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.
Robin,
You’re denying the conclusions reached by mainstream science. So denier would seem a perfectly fair word. Some people do object to it because of its associations with Holocaust denial which is unfortunate.
Michael Shermer of the New Scientist expounds on the meaning further:
” A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing ‘confirmation bias’ – the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.”
Link to Article
PeterM:
It seems you think that something called “mainstream science” (sounds like our old friend “consensus” again) has concluded that, if mankind continues to emit more GHGs, the result will be dangerous climate change. Please provide a reference to the empirical evidence supporting that conclusion. Thanks.
Michael Shermer’s definition would appear to be a precise description of the views of climate alarmists.
PeterM
Sounds like the modus operandi of the IPCC.
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Do you think this is what Shermer was referring to?
(Or is he part of the “mainstream” club himself?)
Max
Robin
Our responses to PeterM seem to be occurring simultaneously – at least they are not contradictory!
Max
Firstly, Bob_FJ (#593), very good discussion over on WUWT re Venus (I can follow at least some of it!)
Secondly, everyone, re science when compared with belief systems such as religions – I don’t think it’s simply that science goes on “out there” in the real world while religious beliefs, superstitions etc., happen within the human mind, and never the twain meet. Our perceptions and belief systems play a huge part in determining what it is that’s happening “out there”.
For instance, if I drop a hammer on my toe, this is an event that definitely occurs “out there”. I see and feel the hammer hit my toe, other people might witness it, the event may be caught on camera, and I could have a lasting bruise as evidence that it happened. Okay, but setting aside philosophical speculation about what a “hammer” is, whether the toe could be said to be “my” toe, etc., what could be the explanation and context for this event? There could be a variety of explanations, some more plausible, consistent or advanced than others.
1) Sorcery caused the hammer to fall – my enemy cast a spell which drew this object down to hit my toe.
2) The Earth was desirous of the hammer, and sent an invisible demon to drag it closer to the ground.
3) The force of gravity acted on the hammer.
4) The hammer followed a curve in space-time.
5) The hammer was affected in turn by vast numbers of “spin networks” in the loop quantum gravity weave. Etc., etc.
The further our minds take us from the evidence of our senses, the greater the possibility of being caught up in a paradigm which might or might not be helpful or accurate. When someone says “I have seen global warming firsthand…” what did they see?
Also, I think it generally good to check assumptions, however basic they are, and even if it seems silly. The Stefan-Boltzmann law may be sound – but no harm in checking it anyway! Stephen Jay Gould’s essay “The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone” (mentioned here) is a good illustration of the way scientific assertions get passed on through the ages without coming under scrutiny.
I was going to write more, but my lunch break is at an end. :o(
Bob_FJ
S-B is not really being questioned (as a theory) by Hertzberg et al., as I understood it (593).
It appears that they are questioning its direct application to the real world, without first considering corrections for things that are not covered.
The postulated discrepancies are significant. What’s more, they are based on actual physical observations on the moon, rather than simply on theoretical deliberations or model simulations; as a result they should be investigated seriously rather than just discarded as “junk science”.
The conclusion that the whole GH theory can be invalidated by these corrections seems a bit extreme to me, but the quantification of the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity may need to be revisited.
Looking forward to your thoughts on all this, once you have studied the paper.
Max
PS The “Venus” blog is interesting. I had seen an earlier debunking of Hansen’s “High CO2 concentration caused runaway Venus warming” postulation (but cannot remember where).
[There is (of course) also the closer distance to the sun, which should not be ignored.]
Peter,
Do the figures below represent “science”…… or “religion”?
Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010
Extent
2010 4.0 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km
National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado
Peter,
I’d think that since this area is closer to your part of the world, you’d have brought this graph into play………just look at the devastation that “global” warming is wreaking on the southern icecap!
This certainly is cause for alarm……..
Arctic Sea Ice Extent (April)
2010 14.7 million square miles
1990 14.7 million square miles
Another disturbing comparison……………WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent (September)
September 1981 (18.9 million square miles)
September 2009 (19.1 million square miles)
Brute
It’s only “science” when it shows an impending disaster.
If it shows the opposite (or nothing at all) it must be “religion”.
Max
Max re:611
Damn my decent education, i was so sure it was the other way round.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Bob FJ #593 (via Alex #605) + Max #606: Your post at WUWT on moon temperature seemed to me extremely sensible. It reminded me of one of my naive questions which occurred to me when I was trying to follow Monckton’s wrestling match with Stefan Boltzmann. Maybe someone here can help me.
How can any type of theoretical calculation of temperature based only on simple physical laws arrive at a useful result, given that we’re dealing with temperature gradients running from millions of degrees at the sun, via near 0°K in space, to unknown thousands of degrees at the centre of the earth, while the only temperature which counts is in the biosphere, a miniscule skin of practically nothing, akin to the layer of grease on a much handled doorknob? Given the assumptions which have to be made, I just don’t see how those calculations of Watts/m2 can tell you anything useful which can’t better be determined by measurement. If that’s an unbelievably naive question, please feel free to say so.
