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 advise that I should discuss my 1645 my with physician and indeed I do discuss just those issues. Equally, you need to discuss not just your 1645 with a climate scientist but just about every blog you made on the subject since declaring it to be a conspiracy and hoax in 2007.
The guys at Bern Uni seem to know what they are talking about. Have you ever thought of enrolling on their course?
Brute,
Yes, Al Gore is a member of the US ruling class. We know that. Its long standing family money that got him close to becoming president. My concern about Obama, who is nowhere near so wealthy, is that he’ll have had to make too many deals before becoming president which can’t be ignored afterwards. But that’s American “democracy” at work for you.
Its obviously going to be a big problem if people like Gore adopt a “do as I say not do as I do” approach and that will need to be rectified.
Max,
The article I linked to about Daniel Hannan changed my opinion of him somewhat. Unlike James Delingpole, he’s bright enough to understand human, including his own, psychology.
I was genuinely puzzled by one remark though he said “Otherwise, we conservatives risk conceding, by default, that the only proper response to global warming is socialism.”
What do you think he means by that? Carbon taxes and C&T , which are the favoured methods at present, have nothing to do with socialism. Al Gore could well afford to pay extra for his private jet, it wouldn’t bother him much. A socialist approach would be to give everyone a CO2 entitlement. And poor old Al Gore would have to travel by train and bus like everyone else!
Brute, Reur 1650;
Look Brute, I don’t wish to be picky, but did you get that spelling right? Did you perhaps mean; “Climaturds”?
(or is ‘turd’ not a word recognised in colloquial Americano?…. Ask me if so)
Manacker’s ice-nine (#1635) dates from the far off days when science fiction offered us fascinating fictional accounts of the end of the world. Then SF became identified with big budget Hollywood macho-sadism for adolescents, and we have to turn now to science journalists in the serious press for our daily dose of doom.
Robert McKie in today’s Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/05/climate-change-ice-caps-antarctica
finds evidence that Antarctica was cut in two by global warming relatively recently, which apparently “reveal[s] a disturbing aspect about Antarctica that has critical implications for understanding the impact of climate change” and “indicates that the great ice sheet, once thought to be impregnable, is really highly vulnerable”.
So the fact that the climate has remained unchanged for long periods (indicated by the hockeystick) is a reason for disquiet, and so is evidence that the climate has changed drastically in the past. Whatever our poor planet does, some people are never satisfied.
PeterM
You quoted words of wisdom from Daniel Hannan:
This is an accurate description of the reaction of the AGW-faithful to the physical observations of Spencer and Braswell, which demonstrated that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative rather than strongly positive, as had been previously assumed by all the IPCC model simulations, thereby reducing the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from a theoretically assumed 3.2C to below 1C (and relegating AGW to an imperceptible modification of our climate instead of a major change).
This obviously did not “fit into the belief-system” of AGW doomsdayers (IPCC, Hansen et al.) so they “question the discovery before the belief-system”.
All too typical.
But, as Hannan has concluded, this habit can lead into error.
A similar reaction can be seen to the recently observed cooling of the atmosphere (surface plus stratosphere) after 2000 and of the upper ocean since 2003, when reliable Argo measurements were started. The AGW faithful are squirming and denying that it could really be happening, since it does not fit their existing belief-system.
Good point, Peter.
Max
PeterM
I recommended that you should discuss your doubts about the link between coronary disease and obesity, hypertension plus high blood cholesterol (LDL) with a “physician”, not a “snake oil salesman”.
And, when you do, insist on empirical data, based on actual physical observations (such as clinical trials and studies).
Max
Max
PeterM
You err. I do not recall having referred to the “dangerous AGW” postulation and current craze as a “conspiracy”, although I have called it (and still do) a “hoax”.
A better description (see Peter Taylor’s “Chill”) would be a “collusion of interest between power groups”.
(Refer also to TonyN’s “A Very Convienient Network” thread).
Max
geoffchambers
The “Guardian” blurb on the Antarctic Ice Sheet, which you cited (1654), is a classic example of first class scare mongering.
