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.
Peter M, #798:
The site is run by The Institute of Shipbuilders and Engineers in Scotland. I would be very surprised if they saw pleasing ‘right wing libertarians’ as a priority, and that certainly doesn’t invalidate the stats and analysis that they have on offer.
Having lived in Glasgow and then the West of Scotland during the dying days of ‘Red Clydeside’ and the shipbuilding industry there, I got a certain nostalgic pleasure from seeing the quote that you spotted. Evidently the flame still burns.
“Good on yer Jummy!” one might say.
TonyN,
I meant to give the link to my previous quote. In case anyone thought I’d made it up!
http://www.iesisenergy.org/IESISmessage.pdf
I liked this one too
“Those operating in the market have to be focused primarily on making a profit and are not set up to take the engineered approach needed to satisfy public needs.”
Public needs vs Private Profit eh?
I’d be interested to see which way their argument develops. I can’t see how they can avoid the conclusion that the only way forward is to follow the French example and go nuclear but we’ll see.
Peter M:
Given the present attitude towards nuclear in Scotland that would certainly be a novel development.
So far as your two quotes from the IESIS are concerned, I actually think that they conceal an interesting point. Post privatisation of power generation, the last Tory government shelved setting out a comprehensive energy policy until they were voted out in 1997. Since then, the New Labour government were no more eager to grasp this particularly stingy nettle, and the present government looks as though they may have the same problem. At each of these three stages the stumbling block seems to be how to use nuclear without very unwelcome political consequences.
The IESIS may have a point about public ownership of electricity in the sense that governments would no longer be able to dodge their responsibilities in determining overall strategy, but this is a very blinkered view of a much more complex problem. There will be few customers who can remember pre-privatisation days who would want to return to them.
Did anyone watch the BBC’s Panorama, “What’s Up With the Weather”, last night? (UK only, unfortunately, unless you can find a workaround to view it eventually on iPlayer) I only caught the last ten minutes or so; the message seemed to be less “raise the alarm”, more “the situation’s uncertain but better safe than sorry” (house insurance metaphor) – a fallback position? Poor Jo Abbess didn’t like it, which tells us that the Beeb fell short of being full-on alarmist (or were otherwise “complicit in mass deception”, according to Jo.)
Will watch the whole thing on iPlayer at leisure later. One gem – Tom Heap taking the Nissan Leaf for a whirl, a totally “zero emission” car – but I fail to recall him mentioning the emissions emitted by making it and generating the electricity to recharge it!
Alex Cull,
The ‘house insurance metaphor’ is, in fact, quite a good one.
If the chances of the house burning down are N% and the cost of the house burning down is $Y then the sensible amount to spend on insurance is $N*Y/100, but of course if it can be bought for less then its a good deal.
So how much to spend on climate change insurance? The IPCC would put N at 90% whereas you sceptics would probably put it at 10%. In fact I think Max did put it at just that. How much damage could it do? Well I guess it could just about finish off world civilisation which has currently a combined GDP of $61 trillion. Over the course of this century, the time scale that is usually referred to, that would be about $6100 trillion if if there were no economic growth which is unlikely!
So even taking Max’s 10% figure it would still make sense to spend $6 trillion per year on the house insurance. $1 trillion a year is ridiculously cheap!
Peter M:
The fire insurance analogy, although it sounds very plausible, is in fact a very poor one.
Fire premiums are determined by actuarial analysis based on abundant historical evidence of the extent of the risk, and also cost determined by competition between insurers. This is not the case with the threat of AGW where politicians have granted the IPCC a virtual monopoly of ‘actuarial analysis’ and the same politicians are in a position to determine the supposed ‘premium’ on the basis of whichever economists they choose to listen to; a process that is also included in the IPCC’s remit. Competition, either between ‘actuaries’ or ‘insurers’, plays no part in this process.
We simply do not know the extent of the risk or the likely cost of indemnity. No reputable insurer would offer a policy on this basis and the analogy has no application to the climate debate other than to demonstrate the weakness of the arguments by which it is now being sustained.
And there’s the rub. I don’t know what the ‘carbon footprint’ of a 300kg lithium battery is, but it’s certainly not zero! Not to mention the rest of the car and the power to generate the electricity it runs on, most likely from a fossil fuelled power station…
WRT fire insurance, there is empirical evidence that houses do catch fire. I think the jury’s still out on whole planets…
Peter M, taking, for argument’s sake, the IPCC’s 90% certainty that humans have been mostly to blame for rising temperatures since the middle of the 20th century, and the IPCC’s projection of a 1.8 to 4 degree global temperature rise by 2100; this is a little different, I think, to a 90% chance that one’s house will burn down. Whether or not humans are to blame, I don’t think a 1.8 degree rise would finish off civilisation. (As for the IPCC’s theoretical upper range of 4 degrees, then we’re in uncertain territory, of course, unless it can be shown that the MWP indicated higher global average temperatures than today, but that’s by the way.)
