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.
Clipper Windpower (CRPWF.PK) is the British manufacturer and marketer of wind turbines, and develops wind power electrical generating projects in North and South America and Europe. Queen Elizabeth II of England recently purchased the world’s largest wind turbine from the company, which is 492 feet high and will produce 7.5 megawatts a year.
Iberdrola (IBDRY.PK) bought Scottish Power, so it is the world’s largest provider of wind power, and the second largest electric utility in Spain.
Brute:
Fascinating! I assume that you won’t be investing in wind. With a disaster at Cancun on the horizon I wonder what those charts will look like in six months time.
Brute
A historical question.
Is the guy in the Monty Python you-tube the great-great-great-great-great-great (etc.) granddaddy of the guy that’s telling his subjects to shower only once a week?
Max
Bob_FJ
Re ur 1419, Velikovsky’s postulation of the Alps having been created a few thousand years ago apparently comes from his “Earth in Upheaval” (which I have not read). I do recall having read his earlier “Worlds in Collision” as a young man. At the time it was not considered to be “serious” science, but was interesting reading nevertheless; very imaginative.
I’d put it at a higher intellectual level but in the same general vein as the Erich von Däniken books that came out in the 1960s and 1970s, in which he claimed that there is abundant evidence that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists and has entered the local solar system in the past, bringing civilization to Earth and causing changes in human evolution; also very imaginative.
Both authors presented pseudo-scientific postulations that people wanted to believe in, because they contained just a hint of “truth”.
A critique of Velikovsky’s “Earth in Upheaval” in “The Skeptic’s Dictionary” tells us:
http://www.skepdic.com/velikov.html
With only slight paraphrasing (ex. replacing “ancient myths” with “model outputs based on theoretical inputs”), the above critical paragraph could be modified to suit the current postulations of an imminent “AGW doomsday”.
Max
Bob_FJ
Back to your interesting post 1419, where you discuss Carl Sagan, Immanuel Velikovsy and uniformitarianism versus catastrophism in astronomy and geology.
Catastrophism is (of course) more fun to discuss, because everyone likes the scary feeling one gets from imagining a global catastrophe. These can be tied anthropocentrically to religion, divine retribution for the sins of Man, etc. All good stuff for getting people to “toe the line”.
There have certainly been “catastrophes” in our planet’s history (even it’s recent history), although these have all been local (or at most regional) rather than global in human history.
The “Great Flood” is surmised (based on data developed by marine biologists and geologists) to have really occurred 7500 years ago, when gradually rising waters in the Mediterranean (or Aegean) finally breached the Bosporus, flooding a previously low-lying fresh-water lake with salt water and essentially wiping out an early civilization along its shores. This one got tied to ancient myths and religious tales of “sin and retribution” (just as is being done today with the AGW doomsday prediction).
A similar “catastrophe” is postulated to have occurred over a million years earlier, when rising Atlantic waters breached the Strait of Gibraltar to rush into the arid Mediterranean basin. This “catastrophe” occurred before there were any human ancestors, who could create an anthropocentric explanation.
Our problem is, that we relate everything to the “blip” of a human lifetime.
If one could view a video of our planet’s geological changes over the past 200 million years or so, which has been “sped up” to show 1 million years in one minute, it would all be “catastrophic”.
Max
Max #1430, 1431 BobFJ #1419
The comparison of Velikovsky with von Daniken is unjust, and so is the quote from the Skeptic’s Dictionary. Velikovsky was an extraordinary polymath, an early disciple of Freud, and a co-editor with Einstein of the first modern Hebrew scientific review. The interest of his work for this blog is that :
1) His first book “Worlds in Collision” was the victim of a crude effort at censorship by the American scientific establishment .
2) He made predictions about the temperature and rotation of Venus and about the earth’s magnetosphere which were confirmed by later space probes.
3) The embarrassment at Velikovsky’s “lucky guess” (Sagan’s expression) about the temperature of Venus led to a hurried search for an “official” explanation, and a resuscitation of interest in greenhouse gas theory.
4) His reworking of ancient chronology led him to question carbon14 and tree ring dating techniques.
5) All his books are aimed at overturning a “scientific consensus”. “Earth in Upheaval” is perhaps the most acceptably scientific, since he sticks strictly to the empirical evidence for catastrophes in the geological record, and shows how such evidence had been ignored or suppressed by the scientific consensus.
You can read his unpublished works at
http://www.varchive.org/
including a summary of his ideas in his autobiography, and a long correspondence with Einstein on electromagnetism in the cosmos.
