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,
And the poison words for AICC deniers would have to be “hockey” & “stick” ?
PeterM
You asked:
I agree fully. But the word “shtick” probably fits better.
shtick also schtick or shtik
n. Slang
1. A characteristic attribute, talent, or trait that is helpful in securing recognition or attention: waiters in tropical attire are part of the restaurant’s shtick.
2. An entertainment routine or gimmick
3. A trick used for example by a swindler to deceive or a pickpocket to divert attention
Max
PS What is AICC?
Absurdly Imagined Climatic Cataclysm
Anthropogenic Irreversible Climate Catastrophe
Agonizingly Ignorant Climate Conjecture
[or here’s one for Brute]
Agitprop Intstigated Communist Complot
PPS How about the “science” Peter (2282/2295)? Cat got your tongue?
I know if I call you a climate change denier you’ll just say that the climate has always chnaged and you aren’t denying that. Anthropogenically Induced Climate Change Denier is a bit of a chore to write so
AICC denier is a bit easier
Maybe it should be a:
A Denier of Induced Climate Change? or A DICC for short?
PeterM
OK. Thanks for clearing me up regarding your new abbreviation for those who are “Rationally And Scientifically Skeptical Of The Postulation That AGW Is A Serious Threat To Humanity Or Our Planet” (agree that is easier to remember than RASSOTPTAGWIADTTHOOP).
But “Denier of Induced Climate Change” misses the point. Few people deny that humans can induce some level of local or possibly even regional climate change, such as creating urban heat islands, for example. Draining swamps, building dams or dikes, changing land use, clearing forests are other human actions, which can cause local changes in climate.
What most skeptics have difficulty swallowing is the empirically unsubstantiated premise that humans are causing dangerous global changes to our climate. Many of these have concluded that the “dangerous AGW” premise is based on pseudoscientific evidence and represents irrational thinking.
So how about GRASP IT (Group of Rational Agnostics Skeptical of Pseudoscientific Irrational Thinking)?
I like this a bit better than your suggested DICC, for the reasons stated.
But how about getting back to the “science” Peter (2282/2295)?
Is there some reason that you are afraid or otherwise reluctant to discuss the science behind your “dangerous AGW” postulation?
All I want to see is which points we can agree on, before we start debating those on which we disagree.
Am I asking too much, Peter?
Max
The UK Govt announced today that attacks from cyber terrorism are being elevated to the first rank of threats against the UK
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/96554
This is something we have debated here, with Peter seeming to think its a limited threat, but now it is part of Govt defence policy hopefully it will alert people that this sort of thing (together with another Carrington event) is a much greater threat than that from the supposed dangers of CAGW caused by carbon dioxide.
That the govt might be packpedalling on their concern over this magic gas comes with the news that the Severn barrage tidal scheme has been cancelled. This is a key plank of their renewable energy policy and may divert their attention to the urgent need for more grown up power station using coal or nuclear.
In this respect green energy should have a part to play, but not as a major source of unreliable and expensive power.
(Ps Peter-this link source was chosen for you) :)
tonyb
Max,
“other subjects you continually try to evade.” What are these then? I think we’ve covered all possible scientific arguments in the last couple of years. Have you come up with a new one? Looking at your 2282 which mentions Sea Ice , the UHIE, clouds etc, I’d say not. We’ve done all these topics to death.
TonyB is not just trying to evade. He’s adopted the tactic of point blank refusing to answer a simple question. The question as put in 2257, 2275, 2288 & 2299. What’s the problem?
Hello Peter.
Your #2306
Your behaviour is starting to verge on the bizarre when you keep asking me a trivial question I have repeatedly answered already, whilst you refuse to deal with the science, which after all is the purpose of this blog.
Your 2257 was answered fully in my 2258.
You didn’t list your #2263-perhaps you forgot about it? But I answered it with my #2266
Your 2275 was not addressed to anyone and merely seemed to be one of your increasingly frequent rambling comments.
You repeated it in 2288 obviously believing in your mind it was important to someone.
I remarked on your not addressing it to anyone in my 2289 and as I’m not a mind reader had not realised it was anything more than a passing comment
You ‘apologised’ in your 2290
I answered it comprehensively again in 2297.
