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.
Alex/TonyN/PeterM:
Re the AGW/Insurance analogy, I’m amused when Peter decides an analogy might help him because he has an uncanny knack of choosing one that doesn’t. This is no exception. The risk of my house burning down is unrelated to whether or not I take out fire insurance. In contrast, Peter thinks the risk of dangerous climate change happening is directly related to whether or not mankind takes the action he thinks necessary. See the difference, Peter?
And Peter, at the risk of anticipating TonyN’s upcoming post, I’ll comment briefly on your question to him about what he would do if he were “in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions”. To make it easy, let’s assume he thinks there’s no doubt that dangerous climate change is inevitable if emissions are not reduced (100% sure if you insist). Even so, I’ve no doubt he should do nothing about emissions and concentrate instead on strengthening our economy to ensure that, inter alia, we are better able to adapt to whatever climate change, if any, might occur. I say that because it’s clear the developing world (already emitting more GHGs than the West – link) has no intention of reducing its emissions anyway. So, even if the UK closed down its economy entirely, it would make no practical difference.
Re “Zero Carbon Britain”, I’m not 100% sure but believe the definition of a “carbon neutral house” has to do with the building producing no net carbon dioxide emissions over its lifetime, which would mean avoiding the use of cement, etc., and offsetting any carbon emissions by using solar panels, heat pumps, etc. In practice, I’m not sure if there are many truly carbon-neutral houses, most are likely to be just low-carbon ones. Here’s Wikipedia on the “zero energy building”, which is the same thing (?)
There’s a wealth of dry understatement to be found in this paragraph in the Wiki article: “In developing countries many people have to live in zero-energy buildings out of necessity. Many people live in huts, yurts, tents and caves exposed to temperature extremes and without access to electricity. These conditions and the limited size of living quarters would be considered uncomfortable in the developed countries.”
Some zero/low carbon dwellings actually look rather attractive, such as the ones here. I don’t care about CO2, but rammed earth appears to be a decent building material, and I rather like the idea of living in a miniature castle with thick rammed-earth walls, impervious to heat, cold, fire, bad weather, bullets, aircraft noise, traffic noise and above all, neighbour noise (ideal for London, then). My design would include a drawbridge, inner courtyard and a portcullis.
However, I don’t think they will succeed in making all housing carbon neutral any time soon. New builds will probably have better insulation as a given (which would be a good thing anyway) but otherwise it may all turn out like Eigg but on a large scale – people will still need electricity/gas to wash clothes, run appliances, take showers, heat rooms, etc., and no more than a small fraction of the energy they need will be coming from renewables. And builders will still be using cement and timber, at least in the short to medium term.
This recent article throws some cold water on the zero-carbon dreams. “…according to a new survey, some three-fourths of the British development industry don’t believe the government’s zero-carbon goal for the sector is realistic. The survey questioned more than 7,000 individuals in the industry, the largest-ever such poll.” There are some gems here, including this one: “Sustainability strategies are now widespread, but success is frequently not measured.” (Reading between the lines, organisations talk the sustainable talk, but quietly omit to walk the walk.)
There are also online articles about the possibility that the government will cut funding for the Zero Carbon Hub, but not much outside the paywalls, unfortunately. This one has the gist of it, though: “Grant Shapps, the housing minister has written to the Zero Carbon Hub, the independent body set up to aid the delivery of zero-carbon housing, and warned them that government support could be withdrawn once a clear definition of zero carbon has been achieved.”
A brief comment this time(!) Here’s a very recent item of research re escalating energy costs in the UK – regressive green taxes.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to ensure that such a definition remains perpetually out of reach, then!
Robin,
The word ‘insurance’ has wider meaning than you suggest.
For example, a doctor could be examining a patient’s appendix. He may be 90% confident that that the said intestinal appendage may be about cause a problem, he may think it only 10%, but he probably would recommend that it was ‘good insurance’ to remove it. He’d be quite unlikely to say that, he didn’t know whether it was 10% or 90%, and that therefore nothing should be done.
