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.
Wow, looks like Tony Blair has taken to turning tricks on Carbon Street with Al Gore…………another whore pitching global warming favors.
Tony Blair to earn millions as climate change adviser
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838369-tony-blair-to-earn-millions-as-climate-change-adviser.do
The BBC polar bear story is bizarre.
The ‘models’ predict a ‘tipping point’.
The piece does not define a tipping point. There are no dates for this tipping point. No figures for population. In fact no figures at all. What kind of model was it with no numbers?
What kind of journo can cover a crummy story like this without asking any questions?
Maybe the whole piece is an artificial intelligence project – a kind of madlib article pressing all the eco-buttons.
Jack Hughes
You mention a “tipping point” related to the demise of polar bears.
This concept is certainly tied to James E. Hansen’s postulation of climate “tipping points”, which will result in the demise of the West Arctic Ice Sheet, massive increase in sea level, coastal inundations, extinction of species, etc.
But let’s examine the Hansen “tipping point” postulation.
When I think of Hansen’s “tipping point”, the picture of a dump truck, loaded with manure, comes to mind.
As the bed of the truck is slowly tilted, nothing happens at first.
Then a critical “tipping point” is reached, and the whole load of manure comes rushing out to the ground.
We are being inundated, not by the “meters” of water from the “demise” of the WAIS, but from the manure from Hansen’s dump truck.
The knuckleheads that publish this sort of story are simply spreading the manure.
Max
Brute (576)
I’m not sure that Tony Blair appearance on the scene will do much for the credibility of the AGW movement. For most Brits, it merely confirms it as a scam!
I recommend this article by the BBC’s erstwhile keen alarmist Roger Harrabin. Quite obviously, he hasn’t by any means become a sceptic but he’s demonstrating here an interesting adjustment to his thinking. And that, I think, is encouraging.
He concludes his article with this:
Well, yes, the demolition of the bastions of dangerous AGW authority is certainly to be welcomed. As to the second sentence, I believe the world would be richer if it knew whom not to trust. And, although it’s taking a very long time, I think it’s learning.
The alarmist formerly known as Harrabin? His recent adjustment didn’t stop him from referring to the CRU ‘hack’ when reporting from Heartland, though. I which he’d make his mind up, but I imagine he worries about his employment…
Max, Reur 567;
You provided a photo of a Grizzly bear, allegedly randy and searching for a blonde, with the definitive caption:
Max, please…. the original article was dated 1, April?
No!….. please neither confirm or deny that!
My padded and soundproofed room is not ready yet.
BTW, “tall dark and handsome” appears to me to share a background of forest trees. Thus, he might have to settle for a brunette, because as I understand it, the blondes are normally situate in the Arctic, for which zone, according to some definitions of ‘Arctic’, trees should be absent: e.g.:
Arctic – definition of Arctic by the Free Online Dictionary …
Arc·tic (ärk t k, är t k). A region between the North Pole and the northern timberlines of North America and Eurasia. …
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Arctic
Erh, and if on high ground as claimed, (not evident in the photo), the tree-line is further south on high ground.
I thought it was quite a thoughtful article from Mr Harrabin, more even-handed re the Heartland Institute than I’d have expected, and an acknowledgement that the blogosphere is ahead of the institutions and the establishment. Only six months ago, would he have written anything like this?
Could we be entering a new phase of the climate debate? Given the fact that public enthusiasm for tackling climate change is in the doldrums and we’ve just about run out of money, also the possibility that we’re using less energy now (and that carbon emissions are probably reducing!) is there enough common ground between warmists and sceptics to be able to work towards common goals? Energy efficiency, saving money and wasting fewer resources, being inventive to get more from less – these are recognisably “green” ideals and also ones that many of us hold, who don’t consider ourselves to be particularly green. There are smart people on both sides of the debate – it’s fun to argue (and great fun to poke fun, too!) – but maybe we’ll start to see more co-operation, nuance and exploring the middle ground? Just wondering.
Alex Cull
I am certain that you would get every single poster here who has expressed rational skepticism of the dangerous AGW premise to agree fully with your “green” list, Alex.