You repeated it in 2299 which didn’t need answering as I had already answered it ad infinitum. Now you are repeating it again in 2306 claiming I hadn’t answered you!
You are making yourself look very foolish Peter. Just read the replies including the one you obviously missed.
How is answering your question numerous times trying to evade it? Do you want a 20 page article on the subject or something?
Do stop talking nonsense and get back to the science. Max has enumerated the outstanding matters once again. Perhaps you missed it?
Perhaps your #2299 is your answer and you feel unable to deal with the questions as you are not a climate scientist?
Tonyb
PeterM
Your 2306 shows me that you are evading a discussion of the “science” supporting your “dangerous AGW” postulation.
It appears that you are uncertain.
I have listed 14 points on which I believe from past exchanges that we agree, and have asked you to confirm this so we can move on to other topics, but you hesitate to do this very simple thing.
From this I can only conclude that you are either afraid to discuss the “science” supporting your belief because you know that it is flawed or you are simply a politically motivated phony, who doesn’t understand anything about science, despite claiming to be a physicist.
Which is it, Peter?
Are you afraid?
Or are you simply a phony?
Don’t be afraid, Peter. If you are not a phony, let’s discuss “science” and start by establishing the points on which we agree.
If you are a phony, so be it. I’m just wasting my time in that case.
Max
PeterM
Let me remind you that you wrote:
My “true motivation” is “genuinely scientific”, Peter.
So let’s start the “detailed debate about scientific issues”.
Start off be replying to my 14 points (2282).
Max
I think we’ve already covered the topics in your 2282.
The problem is that you feel that AGW is all a hoax. Its a put up job directed by politicians to raise taxes.
Whatever the merits , or otherwise, of that argument, its political rather than scientific.
TonyB, (and Max)
You are still not answering the question. I accept that you don’t accept Wiki as a reliable source of climate information. Your stated reason is the influence of William Connolley – but if that were the case you’d accept EB’s entry on AGW! But do you? I think not.
So, is there anything else besides AGW that you have a fundamental problem with in either Wiki or EB? I don’t mean minor errors. Even Roy Spencer owns up to them from time to time! As far as I can tell you don’t. So, why do you think they are both fundamentally wrong on climate change but nothing else?
Peter #2311
You at last seem to realise that I have previously replied to you.
I have no opinion whatsoever on EB as I never use it-you’d better ask Max about that.
Our discussion was purely about Wiki which has been substantially altered in his image by Connolley to suit his agenda to the extent that he has been banned.
This material is a concern to me as so many people-including you- reference it in the belief that it is wholly factual.
Wiki has a reputation for being flaky on controversial history and some biographies. People like to impose their pet views on others it seems but hopefully new procedures will help to prevent that.
Now do get back to the subject of this blog and answer Max’s 2309 which encompasses many points we have been asking you for ages. A proper reply to the cfc study would also be good as I thought this would be right up your street.
tonyb
TonyB,
So you think that Wiki’s line is, or has been , totally determined by Willian Connolly? I gave you the link to EB so you could see the two. There is really very little if any difference between EB and Wiki.
You should have an opinion about all sources, if you claim to be genuinely interested in AGW. EB would be the next one to look at if you’ve got doubts about Wiki.
If you would like one that you might agree with you might want to take a look at one written from a “conservative viewpoint”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming
However, they have problems with Evolution:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
and seem to believe in the literal truth of Noah’s Ark too!
It has occurred to me that if those who might agree with Conservapedia’s world view might consider that AGW is the most pressing issue at present. They might well want to keep quiet or even deny all this Noah’s Ark stuff! Certainly all the one I cross swords with assure me in the strongest possible terms that they are rational sceptics and believe in all normal science except of course on AGW. But should I believe them?
Peter #2313
You do have this knack of finding right wing blogs that no one here will have ever heard of. It bears no relationship to Wiki which is the primary source of information for many people and has been tampered, with hence the ban. It was all in the links I cited.
I think we already discussed this Peter, and as far as I can see I probably agree with all the mainstream theories you do, except CAGW. Why shouldn’t I?
The reason I dont believe in CAGW is that I researched it after believing what I was told for years. The first asessment crystalised the ‘science’ and it was found wanting, as for example arctic sea ice and sea levels. There is no context to it.