And given (again, purely for argument’s sake) the IPCC’s projection that global warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for centuries to come even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, the best metaphor might not be that of insurance against a house burning down at some unknown future date but some sort of insurance or savings scheme to be set up to deal with ongoing or escalating house repair costs.
I may be wrong but that would appear to be more or less Bjorn Lomborg’s argument; that if global warming is happening, and if much of it is inevitable anyway, impoverishing ourselves in the present, by struggling to meet unfeasible carbon targets, isn’t going to help. It would be better, surely, for sensible sums of money to be spent where appropriate on adaptation – sea defences in places affected by the max 43 cm of sea level rise by 2100, malaria prevention, desalination and irrigation to mitigate against drought, etc., and also money to be invested in superior energy technology which will help in the long term rather than the short term – thorium nuclear power, let’s say, rather than windmills. More like an affordable savings plan, maybe?
James P: ” …think the jury’s still out on whole planets…” They did make a movie about this, though – scary stuff!
I would write more, but my lunch break is up!
Alex – I’m afraid it dates me, but I do remember the film, from TV, if not the cinema! Nuclear bombs did generate a lot of anxiety then, which may have been no bad thing. I still think that WW3 is just as likely to be started accidentally as on purpose.
James, I like this line from the Wiki synopsis of the film: “Due to his unpopularity in the newsroom, Stenning is sent to the British Met Office to get some facts and figures on mean temperatures.”
Re the nuclear threat, it is interesting how the perception of the danger has morphed over the years; in the 1950s and 1960s the favoured scenario was World War 3, with the US and Soviets duking it out, with the added twist of an accidentally-started war (as you say, a real possibility) and then Carl Sagan’s “nuclear winter” idea but now the perceived threat is mostly terrorism (dirty bombs and the like) or a limited but damaging war between Iran/Israel or India/Pakistan. In a way similar to the changes undergone by perceived environmental threats?
TonyN,
You are saying that human induced global warming hasn’t previously been a problem so the risk is zero.
That’s not a very smart argument.
Alex Cull,
I’m not totally anti Bjorn Lomborg – he’s among the more intelligent of the sceptics. He’s certainly no Christopher Monckton. His argument that it’s cheaper to adapt than mitigate is interesting but probably wrong. It’s not certainly wrong, but to make the case you have to choose figures, as you have done, on the low side of the IPCC estimates. 43cm of sea level rise. Just 1.8deg C rise in temperatures.
But certainly there will have to be a program for adaptation. You’ve mentioned Thorium nuclear power which I would have thought was more mitigation than adaptation and which I wouldn’t disagree with, except that I would just question why nuclear power has to be Thorium based. It may happen in the future along with fast breeder reactors but there is no pressing need for it at present.
Peter M:
I’m not saying anything of the sort, so that isn’t a very useful response.
TonyN,
Or maybe you were saying “We simply do not know the extent of the risk” – therefore let’s assume that it’s zero!
Or maybe I have got it all wrong and you aren’t saying it’s zero? OK, if it’s not zero what would you say it was? Approximately.
And the Cuts to greenery just keep mounting. The ways in which our previous administration was siphoning money out into useless green jobs that were achieving nothing is quite staggering. Just a couple of links to stories and apologies if they have been posted elsewhere.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100045361/the-foreign-office-gets-out-of-the-climate-change-business/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290372/Closing-government-cheque-book-No-bailouts-car-industry-says-Vince-Cable.html
There is hope for this lot yet. I’m still not comfortable with much of the rhetoric from the coalition over CO2 but some of the actions are encouraging. However there is still much pie in the sky thinking, and the green ISA idea caught my eye in this article. No comment is necessary but if you wish to throw your money away this would be one of the better ways.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7861757/Britain-needs-1-trillion-to-turn-the-countrys-infrastructure-green.html
With the energy report out from the Department of Energy and Climate Change it is clear to see that despite spending billions we still have not mad any progress towards moving to renewables. In fact we have gone backwards. At some point the coalition government will have to discuss this with us and explain why they wish to keep wasting money on wind turbines whilst people lose their jobs.
Peter M:
Rather than guessing, how about reading #806 again.
Peter M, the argument I’m trying to make is something like this:
1) The IPCC’s WGI Summary for Policymakers (AR4) states: “Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.” So logically, this would mean that CO2 mitigation is futile in the short term. To follow the house fire analogy, the fire has already started, and those who want to sink money into windmills and PV panels everywhere are like firefighters who are making huge efforts to put out the blaze with small buckets filled with water (in the knowledge that their efforts will not work) when they could have spent the time and effort obtaining a fire hose.
Re thorium, that was just one example I could find of a power source it might be good to spend money on developing for the long term. The point I was trying to make was that even for those who believe a low-carbon economy is essential, it would surely be better investing in such promising technologies (more bang for our bucks, eventually) rather than wasting our money now on hugely inefficient wind farms and such, in the rush to meet impracticable carbon targets.
