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.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t (or doesn’t ) tea party stand for Taxed Enough Already. I know the BBC and the left here in the UK quote Tea party when ever they wish to emphasize radical anti government views, and this will quickly take hold in the minds of many in the UK who have little interest in their own politics let alone what is occurring in the US
Bob_FJ Brute. I’m a New Zealander by birth, and sixth generation so family connections go back to the first settlers. New Zealand has a lot of integration but there was nothing in my upbringing to suggest we had any Polynesian blood in us although many of my relatives (not direct blood relatives though) did and we all thought nothing of it. Those that do have Maori blood can if they chose vote differently and get help with health and education over and above that available to the general population.
One of my children was DNA tested when he was 11 or 12 when doctors thought he was not growing as fast as they thought he should. Imagine our surprise when the results came back and clearly showed his ancestry and mine contained Maori blood. I was perhaps more shocked, not for racial reasons, but because certain aspects of the health issue the doctors were looking at depended on ancestry which I got wrong. I should not have been surprised at all and upon reflection was not.
Now the point of this is we cannot often tell who we are these days and I recall a professor at Waikato University suggesting that the criteria for anyone in New Zealand being Maori should be that they feel Maori, and not down to provable ancestry or now days DNA testing. This was back in the 80’s I believe and had my Father up in arms as he thought it would see more money in the way of welfare going to some that were “taking advantage” Me I thought it was silly, but in the light of 20 years latter, you have to ask who is right.
Dose this new knowledge make any difference to me or my children. Not really although it dose give them a stronger sense of being New Zealanders despite the fact they have only lived there for 2 years.
The other thing that many fail to grasp, is that in our current age of stupid, many bring race in subjects where it needs to be ignored, or race gets used to halt a valid discussion when there is clearly an issue to be discussed. And this really only happens in the west.
Brute Your friend and his confusion over CO2 and CO is widespread in the UK. This is down to poor teaching in schools and a rubbish curriculum that has de-emphasized academic understanding.
peter geany,
I’m not certain what you’re trying to get at with the reference to “Maori blood”.
So what if someone in your lineage was an aborigine? How does having any specific ancestry entitle a person to anything?
I’m certain that if we all go back far enough we can be linked to some “oppressed group”.
Should I apply to the government of the United States for some favorable treatment because I can trace my lineage to ancient Gaul? That I should receive a tax break or otherwise free government largesse because my ancestors were somehow oppressed.
This “you owe me” shit has got to stop………pay for your own stuff and everything will be fine. (Not directed at you personally PeterG).
Yes Peter, pretty much. I’m not going to go through these items one by one…..but in principle, everything you’ve listed is unconstitutional.
The government of the United States is afforded specific enumerated powers. Anything beyond that is unconstitutional……..they don’t have the authority……….and granting themselves the authority to do these things is unconstitutional unless the amendment process is followed (according to the constitution).
Excellent as this discussion is, it’s beginning to drift a very long way form climate the countryside and landscape.
PeterG,
I’m not so sure that it was a lack of education…….I think it was more along the lines of being uninformed……too busy with his day to day obligations to pay notice. At least he understood the difference between CO & CO2. I think somewhere along the line he must have assumed that the debate is about Carbon Monoxide……..
After all, what sort of idiot would declare plant food a pollutant?
When I alerted him to the fact that Al Gore and the rest of the lunatic fringe were actually stating the carbon dioxide was a problem…….he looked at me quizzically……..and opened the basic chemistry book stored in his head since grade school.
It took a few minutes as the wheels in his head began to turn…..I could see by the look on his face that he realized that he’d been duped all along by the media, politicians and “main stream science”.
Realizing that government entities, agenda driven scientists and Marxists are actually proposing to tax and regulate a harmless (actually beneficial) naturally occurring trace gas was a revelation to him.
tempterrain
You wrote:
The USA has the largest per capita number of lawyers in the world.
If there is ANY unconstitutional spending of federal funds, then I am sure this has been (or will be) challenged by someone via a bevy of lawyers.
So far this may have occurred several times, but (with one exception) none of the items you mention, which involved federal spending, have been successfully challenged AFAIK (maybe Brute knows more). The exception is federally mandated health insurance, which some argue is unconstitutional and the US Supreme Court will eventually decide. Most of the social and educational items are handled by states or locally. Social Security was started by President Franklin Roosevelt and I believe there was an unsuccessful challenge to its constitutionality at the time The federally supported program of interstate highways was started by President Eisenhower, I believe, but I have not heard that there were any challenges to its constitutionality.
