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.
Brute
I like it (Curry is a “lukewarmer”)
Let’s see.
We’ve got
PeterM (a “redhotter”)
(I might join Curry, but would probably more likely classify myself as a “not-much-change-er”)
Are you the same as I am, a “cool cat” or (like many solar scientists) a “deep-freezer”?
Max
Here are some environmental good news:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-04/u-s-says-74-of-spilled-bp-oil-eliminated-from-gulf.html
Quoting Jane Lubchenco, administrator of NOAA, the report states:
But some microbiologists are warning us that the oil-eating bacteria may become a “bacterial plague” for the Gulf.
http://www.pcsga.org/tidings/gulf-oil-spill/will-bacterial-plague-follow-crude-oil-spill-along-gulf-coast/700/
If it’s not one thing, it’s another…
Just demonstrating that “impending disaster” stories still sell well.
Max
Max,
I don’t know…………I suppose I’d describe myself as a Realist.
People have been running scams like “global warming” since we lived in caves…………
What I have observed is that Warmists tend to carry hand wringing anxieties with them in all facets of their lives…………prone to histrionics and panic.
As I’ve written before, I never paid much attention to the topic until politicians and tax men got involved. After I became involved with this thread I really dug into the science and discovered how flimsy and superficial it is. One fraud after another……the point being to separate people from their money or some goofy social engineering crusade.
This too shall pass and another “situation” of “apocalyptic proportions” will come along…………it’s all good for selling newspapers, political campaigns, light bulbs, television commercials and comic books……………the naïve/gullible types (like Peter Martin) will fall for it every time.
For guys like Peter, the ruse of global warming coincides with his political ideology.
So, in the end, no matter the evidence available that disproves it…….he’ll passionately carry along the charade because the ends justify the means.
Peter Martin’s response to this comment will be that I’m motivated by some sort of political ideology………but the distinct difference is that I just want to be left alone…………I refuse to participate in his/their nuttiness (which angers them immensely).
His arrogant position is to force people to adopt his beliefs/lifestyle and he/they won’t be satisfied until everyone has conformed (forcefully)…………big difference.
His/their position is subjugation…………my position is liberty and freedom.
You’ll notice that all of their “solutions” to solving the ”global warming” issue are mandatory/involuntary and only apply to “others”.
They’d never agree to apply these regulations/taxes to themselves…………speaks volumes.
Brute,
There is not much difference in what Judith Curry has said scientifically to the mainstream scientific position. Maybe she’s lived too long in the US bible belt and she’s been swayed slightly by what plays well there, as she puts it.
The current disagreement is between how climate scientists should interact with people like yourself. She think that by engaging with you and encouraging scientists to be more open she’ll be able to win you over to her point of view.
She’s made some temporary friends on the denialists blogosphere after her spat with Gavin Schmidt on Realclimate and after some critical remarks about the way Michael Mann handled the backlash against his hockey stick graph but unless she totally repudiates the consensus position she may will find herself being criticised from both sides, if she isn’t already.
Is she right to be optimistic? She makes the very valid point that there is a difference between between political sceptics and scientific sceptics. There can be no objection to the latter but I’d say these are very few and far between. Unlike Max, I’d say that all the sceptics in this blog have come to their opinion before any understanding of the science involved. Max now claims to have it, most of you don’t even bother, but his original Mad Max rantings from 2007 show that he’s no exception.
There is no amount of science that will convince you. You’ve made your up your mind and that’s it. Its all a scam and a hoax. I hope that I’m wrong about Judith Curry but we’ll see.
I really don’t care what Judith Curry has to say or what she thinks…………if she believes in global warming then she should alter her lifestyle accordingly (as should you).
By the way, how many polar bears do you reckon you’ve harmed by posting comments on this site for the last 2+ years?
Brute,
This sentence says it all doesn’t it?
“I really don’t care what Judith Curry has to say or what she thinks…”
You’d say the same for any climate scientist who might be of the opinion, even in the slightest, that AGW is a problem to be taken seriously.