The headline is scary enough (italics by me):
“Climate warning” sounds ominous (“from the deep” brings memories of past “monster from the deep” scare films seen as an impressionable youth, such as “Jaws”). “Scientists” (i.e. really intelligent guys, who obviously know what they are talking about) have been “alerted” (this sounds serious, indeed!) to the “vulnerability” of Earth’s ice sheets (how frightening can it get?).
The article continues:
Here we have it all: “scientists” (those super-smart guys in white coats) warn us of a “disturbing” aspect about Antarctica (who’s “disturbed”? – the penguins or the “scientists”?) that has “critical” implications (sounds pretty grim), which they conclude after having studied bryozoans (huh?), which are described as “prophets of doom” (oh, woe is me!).
Further down we have the obligatory ultimate horror scenario (the scaremonger’s clincher):
Hey! That’s 3 to 5 meters! We are truly all doomed! Break out the lifeboats! (Or, better yet, the shovels.)
Max
Wow Pete……this sentence speaks volumes.
Obvious to whom?
You’re purposely evading the issue…being that not only was Gore responsible for a massive carbon footprint to begin with, he’s increasing it exponentially……all the while preaching from his global warming pulpit that the earth will meet certain catastrophe if another molecule of carbon is produced anthropogentically.
Just how do you plan to “rectify” Gore’s energy consumption? Do you suggest that some sort of environmental Gestapo agency force Al Gore to use less energy or perhaps a government agency limit the amount of properties he is permitted to own?
Should the government confiscate Al Gore’s properties, deeming them more suitable for purposes that benefit the “common good”?
Is it up to you to decide how many private jet trips he is permitted or how many limousines he is permitted to have?
Your “solutions” to the “excessive carbon emission” problem are reminiscent of historically repressive regimes. Your allusions to “rectifying” “big problems” are frightening………in the Stalinist tone that you employ.
BobFJ,
The colloquialism “tard” is an American bastardisation of the root word retarded. (“Turd” may also be suitably substituted).
Max,
Nice try, but Daniel Hannan wasn’t referring to those who accept the scientific argument, and there’s no point in pretending otherwise.
This comment is interesting. ” Mean annual temperature in Helsinki is 5.6 degrees centigrade, in Athens 17.4 degrees, in Rio de Janeiro 26.6 degrees, yet all three cities seem capable of supporting large populations.”
Daniel Hannan is suggesting that 3 or 4 degrees of warming can be successfully adapted to. “Instead of arguing about the evidence”, unlike more hardened climate change deniers, and which he is again intelligent enough to admit a lack of qualification to judge, he’s suggesting at least supposing that there is a chance of the science being correct.
And that’s quite a refreshing suggestion from someone whose political views would normally require him to hold denialist views on AGW, almost as an article of principle.
PeterM
Here is an interesting commentary on the recent IAC report on IPCC by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph (one of your favorite journalists and journals).
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1491-a-cunning-bid-to-shore-up-the-ruins-of-the-ipcc.html
Booker points out that the IAC inquiry was hardly an independent audit to start off with, as it was “jointly commissioned by Dr Pachauri himself and Ban Ki-Moon, the UN’s Secretary General”.
The IAC report was, indeed, ”a cunning bid to shore up the ruins of the IPCC”, as Booker puts it.
In other words: a cleverly concealed internally commissioned white-wash.
Yawn!
Max
Brute,
I’m not sure I understand you at all. You denounce Al Gore as a hypocrite and when I agree with you saying, in effect, that hypocrites are not at all helpful to the scientific argument you rush to his defence.
Can this be a first? A climate change denier siding with Al Gore :-)
PeterM
Regarding Hannan, “if the show fits, wear it”.
Hannan’s observation on trying to fit a new discovery into one’s belief-system and, if it doesn’t fit, questioning the discovery rather than the belief-system fits for the examples I cited like a glove.
It is the old story of the “paradigm” (Thomas Kuhn).
Discoveries which challenge the “mainstream paradigm” (that AGW is a serious potential threat) are questioned critically by the “mainstream paradigm” believers, attempts are made to falsify or ridicule them, blame the measurements or they are simply ignored.