Add to it: striving to eliminate real pollution of the atmosphere, rivers and oceans, and you will also get a 100% hit rate.
An example where most if not all of the posters here would agree.
Despite the fact that BP has spent millions on “green” PR to project a “green” BP logo and image and to show support for reducing CO2 emissions and introducing carbon caps, it may come out that the underlying root cause for the Gulf of Mexico disaster was saving less than a million dollars for a special fail-safe shut-off system, which is normally required for deep offshore wells, but was waived by government regulators after being heavily lobbied by BP that this extra safety measure and cost was not necessary.
If this turns out to be the case (as is already being rumored) and there is no effective “cover up”, this would be an example of arrogant hypocrisy and poor environmental governance by BP (as well as the government regulators), as I am sure every poster here would agree (probably Peter, as well).
It’s not what you “say”; it’s what you “do” that counts.
BTW, I have seen the BP operations in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and I was very impressed with the measures taken there to avoid any pollution (which BP representatives were quick to point out), so I am not condemning all of BP – just those who made (or endorsed) the decisions that led to the Gulf of Mexico disaster.
Max
Bob_FJ
Good point (582) about the horny grizzly pic.
Probably a phony, like the polar bear pic accompanying the letter in “Science” by 255 climate scientists regretting the recent events (see 450/451), complaining that they are:
at the same time insisting
The letter continues as a legal “plaidoyer” (or defense statement) for the dangerous AGW premise.
The letter itself is defensive BS and the phony pic gives us a hint about its veracity.
Max
Alex (583):
You ask if we could “be entering a new phase of the climate debate” – one where “warmists and sceptics [were] … able to work towards common goals” such as “energy efficiency, saving money and wasting fewer resources, being inventive to get more from less”.
I certainly hope so – although I fear it will take a long time for those who have embraced dangerous AGW as a secular religion, where they are the elect and we are heretics, to change that view.
Further to the above, see this concluding paragraph of an article (on the Royal Society review) by Gerald Warner of the Daily Telegraph:
He may be right. I certainly hope so.
Robin
You wrote that you hope Gerald Warner is right when he writes in The Telegraph that “the AGW superstition will ultimately be defeated”.
I believe he is right, for the reason that Abraham Lincoln stated so clearly long ago, i.e. “you cannot fool all the people all the time”.
True, the AGW “marketers”, such as Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, James E. Hansen, political sales groups such as IPCC and blog sites, such as RealClimate, have done an excellent job working the first two parts of Lincoln’s statement, i.e. “fooling some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time”, but they forgot the warning in the third part of Lincoln’s statement (which is now coming home to roost).
But I believe Warner is also right when he writes that the defeat of the AGW superstition will not occur without a battle. The vested interests are just to great and the amounts of money involved just too obscene for AGW to simply “go away quietly”.
Max
Just how scientifically objective are climate modelers?
This study, entitled “Seductive Simulations”, by Myanna Lahsen, a Research Scientist in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, discusses the “distribution of certainty” around General Circulation Models (GCMs) – computer models used to project possible global climatic changes due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf
The study
It refers to a book by Donald MacKenzie, professor of Sociology, School of Social and Political Science at the Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, which introduced the concept of the “certainty trough”, whereby those “alienated from institutions” or “committed to a different technology” [i.e. in climate science those independent scientists who are skeptical of “mainstream” model simulations] would psychologically show a higher level of uncertainty than those either “directly involved in knowledge production” [i.e. the climate modelers] or those “committed to technological institutions or programs as users” [i.e. users of model outputs] “rather than as producers”.
MacKenzie, Donald (1990) Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missle Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
In the concluding remarks, Lahsen writes (italics by me):
The Epistemology of Models (two quotations from the study):
Firor, John, Senior Research Associate and former Director of NCAR, Boulder, CO, USA (1998) ‘Human Motives Sometimes Mar Models’, Boulder Daily Camera (25 October): 12F.
Kerr, Richard A. (1994) ‘Climate Modeling’s Fudge Factor Comes Under Fire’, Science
265(9) (9 September): 1528.
