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.
Peter was correct all along. Check out this temperature graph of Greenland published by Jimmie Hansen at GISS.
Pete,
I already have lots of ammunition………
I saw the advertising campaign regarding 10:10. Very clever Pete……certain to win over loads of converts to your new found religion.
Tell me……those that refuse to “submit” are “dealt with” in the manner displayed in the video……..but what of the people that aren’t perceived as “doing enough”?
I suppose incrementally those that fail to follow the ever increasing demands of environmentalist doctrine will be “dealt with” in a similar fashion…………
Very funny………A real knee slapper Pete.
You should be proud of your fellow environmentalists and be pleased to be included in such an “enlightened” group.
Pete,
Guess when this was published………
You remember that “worst drought” in Oz for 1,000 years, (my Victoria being the worst affected state)?
If no image click: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4126/5048837157_532706e476_b.jpg
And, ironically:
Desalination plant to cost us, even if no water is produced
UPDATE 10.48am: HOUSEHOLDS will face ballooning water bills with the cost of the controversial desalination plant hitting a whopping $5.72 billion.
[Victorian] Water Minister Tim Holding has been forced to admit the final cost may be closer to $15.8 billion by the time the contract runs out in 2037.
And it will be Melbourne households slugged with the overruns through high bills with Melbourne Water ratepayers facing payments of up to $370 a year for the plant – not including the cost of the water.
Oh, and also ironically, they have had to immobilise the just commissioned water pipe from up north to the Sugerloaf Reservoir, because it was 96% full, (on 30 Sept) but that only cost about $1 billion, so far.
Both schemes generated a great deal of hostility
Brute,
I think your latest objection can be classed as “they
said it was cooling in the 70’s”. “They”, it now seems, were mainly the writers of op-eds who were looking out for a story:
See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Certainly the position was less certain, then, but even so most climatologists of the time were aware that conditions were warmer than they’d been in previous centuries.
In any case, and like everything else, knowledge has progressed since then. Wouldn’t you agree?
Here’s one for Max here about his frequent misinterpretation of Trenberth:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
Was the 10:10 video in bad taste? I’d say ‘yes it was’ but I asked my kids and they thought it was funny and made a point well.
Should it have been made? I’d have advised against it but my kids would disagree.
Does it change the Science of Global warming either way? No. My kids and I do agree on that!
Max, Reur 2004 on the “sixth great species extinction“:
Well yes, but according to current popular understanding of the principles laid out by Charles Darwin; whenever there is a vacated ecological niche, it will inevitably become occupied by new species or what were formerly described as rare species.
I have a feeling, (based on some rather strong evidence), that maybe within the next decade, a new humanoid that I propose to describe as “Homo Frosticus” and/or, possibly a sub-species “Homo Non-Erectus”, will emerge to dominate the religious climate domain for no more than one generation.
After all, what we don’t hear much about are the facts of constant discovery of new species, most of which are immediately placed on the endangered list because they have been discovered in relatively small regions. (and BTW may have been infected with disease by their discoverers such as happened long ago with South American Indians?)
Here is JUST ONE of many demonstrations of fauna species discovery:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6058.htm
EXTRACT from one tab:
Michael Tyler AO is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was winner of the Michael Daley Eureka Prize for the Promotion of Science in 1997. He has published 23 books and more than 350 scientific papers. Among his many contributions to herpetology he has described 65 new frog species or genera, and reported the first fossil frog from Australia. He is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at The University of Adelaide, Honorary Associate at the South Australian Museum and Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Applied Herpetology.
Peter 2031
I have given you numerous original links in the past demonstrating that the global cooling scare was real, but here you are bringing up the old chestnut yet again and quoting the same discredited sources.
Here once again is the CIA document from the time.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Also the various top scientists of the time were convinced of it. I suggest you read the Hubert Lamb books of the period-he was constantly referring to the various studies that demonstrated its reality.
tonyb
The CIA is not a scientific organisation.
Hubert Lamb and others were predicting that the Earth would eventually drift back into a glacial maximum. For the last one million years they have been occurring every 100k years. The last one was 20k years ago so it would be reasonable to predict that we’ll get another in 80k years time. Who knows? But they may yet be correct!
PeterM
Looks like (2032) you’ve got your kids well brainwashed to think like Papa does. Congrats.
I’m not so worried about the 10:10 video being “in bad taste” (or non-PC). Nor have I given much though to whether or not it was “funny” (in a childish sort of way).