The federal government has grown exponentially, starting under President Clinton, accelerating under President G.W. Bush and reaching runaway growth rates under President Obama. Libertarian groups and the tea party are apparently trying to stem this runaway growth (and spending) and (from what I read and hear here) the next election is expected to be decisive in this regard. If Obama loses, the spending spree will be curtailed; if he wins it will probably accelerate even faster (as he will not need to worry about getting re-elected).
Correct me if my information is incorrect, Brute.
Max
Max,
Pretty much spot on analysis.
That being said……we Tea Party people don’t discriminate.
If the current crop of Republicans start to back pedal on spending, we’ll get rid of them also.
We don’t care what political party they’re affiliated with…….if they cast votes to increase spending or expand government…….they’re gone.
Brute,
You ask “How does having any specific ancestry entitle a person to anything?” I think that’s called inheritance, Brute. Next time you are in London, you might want to ask the Queen about that.
TonyN is right. Its difting too far OT but I’ll just make the point that the governments of the USA, Canada and NZ do still have treaty obligations to the indigenous populations of those countries which should still be respected, according to international law.
Brute,
To get the thread back on track I’d just like to ask about your brother-in-laws thought process. I just like to understand different points of view even if I don’t agree with them.
But I’m having some difficulty with his reasoning for rejecting, out of hand, the scientific case on CO2 build up. The first thing to say about CO2 is that its not really a ‘food’. Food is a source of energy and CO2 is just the opposite of that. The plant needs to absorb lots of energy from the sun to synthesise its real food. CO2 is just one input.
However, even if he were to accept all this, would it change his mind? Probably not IMO. CO2 is a GH gas but does he even accept the GH effect? Has he even given anything that might possibly be considered as thought to the subject.
The rational response, under those circumstances, would be to say he didn’t know and he’d have to look through the scientific evidence before expressing any further opinion.
But not your brother in law. And as you say hundreds of thousands like him. He just knows that increasing CO2 concentrations can’t be a problem. How can that be? How can he just ‘know’?
Brute, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get at. My mistake and too far off topic. I’m in agreement with PeterM over indigenous people. However I’m against entitlement for racial reasons as it is always the easy way and doesn’t address the issues it is put in place for.
TonyN I take your point about being somewhat off topic. However for me I don’t see much merit in discussing the science of climate change at present and going over the same old ground. The argument has been won and we have hit somewhat of a hiatus with not much new on the horizon. I check on WUWT everyday to see if their is anything new, but the argument has shifted dramatically in the real world to politics.
We have a revolution going on in energy with cheep shale gas, with politicians in some quarters trying to stop it with one breath and criticising energy companies for increasing prices in another breathe when its these same politicians who pass the regulations that are directly causing these increases. We have an impending financial crisis coming which is going to define everything we do, and will have more effect on everything to do with global warming than if all the scientists were to change tract tomorrow. Science has been duped.
Peter Geany,
“The argument [on the science of climate change has been won] ” .
Maybe but not by you.
Check out what the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences say on their websites if you don’t believe me!
To be perfectly honest with you Pete, I don’t think my brother in-law gives it much thought. He has a wife and three daughters (one recently became a teenager) a house payment and a job that I don’t think he particularly likes. He has other things on his mind.
He’s a baseball/sports enthusiast, a technology geek, a computer whiz, a 4 year college degree in some type of computer/software field and a hell of a sweet guy……………….I just don’t think that he spends too much times wringing his hands over the plight of the polar bears.
I do know that he assumed that all of the angst over global warming was centered around CO………….primarily because he knows that CO is poison and CO2 is benign……….
My point in relating the anecdote was that my brother in law, and hundreds of thousands of others just like him, simply read the apocalyptic headlines/propaganda foisted on them by the main stream media and accept it as fact.
When he learned that the discussion surrounds carbon dioxide, he felt betrayed………
Peter Geany,
I misunderstood. I apologize.
Being somewhat of a news junkie, I am interested in your thoughts regarding the state of economic affairs (but not here).
In short, my feeling is that the world is in for a severe economic hurt in the very near future.
The “climate change” debate will resolve itself, becoming yesterday’s news very quickly.
No one will pay for these pointless windmills and mythical solar electrical generating machines…………they’ll be too busy trying to find something to eat with a wheelbarrow full of Dollars (Euros) in tow.
I think Max made mention of it a few years back that the (other people’s) money will run out and people will come to their senses returning to the tried and true fossil fuels as opposed to “tilting at windmills”.
We simply will not be able to afford wasting money on these pipe dreams…….to entertain the whimsical, mythical, pseudo-religious dogma spouted by Al Gore and Peter Martin of impending environment catastrophe.
By the way Peter (Geany)…………..Gold is headed back up after the recent market manipulation failed.