I’m willing to bet that the Hansens and Schneiders of this world were fascinated by his ideas in their adolescence (as I was) and it left traces.
geoffchambers,
Surprised you’ve mentioned Freud……a sexually depraved, neurotic, mentally unhinged drug addict……a certified crackpot.
Not a ringing endorsement to say the least.
Brute #1433
None of us is perfect. And there’s some good gags in “Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious”.
(and at least you never saw Sigmund diving nude into the snow)
Thought everyone would enjoy this excellent presentation as to why the Co2 hypothesis does not stand scrutiny.
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
I am pleased to see that the eminent author seems to agree with me about the fallibilty of ice cores and the likelihood that Co2 has varied considerably in modern times. Shame Peter isn’t around to discuss it.
Tonyb
Alex, Reur 1401, and further my 1403;
Yesterday morning, I went back to the Bob Ward Guardian article, and found that my comment had survived. I also then realized that my remarks in 1403 related only to the first 50 comments on that thread, which were rather unbalanced and mostly irrational/uninformed. (and that I had failed to click for the later comments). When I did this I found that “page 2” was much more balanced with a lot of posts, including yours, that I was surprised to see were accepted. (How about Jeff Id…. Too logical eh!). It also seemed to me that just a few persistent alarmists were making themselves look a bit silly. Maybe that is why the thread was closed with only ~46 hours allowed for comments?
Max, Reur 1403, responding in part:
Almost as imaginative as Carl Sagan, that famous astronomer?
Quote from Ginenthal, page 373:
In his co-authored book, ”intelligent Life in the Universe” 1966…Sagan states:
“The idea that the moons of Mars are artificial satellites may seem fantastic, at first glance. In my opinion, however, it merits serious consideration. A technical civilization substantially in advance of our own would certainly… blah blah blah”
Sagan is the man who contradicted himself and falsified (and then ridiculed) statements alleged of Velikovsky so often, that it is almost unbelievable. He also came up with the idea of GHE when Venus was actually found to be very hot, not temperate, as was uniquely predicted by V.
The multi disciplinary skills of V were truly awesome, and he had the respect and support of Einstein.
You really should not brush aside V’s apparently respected and uncontroversial “Earth in Upheaval”, 1955*, which provides very strong geological evidence, supporting the contentious book of 1950.
I did a Google to see if Ginenthal’s 1995 book had a later edition, but apparently no. Used copies are available on line from about US$15, and new around US$100+
The value of this book is that it identifies many predictions by V which were verified by later discoveries. For instance, a little one, V predicted correctly that Mars’ atmosphere would include Argon
*If you are truly interested I have a spare copy.
BobFJ #1436
Comments on the Guardian Bob Ward article opened up again yesterday. I think it depends on availability of moderators. Jeff Id’s comments were probably removed because he mentioned moderation (they hate that) saying if his comment was removed he’d set his thousands of readers on CiF.
Despite being banned for life, I’m a big fan of CiF as a forum for discussion, since sceptics and believers can argue on a level playing field in front of a large audience. You and Alex and others stand more chance of persuading the unconvinced there than here!
Bob, Geoff, some CiF comments appear to be still missing (deleted rather than replaced by a “removed by a moderator”) – there’s a gap between 10.59 PM and 11.20 PM on the 19th, where I’m sure a number of comments used to be (including one by me.) There might not be anything sinister behind it, though…
Probably the best approach to coming across well on CiF is to be logical and polite; make sure every word counts and that every assertion can be backed up by evidence. (Having said that, I haven’t exactly practised what I preach here..)
It’s a bit like being in a courtroom (the “court of popular opinion”?), where every statement will be analysed for the tiniest error by the other side and exploited mercilessly.
Mind you, they then tend to go on to be rude, overbearing and aggressive, thus scoring points against themselves!
Alex #1439
I agree absolutely about being logical and polite on CiF. I was astounded when I was banned for “repeated problems with personal abuse”. Then when I looked back at my messages, I had indeed used words like “stupid” and “idiot”. Not quite in the same league as Monbiot’s favourite insults, like “bullshitter” and “scumbag”, but enough that a determined warmist troll could press the “report abuse” button often enough, and I was cast into outer darkness.
Do keep up the good work there. I note how when two or three sceptics are gathered together on a Guardian thread, the whole tone changes.
geoffchambers and Bob_FJ
I did not mean to put down Velikovsky by comparing him with von Däniken (whose works were obviously at a more populist and less intellectual level).
