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.
Max,
You wrote “Hurray for Judith Curry ..”
I must admit I’m a bit confused here. Are we talking about the same Judith Curry who in 2007 accused Bjorn Lomborg of failing “to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all.”?
Whereas in 2007 you were ranting on about plots, sorry, I mean scams and hoaxes.
It all seems very odd. A bit like one of those old sci-fi films when the aliens take over a person’s mind and, of course they look the same, but they start to behave in very different ways!
Brute,
No it was the Church who want in for burnings at the stake not scientists. There is still a religious Establishment who are still reactionary but not as bad as they used to be. There is also a political Establishment. Each country has one! There are reactionary too in the sense that their preservation is their #1 priority. Bush would have invaded Iraq because he thought he had to. Nothing to do with WMDs. Democracies are less reactionary than other forms of government but they aren’t perfect.
Essentially what I mean by reactionary is that the truth comes second to survival. Truth is the first casuality of war and all that.
Science has been around for a while now and it can seem that it has the characteristics of an Establishment.
I’m not sure what happened there. The previous posting went off on its own!
…………………
But Science has to be based on something and that something has to be the truth as people see it. So, science has ending up offending Religion with its views on Evolution and the Earth not being in the center of the universe. Its offended the tobacco industry. Its offended the Asbestos industry. They’ve offended those who think that the races are quite different and should never be allowed to mix. There’ll be lots of other examples if you care to think about it. It’s not because Scientists have any particular desire to offend anyone but the truth can often be uncomfortable to society’s vested interests.
The AGW issue has been interpreted as an attack on Capitalism. I’m not sure why that should be. The Soviet Union was still around when James Hansen first started to say “Houston, we have a problem”. China is still supposed to be run by the Communist Party and no-one is saying they aren’t part of the problem too.
So there is no scam. No conspiracy. No plot. No hoax. No political agenda. Scientists aren’t saying human beings are evil and this is their comeuppance. The message is that there is a problem which needs to be fixed. Its really that simple.
PeterM
No need to be confused (1176/1178), Peter.
Judith Curry is taking a lot of “heat” from the self-annointed disciples of the AGW doomsday faith (Romm, Schmidt, Tamino, etc.) for honestly stating her personal scientific conclusions on the “hockey-stick” fiasco, the Climategate scandal, the many scientific uncertainties related to past and future AGW impacts, etc.
They accuse her of being a mouthpiece for what they call the “climate denial machine” and throw public tantrums about her “betraying” them.
All a bit childish (revealing a lack of scientific maturity on the part of these clowns).
Sure, Curry still believes that there is an anthropogenic portion of our planet’s past warming (as does Bjorn Lomborg, BTW). In theory, I would also agree to this; I just do not conclude based on the facts out there that it is a major factor or anything to “get your knickers all twisted up about” as our British friends might say.
To your second part.
No “conspiracy”, Peter (a “collusion of interests” would be a better description, as Peter Taylor has so well written, and as we have discussed before).
The GH theory itself is no “hoax”, but the exaggerated claims of 450 ppmv (or maybe just 350 ppmv!) atmospheric CO2 being a “dangerous level” causing “tipping points” leading to “irreversible and deleterious” changes in our planet’s climate resulting in inundations in this century that “can be measured in meters”, “extinction of species”, etc. which have been made by the likes of Hansen are clearly “fear-mongering” (which is a “hoax”).
Yes. IPCC definitely has a “political agenda”. It was born out of politics and its assigned brief (or “agenda”) was to investigate “man-made impacts on climate”. No “man-made impacts on climate” = no need for IPCC to continue its existence. So it must produce “scientific evidence” to support its “brief”, in other words, “agenda-driven science”.
A global carbon tax (direct or indirect) is also clearly a “political agenda”, wouldn’t you say?
“Scientists” (at least those who support the “agenda-driven science” required by IPCC to sell the “political agenda”) are doing their best to help IPCC “sell” the message that “there is a problem that needs to be fixed”, as you put it (i.e. “fixed” by implementing the “political agenda”).
Politicians (who would like to see the “political agenda” implemented) are funding the “research work” of these scientists with taxpayer money.
The taxpayer is becoming increasingly aware that he is being bamboozled by this “collusion of interests”, and is beginning to resist politically, especially as an increasing number of scientists are starting to speak out against the “dangerous AGW” postulation.
And, worst of all for the AGW alarmists, latest measurements show that the atmosphere and upper ocean are both cooling off, despite record increase in CO2.
That’s what is going on, Peter.
And the tide has already started to turn since those “heady” days of Oscars and Nobel Prizes, when “mainstream climate science” still had a high public esteem and over 50% of the public still believed that AGW could be a real future problem.
As Bob Dylan sang: “The times they are a’changing”
Max
Geoff, Bob_FJ, some fascinating food for thought re Venus, etc., and looks like I’ve got a lot more reading to do! Just revisited the Hyperventilating on Venus page on WUWT, as well as the Chris Colose thread, at the risk of my head exploding from all that physics. The bottom line is surely this, that James Hansen may have been getting a little over-enthusiastic when he wrote the following:
“After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
NB. Are all solar systems as weird and as interesting as this one? It seems a shame that we’ll have to wait until the 23rd century, perhaps, before finding out…
Alex Cull (and geoffchambers plus Bob_FJ)
Hansen’s “overenthusiasm” appears unbounded.