At least you’ve got the honesty to come clean and admit you’re not influenced at all by any form of scientific opinion. Most other deniers play with words and spurious pseudo-scientific counterarguments.
PeterM
You refer (again and again and again…) to “Mad Max rantings from 2007”, with the totally unfounded implication that these were made before I investigated the “science” behind the IPCC-fueled AGW craze.
As I explained to you (again and again and again…) I did not get involved in the AGW debate until after the February 2007 publication of IPCC AR4 SPM 2007.
This “sales pitch” was so full of scientific errors and exaggerations that I became leary of the whole IPCC message.
But we have discussed this all ad nauseam. You just appear to either have short term memory lapses or are a slow learner.
Max
PeterM
The recent (and ongoing?) debate between Judith Curry on one side and “AGW-disciples” Tamino, Gavin Schmidt, William Connolley on the other, definitely point out that your statement to Brute (1154) is incorrect that “There is not much difference in what Judith Curry has said scientifically to the mainstream scientific position”.
She has stated that she concludes that AGW may have caused a portion of the late 20th century warming, but that it is scientifically completely open as to what percentage of this warming was AGW-caused.
She has also stated that Andrew Montford’s “hockey stick” book should not simply be dismissed, but should be discussed and rebutted by the paleo researchers and the IPCC defenders.
In a statement to another “AGW-disciple”, Joe Romm (comment #19), she writes:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/25/hockey-stick-real-climate-montford-judith-curry-tamino-gavin-schmid/#comment-286956
These statements, the fact that she has posted on ClimateAudit plus her castigation of the Climategate culprits has drawn the wrath of the “AGW disciples”.
Right now it is clear that the “disciples” see Curry as more of a “liability” to their “faith” than an asset.
And it is also quite clear that there is a helluva lot of “difference in what Judith Curry has said scientifically to the mainstream scientific position”.
Max
Bob_FJ
For some real fun, tune in to this thread.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/25/hockey-stick-real-climate-montford-judith-curry-tamino-gavin-schmid/#comment-286956
The AGW-groupies (whom we all know from earlier exposure on RC and CP) are all up in arms about Judith Curry, one (an old pal we have both enjoyed shooting down in the past) even calling for her immediate resignation!
Check it out for some good laughs.
Max
PeterM (1154)
Really? And I’d say you’re confusing our position that the science is not properly understood (by anyone) with a lack of understanding on our part.
If climate science is so clear-cut, why the unwillingness of its protagonists to divulge their data and methods? That’s a rhetorical question, BTW, as evidence of their manipulation of the data makes the reasons only too apparent.
Bob_FJ
For a flavor of how the debate between Judith Curry and the “AGW-disciples” (in this case Joe [a.k.a. Josef] Romm) is going, read this exchange from Joe Romm’s blog site (comment 85).
Calm down, Joe! Don’t forget that you are talking to a lady (plus someone who is a helluva lot smarter than you are, when it comes to climate science).
Max
Max,
Maybe you’re right. Maybe Judith Curry is indeed changing her tune.
But this was what she was singing in 2007
“Bjorn Lomborg rightly notes that skepticism about climate change is no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are)……. “
“The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security — providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced. “
“There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
It all sounds very mainstream to me. Still think she’s smart cookie?
Or do you think she’s moved away from that position?
Bob_FJ, re your #1143, I have a scuffed copy of “Worlds in Collision” somewhere (in one of my “book boxes”) – very interesting but dodgy in part (Venus a comet, for example, or ex-comet). The Ginenthal book sounds definitely worth reading; generally I like Carl Sagan (his quote “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a great one.) But not everything he said or did, perhaps could stand up to scrutiny? I don’t know, would need to read the book.
Re the book offer, thanks! However, I must regretfully decline, in the interests of domestic harmony, as my home is already threatening to pop at the seams with books (on shelves and in boxes mostly, otherwise under the bed or stacked on chairs.)