I just believe that it was unbelievably stupid (as do most people from all sides, based on the Guardian site blogger comments), and that it revealed the dark, intolerant side of the AGW-activist movement to “think as I do or get eliminated”).
And I further believe that those trying to sell the 10:10 message (who also say they believe that AGW has killed 300,000 people to date) have revealed their own utter stupidity by both the silly video as well as this absurd belief. That’s all.
What do you think? Was it utterly stupid or not?
Max
Peter 2035
Your complete absence of critical facilities has meant that once again you have not read the link. Read the summary first-which will take ten seconds of your life.
This is a proper scientfic study that was the pre cursor of the IPCC. The material references many of the great and the good of climate science and their institutions.
You can not just brush it under the carpet-this WAS the thinking at the time.
Hubert Lamb and the numerous studies cited in the CIA document were talking about recent evidence, not some hypothetical slippage back into another ice age in thousands of years time. Much of this material was then featured in Lambs Book ‘Climate History and the Modern World,’ and other papers he and others wrote
at the time.
tonyb
PeterM
You write (2035):
True. Neither is the IPCC. Both just gather scientific data to make prognoses.
Then you add:
Some say that a real full-blown Ice Age (with temperature 6 to 8C colder than today) could come quite a bit sooner, but that there could also be several mini-ice ages such as the LIA (with temperature 1 to 2C colder than today) in between.
One source tells us
http://essayweb.net/geology/quicknotes/iceage.shtml
So I would agree with you that the future is anyone’s guess. I’d add that a myopic fixation on AGW alone (as IPCC has taken) will not give us any real answers.
In hindsight, it is also clear today that the concerns by climate scientists in the 1970s of an upcoming LIA (the “global cooling scare”, to which TonyB refers) were also incorrect (or maybe simply off by 30-40 years?).
Max
PeterM
Knowledge, perhaps. Scientific rigour, not at all.
Bob_FJ
Thanks for your learned dissertation on new thoughts regarding the popular understanding of the principles laid out by Charles Darwin.
The 1997 book by Jared Diamond of UCLA, Los Angeles, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies tells the story of the near extinction of the South American Indians (and several less spectacular examples).
You suggest that [after the extinction of “Homo Globothermotremblinsins”]
This sub-species has actually existed as a rare species since the 1970s, but it was almost forced into extinction by “Homo Globothermotremblinsins”, who became the dominant player in the religious climate domain for several decades. “Homo Australoglobothermotremblinsisns”, which is known to exist in the Queensland region, is an important, if somewhat rare, sub-sub-species of H.G.
And I would agree with you that even if H.F. does now emerge to fill the ecological niche vacated by the demise of H.G. it will not be more than a decade before he, too, begins to become extinct and a new sub-species will emerge.
The only species that seems dominant and invincible is “Homo Scareandtaxus”, who will benefit in symbiosis with both of these transient sub-species, relying on a parasitic relationship with “Homo Taxpayerus” for his own nourishment as well as that of his symbiotic partners.
Max
PeterM
You cited John Cook’s rationalization (on the pro-DAGW blog site “Skeptical Science”) of “what he [Trenberth] really meant” when he stated that the currently observed “lack of warming” (i.e. global cooling) was a “travesty” and added (2031):
Cook’s rationalization is blatantly contrived and plainly ridiculous, Peter. Let me show you why.
The Trenberth mail reads:
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048
This sentence is very easy to understand without a long rationalization (or misrepresentation) from some bloke named John Cook.
Trenberth himself has said in an interview regarding the “missing energy” (bold face by me):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
In summary:
· Recent observations (atmosphere plus upper ocean) tell us the planet is cooling
· We can’t account for this and “it is a travesty that we can’t”
· The “missing energy” is “probably going back out into space”
· Clouds can act as a “natural thermostat”, to “either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet”, but we can’t measure this today
Seems pretty clear to me (even if John Cook – and possibly Peter Martin – may still be struggling with it).
Max
Max,
If you don’t like the IPCC, if they aren’t scientific enough for you, then I suggest you take your scientific input from the US National Academy of Sciences. Or maybe you think they don’t know what they are talking about either?
If you disagree with John Cook’s interpretation of Kevin Trenberth’s remarks, you must be disagreeing with Kevin Trenberth’s interpretation of Kevin Trenberth’s remarks too! They are both saying pretty much the same thing. See:
http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14167354
So, either Keith Trenberg knows what he’s talking about or, if he doesn’t, his remarks aren’t worth discussing anyway.