But his knowledge of our planet’s past atmospheric CO2 levels appears a bit weak.
Atmospheric CO2 has been up to 25 times as high as today in our planet’s geological past, and over most of our planet’s history it was between 5 and 10 times as high as today, all of which without any apparent correlation with global temperature (and certainly no Venus-like “run-away” warming).
All the planet’s optimistically estimated fossil fuels contain barely enough carbon to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to around 1000 ppmv, or roughly 2.5 times current levels, if they were all combusted.
Forget Venus. It’s just another Hansen “pipe dream”.
Max
BTW, that optimistic estimate of fossil fuel reserves includes tar sands and shales (specifically mentioned by Hansen in his run-away “Venus” prediction).
Yawn!
Here’s a clever way to “hide the decline”, i.e. the current 21st century global cooling trend recorded both at the surface (Hadley) and the troposphere (UAH + RSS satellites).
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6094&linkbox=true&position=8
Any takers?
Max
Max
If you’re not already apprised of it, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi’s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/#comments? probably deserves a recommendation.
Pete,
Re: 1177/1178
Very good Pete!
The “establishment” was the Church way back when…… Nowadays, the “Establishment” is the State (governments/the United Nations/big business) that are forwarding the global warming agenda.
Judith Curry is the modern day equivalent of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, etc……the “oppressed” have now become the “oppressors” which puts radicals like yourself in an dilemma.
Do you support the “oppressed” underdog or do you allow the “establishment” to lead you around by the ring in your nose?
As I wrote before……your philosophical doctrine is to cheerlead for the “oppressed minority” (which in this case is the Judith Currys of the world).
The question for you must be quite perplexing………how do you support the “oppressed” like Judith Curry (who question the State/”Establishment” doctrine) when your personal ideology agrees with the State (the “Establishment”)?
Your inner psychological conflict must be extremely perturbing…………all these years you’ve been revolting against the status quo………now you’ve nothing to revolt against. The enemy (for you) used to be “The Establishment”/”The Man”……now your views are representative of the “Establishment”.
Guys like you make a very interesting psychological study.
I don’t think that you realize how mixed up you are……..
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity still at 30 year low
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/08/global-tropical-cyclone-activity-still-at-30-year-low/#more-23202
Jasper Gee and Bob_FJ
First of all, thanks Jasper Gee, for the link to Roy Spencer’s comments on Milkowczi’s hypothesis of climate equilibrium.
Bob_FJ, it looks like Spencer’s rebuttal of this theory is logical and well thought out (and, since Spencer tends to “get it right”, I would guess it does not make much sense in trying to look for a separate analysis).
The various exchanges in the comments section are quite interesting, especially the Zagoni/Spencer exchange, and the comments by Stephen Wilde (who supports the M. hypothesis) and later by Milkowczi himself. Another blogger, called Christopher Game, tries to take Spencer on, but it appears to me that he is less successful.
Our friend, BPL, even gets into the act briefly.
It all gets very detailed and technical, with Spencer agreeing that the total flux of IR energy emitted by the atmosphere downward toward the Earth’s surface (Ed) “very nearly” equals the upward flux from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere (Aa), while Milkowczi believe they “are the same” (by definition) and, as a result, that Earth’s total greenhouse effect remains constant over time, thereby refuting the “mainstream” greenhouse warming hypothesis. In addition Spencer questions the validity of the early radiosonde humity measurements, which M. uses to validate his hypothesis.
Now this may sound like the medieval theological debate about the “number of angels that can dance on the pin of a head”, but it appears to be vital to M’s hypothesis (and to the greenhouse warming hypothesis).
On the basis of Spencer’s comments, I’m going to let it rest for now, unless something basically new comes up.
Spencer agrees that there is a natural GH effect of about 33C (primarily from water vapor, but also from trace GHGs, such as CO2) as well as an anthropogenic GH effect (from increased CO2). Where he basically disagrees with the IPCC view is in the sign and magnitude of the net feedbacks (but that is another discussion).
Max
Correction: Should be “head of a pin”, of course
Brute,
The Establishment ‘as you put it’ isn’t necessarily wrong, or in the wrong, about everything. You just have to make a choice. Its not just about backing the underdog every time. Underdogs can be extremely unpleasant animals!
Our present society has become successful precisely because the political establishment, (who aren’t perfect but nevertheless are subject to democratic control in most countries), and the industrial and financial establishment, (who are even less perfect and try to control the democratic process to suit their own priorities), have both taken on board the idea using the scientific principles in the decision making process.
You obviously feel that Science has got it wrong on AGW. Is it just that or are there other things?
Max,
Watch this and tell me if this is staged. I don’t speak German and I can’t tell if this was a made for TV thing or an actual accident. Is this a spoof? Is RTC some sort of comedy television network?
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=21816
TonyN,
Please indulge me for this one comment……..
Pete,
You possess a revolutionary psyche.