Alfred Wegener had this problem, when he announced his “plate tectonics” theory.
As I pointed out, this is what has happened following Spencer and Braswells’ breakthrough study on physically observed cloud feedbacks.
It has also happened following the current cooling trend of our planet (atmosphere and ocean), despite record CO2 levels; most “mainstream insiders” have simply denied that there is a cool-down, or possibly suggested that it is just “a speed bump”. One notable exception, Kevin Trenberth, has been honest enough (a) to acknowledge that the current cool-down does exist, but that it is a “travesty” (i.e. since the observed “missing heat” falsifies the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis) and (b) to postulate that the missing energy may be radiated into space with clouds acting as a natural thermostat (back to Spencer and Braswell).
Sorry, Peter, Hannan’s observation fits the “mainstream paradigm” believers (probably including you, yourself) perfectly, as anyone can see.
If you cannot see it, this actually serves as good evidence that Hannan’s observation is correct.
Max
Max,
There seems to a slight difference of opinion between the Express who refer to the IAC report with approval and, the Telegraph and the Spectator, who are calling the IAC report a whitewash.
Which makes the Expresses verdict even more puzzling. Do you think they actually read it before dashing off into print? Or do you think they thought the “whitewash” line was just too stale and predictable?
PeterM
You raised questions regarding the various interpretations of the IAC report on IPCC.
Having read the report myself, I’d say your conclusion that the “Express who refer to the IAC report with approval”, probably did not read it that thoroughly.
It was cunningly worded (as Booker noted), so that at first glance one might read it as a stern indictment of the IPCC methods and organization, but, upon closer examination one notices (as Booker put it) that it “tiptoes round a mighty elephant in the room, in order to put over the familiar message: the IPCC has generally ‘served society well’, the science remains unchallenged.”
Since the IAC investigation was commissioned by IPCC and the UN and implemented by friendly scientific groups, which have already openly endorsed the IPCC stand on AGW, it is hardly surprising that it ended up essentially being a “whitewash” (as were the previous inquiries to date).
What is needed here, Peter, is an totally transparent investigation by truly independent and even critical auditors (Christy, McIntyre come to mind), which digs into the substance of the IPCC claims and projections, not an internal whitewash with some token criticisms of procedures and organization.
But I have said all that before (and am only repeating it, since you asked the question regarding the Express).
Max
PeterM and Brute
Your exchange about Gore’s carbon footprint excesses and the appropriate global enforcement agency, which should have the autocratic power to strip Gore of his houses, swimming pools, jets, SUVs etc. to force him to drastically cut his carbon pollution for the common good, is basically a debate concerning the amount of freedom (liberty) an individual should have to decide his own destiny versus the amount of control the government should have to force the individual to act in the interest of the “common good” (as defined by the government)..
As I read it, Brute has no objections to Gore’s carbon excesses per se; he only finds it hypocritical that Gore is at the same time preaching the urgent need for drastic carbon reductions and punitive carbon caps and taxes for everyone else (even worse is the fact that he stands to personally gain millions from carbon trading schemes, should the legislation, which he supports with an expensive PR campaign, be enacted – which, however, looks unlikely at present).
Peter, on the other hand, thinks Gore (and everyone else) should be forced to cut his carbon footprint and to pay exorbitant (direct or indirect) carbon taxes to “save the planet” from an imminent AGW doomsday, whether they believe that this is a real threat or not, since the government (supported by yes-saying scientists, who are, in turn, being funded by the same government to tell them the answers they want to hear) “knows best” what is in the interest of the “common good”. It apparently does not bother him too much that Gore is a self-serving hypocrite, as long as he supports the “good” cause.
Have I summarized this accurately?
If not, what should I correct?
Max
Max,
Yes, you’ve got it right.
Pete on the other hand is intellectually dishonest. He won’t condemn the Al Gores and Bill Gates of the world because they’re “on his team”…….although their “carbon footprint” exceeds that of some small countries.
