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.
Thanks Pete.
The next time you celebrate your (personal) birthday, let me know and I’ll tell you how decrepit and useless you are……………
I’ll make certain that I point out every(imaginary) inadequacy……………
I’ll bet you’re loads of fun at family (international community) celebrations……….
Brute,
Samuel Johnson famously said “Patriotism is the last refuge of the Scoundrel”. I’m not sure I agree with that, but I do feel uncomfortable with excessive manifestations of Nationalism.
The current World Cup in South Africa is an example of an odd mixture of Nationalism, often somewhat excessive, and Internationalism.
The ultra – nationalists don’t take any interest in the competition once their team has been eliminated, whereas the Internationists, get over their disappointment and carry on enjoying the football.
Which group would you say were more attractive?
Brute
Thanks for USA birthday wishes. No popping of (Chinese) firecrackers here in Switzerland (her 719th birthday is August 1), but Mrs. Max and I did pop a (French) champagne cork in your honor.
Regards,
Max
PS The flag pic you sent looked like the old “48 star” version (prior to Alaska and Hawaiian statehood).
In the run-up to publication of the Russell inquiry report on Wednesday there is an absolute ‘must read’ article setting the scene by Fred Pearce in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell
Pearce sets out the issues, and the battleground that has developed in the wake of Climategate, in as fair-minded, well informed and perceptive a piece of broadsheet journalism on this subject as you can expect to find at the moment.
PeterM
You opined to Brute concerning the world football championships:
I happened to be in France at the time of the inglorious defeat and elimination of the French national team.
French TV carried on about the “unacceptable scandal” for days, with even Sarkozy and the national minister of sports (a lady) getting involved and several heads rolling (figuratively, although the suggestion was made by one sports correspondent that the entire French team should be lined up in Paris and guillotined).
In this regard, I’d put the French into the “less attractive” category. How about you?
Although they appear to fit both your categories of “Internationalists” and “Ultra-nationalists”, the French neither got over their disappointment nor did they lose interest in the competition. They just kept beating a dead dog long after it had died.
Max
Hi Max
Welcome back.
I would have opened a coke to celebrate the 4th July but as I was worried about the carbon dioxide emissions I refrained :)
Those of us who believe the sun is by far the overwhelming climate driver, and that history can teach us much about previous climatic changes, would have read the following two threads with more than usual interest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/04/new-chinese-study-in-grl-disputes-the-hockey-stick-conclusions
I’m off to Switzerland myself in a couple of weeks and am going via Bregenz to watch the Opera on the floating stage. Then we hope to call in on some friends near Chur and go over that wonderful mountain pass again that the Romans used before it was closed by glaciers-that inconvient history thing getting in the way of computer models again.
tonyb
TonyB
Have just read both your cited reports.
Both are very interesting.
The solar study is particularly pertinent, since it seems to show a strong link between observed temperature and solar activity, as was also found by several earlier studies I cited to PeterM on the precursor to his thread.
The 2,000-year Chinese temperature study also seems to confirm earlier studies made in other regions of China, which showed a MWP slightly warmer than today.
Your Switzerland/Austria trip will bring you very close to where we live. Have communicated separately.
Regards,
Max
Actually the house fire analogy can work quite well. (apologies if someones already covered this i only scan read this page)
Lets imagine you discover a small fire in your house, possibly caused by having scented candles too close to some curtains.
Your first decision is what to do, grab a bucket of water or call the fire brigade. Well no one wants to see their own house burn down so you put the fire out quickly.
Now obviously the fire has you a bit worries about your candles (you really like you candles and don’t want to lose them, they make the place feel so homely) so what to do, do you:
a: buy extinguishers/alarms etc so next time you’ll know about the fire earlier and be able to put it out more easily.
b: A and buy some flame proof curtains.
c: A and B, also look at replacing some of the more worryingly flammable/potentially toxic items of furniture
d: take out a massive loan and replace everything in your house with completely fire proof furniture, carpets, paint, etc
PeterM
You wrote (to Brute):
Wiki gives us two different estimates on life expectancy.
UN (2005-2010 figures)
78.3 Cuba
78.2 USA
CIA (2009 estimate)
77.45 Cuba
78.11 USA
Looks like your statement is doubtful. I’d say a better statement would be
With Australia at 81.2/81.65 and Switzerland at 81.7/80.85 we’re both better off than Brute (or Fidel).
But if I had to choose between living in Havana or the greater Washington, DC area the choice would be fairly clear. How about you?
How does this all tie in with the specter of the AGW threat?
Max
Barleysane #858
The posters on this blog deserve to know why you specifically mentioned ‘scented candles’. :)
Tonyb
Barelysane
Your “house fire” analogy is brilliant.
I would choose c) and PeterM might settle for d).
Another option (based on the precautionary principle and favored by theoretical physicists and many politicians) would be to reduce the oxygen content in your house to a level below which curtains would ignite but just high enough to support the burning of normal wax or paraffin candles (to be determined by extensive model simulations), equipping residents with personalized oxygen masks, as required.
Just a thought.
Max
Barleysane #858
Surely there are at least two additional categories which relates closely to the point of your analogy?
e) Make it illegal to burn candles of any description ‘just in case.’