Your entire life has been devoted to “righting the wrongs” of society. Now that the “ruling class” has adopted your personal ideological agenda…………you’re lost….. You no longer can demonize the powerful leaders of government because they’re on your side. Big business has adopted the “green” religion so you can’t rail against them.
Your victimization cry is no longer credible……………You’re a rebel without a cause…………apparently, this conflict is wreaking havoc with your sensibilities.
The only outlet for guys like you, Romm and Gavin Schmidt is to censor, ridicule and attack people (such as Judith Curry) that undermine (what’s left of) your political agenda.
There is no other explanation.
The “globe” has ceased “warming”, the Arctic ice is rebounding, sea water temperatures are stable/dropping, hurricanes are no more frequent or intense than past decades, polar bear populations are increasing, sea levels have not risen, no mass extinctions, no shortage of foodstuffs, Antarctic ice has increased to the highest levels in the historical record and it’s snowing in Brazil today……all the while CO2 levels have been increasing.
Every prophecy made by the global warming faithful has failed to materialize.
Green economic policies have failed miserably everywhere they’ve been attempted, carbon trading schemes have been exposed as corrupt frauds comparable to the Enron debacle and the high priests of the global warming data bank at CRU have been caught red handed manipulating their own data to support this political theory.
I’ve noticed also that you are always on the defensive. Someone, (usually Max), points to an observation that invalidates the theory and your reply is always akin to: “Well, the ice would continue melting if it weren’t for [insert excuse here]”.
You are constantly equivocating and marginalizing the primary assertions of the theory that you so vehemently endorse.
I’m reminded of my (deadbeat/moocher) brother in-law………the Communist.
We discuss political ideology and he always returns to the statement: “Communism would have worked………it just historically has never had the right people managing it”.
Brrrrrrrrr………Antarctic is part of “the globe” isn’t it? Seems “global warming” has neglected to impact an entire continent……
Brute,
You obviously don’t know me very well! My life hasn’t “been devoted to ‘righting the wrongs’ of society” as you put it. All very conventional I’m afraid! Jobs, businesses, mortgages, marriage, kids – the usual sort of stuff.
You need to get out of the Bible belt a bit more. Maybe even visit Europe and talk to a few people from different backgrounds. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of others with similar views to mine.
Brute
“Biertijd” means “beer time” in Dutch. It is apparently a Dutch “pin-up girl” (or soft porn) site (featuring the “biertijd babes”).
They apparently collect and disseminate humorous youtube videos.
On this one (1190) there are no “pin-up babes” and the girl is talking German.
The computer model operated “accident-free” motorcycle demonstrates clearly how computer models can forecast impending disaster so that appropriate mitigation steps can be initiated.
(I’m trying hard to get this back on topic, TonyN).
Max
To get the blog right back on track: Global warming hasn’t stopped. This year is likely to be the warmest ever!
Brute, You’ve not answered my question of what other problems you have with what you term the “scientific establishment”. Is it just AGW or do you have other disagreements too?
Brute
If you do decide to take on Peter’s challenge to “visit Europe and talk to a few people from different backgrounds” in order to “find others with similar views to” Peter’s, it would be good to pick your subjects and locations wisely.
Amsterdam might be a good starting point, as would Stockholm and (maybe) parts of Copenhagen. I’m not sure about some selected parts of England, but I would avoid Scotland. University campuses could be a good tip (avoid students of applied sciences, engineering, business, economics, etc. and concentrate on those studying social sciences, psychology, liberal arts or certain government-sponsored specialized fields of theoretical science, such as climatology). “Green” and “pink” politicians (preferably under 30 years of age) would be another good target group. Avoid essentially all of Switzerland, Belgium and France, rural areas, cities with population under 2 million, anyplace south of the Alps or east of the Oder-Neisse line.
If you follow these tips, you may, indeed, find some individuals “with similar views to Peter”.
Max
PeterM
Let’s talk about this year “being the warmest ever” when its over.
Max
PS
Record cold and long winter in Europe, North America and most of Asia; current record cold in the southern hemisphere. Hmmm…
PeterM
For the temperature record of the first 9 years of this millennium see:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4807624337_1d37f9a23a_b.jpg
Looks to me like “global warming has stopped (temporarily, at least)”.
Add to this the fact that upper ocean temperatures have also cooled since Argo records replaced the old inaccurate XBT measurements in 2003, and the unexplainable “missing heat” really is a “travesty” (as Trenberth called it).
Max
Pete,
Maybe CRU will do a better job with executing their “trick” regarding “hiding the decline” this year?
PeterM
Let me correct an error in your 1189.
“Science” hasn’t “got it wrong on AGW”, as you wrote, Peter.
It’s just that selected part of “science” that is quoted by IPCC that has “got it wrong”, while another part of “science” (represented by Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Soon, Gray, Landsea, Baliunas, Solanki, Scafetta, etc., etc. plus a growing number of other scientists) has not “got it wrong”.
In case you missed it, there is a scientific debate going on out there.
And there are still no empirical data to support the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis as postulated by IPCC, while the latest empirical data tend to falsify this hypothesis instead (as I pointed out earlier on this thread).
Max