With very little effort you could find that out for yourself and then you might start to query the global temperature record and realise the Mwp was rather warmer than today.
However you are more interested in the ideology than the science these days.
How about a proper comment on cfc’s which predate your continued pointless parsing of wikipedia? Would you like a link to a report by 6 Russian Professors just out confirming what I have said about fluctuating arctic ice levels? Or how about reading one of the links confirming that sea levels were higher in the historic past than today?
Its all out there Peter as I suspect you know, hence the concentration on your pointless games instead of reading the many studies that will refute your viewpoint.
tonyb
I honestly don’t have any information on the role of CFC’s in the atmosphere other than what I could look up on Wiki, EB, and Conservapedia of course!
Peter
Thank you. That is the first sensible reply you have given in nonths. Keep it up. :)
If you will excuse me, I need to knuckle down and finish off the sea level article so I will be making infrequent visits here.
tonyb
PeterM
If I believe (as you have stated) that the “dangerous AGW” premise is “a hoax”, it is because I see how flawed the “science” is, which allegedly supports this premise.
It’s all about the “science”, Peter.
If the “science” is valid, then “DAGW” is not a “hoax”.
If it is invalid or falsified, then “DAGW” is a “hoax”.
That is why the debate on the validity of the “science” is so important, Peter.
So let’s get started. Give your comment to the 14 points I have listed, on which I believe we agree in principle.
Max
PeterM
EB (fortunately) did not have AGW-activist William Connolley as its “gatekeeper” and “censor” of information on the ongoing scientific debate surrounding AGW.
They simply accepted and essentially parroted the IPCC AR4 report, without bothering to update this information with more recent findings (Spencer et al., for example), or giving any space to alternate hypotheses, such as Svensmark’s cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis, which was substantiated by small scale lab experiments and is now being tested at a large scale at CERN.
So, yes, I can accept EB as essentially parroting the IPCC party line of 2007 (based on data that preceded 2006).
But, what the hell, Peter, a lot has happened since then, which EB has not yet caught.
Wiki, on the other hand, is worthless as a source of info on climate change, because of the censorship of past “gatekeeper”, William Connolley.
Whether this will now improve, depends on the new “gatekeeper” and on how quickly Wiki can clean up all the garbage that came in under Connolley, so we’ll have to wait and see.
Hope this has answered your question.
NOW IT’S YOUR TURN TO RESPOND TO MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO DISCUSS THE SCIENCE OR ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD.
(Please do not feel offended by the caps: this is not “shouting”, Peter; I am just trying to get your attention.)
Max
Max,
So you didn’t make up your mind on the issue first then look at the science afterwards?
The evidence would suggest otherwise. Your initial comments on the subject were along the lines of:
“To seriously believe all the hype that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet is not only, basically, stupid, it is extremely arrogant.”
No-one who is at all scientifically inclined would ever make such an odd statement.
You’ve shown by your own utterances that it’s you who have nothing sensible to say on the science of global warming.
Tony B,
You commented somewhere, that it is difficult to know where to blog or whatever to best spread scepticism on “the science”.
I have a feeling that Emailing politicians & some journalists, (e.g. Harrabin) may be effective, with persistence.
I also feel that WUWT is a good place because of its very high traffic, and surely many of the visitors are in the curious category. Occasionally, some prophets of doom do comment, and they don’t help their cause when shown to be wrong or even silly or wobbly.
One complaint I have is that there are so many new articles each week that they tend to drop off the bottom of the page too quickly, which effectively ends or greatly slows the flow of comments. Also, I think that Anthony should go more for quality, rather than quantity, and that a few, e.g.
BOM disappears rainfall data, “no trend” becomes “downtrend”
do not make a strong point, thus diluting the whole.
My latest comment there:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/bom-disappears-rainfall-data-no-trend-becomes-downtrend/#comment-510754
I’m still smiling about it.
Bob said
“One complaint I have is that there are so many new articles (at WUWT) each week that they tend to drop off the bottom of the page too quickly, which effectively ends or greatly slows the flow of comments. Also, I think that Anthony should go more for quality, rather than quantity, and that a few, e.g. BOM disappears rainfall data, “no trend” becomes “downtrend” do not make a strong point, thus diluting the whole.”