It wasn’t my analogy anyway – it was Tony’s – but its OK as analogies go.
[It’s up to you whether you read my comments or not, but you might at least read your own. TonyN]
Robin,
The second part of your argument is known as the “Tragedy of the Commons”. A simple example would be: if a village has a piece of common land which will give maximum production when the numbers of livestock are limited to a certain number the question arises of how the villagers should organise themselves to prevent overgrazing and obtain the maximum yield from their land.
No one villager can solve a problem of overgrazing by removing his animals because another villager may increase his animals. We may have villagers like Brute who feel that it against the village’s constitution for a collective decision to be made which would obviously be in everyone’s interest.
Are the villager’s smart enough to make the sensible choice? Sadly, if you look at the way the world can’t manage its fish stocks, another example illustrating exactly the same principle, its possible that we won’t be, but I like to think that we should at least try.
PeterM:
Re your #830, as we know that you don’t read earlier posts, even your own, and are therefore unlikely to follow Tony’s advice, here’s what you said (#805):
You see? My observation (#826) applies precisely – once again, you’ve demonstrated your uncanny knack of choosing an analogy that doesn’t help you. Tough.
As to your #831 and the Tragedy of the Commons, yes your “we should at least try” applies to attempts to conserve fish stocks. But let’s be clear: are you saying that that the UK should reduce its GHG emissions unilaterally despite the clearest evidence that the developing world, already comprising the biggest emitters, has, very understandably (see this), no intention of doing likewise?
Robin,
As I said “insurance” does have a wider meaning.
For example: This online dictionary gives this possibility: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurance
“any means of guaranteeing against loss or harm: Taking vitamin c is viewed as an insurance against catching colds.”
So, a form of insurance on a house, as well as a paid insurance of the type you are fixated upon, could include the installation of smoke alarms or fire extinguishers which, if not too expensive, would make perfect financial sense.
So, your observation that “The risk of my house burning down is unrelated to whether or not I take out fire insurance” is not quite so precise as you might like to think.
I’m not singling out the UK to make unilateral cuts. Everyone need to be included in the same way as they were included in the program to reduce CFC emissions by international treaty. It is a difficult process but not impossibly so.
No thanks Pete. I’ll purchase MY OWN land to graze my stocks. Leave me out of your Communist nightmare.
Collectivist ideology is dead……take a look at the world economy today if you don’t believe me.
PeterM(#833):
It’s clear that you still don’t understand why fire insurance is a poor analogy and why even your “don’t pay a premium but buy a smoke alarm/extinguishers instead” version (an unwise solution to fire risk anyway) still doesn’t hack it for you.
Here’s why. If paying a premium is analogous to spending money to reduce emissions, then buying an extinguisher instead can only be analogous to doing “nothing about emissions and [concentrating] instead on strengthening our economy to ensure that, inter alia, we are better able to adapt to whatever climate change, if any, might occur” – i.e. precisely my recommendation at #832. But I doubt if that’s what you intended : ). So yes, you’re still demonstrating that uncanny knack of choosing an analogy that doesn’t help you.
And your “I’m not singling out the UK to make unilateral cuts” demonstrates yet again (yawn) your inability to read your own emails. Allow me to remind you. At #826 (which prompted your comment), I was referring specifically to your question yesterday (#822) to TonyN: “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.” Understand now?
Robin,
Would it make you any happier if I promoted TonyN to be be the World Supremo in charge of CO2 emissions? I’m not sure that he’d do much at all so I can’t see why you would object :-)
Blimey! you don’t give up on a lost cause do you? The point of fire extinguishers and smoke alarms is to prevent further damage and bring a fire under control. The Earth’s climate has already suffered some damage and it is inevitable that more damage until CO2 levels are finally brought under control.
Brute,
What about areas of ocean? I suppose you’d be able to define ownership of the sea bed but you’d have a bit of a problem persuading “your” fish not to swim off into someone else’s area.
