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.
tonyb
I seem to remember that you took an interest in the Pine Island Glacier research a while back. I think that this is a little different to the what was ‘the latest findings’ at that time, but interesting nonetheless:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/21/autosub_in_pig_melt_clue/
It’s fascinating to see how quickly certainty can turn to doubt in climate science these days.
TonyN
Thanks. As you say certainty seems to melt away once the subject is looked at more objectively.
Tonyb
And on the subject of melting glaciers, here‘s a liberal application of whitewash – non-metaphorical, for a change!
Alex:
That really is quite a find. It reminds me of a printout of a magazine article I have somewhere from the early 70s, when the problem was a little different. I think the climate scientist concerned was
BrydenReid Bryson and he was pleading for governments to prevent global cooling by either spreading soot on the polar regions to reduce albedo or, as a last resort, ‘nuking’ them.And this is a publicity stunt by the World Bank?
TonyN, the World Bank appears to have launched a competition last autumn called “100 ideas to save the planet” and this page has a list of the winners, including the glacier-painting idea.
“Climate change is melting tropical glaciers. A DM award will support Glaciares Peru as it engages local workers in the Peruvian highlands to produce a reflective cover that can be painted on the rocks surrounding glaciers. This will stop glacial melting and help restore glacial mass—a vital form of freshwater storage in the high Andes and the world.”
Although the problems these ideas are meant to address are nominally climate-change related, with some of these, the connection seems to be a little tenuous, e.g.:
“Nicaragua’s Miskito communities are hit by droughts, storm, floods and hurricanes. To roll back deforestation, restore wild game, and deliver better nutrition for 2,500 children, MASAGNI will use an award to cultivate Maya Nut trees. The nutrition-rich Maya Nut will generate five million pounds of food a year, improving health and local incomes.”
There are links to some videos, which are interesting. This is from the glacier-painting idea video:
“We’re going to produce and apply a white mineralogical paint to the exposed, dark-coloured rock surfaces around the receding glaciers. We’re going to decrease the greenhouse gas effect in the microclimate around them, enough to slow the melting and hopefully actually re-grow the glaciers.”
All fascinating stuff. As per this page, it’s basically a competitive grant programme – up to $200,000 for each idea!
Prosecutor: Al Gore was focus of sex crime inquiry in Portland
Published: Wednesday, June 23, 2010
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/06/prosecutor_al_gore_was_focus_o.html
Oh dear Peter……….looks like your idol, the Earth God, is in more trouble……..He should stay on Mount Olympus and away from the mortals………
I received this Email (extract) from Amazon UK:
Greetings from Amazon.co.uk,
We’ve noticed that customers who have purchased or rated Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It? by Peter Taylor have also purchased Climate: the Counter-consensus (Independent Minds) by Professor Robert Carter. For this reason, you might like to know that Climate: the Counter-consensus (Independent Minds) is now available. You can order yours for just £8.70 (13% off the RRP) by following the link below.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1906768293/ref=pe_3421_20621881_snp_dp
I have admired Bob Carter’s work in the past and will be buying his book
I’m also impressed by Amazon UK’s past speedy service
I guess Amazon USA may also carry it, but I’ve not checked
Brute #781:
I have no problem with you posting that link, but I do think that this is a story that we should all be very cautious about.
I’m still trying to poke out my mind’s eye! Still, I imagine that even the National Enquirer may get things right occasionally…
At this stage its mere gossip. A man is innocent until proven guilty. Give Gore a break-he has just broken up with his wife after 30 years, which perhaps is the motivation for this tittle tattle coming out at this time.
tonyb
Just heard in the news that Kevin Rudd is out and Julia Gillard is Australia’s new PM; according to Roger Pielke Jnr (here), JG seems to be displaying a certain amount of caution on the subject of emissions trading (“She has offered only rather tepid support for reviving a carbon price and does not appear to have offered any explicit support for the ETS as it has been presented…”). On the other hand, BusinessGreen’s Tom Young is upbeat (here) about the possibility of her reintroducing climate change legislation (“Gillard put tackling climate change back at the top of the government’s list of priorities.”) Maybe it’s still a little early to say what the implications of this might be, though – only Day 1 (or is it Day 2 now?)… Was Kevin Rudd really that unpopular?