Relating the Sagan/Velikovsky matter to the climate debate, generally, some thoughts:
1) It is possible, and indeed normal, to agree with many or even most, ideas expressed by a person but not necessarily every single one.
2) The opposite is also true; it is possible to disagree with many/most ideas expressed by a person, but still find some of their ideas valuable.
3) A person’s unconventional ideas in one field should not invalidate everything they do or say in another or in all fields.
Max, re your #1161, Joe’s “adopted tribe” comment is telling. Merely by mentioning or citing studies which cast a critical eye over the papers by Mann, it seems Judith has crossed the line and gone from “one of us” to “one of them”.
Brute
I agree with you (1153) that the whole AGW discussion was sort of a boring and inconsequential debate of scientific hypotheses among a handful of theoretical physicists, astronomers, etc. until the politicians (and later tax men) got involved and turned it into a taxpayer funded multi-billion dollar big business.
The frustrating part for Peter (apparently a scientist, himself) is that he cannot show empirical data based on actual physical observations to provide scientific evidence in order to validate the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, which supposedly constitutes the underlying scientific basis for this billion dollar big business.
Instead, he keeps changing the subject and waffling around with political discussions.
On the other hand, I have shown Peter different references to physically observed data providing empirical evidence, which tends to falsify the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, to which he has yet to respond specifically.
So it is clear that Peter avoids real discussion of the “science”, preferring to talk about “right wing anti-AGW extremists”, “religious opponents of Darwinism”, “smoking/cancer deniers”, “mainstream opinions” of 2,500 scientists, “endorsement by venerable scientific institutions”, etc. instead.
As far as the issue of individual freedom and liberty versus forced behavior for the “common good” (as determined by those in power), I agree wholeheartedly with you. Sure, there has to be a balance (“liberty versus license”, and “liberty does not equal entitlement”), and many functions need to be democratically delegated to the “state”, but this is the basis for the political system in both your country (USA) and mine (Switzerland), although there are political elements in both countries that are trying to chip away at individual freedom for the perceived “common good”.
There is a certain intellectual arrogance in a government that thinks it “knows better” what is good for its citizens than they themselves do. And, in democratic republics (such as those in which we live), these politicians eventually get voted out of government office by the citizens, if they get too far out of line with their constituents’ wishes (that’s what democracy in a representative republic is all about).
Max
PeterM
Regarding Judith Curry (your 1162), I do believe that she is more than just a “smart cookie”.
She is a renowned scientific expert on our planet’s climate in particular on tropical storms and director of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Whether she has really (in Joe Romm’s personal opinion) crossed the line and gone from “one of us” to “one of them” is totally immaterial.
For a better insight of her thoughts on Climategate, the “hockey stick”, the IPCC, etc. read the translation from Portuguese of the interview published by the Brazilian journal, Época).
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/judith_curry_and_the_hockey_st.php
Max
PS PeterM. Forgot to post the link to the Curry interview in Epoca
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/01/lost-in-translation-in-a-brazilian-interview-judith-curry-incluir-uma-cena-demasiado-longa-ou-uma-variacao-do-tema-de-um-programa-de-televisao-indicando-que-este-esta-com-os-seus-dias-contados/
Max,
Judith Curry seems to feel that better relations between climate scientists and the more rational of climate sceptics like Steve McIntyre would be useful. Possibly it would be, but there would still be many thousands of Zombies out there would would continue to say horrendous and untrue things mainly because it was useful for them to do that in order to discredit science and scientists.
When people turn reasonable questions about science into excuses for personal abuse, it poisons the debate and prevents any resolution in an efficient manner. How is it possible to have a dialog with someone who thinks that every word they say is a lie? Every time people throw around terms like fraud, scam and hoax without any basis, it just makes reasonable discussion totally impossible. This is the hallmark of political rhetoric, not science, and blaming scientists for the state of affairs, as Judith Curry attempts to do is just way off the mark.
PeterM
Your “take” on Judith Curry’s latest remarks do not exactly conform with mine.