2) Another point is that although CO2 emissions have fallen recently due to the recession and the fall in demand for energy, they will go up again when the BASIC nations’ economies gather strength. In the UK we keep hearing that we will lead the world with our green tech revolution, but if the Eigg experience is anything to go by, we will end up as a horrible example of how to fail utterly by relying on half-baked and inadequate ideas. The upshot is that it seems inevitable that man-made carbon emissions will keep on rising, if not from the UK or Australia, then from India and Brazil. To go back to the fire analogy, it is as if while the firefighters are pouring pitiful amounts of water on the blaze with their buckets, other people are feeding the fire by hosing fuel onto it.
3) The third point is that we are short of money (Peter Geany’s comment at #816 illustrates this well!) The amount of cash we can blow on renewables or subsidies to electric car manufacturers, etc., is huge but is finite and is not sustainable. Certainly there won’t be enough for the sort of World War Two scale commitments some people have been calling for. Back to the house fire analogy, it’s like overtaxing ourselves by running back and forth with water buckets – after a while, we will collapse exhausted and the fire will still be burning.
I’m being a devil’s advocate here, assuming (which I don’t tend to, personally) that the problem of man-made CO2 is a real and very dangerous one – and so, given that 1) man-made CO2 will continue to cause global warming for centuries to come (according to the IPCC), 2) man-made CO2 emissions will most likely continue unabated from the developing nations, and 3) money is becoming tight, isn’t it time for a re-think?
This comment is already far too long, but, in a nutshell, wouldn’t it be practical (given that heroic short-term CO2 mitigation is futile) if AGW proponents and sceptics began to find out where they have some common ground? Are there practicable, cost-effective and long-term measures that would satisfy both groups? Developing new energy sources seems an obvious example – if they were eventually cheaper, cleaner and altogether better, as well as low-carbon, this would be a win-win situation. And are there areas where both sides could ever find a way to compromise?
Anyway, enough with the rambling, it’s way past teatime.
I have reposted this over from WUWT, it is a report just released by TonyN’s near neighbours at CAT.
I downloaded it and am depressed. They are trying to reach some sort of Utopia forgetting that we have 60 milion people in Britain not 2 million, and we rather like living in the 21st century rather than the 12th.
Link and excerpt here;
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/008815.html
It’s non-stop fun in Zero Carbon Britain, 2030
Zero Carbon Britain 2030 wants British livestock be reduced to 20 per cent of current levels, and since shipping in frozen meat is carbon intensive, and verboten, you’ll have to do without. Or be a Lord to afford one.
This one example is just one of the random miseries to be inflicted on the population as part of the Trust’s proposed “New Energy Policy”, a collection of ideas assembled with the scattergun enthusiasm of the Taliban. I know it’s the end of the month, and everyone’s ignored this document – but I urge you to download it – all 4MB of it.
Let’s look at a few examples. To get to a Zero Carbon Britain means reducing electricity consumption … by half. In turn, this means the end of modern industrial society – production of tangible goods would largely disappear. With nothing to sell, so would sales, marketing and support jobs. All domestic air travel will be banned, and all travel they deem unnecessary will also be impossible. With nobody working nobody would have to move about. It all fits together. Hopefully you now see the genius of the plan.
TonyN,
Ah yes the ‘telling me to read it again’ tactic! Robin used to engage it that one when he cornered!
No-one can foretell the future, so whether we like it or not we have to make stab at assessing the future risk. The IPCC have said 90%. Even Max has said 10%.
If you aren’t saying 0% – what are you saying?
Peter M:
You don’t “corner” people, or win arguments, by repeatedly asking them when they are going to stop beating their wife.
TonyN,
I thought it was only politicians who were evasive! Nothing to with wife beating – or trick questions – I’m just asking very much a straight question. What you would do if you were in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions.
Your answer is nothing at all, isn’t it? You think the risk is zero (or the chances of the IPCC being essentially correct in their estimation.) Am I being unfair in suggesting that? I don’t think so.
If you don’t think it is zero, maybe you could tick one of the following:
a) Less than 5% b) between 5% and 20% c) between 20% and 50%. d) between 50% and 90% e) greater than 90%
“Zero Carbon Britain”
I’m not sure I understand how anything inanimate can be ‘zero carbon’, especially energy production, transport and buildings. It doesn’t bother me, because I don’t regard CO2 with great alarm, but it clearly influences people with the power to bugger everything up. Can someone explain, for instance, how you build a carbon neutral house?
“the scattergun enthusiasm of the Taliban”
It was reported this morning that efforts to negotiate with the Taliban were coming unstuck because the local view was that there’s not much point in negotiating when you are winning. You can accuse them of optimism, but not irrationality.
Peter M, #822:
There is something rather important missing from this:
See upcoming post, probably tomorrow or Saturday, to find out what it is.