Not an avid reader of the Enquirer, but they do get things right. They broke the story about Presidential candidate John Edwards’ “love child”……….of course everyone initially said it was idle gossip……..they turned out to be absolutely on the mark.
The police report regarding Gore is very damning……and credible. The story is making the rounds and starting to get traction here in the US.
‘CRAZED SEX POODLE’
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0624101gore1.html
Alex Cull,
At the start of the year, Kevin Rudd was very popular in Australia and seemed to be in no real danger at all.
His troubles started when he ‘flipped’ on the ETS and was condemned by both the left, who wanted stronger action on AGW, and his natural opponents on the right, who wanted less or none at all, for ‘political cowardice’ especially as he’d described AGW as the “biggest moral challenge of our generation”
He never recovered from that.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/voters-punish-labor-for-ets-delay-poll-20100504-u3zj.html
He relied on his public popularity, rather than build up an internal party support base, and once that had gone, his opponents took their opportunity to get rid of him.
Or maybe it’s the motivation for Tipper giving him the push.
I’m with you really, Tony, and I would normally give anyone is his situation the benefit of the doubt, but (as Groucho Marx nearly put it) in his case I’ll make an exception!
Given Gore’s profile and former legal career, I imagine that even the NE would be a bit careful of making wild allegations, although I’m disappointed that the masseuse couldn’t think of anything more colourful to call him than a ‘lummox’…
I doubt very seriously that this was the ultimate cause of the marital necrosis. The Goracle could have easily explained this away as a gold digging floozy looking to cash in on Al’s global warming loot.
He must have done something unforgivable (and not so easily denied) for his wife of 40 years to walk away.
Something that has not surfaced (yet) doomed the marriage.
I’m thinking The Gorster may have some “secrets” hidden in his “closet” (if you understand what I’m getting at).
He does sound like a gay Forrest Gump when he speaks…………
Brute,
It is sadly typical of Americans that they do seem to get into quite a lather over the sexual antics of their politicians. Things have moved on in the rest of the world, we have openly gay Cabinet ministers here in Australia, politicians have affairs and they don’t feel the need to resign and I’m sure the same is true of most European countries including the UK.
I must admit to being slightly amused when some US evangelical is caught out engaging in extra marital activities with his secretary but really that’s just human nature! I wouldn’t use this sort of behaviour as an argument against Christianity. It really is quite irrelevant.
I’m in no way influenced by Al Gore, rather he’s influenced by the scientific evidence and so am I, and if he is accused of any criminal offence then of course it should be investigated. But it seems somewhat spiteful to gleefully engage in what tonyb rightfully calls tittle-tattle at this stage.
I see………so someone that lies to their spouse you’d entrust with making decisions regarding your (and your loved ones) freedom and liberty…….that speaks volumes about your character.
“If it feels good, do it” is your credo?
The man is untrustworthy……even in matters concerning his own family…..yet you dismiss his/their deceit…………Unbelievable.
I suppose the lack of integrity displayed by these politicians only occurs or involves their family members (which somehow makes it alright in your twisted mind)…………they’d never carry the lack of principles into their professional lives………(when dealing with complete strangers)……that would be immoral!
Of course, morality is subjective in your world I suppose……as long as “the message” agrees with your personal agenda, anything can be excused.
Sorry Pete……..I demand a higher standard……..
Brute,
You can’t think that every human relationship problem is the result of “lies”, “deceit”, “untrustworthiness”, or a lack of “principles” or “morals”.
My view is that everyone, including politicians, has to work through these problems, as best they can, when they arise, and it is really no-one else’s business other than those immediately involved.
I don’t know what the reasons are behind Al Gore’s marriage split, and I’m really not interested providing he hasn’t done anything illegal. If he possibly has, then that needs to be investigated, but, either way, it won’t change the science of the way the atmosphere and climate respond to increased CO2 levels.
I don’t want any discussion of Gore’s marital problems or sexuality here.