She has tried to initiate a more cordial and rational relationship between ClimateAudit and the “pro-AGW” sites, such as ClimateProgress and RealClimate, as you have also indicated.
But I do not agree that her critique of the IPCC, the science behind the “hockey stick” or the bahvior of the Climategate culprits is “way off the mark”.
And when one reads the vitriolic remarks by Romm (for example) directed at her, it is clear that the “pro-AGW” side does not want any kind of rapprochement with those that they dub the “Climate Denial Machine”.
This is not a rational “scientific discussion” among proponents of different viewpoints, but an all-out irrational tantrum by the “pro-AGW” camp because they feel that “one of their own” has “betrayed” them.
Time for Romm, Schmidt, etc. to grow up (or shut up on this topic).
Max
Manacker: to paraphrase your #1152:
Max is cool as a cu-
cumber; Judith’s lukewarmer
PeterM’s Vindaloo
While our Curry’s a Korma
Pete,
Re: #1156
I don’t need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows (or a politician).
I suppose that’s the difference between being a free man and a Subject….
You seem rather eager in your role as a Follower.
Try thinking for yourself occasionally…..you’ll be pleased with how liberating it is.
BobFJ #1143, Alex #1163
I missed the begining of your discussion of Velikovsky. His case is relevant to the AGW story for a number of reasons:
1) His book was the subject of an attempt at censorship by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which threatened to boycott the publishing house’s educational books if they published “Worlds in Collision”. The subsequent scandal gave the book enormous publicity.
2) Though his claim that Venus was a recent arrival to the solar system was scientifically flawed, he followed good scientific practice in proposing falsifiable deductions from his theory. One of them – that Venus would prove to be much hotter than predicted – gave his theories of a “catastrophic” solar system a big boost. Carl Sagan, anxious to debunk this unscientific charlatan who had made a “lucky guess”, proposed the “runaway greenhouse effect” as an alternative explanation for the high Venusian temperature. This was how the “greenhouse effect “ re-entered popular consciousness after a long absence.
3) His assertion that ancient history and myth are fruitful sources of evidence for exploring the history of our universe was an important insight. Ignoring history is of course one of the fundamental tenets of AGW theory.
His disciples are still active at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/
promoting the Electric Universe, a radically different cosmology, (no Big Bang, no black holes or dark matter..) incorporating the anti-consensus astronomy of Halton Arp. They hold the archives of Kronia and Aeon, two defunct sites where post Velikovskian theories were discussed, with Benny Peiser a participant.
Highly recommended to all those who are suspicious of consensus.
Brute,
The idea that you can know everything on your own is just nonsense. For the first million or so years of Man’s existence, no-one would have known what the stars or the Sun was, or much less than the Earth was a sphere which orbited the sun.
We are now not more intelligent than our distant ancestors but we do know more than they did because of the collective efforts of preceding generations.
If it weren’t for them we’d probably think the Earth was flat and that there was some supernatural creature in the Sky who had made everything around us. But wait, maybe there are still a few people who ‘think’ along those lines!
Geoffchambers,
You mean “Highly recommended to all cranks!”.
Max,
Romm is right there shouldn’t be any attempt to interact with those who use talk about hoaxes and scams, plots and conspiracies.. I’ve probably been wrong too in trying.
In that case Pete I’m pleased that there were Skeptics around throughout history to question the “consensus” view………Read your history……..the “mainstream” scientific community (that you so boldly support) burned people at the stake that dared speak out……much like Romm and Gavin Schmidt are (figuratively) doing to environmental “heretics” today.
I would think a socially rebellious person (such as yourself) would support Ms Curry as opposed to grabbing a pitchfork and noose…………joining the mob to discredit and ridicule her.
The tables have turned for you haven’t they?
You were all about defying the “establishment”…………now you are one…………seems to me that you’ve become conflicted in your life’s purpose.