Good news for both Brute and PeterM!
The Swiss parliament just endorsed a symbolic “20% reduction in CO2 emissions by year 2020”, at the same time rejecting a proposal by the Minister of Environment (social democrat) and the “left” parties (greens, social democrats) to enact a “CO2 tax” to be imposed on motor fuels.
(Switzerland generates very little CO2 that is not produced from motor fuels or domestic heating, since electrical power generation comes mostly from hydroelectric and nuclear power).
Looks like a compromise solution that fits for everybody!
Max
geoffchambers (613)
It can’t.
And that is why the AGW team avoid actual physical observations in favor of model simulations based on theoretical deliberations, a point that Monckton has raised repeatedly.
Max
Former Vice President Al Gore to separate from wife Tipper after 40 years of marriage
http://www.wreg.com/news/sns-ap-tn–gore-separation,0,7703509.story
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/01/breaking-al-and-tipper-gore-decide-to-separate/?fbid=yYv-iWXgMQN
Brute (616)
This bit of sad news just shows that being the “Savior of the Planet” is tougher on personal relationships than simply being US Vice President or the “Inventor of the Internet”.
At least Tipper will get a piece of the $100+ million Al has amassed since he left public office and started hawking “climate change”.
Max
Wouldn’t it be ironic if she bought a coal mine or an oil refinery with the 50 million?
Even worse………what if she went out and bought a mansion on the California coastline……..whoops!
Max,
Al Gore should stay married for the good of the planet…………selfish bastard.
For the environment’s sake, don’t get divorced
A rising tide of divorce is taking a huge toll on the planet, warns a groundbreaking analysis of the environmental impact of divorce.
The environmental cost of a marriage splitting occurs because couples and their families move into separate properties after divorce – meaning they collectively occupy more space, burn more energy, and consume more water than they did as a family unit.
“Divorced households are smaller than married households, but consume more land, water, and energy per person than married households,” says Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, who carried out the 12-country analysis with colleague Eunice Yu.
In the US, for example, 627 billion gallons of water, the use of 38 million rooms, and 734 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity would have been saved in 2005 alone if no-one had got divorced.
In the same year, divorced households spent 46% more on electricity and 56% more on water per person than if they had stayed married.
And following a split, US households consumed 42 to 61% more resources per person than while married.
Staying together
And the problem is likely to get worse, warns Liu. Between 1970 and 2000, the proportion of households headed by divorcees soared from 5 to 15% of all US households. Divorces are also steadily increasing in China, note the authors, where divorce rates have traditionally been low.
“Divorce escalates consumption of increasingly limited resources,” the authors warn.
Liu urges governments to publicise the hitherto unanticipated environmental costs of divorce, and couples to consider the potential impacts of a divorce before going ahead.
He found that resource consumption shrank to what it had been originally if divorced couples remarry.
Ah ha!
Global Warming is causing increased divorce rates………I knew I could find an article written by Peter’s lunatic friends if I looked hard enough!
Is global warming behind the increasing divorce rates around the world?
http://www.divorcesaloon.com/new-york-is-global-warming-behind-the-increasing-divorce-rate-around-the-world
Brute (619/620)
It’s obviously a vicious circle, and we are in an unstoppable spiral into certain doom. Even Peter can’t help us anymore.
Just imagine: Al + Tipper Gore’s power bill multiplied by two as they split up!
All the fuses over at TVA are going to blow.
The end is near!
Max
I wonder if Tipper will get to keep the house? :-)
Slightly OT, but bear with me: there was a high-profile resignation yesterday from a steering committee of our Food Standards Agency, by one Professor Brian Wynne, who is not happy with their bias towards promoting GM foods, while pretending to canvas public opinion. He was interviewed on the Today programme this morning, although I can’t link to this, as it hasn’t appeared on the R4 website yet (!)
Looking further, I discovered that a Dr Helen Wallace resigned from the same committee the previous week (to lose one is unfortunate, to lose two looks like carelessness!) for similar reasons, stating that: “’The FSA appears to be actively engaged in trying to use the so-called dialogue to implement the industry’s PR strategy”. Sounds familiar? I hope the Royal Society’s paying attention…
The BBC item is now available (not a conspiracy after all)..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8717000/8717392.stm
Brute
Tell me something:
Al Gore got a Nobel Prize, right?
Based on his “AIT” film the prize was obviously NOT for science. Are you still with me?
It was for PEACE!
Mrs. Max has questioned how this could be, if he can’t even keep peace in his own family.
Should he give his prize back to the committee knuckleheads that gave it to him in the first place?
Another question.
If (under Tennessee common law) he has to split his assets 50/50 with Tipper, which half of the Oscar statue will he get to keep?
Pithy questions.
Max
Brute (619)
Gosh – who’d have thought it? I wish I could get funding to report the bleeding obvious!
As for “considering the potential [environmental] impacts of a divorce before going ahead” I’m not sure that would carry much weight in most households! Even the Gores couldn’t manage it…