”, the “peak REM” prognosis may well mean that these solutions will forever remain outside our grasp.
Nuclear power, with new fast-breeder technology (as being installed in India) may be a temporary bridge until nuclear fusion can become a reality. But we have a lot of grass-roots political opposition to anything nuclear, that must first be overcome.
Or, more likely than not, something totally unforeseen will come out of “left field” and shatter all the prevailing paradigms.
But I am with you for now – let’s not write off
“Ol’ King Coal” just yet.
Max
Robin
You wrote:
Exactly.
But the battle against human CO2 emissions has nothing to do with replacing fossil fuels with “renewable, sustainable – or green” energy sources. This is obviously simply a ruse to fool the more gullible.
The real objective is to levy exorbitant taxes on the citizens of the more affluent nations, which have built up a cost-effective and generally low-polluting carbon-based energy infrastructure and, with it, the standard of living of their citizens, for distribution at will by politicians and bureaucrats.
All the rest is “window dressing”.
Remember Mencken.
Max
So many interesting threads, so little time!
1) Health – parallel to the government’s “Act on CO2” advertisements are the “5 a day” campaigns, telling us that among other benefits, 5 portions of fruit and veg a day help to ward off cancer. Recent studies, like this one, have actually been negative or ambivalent, but that does not seem to affect the general perception that these are cancer-battling “superfoods”.
(NB. This may be a good example of a dodgy consensus that is relatively uncontested, even though its scientific underpinnings are as controversial as those of CAGW. Many people, myself included, enjoy eating lots of fruit and veg anyway; to me, the fact that these probably don’t do very much to prevent cancer is neither here nor there, as no sweeping lifestyle changes are demanded.)
2) Max: “…more likely than not, something totally unforeseen will come out of “left field” and shatter all the prevailing paradigms.” Nick Grealy of nohotair blog thinks that such a “black swan” event could well be the development of unconventional gas. Potentially very abundant: not limited to inaccessible/politically unstable zones: without the emotional baggage of nuclear: low CO2 emissions: no need for expensive futilities such as CCS: and (while not entirely free of problems) without the issues dogging renewables (unreliability, low performance, REM shortages, turbine gearbox breakdown, etc.) This could be one to watch. One of the possible “bridges” (as per Robin’s #453)?
Alex
Thanks for shale gas India link. The cited article by Siddharta P. Salkia in the “Financial Chronicle” also mentions shale gas projects in North America (USA + Canada), Australia, China and Europe.
It mentions that current proven reserves are:
USA: 125 trillion cu.ft
Canada: 50 trillion cu.ft.
Which together only make around 5 trillion cubic meters (compared to proven world-wide conventional reserves, based on other sources, of around 180 trillion cubic meters).
But I have also seen estimates that the world-wide shale gas deposits could well be as high as 50 to 100 times today’s “proven reserves”, thereby dwarfing the entire petroleum reserves of the Middle East.
If this turns out to be true, we definitely have ourselves a “black swan”, both as a fuel source for electrical power generation as well as for motor vehicles.
(In addition there is also a lot of oil in these shale deposits, but that’s another story.)
Max
Brute
The main “take home” from your graph showing NCDC decadal temperature trends versus decadal CO2 concentration trends (459) is that there is no correlation between the two.
Based on the Hadley record, the most current decadal temperature increase of 0.068C as shown by NCDC actually becomes negative if you start in 2001 rather than 2000, even though CO2 increase (2001-2009) was at an all-time high.
AGW-believers dance around this observed fact with all sorts of rationalizations, but the one that probably makes most sense comes from the UK Met Office, which attributes the recent cooling to “natural variability”, which has more than offset record increase in CO2. This explanation obviously raises serious questions regarding the premise that most of the observed past warming can be attributed to observed increase in CO2 (i.e. you can’t have it both ways: either the impact of “natural variability” is negligible or it is high enough to more than offset record CO2 increase).
Max
Robin (465)
I agree entirely. I just find American hubris a bit off-putting!
On the car front, I subscribe to bangernomics (http://www.bangernomics.com/EcoBangers.html) on the basis that keeping an old car running is far ‘greener’ than buying a new one, however frugal.
WT REM’s, I suspect that, like oil, once the scarcity (or Chinese export rules) begin to bite, then other sources will be found, either through recycling, or closer attention to waste products, such as the by-products of titanium dioxide production:
http://www.resourceintelligence.net/scientists-discover-revolutionary-method-of-rare-earth-extraction-from-titanium-dioxide/5095
My other, slightly heretical, thought is that it might be no bad thing if we had to make do with our existing mobile phones, computers and TV’s for a bit longer. Electronic bangernomics, really.. :-)
Oops – that link was confused by the brackets:
http://www.bangernomics.com/EcoBangers.html
and WT = WRT
James (471):
Oh no – and I just traded in my oldish Porsche for a Fiat 500 (seriously) – but I don’t think that keeping it would have been greener. Although a lot more fun. But the 500 is cute and impresses my greenie friends. (And I’ve still got a 4×4.)
Max (467):
You say that the real objective of the battle to reduce emissions is “to levy exorbitant taxes”. Well maybe – but would a government be so foolish as to trade off a very short term taxation opportunity against a short to medium certainty of economic disaster? (There’s no need to answer that.)
James,
Being (arguably) the most outspoken participant here on the skeptical side, I don’t find this heretical at all.
One of the television sets in my home is circa 1979……………another dates from the mid 1980’s.
Mrs. Brute’s car was built in 1994 (200,000 miles) and my daily driver was built in 2002 (180,000 miles).
We maintain and care for our appliances carefully/regularly as we always have…….absolutely a Conservative philosophy.
Our home is filled with antiques………as well as furniture that we purchased when we married. I believe my washing machine is +20 years old………
Reusing/Repairing/Recycling products is really nothing new……the “psychology of ecology “is not something invented or developed by the “green” movement……it is simply good common sense.
What I do resent is the implication by government bureaucrats & elitists Liberal do-gooders that people are too imbecilic to figure this out or that citizens should be forced through government manipulation to somehow feel guilty for having and maintaining a high standard of living.
The myth that people (Americans in particular) simply dispose of things in perfectly good working order is just that……a myth.
Of course, once something is completely un-repairable or the cost of the repair is prohibitive………into the trash heap it goes.
As Max has alluded to previously………the “green initiative” is not about the environment…………the “green initiative” is simply a ruse to separate people from their money………period.
Robin,
I course they would. The present administration is and has been since the beginning, manufacturing crisis after crisis in order to justify controlling ever increasing portions of the means of production.