As candles are not as dangerous as open fires or smoking as a cause of fire surely there is also an;
f)Make it illegal to have any sort of open flame in the house ‘just in case.’
tonyb
Barelysane and TonyB
I like your reasoning, however, making candle burning (or other open flames inside houses) illegal, seems a bit drastic. I think an alternate could be to impose a “candle tax” on candles, incense sticks, fondue burner fuels, tea lamps and other sources of internal domestic flames to discourage their use.
An alternate would be a candle cap and trade scheme with trading of candle credits on the open hedge fund market, but I have not yet thought out the details on that one.
Maybe we need to get Al Gore in on the act.
Max
TonyB and Max
TonyB, looks like you’ve worked out why i said candles. You could extend the analogy and say i said scented candles because while we can do without them lots of people really like having them :)
I’m sure someone will work out the carbon footprint of burning a candle some day and add it to the cost as a tax to encourage the use of artifical candle effect lights powered by a rechargable solar cell (the production of which had the same Co2 footprint as 10,000 burning candles, but don’t produce the same pleasant fragrance).
TonyN (854)
I thought this bit curious:
If scientific outcomes had to match expectations, not very much science would get done! AGW is a good example.
Well, according to The Federal Emergency Management Agency, each year, more than 4,000 Americans die and more than 25,000 are injured in fires. The obvious conclusion is that we must ban houses to save these 29,000 Americans.
Better yet, the Federal government should heavily tax houses using the slush fund created to finance their political campaigns, line their pockets and bribe government officials………..it’s all for your own good.
James P:
The ‘new generation of sophisticated computer models’ that have failed to reduce uncertainties but ‘rather the reverse’ was new to me too. I’ll have a bit of a dig around tomorrow, but if anyone else can throw any light on where this may have come from I would be very interested to hear.
Brute
“Well, according to The Federal Emergency Management Agency, each year, more than 4,000 Americans die and more than 25,000 are injured in fires. The obvious conclusion is that we must ban houses to save these 29,000 Americans.”
Surely you have missed the greater picture. We must ban America then there wouldn’t be Americans or Houses in the first place.
Tonyb
All:
Re our excellent host’s #854 (re Fred Pearce’s surprisingly balanced article in the Guardian), you may well be aware that that paper is hosting a debate in London next week (Wednesday 14th) on the theme: Was ‘climategate’ the greatest scandal to hit climate science or a mere storm in a teacup? Link. The panel will consist of Professor Bob Watson, Fred Pearce and Doug Keenan – the first two established warmists. BUT see below. The Chair will be (groan) George Monbiot – not remotely independent, although it has to be acknowledged that he was very critical when the CRU emails first came to light.
Many commentators on ClimateAudit thought it disgraceful that Steve McIntyre was not invited. Well, he decided to go anyway – at his own expense (whatever happened to that Big Oil money?). See this (from Bishop Hill). And the bish encouraged his flock to go to CA and contribute to Steve’s costs. Well, I did just that. And I hereby encourage others to do likewise: go to CA and put something in the Tip Jar. It’s a very good cause. And now Steve has announced, “The Guardian has confirmed that they will accommodate me in the panel. They seem a bit impressed that public support extends to actual contributions.”
Now it’s getting really interesting. So I went to the Guardian debate webpage (first link above) just now & purchased a ticket.
Anyone else here going or thinking of doing so?
Max
“Your Switzerland/Austria trip will bring you very close to where we live. Have communicated separately.”
Have heard nothing as yet.
Tonyb
TonyB (870)
Just sent message a second time to e-mail address I have on record.
Regards,
Max
tonyb and Max:
If you want to exchange contact info without posting it on an open blog here, which would not be wise, then let me know. I should have email addresses for you both.
Hi TonyN
Many thanks for message 872.
Have just e-mailed you a request to e-mail TonyB my new e-mail address, as his address, which I have on record, appears to no longer be valid.
Best regards,
Max
Hi Pommies, and topically to a lesser extent; those across the herring pond that visit this site:
I’ve just finished reading this book by British political-scientific journalist Christopher Booker, (written in English English), whom I deeply respect. I obtained it in hard cover from Amazon UK for UKP 9.36. (45% off delivered free in the UK). See here for more details.
Unfortunately, whilst it was written just prior to the November 2009 Climategate scandal, what it still had to say, backed-up by a great deal of references, not opinion, rather startled me in its detail, and it is an easy read, without checking the back-up. It is gripping, and almost funny, if it weren’t so serious!
One of the things that really shook me was the political impasse concerning future energy supplies in the UK, that would appear to progress to the very critically fairly soon, unless there is an awakening. (that I’ve not heard about)
Oddly enough, I’ve recently sometimes pondered the possibility of returning to the UK what with lessening commitments here, (apart from the 2 dogs), and some newly aroused home-sickness in my old-age for things of my youth there.
However, what with also the growing scientific evidence that it may be increasingly cold over the next decade or so, for example; the very delayed and sluggish solar cycle #24, see this, real time, with a dearth of sunspots, replicating something like the cold “maunder minimum“ period, and the emerging La Nina, and cold Pacific Decadal Oscillation cycle, I hesitate.
I recommend that all of you not only stock-up on non perishable food but also candles and/or fuel oil.
Why candles? I have a sentimental memory during WW2 of sitting in our air-raid shelter, (a good strong one because we had a key railway line behind our back fence), that a candle sat in a jam jar threw-out a surprising amount of heat when holding one’s hands near.
References/Links to Pete’s “unimpeachable” science……….
Climate Scandals
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/climate-scandals/