One modeler described how it happens that modelers can come to forget known and potential errors:
While the study is not “easy reading”, it does point out very clearly (and in a very neutral, unbiased fashion) some of the pitfalls, which can influence the experts (climate modelers) to assume ownership of the outputs of their model simulations and therefore to lose objectivity with regard to known and potential errors in these simulations.
A similar line of reasoning can be seen in Thomas Kuhn’s treatise on “paradigms”.
The study does not cover any overt manipulations of climate model results to deliberately influence the conclusions in a desired direction (as recent revelations have exposed in some instances), but simply covers the psychological reasons why climate modelers understate the errors and uncertainties in their simulations.
Max
Max (588):
Funnily enough, that quotation (“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time“) is only “attributed” to Lincoln – see my post 117 on the Martin Luther thread.
And while we’re talking quotations, here are two you might like:
Re Sagan, let’s hope AGW is an example of his “almost”.
Max, I think much of your #589 could be summed up by another quote: “The map is not the territory”, by philosopher Alfred Korzybski.
Robin and Alex
Thanks for comments.
Alex: I like “the map is not the territory”.
Robin: Looks like Mohandas Gandhi and Lenin had opposing views on “truth” and “lies”. I’ll go with Gandhi.
BTW, both were brilliant politicians. Gandhi’s (peaceful?) revolution has survived 60 years and appears to be flourishing today. Lenin’s (not-so-peaceful) revolution (or Putsch) lasted over 70 years before imploding.
Max
Alex Cull Reur 130 over on the hockey stick thread:
I haven’t had time to read your link properly but I don’t think there is anything wrong with the S-B law. However, you have to be careful in its application, especially in dynamic situations. By coincidence, this old topic came up again recently over on the WUWT “Venus Envy” thread, my post here, is followed by agreement from Dr. Bill. (apparently a cluey physicist)
Robin,
You’re supposed to be good with words but I must say that I’m not convinced with terms like “secular religion” ? That’s a pretty gross oxymoron!
Definition of Secular:
“Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body:
See what I mean?
It’s quite common for anti-science advocates to equate science with religion. Just another belief system, so to speak.
That’s what the Creationists argue too!
Bob-FJ,
You say “but I don’t think there is anything wrong with the S-B law.”
Well that’s a relief!
PeterM
To expand a bit on your “definition” of “secular”:
Robin’s use (referring to the AGW movement as a “secular religion”) fits the definitions 1, 3 and 4. It also fits the second part of definition 2: “not specifically relating to a religious body”.
Maybe one could “fine tune” the description of the AGW movement as a “secular pseudo-religion”.
Would you like that better?
Max
No. Your line of argument is just the same as Robin’s. You are trying to describe science as just another world view and just as valid as any other world view. Like a belief in Voodoo or Scientology.
Yes some people do believe that. I’m not sure that there is anything that we can do to help them. I suppose they are a bit like human induced climate change deniers in that respect!
Oh dear, PeterM – you keep on missing the point. Yes, of course, “secular religion” is an oxymoron – and deliberately so. An oxymoron is a well respected figure of speech used to draw attention succinctly to an interesting paradox – thereby expressing a truth. A commonly used example is “deafening silence”. Thus, in the matter of “climate science”, it’s both interesting and amusing to note how something claiming to be science can – in some cases – adopt unscientific characteristics usually associated with religion. The common reference to authority rather than empirical evidence is an example. And consider all those papers that get published purporting to show that the world is warming with the strong implication that it must be due to AGW – and compare that with “God’s works are everywhere so He must exist”. Get it now?
And PeterM, re your #597, another example of climate science adopting unscientific characteristics is this constant use of the word “denier” – compare that with “heretic”.
PeterM
I have a hard time figuring out where you are trying to go with argumentation such as:
This is a fully unsubstantiated claim, Peter.
By insisting on “validation” rather than simply “attribution”, my demands on “science” as a discipline (as distinguished from “voodoo” or “scientology”) are apparently much higher than yours.
But we are beginning to beat a dead horse here, Peter.
Max