I totally agree. Just when you feel the comments on an article are becoming interesting-as they themselves often add a lot-it rolls off the screen and the party moves on to another room. By its nature, once the article is off the screen few people feel inclined to comment any further.
I suppose Anthony is trying to cater for a broad range of expertise which isnt solely to do with climate change, and in this respect the Blog remains unique in its scope and overall interest.
Its a double edged sword, I would be happy with three good articles a week if I found them interesting (to me), but if I didn’t I would be willing for something new to appear.
I think TonyN steers a good middle ground here as new topics pop up when they are relevant and they can be discussed at some length, usually with great civility.
With many other blogs the amount you get out of an article will depend on whether the article is being debated properly by knowlegeable, as well as less experienced people, or whether it is hijacked by trolls or those who have no interest in engaging because their mind is made up.
Tonyb
PeterM
In your latest side-step to avoid discussing the “science” behind “dangerous AGW”, you again asked:
I have answered same question from you ad nauseam, Peter, as you fully know.
The science (or rather the lack thereof) comes first, Peter.
You quote me as having written
The science (or lack thereof) confirms to me that this is correct. There is no empirical scientific evidence for the premise “that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet”.
I have asked you repeatedly to supply this empirical scientific evidence, but you are unable to do so.
Then you philosophize with your personal judgment:
Many scientists have made similar statements, Peter, starting with Professor Richard Lindzen. Just open your eyes and ears. These voices are becoming louder and louder – don’t simply stick your head in the sand and deny what is happening, Peter.
Your last sentence is so utterly ridiculous that I will refrain from repeating it.
Face it, Peter. This is all just a waffle on your part. You are trying with all possible diversions to avoid getting into a discussion of the science with me, because you know deep within that you are unable to show empirical scientific evidence to support your premise of dangerous AGW, while I have already cited such evidence, based on actual physical observations, which falsifies your hypothesis, which you have been unable to refute.
It’s just that simple, Peter.
And all the waffling, wiggling and side-stepping on your part won’t change it.
So address the science now or I (plus other lurkers here) will conclude that you are simply a politically motivated empty bag of wind who professes to be a “scientist”, but who really has a limited interest in the “science” behind AGW and no knowledge of the scientific method – in other words, a phony.
Max
PS (to PeterM)
IT’S YOUR TURN TO
a) RESPOND TO MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO DISCUSS THE SCIENCE OR
b) ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD
Max,
Maybe you can show me some scientific comments that you’ve made which predate the one quoted in my 2319? And this one below.
” We insignificant humans do not have the power to destroy this planet. Never did.”
Maybe not us, per se, but there is a awful lot of power in all those fossil fuels we are busily burning! You won’t, of course, want to explain your thoughts at the time, but this comment can only be indicative of some quasi-philosophical position you must hold which, needless to say, has no scientific validity whatever.
You are probably wishing you’d never written it, now! Your only realistic option is to adopt a pseudonym and deny that you’d ever held such odd views:-) If anyone with no preconceived notions takes the trouble to look at the scientific findings on AGW, most probably they are going to end up agreeing closely with the findings of the IPCC and just about every other world scientific body.
However, if they start with the same sort of nonsense in their heads as you did, it’s just absolutely inevitable that they’ll end up in the same position as you yourself, now.
I have been aware of your preconceptions for some time, and I must admit I was wrong in thinking that any sort of rational discussion was going to be possible. It really is just like arguing for Evolution with someone who has started out by arguing that it is “extremely arrogant” of mankind to even suggest we weren’t created by the benevolent hand of God.
PeterM
Stop your silly waffling and try to defend the “science” behind your premise that AGW will “destroy this planet”.
SCIENCE, Peter!
(Not more silly waffling and evading the real issue here.)
I’ve listed 14 scientific points on which I believe we agree.
In 2294 you wrote:
Let me assure you, Peter, that my “true motivation” is “genuinely scientific” (i.e. discussing with you the “science” (or lack thereof) supporting your premise that AGW is a serious threat to our society and our planet).
Can you comment to the 14 points I listed?
If not, I will conclude that you have agreed to these points with your silence, and we can move on to a few scientific points, on which we most likely disagree.
Ball’s in your court, Peter. Waffle time is over.
Max