Brute,
“Impending”? Meaning “about to happen”? I don’t think you or your brother-in-law will be too adversely affected during your lifetimes, so your rejectionist attitutes towards climate science isn’t completely without a certain logic.
Nevertheless, the long term consequences of increasing CO2 levels out of all control will still be felt by subsequent generations.
David Archer describes it well in his book “The long thaw”.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8719.html
PeterM. your 4361. If the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences where to provide data and publications to back up those political statements there would have been no argument. That they don’t means myself and many other simply don’t believe them. It also means that counter arguments that have been posted with supporting data carry more weight.
But as we can now see with the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight this was NEVER about science, and why scientific arguments had such little impact on what was going on until the full extent of the fraud was uncovered.
Peter Geany,
There is a wealth of data on the net.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
What in particular are you looking for? And what are you going to do with it when you get it? Any idea?
Bombarding small working climate groups with FOI requests for data in a co-ordinated fashion isn’t about obtaining data. Its about wasting as much time as possible, and has had the effect that all those who are seeking data, whether they are genuine or time-wasters, are naturally treated with suspicion.
It did emerge from the CRU inquiry that the legislation on FOI hadn’t considered this possibility. I’m not sure if anyone did. Its just quite sad that this sort of particularly underhanded tactic is considered acceptable practice.
Peter Geany @ 4365
The president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse is hardly an honest man. Take his BBC movie; Science under Attack! How about his one minute video interview where he caught Delingpole in surprise? It was an obvious edit from something longer, and according to Delingpole, it was from over three hours of shooting, and an ambush in a different topic.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
And why did Nurse go to the USA for climate modelling, (but instead show video of weather modelling), when he could have popped down the road to Hadley/CRU?
Then there was the revolt by 43 Fellows under the prior President, Lord Rees last year. They wanted exaggeration removed, and uncertainties added to the Society’s “dummies guide to climate change booklet”
Similar grumblings in other icons of scientific truth in recent years.
How is the royal society funded?
Do they benefit from perpetuating the global warming fraud?
Bob_FJ,
James Delingpole doesn’t know what he is talking about. He studied English literature at Uni. If he’d been a as smart as he thinks he is he wouldn’t have got into a scientific argument with Paul Nurse. If he’d stuck to something like the novels of DH Lawrence he might have been OK but on climate change, he was always bound to end up looking pretty silly and he’s obviously still smarting from that.
Brute,
No, it doesn’t.
Brute, I’m just puzzled by your OT reference to the price of gold. You don’t think it’s a just another bubble then?
Brute #4368:
You might find some clues about Royal Society funding, and its political role, here:
Who owns the Royal Society?
tempterrain
You are splitting hairs when you state that “CO2 is not a plant food”.
CO2 is a naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is absolutely essential to all life on our planet.
Plants convert it to organic building blocks and plant matter via photosynthesis.
Two other principal things are required for this process: sunlight and water. (Then there are smaller amounts of other elements/compounds.)
Studies have shown that plant growth increases significantly at higher CO2 levels. It is anticipated that the increased levels will result in some increase in crop yields, and the slight increase in temperature, which is expected to occur preferentially at higher latitides, will also lengthen growing seasons in these regions, further increasing crop yields.
Recent studies have shown that the amount of atmospheric CO2 converted by terrestrial plants has been underestimated significantly in the models cited by IPCC.
It is ludicrous for anyone to refer to CO2 as a “pollutant”. “Plant food” is a much closer description, even if it is not 100% correct botanically speaking..
Max
tempterrain
Re 4369, it was actually Paul Nurse, who ended up looking silly (go back to Tony’s thread on this matter to refresh your memory).
Max
tempterrain
Re 4364
“Control” by WHOM?
“Big Brother”?
What “long term consequences” do you personally believe “subsequent generations” will feel (if “Big Brother” doesn’t step in with “controls”?
I’d say the observed data to date would indicate that by 2100 we would see a maximum theoretical warming from AGW of around 1.8C, and a more likely warming of around 0.6C.
Yawn!
Get specific, and back up your beliefs with some hard data, Peter, if you can.
Max
PeterM as usual you you have a very thin grasp of what is going on. For one, Paul Nurse is playing a very dangerous political game at present, especially when in Europe the population is slowly waking up to the fact that they have been well and truly screwed. I suggest he gets back to his biology and leaves the climate science to others. James Dellingpole does not need a degree in science, and nor does anyone else that went to school to realise that what we are being asked to believe is “unbelievable”
The danger for science, and Nurse is making it worse, is that we the public who raise all the money for their research will cut off that supply if they try to tell us ever again how to live our lives based on a lie.
This video is typical of the politicking and completely air heading thinking that goes on in government. I haven’t yet been able to watch this all the way through as it is too vomit inducing.