I on the other hand, could not care less how many houses or private yachts Gore owns/uses…….What I do object to is the blatant hypocrisy and the snobbish “I know better than everyone else” attitude personified by Prince Charles/Mann/Hansen/Pachauri/ Obama/Kerry/Pelosi/Gore/Gates et. al. while they jet around the world in their private Leer jets.
Let’s start by having these fools voluntarily cut back on their “carbon footprints” and go from there.
Pete exclaims that these elitist parasites energy consumption/carbon emissions have no impact on the environment……I’ve asked for an explanation (and as yet, have not received one).
The way I see it, Pete and his lunatic environmental “activists” friends should be picketing outside one of Gore’s (numerous) estates daily until he agrees to live in a 600 square foot bungalow and fly commercial. Otherwise, he can keep his big mouth shut.
Pete’s reaction to my comment regarding Gore’s (and others) energy use is that it doesn’t matter……that their carbon spewing lifestyles don’t contribute to the “greenhouse effect”……On the other hand, Pete wants to demonize Joe average American citizen because he left the porch light on overnight.
It’s crazy……how can anyone take seriously the sanctimonious rantings regarding “excessive consumption” from the Prince of England……the guy lives in (more than one) freakin palace, has a staff of 200 at each one and has the audacity to preach to me that I’m greedy and wasteful?
And the point is, they’re all the same….Rock stars, politicians, movie stars and captains of industry all running around telling us, “the great unwashed”, that we need to sacrifice while they have mouthfuls of caviar and sip $300.00 bottles of wine flown in specially from half way round the world.
You’d think a “crusader” and class warfare bunko artist like Pete would see right through these charlatans….but regrettably he synchophatically praises these idiots with his hero worship and infantile hand wringing “all for the sake of the children” and the “oppressed” polar bears and baby seals.
IT’S A CONFIDENCE SCHEME PETE…….AND THESE GUYS ARE GETTING RICH FROM DUPING USEFUL IDIOTS LIKE YOURSELF.
Brute and Max
We will all be affected equally when carbon rationing comes in.
I wrote about it here.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
It is back on the agenda in the UK Parliament and also the EU are moving towards a personal limit. Al Gore will of course be able to trade carbon credits to mitigate his consumption that he can purchase from his own Washington and London registered Carbon trading companies.
tonyb
Tonyb,
I (respectfully) disagree. The Al Gores of the world will purchase their way out through bribery, collusion and political cronyism.
The average guy won’t be as well connected and will be forced to live under the fascist dictates that Al Gore and his ilk (with useful idiots like Peter Martin cheering them along) have imposed.
By the way, I saw (your?) write up over @ WUWT. It was your stuff…….correct?
Haven’t had time to read it yet.
Sorry Tony………I got myself worked up with the idiocy of it (the global warmist agenda)before I realized that I was simply reiterating what you’ve already concluded in post #1668.
Has anyone checked into Maurice Strong’s “carbon footprint” or his political/financial agenda?
Max,
Are we discussing the same article by Daniel Hannan here? I’ll just give the link again so we can be sure.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100050950/so-should-conservatives-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/
You’ll know I don’t agree with him on much, but at least he’s showing some intelligence in his approach.
Have you nothing to say about it? Or are you happy enough prattling on about what you’d wished he’d said, rather than what he actually said?
Brute 1670
I was being ironic. The elite will always live by different rules whether they are pop stars or politicians. its the ordinary people who as usual will be most affected and have to deal with carbon rationing
Yes, that is my article. It demonstates just a few of the hundreds of places around the world that aren’t warming and also the intriguing natural cycle that the IPCC do not factor into their computer models.
tonyb
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that the ‘independent’ investigations into climategate netted the chairman of one of the enquiries £40,000. Paid for by the University he was investigating.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/holyrood-fiasco-peer-s-40k-for-chairing-climategate-review-1.1052947
Tonyb
Tonyb,
Yes, I agree………which is why it is all the more confounding when someone such as Pete, who professes to be an advocate of the downtrodden, defends them.
I see, the defendant bought the judge/jury.
Even “science” is for sale these days……I certain that there is some sort of legitamate explanation from the warmist camp…..”everyone is doing it” or “that’s how scince works”……..pathetic.