How does your ideology cope with that sort of problem without engaging in some sort collective, or as you put it, communist, agreement?
Pete,
I don’t eat fish……….mercury poison.
Aside from that, if I wanted to eat fish I’d buy a fish from someone.
Brute,
I’m not sure if you are being genuinely obtuse, deliberately obtuse or if I just haven’t explained what I was getting at well enough!
The question is how does your ideology cope when private ownership can’t be applied?
Yes, I understand that you would never have any common land in your scheme of things. From my school history lessons I do remember something about the English commons and how they were ‘enclosed’ by wealthy landowners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
So they were of Medieval origin and nothing to do with Communism, although Marx did take an interest in the way that land was effectively stolen from those who had traditionally used it.
Peter M: “The Earth’s climate has already suffered some damage…” Going back to the house fire metaphor, it’s usually rather obvious when one’s house is on fire – the billowing smoke, fierce flames and panicked screams are a bit of a giveaway.
The trouble with trying to show that the climate has undergone man-made “damage” is that the alleged evidence of said damage – droughts, wildfires, storms, varying rainfall, big hurricanes, swift temperature rises, gradual sea level rise, etc. looks uncannily like the all-natural climatic variability of centuries past.
Can we be blamed for thinking that it seems more like the sort of “damage” that is undetectable by the naked eye, but which a helpful passing builder will point out and offer to put right – for a very reasonable fee, of course? ;-)
PeterM:
You are getting so many things wrong that it’s hard to know where to start. But I’ll deal with three:
1. You still don’t understand why that analogy is making you look even more foolish than usual. Re fire extinguishers/smoke alarms, try to understand the much touted difference between mitigation (trying to prevent a problem occurring) and adaptation (dealing with it when it’s happened). Understand now? (Surely I don’t need to spell it out in greater detail?)
My advice: stop relying on analogy.
2. Your “What you would do if you were in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions?” question to TonyN was a (surprisingly) good one. And, preempting Tony, I gave you a full answer (with reasoning). It was good because that is a real dilemma facing a real person. But your “World Supremo” is obviously an absurd fiction. Of course even you know that, but nonetheless you still inhabit that dreamworld where someone will bring CO2 levels “under control”. Peter – it’s not going to happen. Get used to it. If you’re in any doubt read these current reports: this and this.
So, bearing that in mind, let’s get back to the real world: what you would do if you were in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions? Answer with reasoning please.
3. Contrary to your understanding, English common land has nearly always had a private owner. Local people had rights “in common” to use it. And it was a system that worked very well for centuries – possibly millennia. And, to a limited extent, it still does. For example, I live on a common and (wait for it) I own a part of it. Nonetheless, I am not entitled to enclose it nor am I able to stop others exercising their rights in common over it. So you see: there’s no challenge here to what you believe to be Brute’s ideology.
Robin,
You are fond of making the obvious point that analogies aren’t perfect. That’s probably so in all cases. However when trying to explain scientific principles to those with little grasp of the subject, perhaps those, like yourself, who have difficulty drawing or even understanding a graph, I do find them to be a good way of getting the idea across. In fact that is probably why analogies were invented in the first place!
It is a little tedious to have to constantly put up with nit-picking about how this, or that, analogy isn’t quite accurate in one or the another small detail. But, I suppose, if you have no argument against the main point that is just about all you can do!
You are like a small dog with a large bone. You aren’t making any progress but you don’t give up! Look, this what Alex Cull originally said
“…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? “
I’ve no problem with calling it a house insurance analogy, or metaphor, but, if you have, maybe you’d like to take it up further with Alex?
Peter M: “… maybe you’d like to take it up further with Alex?”
Or even with the BBC – that was simply my interpretation of where they were going, in their Panorama programme. My impression is that the emphasis was shifting from “climate change is happening now, so let’s do something” to “we don’t know exactly what’s happening, but let’s do something, just in case.”
PeterM
Have been away for a few weeks and just getting caught up, but a statement you recently made (836) caught my eye as symptomatic of the sort of thing one hears from blind believers in the AGW faith.