Geoff, Reur 1171, and Alex 1163
I didn’t know that there is a website that still follows Velikovsky, and I must take a look at it. Some time ago there was a hypothesis by Steve Goddard over at WUWT, challenging the Sagan consensus cause for the high surface temperatures on Venus, which was interesting. This was then rebutted by Chris Colose, here. I had prepared some additional comments like as below but became exhausted thinking; what’s the point, and didn’t do it. Max will know what I mean, when Patrick 027 intervened with one of his massive rambles.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are a number of very strange things about Venus:
* Strange atmosphere.
* Circulation etc hypotheses for uniform surface temperature unconvincing.
* Unique almost circular obit
* Retrograde slow rotation (243 Earth days)
* Absence of moon(s) (a past moon hypothesised to have crash-merged)
* Similar size and mass to Earth. (suggesting a similar core, and yet):
* Absence of plate tectonics
* Absence of magnetic field. (See below):
* Analysis of the ESA’s Venus Express data suggests that volcanic activity (per hotspots viewed at 1 micron wavelength) on Venus is “recent” and may even be current. Some Russian probe info also suggested activity at that time.
There are a host of hypotheses as to why Venus has so many oddities, some of which are clearly speculative, and some seem contradictory to me. Here are some extracts from Wikipedia that conflict with the Sagan GHE mantra.
Surface geology
“…Without plate tectonics to dissipate heat from its mantle, Venus instead undergoes a cyclical process in which mantle temperatures rise until they reach a critical level that weakens the crust. Then, over a period of about 100 million years, subduction occurs on an enormous scale, completely recycling the crust.[21].
Magnetic field and core
“…The lack of an intrinsic magnetic field at Venus was surprising given that it is similar to Earth in size, and was expected also to contain a dynamo at its core. A dynamo requires three things: a conducting liquid, rotation, and convection. The core is thought to be electrically conductive and, while its rotation is often thought to be too slow, simulations show that it is adequate to produce a dynamo.[50][51] This implies that the dynamo is missing because of a lack of convection in the Venusian core. On Earth, convection occurs in the liquid outer layer of the core because the bottom of the liquid layer is much hotter than the top. On Venus, a global resurfacing event may have shut down plate tectonics and led to a reduced heat flux through the crust. This caused the mantle temperature to increase, thereby reducing the heat flux out of the core. As a result, there is not an internal geodynamo that can drive a magnetic field. Instead the heat energy from the core is being used to reheat the crust…”[52] (my bold)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V’s Geology book “Earth in Upheaval”, also seemed to support his Venus theory timing, and myth/history of Earth. However, the analysis of impact craters on Venus seem to imply that Venus is much older than V hypothesised.
Bob_FJ #1174
Thanks for the information on Venus. I’m not sure the people at the Thunderbolts site would accept my description of them as “disciples of Velikovsky”, but they certainly hold to his belief that the solar system has undergone catastrophic change in the relatively recent past, and that there is evidence of this in ancient myth and art.
Their original contribution is the theory of the Electric Universe – that the sun and stars are heated by currents flowing through space which obey the peculiar laws of plasma science. The myths of battling gods which Velkovsky interpreted as “near misses” of planets and comets would be records of aurora borealis-like electric discharges. They correctly forecast some of the surpising features of the recent experiment involving crash-landing a satellite on a comet, which didn’t win them any friends at sites like Bad Astronomy.
Their ideas are consistent with those of the astronomer Halton Arp, who has spotted supposedly distant qasars in front of galaxies. By rejecting Hubble’s identification of red shift with velocity, he reinstates a simple, steady state universe, with no need for big bangs, black holes, dark matter, and the rest. He was eased out of his post at the University of California and now works at the Max Planck Institute.
The Electric Universe people have just one toe in the scientific world to my knowledge, with a plasma physicist at the Livermore Laboratory who supports their ideas. Arp is a respected astronomer, but lost his telescope time at California when his research became too embarassing to the mainstream. Both are attacked with the same fervency as climate sceptics, though, with no political or economic consequences flowing from cosmology, the debate remains within the closed circle of sceptics and defenders of orthodoxy.