Carl Sagan probably fits in between somewhere. I read all his stuff eagerly at the time. There was some overlap between S. and v.D., and both knew how to tell a story (and sell a book, in the process).
At one point Sagan was almost worshiped by many as a sort of “guru”.
Having only read the one book by V. (and that many years ago), I can hardly comment on his work.
Max
Bob, geoff, Alex
Comments are closed again on Bob Ward’s “Guardian” thread entitled “Climate sceptics mislead the public over hacked emails inquiry”
One of the best rated posts (recommended 78 times) is the 19 August post from a blogger named “Frankone”:
Pretty much to the point; no wonder comments were closed so quickly.
Max
I see that more than one poster has suggested that AM be allowed space to reply (although he has already done so on his Bishop Hill site), as the same courtesy was extended to Dr Richard North recently. I say ‘courtesy’ but it was probably to help stave off legal action – time for the Bish to get litigious, perhaps!
Geoff – can you not simply re-register at CiF with another email address?
James 1443, & Geoff
When excommunicated from a site, I think it may be the computer IP that needs to be changed as well. If you don’t have a second computer, there is a simple overnight procedure that can be used to randomly change IP. I forget the details, but you could probably find it via Google. Maybe tiresome if you have a wireless router though, since that would also have to be reset.
Alex, Geoff, and Max
Gee it’s a bit hard to comment on the Bob Ward thingy, when the thread gets closed twice quick sharp!
It seems to me that maybe moderator No.1 earned the displeasure of moderator 2, or had received a word or two in the ear from Bob Ward.
I think the deletion of Jeff Id’s factual comments may be worthy of an Email to “someone” at the Guardian, but I’ll pop over to Jeff’s site and see what may be happening there. If the moderator did not like Jeff’s final remark that he may advise his readers of any editing, then that line alone could have been deleted.
Alex, It’s my impression that you had four posts there, but I could only find two, with no mention of moderator deletion.
Geoff, Reur 1432
That was a nicely succinct comment of yours concerning how Velikovsky’s work has a relevance to this blog. One might also add his “Ages in Chaos” and some other books on Egyptology to also see the same sort of dogma in the churches of ancient history/Egyptology.
Thanks a lot for your: “You can read his unpublished works at”
http://www.varchive.org/
I’ve started to read the Einstein interactions and was surprised to learn that Einstein was rather hostile at first. However, V’s logic describing certain anomalies in solar system dynamics that might be explained by electro magnetism must have made Einstein feel rather uncomfortable. I think that V’s logic was of startling power, and so far that I’ve read, Einstein avoided responding directly to it by making dogmatic statements. (apparently in self interest?)
Max, Reur 1441:
Well I see Sagan as worse than Gavin Schmidt, whom for instance must know exactly what “hide the decline” means, but has lied about it. Sagan did a much better job at assassinating V, and such an authority must of course be correct.
JamesP, Bob FJ
Thanks for the advice on sneaking back on to CiF in a false beard, but it’s not my style. (And my wife wouldn’t take kindly to me using her computer. I waste enough time online as it is).
On the difficulty of commenting at CiF: the moderator on the Andrew Simms “we’re all going to die – again” thread has just warned that discussing AGW is off-topic – despite the fact that the author refers to “extreme weather”, “climate upheaval”, “destabilised climate” etc.
This is the clearest case of attempted censorship I’ve seen.
Max, Reur 1442
(My bold)
It has also since occurred to me that maybe moderator No.2 was fearful that there might be a flood of sceptical visitors from Jeff Id’s site?
Bob_FJ
Shutting down comments on a blog site that is starting to get “hot” is the crassest form of censorship.
But we have seen that before, haven’t we?
The problem is that the truth cannot really be erased by “censoring” it out.
And that is the beauty of the blogosphere (with all its foibles and imperfections). I particularly like this site, because there is no censorship of dissenting opinion.
Max
Bob_FJ, I think a bunch of comments from various people on CiF were simply deleted, possibly in error (by a mod or admin, perhaps?) I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, for now.
Frankone’s comment sums up the entire episode, admirably. Bob Ward’s piece was simply a (blunt) hatchet job that boomeranged badly (how’s that for a metaphor?!)
By the way, for all in the UK, BBC Newsnight is on at 10.30 this evening with this topic:
“Tonight our Science editor Susan Watts will be considering what role climate change may have played in the country’s floods.”
And Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) will be on, which should also be interesting.