It is a typical example of a totally unsubstantiated claim linking purported changes in “Earth’s climate” (all deleterious, of course) to human CO2 emissions with a warning of gloom and doom thrown in (unless we all change our evil ways).
Please bring some sort of empirical evidence to support this postulation, Peter.
What specific “damage” has “Earth’s climate” “suffered” to date?
How is this “specific damage” different from “damage” incurred during earlier periods of natural climate change such as the LIA and MWP?
How can the cause of this most recent ”damage” be linked specifically to “CO2 levels”?
How have you established that “it is inevitable that more damage [can be expected] until CO2 levels are finally brought under control”?
If you are unable to bring this specific evidence based on empirical data from actual physical observations, kindly concede that your claim is simply a bit of unsubstantiated polemic rhetoric.
Ball is in your court.
Max
PeterM
Here’s an example of some warped logic starting off with a misquote (805):
I cannot recall having cited a “10% figure” (“very unlikely” in IPCC parlance), but if I had, it would be the percentage likelihood that human CO2 contributions are causing any perceptible increase in greenhouse warming at all (not that they are causing or will cause the end of “world civilization”, which you have “guessed” “it could just about finish off”). A major difference, Peter.
$6100 trillion loss resulting from human CO2 emissions? Get serious, Peter. What in the world are you smoking (or shooting)? Come back down to planet Earth.
Max
PeterM (#842):
You never, of course, admit you’ve got it wrong, but the surest sign that you know you have is when, as here, you trot out some tired old insults. So, as far as this thread is concerned, let’s leave the analogy issue at that – continuing perhaps at Tony’s new thread here.
But you haven’t answered the question I put to you at #841 (item 2). First, I’ll remind you of the current news stories I mentioned earlier. And, as I don’t suppose you read them, I’ll provide more detail. There were two. The first had the headline ‘Carbon emissions necessary for India’. Here’s an extract: “… for developing countries like India, carbon dioxide emissions are now a necessary part of growth and development”. The second had the headline China To Build 20 Large Coal Mines By 2015. Here’s an extract: “China will build 20 large coal mines each with capacity of 10 million to 40 million tons by 2015, reports Shanghai Securities, citing He Youguo, deputy director of the China Coal Industry Development Research Center”. Then you may recall this: “World Bank backs loan for South Africa power station” An extract: “The World Bank has approved a $3.75bn (£2.45bn) loan for a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa, despite environmental concerns”. And I’ll add a fourth – headline: “G20 summit drops clean-energy pledge”. An extract:
Now, bearing all that in mind, here’s that question (originally one you put to TonyN – remember?):
What you would do if you were in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions?
Answer with reasoning please. Thanks.
PeterM
You made a prognosis based on your “guess” that global warming from human CO2 emissions
How would you envision this to happen?
IPCC tells us that it could warm between 1.8 and 6C over the 21st century, with the upper estimates requiring more CO2 emitted by humans than all Earth’s fossil fuel reserves are optimistically estimated to contain, and the least exaggerated estimates ranging between 1.8 and 2.5C. This projection compares with 0.6C actual warming over the previous 150 years, so should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.
But let’s say it is correct and the world’s “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” increases from its current 14.5C to 17C by year 2100.
How will this “just about finish off world civilization” in your estimation? Can you draw me a picture of this destruction?
How will it differ from the MWP, where temperatures were also higher than today and “world civilisation” began to flourish again after a colder, darker period?
Or do you have to admit that there is a lot of unsubstantiated hyperbole and hysteria in your prognosis?
Just curious, Peter.
Max
Greetings and celebration from the greatest nation that ever existed on the face of the planet on her birthday!
Whoops, forgot about the time change……should’ve posted it a few hours ago…………..
Brute,
But you can’t play football as well as the Germans, and your life expectancy is less than the Cubans, and the number of Gold medals the USA wins per head of population is nowhere near the Australian figure…
Enjoy your day, but remember that the USA is just one nation and part of an international community.