Sorry Tony. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Gore will be selling pencils from a cup on a street corner in 5 years.
IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-consensus-on-solar-influence-was.html
Conclusion:
The IPCC conclusion about human influence on climate – and plans for reworking the entire energy economy on the basis of the carbon footprint – stands and falls with the question of how significant is the influence of solar activity. Yet the IPCC devoted only a few paragraphs to this essential topic, and based the “consensus” on a single astronomer, who agreed with herself.
This new site, run by engineers for engineers, may be of interest to those who are interested in the nuts and bolts of energy policy without the humbug that usually dominates this subject now:
http://www.iesisenergy.org/
I’ve only glanced at it so far, but it will be very interesting to see how the site develops.
TonyN,
Fully agree with your decision re Al Gore’s marital problems etc.
But, I would just ask the question of why is he such a demonic figure for many climate “sceptics” including some who contribute to this blog? OK he’s on the liberal left of the USA ‘s political spectrum. He’s sided with the scientific consensus on the question of climate change and made a film about it. So what?
Isn’t it possible to disagree with someone without hating them too?
Tony N,
Thanks for the link “run by engineers for engineers” Except that I’d say it should be for everyone – not just engineers.
If the statement underneath is anything to go by these engineers aren’t going to please right wing libertarian climate sceptics, so I suspect that it may well not be spoken of with any approval in future! Except by me of course!
“Prior to that, since 1947, electricity generation was publicly owned and the planning
of it was engineering led. Now the planning is market led. This change has proved to be very
unsatisfactory.“
Peter
Al Gore had perfectly reasonable environmental credentials and kept Mauna loa running when others wanted to cut funding. He also wrote a pretty good book ‘Earth in the balance’ back in 1992. I don’t hate him and am reluctant to join in ad hom attacks on his private life.
Publicly, he does cleverly manipulate the agenda- AIT was largely nonsensical or, at the least, parts were highly debatable. He refuses to take questions at his lectures, he endorses Dr Manns hockey stick even though he had written a book that solidly rebutted that version of climate,and he set up his carbon trading firm whilst being one of the biggest individual consumers of carbon on the planet
He also set up his AGW ‘shock’ troops and has brainwashed them with strident propaganda-I have met several on the high streets of Britain and seen their handbooks and they are pretty scary,
I find Gore hypocritical but don’t hate him or Dr Mann and get somewhat bemused myself by the vitriol they attract.
tonyb
Re 788, Concerning the demise of Kevin Rudd. That was a rather simplistic.
Whilst the pragmatic dumping of the ETS was certainly media worthy, there were deeper problems, including I would say some truly head-shaking stuff too much to relate here.
The fundamental problem in the labour party was the leadership style of Rudd and the so-called “Gang of Four”, that he led, and which reportedly made all the big decisions independently of Cabinet and Caucus. A rather ironic thing is that the number two and number three of the Gang of Four, are now the new PM and Deputy respectively. Number four retired from politics the same day, whilst claiming he made the decision weeks ago.
So how important was the dumping of the ETS to the labour party? Well, it is well known that the new PM and her Deputy (Gillard & Swann) managed to persuade Rudd to drop it, whilst the retiree was unsuccessfully supportive of Rudd. There is not much suggestion that Gillard will reverse her position as yet.
Out of a surprising number of farces and back-downs, the one that astonished me most was the announcement by Rudd just before the recent budget, of imposition of a 40% (forty) profits tax on the mining industry: details not clear.
Of course the industry and the mining States of Queensland and WA went ballistic over the policy of “announce it first and then discuss/negotiate afterwards“, coupled with typical Rudd arrogance of there will be no back-down by him. Just about the first thing that Gillard did was withdraw the government advertising on the new tax. (I recall worth $38 million, and BTW, probably illegal). Now there appears to be a truce with the industry also withdrawing their ad’s.
There is an interesting article over at WUWT, from which I draw this article
How Abbott [opposition leader] found an unexpected ally over climate change in the Gang of Four an unexpected ally over climate change in the Gang of Four
This is interesting too:
