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.
ALL: Further to my 2249, (proposal to massively cut water allocation to farmers) and 2030/p14 (ironic possibly premature expenditures on desalination plant etc.,) and 2221 (severe droughts are not unprecedented).
Here are a couple of interesting graphs:
Melbourne water storages: Blue = 2008; Green = 2009; Black = 2010 to October 13.
It will be interesting to see the results of run-off in a week or so. It has been peeing down here all day, and I even found a leak through the ceiling.
The ENSO and stuff:
See WUWT article for more info, including the Indian Ocean thingy that is also associated with higher southern Oz rainfall
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/the-la-nina-has-strengthened/#more-26373
Max, WRT your wager with wotsisname, I think I remember that a cold winter is forecast for 2010 in the UK. Seems to me that the La Nina implies a cold global average for 2011 somewhat like 2008.
Max, Reur list of credible scientists and meteorologists, (the latter branch of science being well acquainted with the frailty of weather modelling, amongst other things, such as an acute awareness of important regional variations that are mostly brushed aside by “climate scientists“):
Have you seen this concerning a revolt by 43 members of the Royal Society?:
Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics
Wednesday, 29 September 2010 22:09 Ben Webster, The Times
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-bows-to-climate-change-sceptics.html
Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.
The Royal Society is publishing a new document today after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows who questioned mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures…
There have of course also been various letters from groups of concerned scientists to various institutions although I‘ve lost track of them.
I think the RS reference is fairly strong for my complaint to the ABC. Perhaps also pointing out that it only needs ONE dissenter to change a paradigm (consensus view). For example there was the lone voice of Alfred Wegener on recognising the FACTS on tectonics… need I elaborate?
PS, it’s still peeing down without a break, NE suburb! How am I going to persuade the dogs to go outside and also have a pee?
‘Am having an early glass of Shiraz, (~2:50 pm) and have switched the amazing non dimmable energy saving lights on!
ALL:
Oh, and apart from “Melbourne” water storages (ten reservoirs), the much bigger Victorian regional system looks like this, (currently containing about ten Sydarbs) as of end AUGUST, before the recent big spring rains:
BTW, a Sydarb (aka Sydharb or Sydney harbour) is about 560 GL (560 billion litres)
I have often expressed my frustration here over the absurd importance we attach to co2 when there are far more important things to worry about, from the continued supply of energy through to another Carrington event or cyber terrorism attack.
Until recently I felt I was almost a lone voice on the two latter concerns, but in recent months there has been a much greater level of interest in these subjects from our new Govt who described the effects of such problems as having the potential to throw us back to the ‘Dark ages’.
Peter may waffle and try to minimise the effects as much as he wants but one of the worlds foremost surveillance centres -GCHQ in Britain- have also now expressed their alarm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/8063120/Cyber-guards-or-soldiers-which-do-we-need-most.html
I can only assume this recent concern has come about because when a new govt is elected they are presented with a security dossier. Consequently they have access to top secret information they may not previously have been aware of.
Whilst it still talk rather than action it is gratifying to see the concerns over a man made (cyber terrorism) or natural (another Carrington event) disaster are moving up the political agenda.
I suspect that if we weren’t so obsessed with CO2 this subject would get the time, attention, and resources it warrants.
tonyb
Bob
Your namesake has no formal training in climate sciences but a degree in geology. He is a competent journalist and an agressive PR Man.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/WhosWho/Institute%20Staff/BobWard.aspx
He is also an activist and as have seen, when you have such people they have closed minds and won’t listen to anyone else in the certainty they are right.
The BBC is now having to present a more balanced view of climate change and hopefully the ABC will be forced to follow suit.
tonyb
Peter often cites climate material from Wikipedia as the irrefutable truth of what he says. Then he wonders why we all complain that he should use such a discredited source.
After months of threating to do the deed William Connolley-the gatekeeper- has finally been comprehensively banned from Wikipedia for a astonishing series of misdemeanours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29
It all worth reading but gets interesting from the section ‘sock puppetry’ onwards and then the various series of bans are mentioned from 5.1 onwards.
Wikipedia is the first source of reference for many with limited knowledge of the climate debate so I hope they will take note that it has been thoroughly manipulated over the years by the co founder of Real Climate.
Bearing in mind that Science Daily appears to have done the same, (certainly on sea levels) perhaps Peter would stop quoting from these sources on climate related material?
tonyb
TonyB,
So, you don’t like Wikipedia’s AGW line? No surprises there then!
Are there any other topics on which you feel Wiki have it wrong? Or is it just AGW?
Peter
Please read the links before passing comment. I have also cited you previously an item I wrote on Connolley.
Parts of the Wiki climate section has been systematically and deliberately manipulated by him. Many people use it as a reliable source on the subject-it isn’t. That is not to say that every part of Wiki -or indeed every part of the climate pages- have been altered, but a medium like this is open to abuse.
You see it as well when biographies are changed here.
I also cited Science daily and their sea level article. THe BBC also are not averse to putting their own slant on things.
There is an interesting article out there to be written entitled;
“Who can we trust?’ This relates to the mdeia, individuals and the information they provide. For example SST’s are extremely limited in extent, numbers, and time. Yet they are used by a govt agency, Hadley, to calculate temperature profiles.
Sea levels are not put into context in IPCC AR4. Chapter five merely cites two paragraphs on the history and omits to mention there have been two higher levels in historic times.
I can’t think of any other science- only a post normal one such as climate-that would accept such a low level of data as being factual.
tonyb
Anthony Watts is a meteorologist and creator of the 2008 Weblog Best Science Blog award-winning site Watt’s Up With That? (WUWT). Watts operates IntelliWeather, a weather technology and content business, which specializes in weather measurement technology and provides weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions. He initiated the Surface Stations project, which has done a quality audit and rating for almost all of the 1221 weather stations in the USHCN network.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
PeterM
Do you really want to talk about lists rather than try to defend the flawed science behind the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis?
If so, please provide your list of Pachauri’s 2,500 pro-AGW “scientists” (actually, I’ll be happy if you only have 800 names of meteorologists or scientists on your list, instead of the full 2,500 claimed by Pachauri).
If you are unable to do this, let’s switch to discussing the “science”, as I have been suggesting for quite some time now.
Max
TonyB and PeterM
Getting rid of William Connolley as Wiki “gatekeeper” and “censor” of all input relating to AGW was a major event, which may enable Wiki to become a reliable source of information on this topic (which it has not been for years, as a result of Connolley).
Whether Wiki will seize the opportunity to become an unbiased and objective source of data on AGW or will simply continue Connolley’s one-sided analysis and presentation of the data with a new “gatekeeper” is yet to be seen.
I’ll not hold my breath – there’s just too much garbage to be thrown out and to be replaced for this to happen very quickly, even if Wiki wants to become a neutral, objective source of data related to AGW, which, itself, is still unclear.
Max
TonyB and PeterM
Back to Wiki
To the question “Is Wikipedia a reliable source?”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100902120209AAK3qap
The Best Answer (Chosen by Asker) was from a poster named BillM:
I don’t know about the “anti-Semitic” part, but I would agree with BillM regarding his conclusion that “global warming alarmists” (incl. Connolley) had taken over. I have not seen any articles by “non-alarmists”, though – Connolley has done a good job censoring these out, as far as I can see. Have either of you seen evidence of bias by “non-alarmists” in Wiki?
Max
Max,
You’re saying that Anthony Watts has no formal qualifications and no scientific papers to his name?
I didn’t think he had.
Max and TonyB,
So you’re saying that Wiki is correct on everything but AGW?
What about Encycopaedia Brittanica? I’m sure they’ve kept bad guys William Connolley well away from having any input into their pages :-)
Do you think they’ve made a better job?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming
PeterM
The SCIENCE, Peter – not silly discussions about “Anthony Watts”.
If you cannot defend the scientific basis behind your “dangerous AGW” postulation with empirical data, so be it. I can understand.
But if you truly believe you can show empirical evidence to support your premise scientifically, please do so.
I would first ask you to explain to me how the fact that our planet (atmosphere plus ocean) has cooled over the past several years despite record levels of CO2 is compatible with the hypothesis that a doubling of CO2 should cause 3.2C warming.
Then I would ask you to explain to me how the physically observed strong net negative feedback from clouds with warming (Spencer et al.) is compatible with an assumed strongly overall positive feedback which should allegedly lead to a tripling of the GH warming expected from a doubling of CO2.
Answer these two questions satisfactorily based on actual empirical data, Peter, if you can.
Otherwise it is clear to me that you have no sound empirical scientific basis for your “dangerous AGW” postulation, and it is simply based on hypothetical deliberations, model simulations and hot air.
The ball is in your court, Peter.
Max
In UK schools pupils are taught at an early age how to use Wiki for reference and study, in fact it is a first stop reference for these youngsters.
http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/scottish-teacher-encourages-pupils-to-use-unreliable-wikipedia-2221/
Peter said;
“So you’re saying that Wiki is correct on everything but AGW?’
Peter, do stop twisting words, I said exactly the opposite on #2258. Wiki has its uses but using it as a reliable source of climate information is not one of them. This is due to the deliberate and agressive manipulation of the information which has caused this ban on the co founder of Real Climate.
Due to Wiki’s preeminence as an online source of free articles it is widely used by those who believe that its entries on climate are wholly factual and unbiased.
Tonyb
bobclive
Nice link. Peter would do well to study this advice mentioned in the article.
“He suggests teachers and pupils study the “discussion”, “source” and “history” tabs on the website.
The discussion tab will show the youngsters how much debate goes into reaching a compromise when changing disputed facts.”
tonyb
My Older children were told by their science teachers to always back up science information with another source if they originally got it from Wiki, although there was the odd exception. I have noticed a shift in teachers at school with my two kids I still have at school reporting there is a lot less mention of “Climate Change” than in previous years. I think this is down to teachers being a little more circumspect, especially when they have to face the question my kids are able to fire at them.
Generally though amongst the children there is still complete indifference to what is happening in the adult world, so all the government propaganda has done very little to mould attitudes. The mistake educationalists are making is that they forget to reinforce basic understanding and trot out to much information that requires knowledge to comprehend. If our youngsters don’t have that comprehension they just parrot out the answers or worse still ignore the whole subject, as I see happening far too often.
PeterM
Thanks for link to Britannia on global warming.
Britannia cites the AR4 IPCC report as the principal source of its information and pretty much quotes the overall IPCC “party line”, but leaves out the alarm and hysteria. As a result of heavy reliance on IPCC, its report is very weak on the impact of natural forcing factors (ENSO, PDO, etc. are mentioned briefly, as is solar forcing):
[This is in keeping with the IPCC statement that its “level of scientific understanding” of natural forcing including solar is “low”.]
Like IPCC, Britannia spends more time on anthropogenic forcing.
[All of the above comes directly from IPCC AR4.]
Britannia discusses feedbacks, again essentially repeating IPCC on water vapor, clouds, albedo, etc., and then tells us:
[This also checks with the IPCC statement, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.]
Strangely, no mention is made of the Spencer et al. study, which was published after AR4, and which showed an observed strongly negative net feedback from clouds, thereby clearing up the large uncertainty. Nor is the recent study by Wyant et al. using superparameterization to more closely estimate the impact of clouds than old models were able to do, which also showed that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative. There is also no mention of the recent observations of satellite data by Lindzen and Choi, which also showed an overall net negative feedback with surface warming. It is likely that this new information was ignored because it had nor been included in IPCC AR4, Britannia’s principal source of information.
So Britannia again just repeats what is stated in AR4 (but with a bit less implied certainty):
Strangely, I could not find any reference to the cosmic ray / cloud hypothesis of Svensmark et al., which is now being tested at CERN (but IPCC also skips over this quite superficially).
To the impacts of global warming, Britannia quotes IPCC but strangely does differ a bit on tropical cyclones:
All in all, Britannia gives a slightly toned down “rehash” of IPCC findings as reported in AR4, so is nothing new. It refrains from hysterical predictions of “tipping points” leading to “irreversible” changes in our climate, sea level rise “measured in meters”, etc. (Hansen hyperbole).
Its data is a bit outdated. There is no mention of the recent cooling of the atmosphere (surface as well as troposphere) after 2000, or the cooling of the upper ocean since ARGO measurements replaced the old inaccurate XBT devices in 2003. But, the again,this cooling of the planret (Trenberth’s “travesty”) has all occurred since IPCC AR4.
Britannia leaves the door open to new findings (such as those mentioned above) and expresses a higher degree of uncertainty than either IPCC (or Wikipedia did, under its former climate data “gatekeeper”, William Connolley).
That’s my take on the Britannia coverage you cited, Peter.
Max
Max and Peter
Here is an academic study on the (non)accuracy of Wikipedia articles. I’m afraid it comes out very badly which is no surprise to anyone here but Peter. Most of it is behind a pay wall.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1674221&show=abstract
By the way Connoley has reregistered himself as WMC so we will have to see whether he still retains an influence. Bearing in mind his previous important position you do wonder if the data he collected is entirely trustworthy bearing in mind his recent track record (5000 alterations of wiki items)
tonyb
TonyB and PeterM
OK.
We have concluded that Wikipedia has not given us an unbiased, “balanced” view on AGW, probably principally as a result of censorship of data by its former “gatekeeper” on AGW data, William Connolley, who is (fortunately) now gone. “Good riddance” for Wiki, I’d say,
Britannia gives us a slightly different view, which is still heavily influenced by the IPCC “party line” but avoids the “alarm” expressed by Wikipedia or the outright “hysteria” expressed by Hansen.
Can we all conclude that this is the status and move on to the more pertinent question concerning the “science” behind the postulation that AGW has been the primary cause of 20th century warming and represents a serious potential future threat (as Peter appears to believe)?
This is the key issue, gentlemen.
Max
Peter Geany
Children blindly “parroting” what they are taught in school is nothing new (Third Reich, USSR, etc). Fortunately, there’s not too much of that going on in Switzerland today.
But I am glad to hear from you that teachers are becoming “a little more circumspect” than in previous years when it comes to brainwashing their pupils concerning “Climate Change”.
My kid are grown today, but I firmly believe that it is up to parents to keep their kids informed on issues such as “global warming”, so that they are not brainwashed by teachers, who may have an ulterior motive.
Hats off to you!
Max
TonyN, I’m not sure which thread to post this in, as it’s not directly about the climate but about energy and the EU:
If we have another colder-than-usual winter this year, these mini incandescent “heatballs” may prove a hit!
Alex Cull
Just shows that silly bureaucratic rules get circumvented by ingenious individuals.
Switzerland (not in the EU) apparently does not yet have this ban on “heatballs”, but maybe I should stock up – the local “Farmers Almanac” tells me it’s going to be another cold winter (despite PeterM’s prognosis).
Max
Have we really concluded that Wiki doesn’t give us a balanced view? Sure, the way Wiki works means that there will always be some minor mistakes in there. In fact you can’t assume any source to be completely mistake free ( even the IPCC !) and independent checking is always a good scientific procedure.
So, why is saying that you agree, at least fundamentally, with Wiki, or indeed Encyclopaedia Brittanica too, on everything else apart from climate change “twisting” your words? Minor mistakes aside, what else is there that you disagree with? The Earth being spherical? The Earth being several billion years old? The origin of species is by Evolution rather than creation? HIV and AIDs are directly connected?
Don’t be coy about this. Please give some examples and explain yourself properly!