Incidentally, on the subject of people not knowing what they are talking about and the futility of trying to reason with those who either can’t or won’t understand, then I do wish I could take my own advice at times!
PeterM
You are again flogging a dead horse in again bringing up John Cook’s interpretation of Trenberth’s remarks (which I quoted directly). They do not need an “interpretation”, Peter, as they are crystal clear.
Just read them. They simply tell us that our planet has cooled recently, that we (Trenberth et al.) “can’t account for this”, that this is “a travesty”, that the missing energy “is probably going back out into space”, that “the Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds”, but that “we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period”.
Now if that isn’t clear to you, I can’t help you.
Cook was apparently confused (or maybe he just didn’t want to understand these very straightforward statements, since they conflicted with his ingrained “dangerous AGW” belief system).
Who knows the reason for his confusion?
Who even cares?
Max
Peter,
Regarding the global cooling hypothesis of the 1970’s, once again, your histrionic personality has overtaken any semblance of reasoned, rational thought.
The same groups that were prognosticating a new ice age 35 years ago are the very same that are predicting that the earth will become Venus today………The National Academy of Sciences, NASA and NOAA.
The politicians of today have latched onto “the sky is falling” fear mongering in order to justify their legislative agenda and you’ve been duped into believing it.
The same charlatans that were selling “miracle”, “free” electricity in 1975 have resurfaced and are peddling their junk to every unsuspecting rube based on junk science provided by the National Academy of Science, NASA and NOAA, et al…………speculations and “maybes” of future climactic catastrophes funded by handouts from the taxpayers to pad their pension funds long enough to fund their cushy retirements…………
I did say that I thought the 10:10 campaign had gone a little too far with its suggestion of blowing up deniers. Certainly I would have a bit of a problem with the kids, and Gillian Anderson who isn’t even a denier anyway.
It really shouldn’t go any further than people like James Delingpole, Christopher Monckton, Jeremy Clarkson and that Snr Inhofe guy. Oh Maybe Sarah Palin and Anthony Watts too. I’ll have to make an effort to stop this! Once I get going, I find it just so hard to not just add one or two more names. Like Ian Plimer and Bob Carter and that Joanna Nova woman!
No really that’s definitely it. At least for now. If you are worried that you might be included, send me your details and, if you are ever put on death row, I promise to do what I can to get you sent to re-education camps instead :-)
They aren’t the least bit “scientific”………they ARE politicians………
Brute #2044
Peter seems to have back pedalled now on ‘denying’ the global cooling scare. I assume he was old enough to remember it first time round so shouldn’t really need to be reminded of what the scientists wwere saying at the time, as referenced in that CIA document my #2034
tonyb
PeterM
You opined (2042) that I do not like the IPCC. This is incorrect.
I do not “like” (or “dislike”) the IPCC, per se. Nor do I “like (or “dislike”) the CIA, for that matter.
I simply stated that the IPCC “is not a scientific organization” (as you stated also for the CIA).
Both organizations have their strengths and weaknesses and have had their ups and downs.
The CIA got a lot of flak regarding its WMD claims in 2001, which turned out to be flawed and skewed to arrive at a false conclusion (due to political pressure to provide support for a proposed agenda?). Its director was eventually forced to resign as a result.
The IPCC is getting a lot of flak today regarding its AGW claims, which have also turned out to be flawed and skewed to arrive at a false conclusion (due to political pressure to provide support for a proposed agenda?). Its chairman will most likely also be forced to resign as a result.
Quite a bit of similarity there, Peter.
Can you see this (or are you blinded by your dislike of the CIA and/or your admiration for the IPCC)?
Max
From the Skeptical Science piece:
Of course. As with Holy Scriptures, they are far too deep to be taken at face value – they have to be interpreted, preferably by someone who claims to know better than the original author what was meant.
Curiously, the more they charge for this service, the more infallible they are thought to be, and the greater the punishment for dissenters.
I see a commenter even says that he didn’t really mean to use the word ‘travesty’, either. Poor man, it seems he didn’t know what he was saying at all!
PeterM
Thanks for your 2045. Pol Pot would be proud of you His “revolution of radical egalitarianism, agrarian collectivism and cleansing of dissidents” seems to suit you.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to call you a “crank and zealot”, just because you want to cleanse or exterminate some folks that have spoken out in disagreement with your personal version of the DAGW “party line”.
That would be going too far. Right?
Max