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.
PeterM
Here are the 14 scientific/technical points relating to AGW on which we have implicitly agreed (2282):
Since you have implicitly agreed to these points by your silence, we can now move on (separate post to follow).
Max
Max,
Yes you are correct. I did write
“I’d be happy to get into detailed debate about scientific issues with anyone whose true motivation was genuinely scientific.”
But, sorry, Max, and for reasons already explained that just isn’t you!
However, I must confess to feeling slightly uneasy that TonyB might argue that he hasn’t said that it’s all a political hoax etc etc, and he should be treated differently. Well, we’ll see if I’m as good as my word if that is the case, but there are a lot of well-intentioned eccentrics about and I’m not sure I will be in his case :-)
PeterM
You wrote:
Great! (That’s my motivation and primary interest here, Peter, as I have explained to you.)
So let’s continue with the scientific debate.
Continuation of the 14 points on which we agree (at least, I have no valid reason not to accept the estimates made by IPCC on the points below)
15. Radiative forcing from CO2 from1750 to 2005 (280 to 379 ppmv) = 1.66 W/m^2
16. Net radiative forcing from all anthropogenic factors (incl. CO2) from 1750 to 2005 = 1.6 W/m^2
Now let’s switch to points where I believe we do not agree
1. Radiative forcing of all natural factors, including solar, 1750 to 2005 is only 0.12 W/m^2
No empirical evidence is cited by IPCC to substantiate this estimate. It also does not pass the “reality test” when one considers the major, naturally caused temperature swings observed and historically recorded in the MWP and the LIA or earlier warm periods, such as the Roman Optimum, all prior to significant human CO2 emissions.
2. Net feedback from water vapor results in roughly a doubling of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (CS) from under 1C (no feedback) to around 2C.
This estimate is based on the model assumption that relative humidity (RH) remains constant with warming (and that atmospheric water vapor content increases accordingly). Physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler) have shown that RH decreases with warming and that the water vapor increase is less than half the amount estimated with the constant RH assumption; these data are confirmed by long-term NOAA records based on physical observations from weather balloons, which also show a net reduction since 1948 in atmospheric RH despite general warming.
3. Net feedback from clouds is strongly positive and high enough to increase 2xCO2 CS by 1.3C, from 1.9C to 3.2C.
Physical observations (Spencer et al.) have shown that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative instead, which would result in a net decrease in 2xCO2 CS, rather than a major increase, as assumed by the IPCC models.
4. As a result of strongly positive feedbacks primarily from water vapor and clouds, the 2xCO2 CS increases from below 1C (without feedback) to a range of 2.0 to 4.5C (mean value = 3.2C)
If we correct the exaggerated IPCC estimate on water vapor feedback (2, above) plus the incorrectly assumed net positive cloud feedback (3, above) to correspond with actual physical observations rather than simply model assumptions, we arrive at a net negative overall feedback and a 2xCO2 CS of 0.6 to 0.9C
Another post-AR4 study on net feedbacks with warming based on satellite observations of Earth’s net energy balance (Lindzen + Choi) confirms that the net effect of all feedbacks with warming is negative.
This means that the calculated GH warming from today (2010) until 2100, when CO2 is estimated (IPCC “Scenario B1”) to reach twice the pre-industrial value (at a continued CAGR of around 0.4% per year) will be 0.3 to 0.6C rather than 1.0 to 2.3C, as estimated using the 2xCO2 CS as assumed by IPCC.
[Even if we assume that the CO2 CAGR will increase to over 50% more than that seen over the past 5 or 50 years (IPCC “Scenario A1T”) or 0.65% per year, the calculated GH warming from today (2010) until 2100 will be 0.5 to 0.8C rather than 1.7 to 3.8C, as estimated using the 2xCO2 CS as assumed by IPCC.]
Obviously neither IPCC “scenario” results in “dangerous AGW”.
This, Peter, is the basic problem I have with the IPCC model assumptions and conclusions. They have been falsified by empirical data derived from actual physical observations.
And until you can provide empirical scientific evidence in support of these assumptions and conclusions, which clearly show that the physical observations on feedbacks I have cited above are incorrect and that the net feedback is therefore strongly positive, rather than negative, you cannot show that your “dangerous AGW” premise is supported by empirical scientific data, rather than only by model simulations based on theoretical input assumptions.
That’s your dilemma, Peter. And it’s “all about the science” (my primary interest and motivation here) – not politics (which it appears from your lack of interest in discussing the science, may be your primary interest and motivation).
Max
Here’s something that Brute will enjoy:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1744-governments-p1bn-carbon-tax-grab.html
PeterM
No interest in the “science” behind the “dangerous AGW” scare?
Afraid to get into a discussion of the “science” (because you know how flawed it is)?
Feel “out of your depth” discussing the “science”, because you really don’t understand it?
Which is it, Peter?
You silence confirms to me that it is one or the other of the above.
Max
TonyN 2329
I wondered if you would mention this as soon as I heard it on the news!
Turns out that all the fine words were just a cover up for yet another tax. What a surprise!
If I was a large scale manufacturer I would relocate to India or China to manufacture as they get paid money for their carbon credits whereby we have to pay for the privilege of providing jobs in this country.
I believe one of the steel mills (Redcar?) recently relocated to India in order to claim carbon credits.
tonyb
Thanks TonyN.
Hee, Hee……..the old bait and switch con…..it goes well with the carbon con and the global warming con.
And Peter said this had nothing to do with greedy, power hungry politicians, taxation or redistribution of wealth.
As Tonyb wrote, if I were the CEO of any of the companies mentioned I’d pack up my business and head overseas. I’m certain that there are business friendly governments abroad that would benefit from the jobs and tax revenues that any of these companies bring with them.
TonyB and Brute:
I have a hunch that we will hear a lot more about that story in the coming months, unless the government takes fright and backs off. In opposition, both the coalition parties had a lot to say about environmental taxes being hypothecated to environmental purposes and that is likely to come back to bite them.
On the other hand, the Redcar business did deserved far more publicity than it got.
Geoff says that ‘It really is worse than we thought’, and there is something that I came across about eighteen months ago that might reinforce that.
I’ve posted about the awful ‘Warm Words’ and Futerra reports that set up the templates for spin-doctors to use when attempting to persuade a wary and sceptical public that AGW really is happening. The level of intellectual dishonesty and cynicism that they exhibit is definitely not for the faint hearted.
One day I Googled my way to a site where the Futerra leaflets to be used by schools were available. It is the only time that I’ve come across something on the net that I found so disturbing that I’ve backed off. People use the term brainwashing fairly loosely these days, but what I saw seemed like the real thing, and directed towards young, vulnerable minds.
I’d be interested to know if anyone else has seen them. I seem to remember that TonyB took quite and interest in Futerra’s activities to at one time.
They won’t back off. The business owners believed what the politicians originally claimed and are now realizing they were lied to. Once a politician gets a hold of money, he’ll never let it go.
Unfortunately, these taxes will be passed onto the consumer……..that’s what I do.
So, whether they know it or not, the end user is paying for the maniacal spending of the fat cat politicians and their slush funds. I don’t lose money………(sometimes I’ll add a little extra kick in for myself).
Pete and the rest of his “revolutionary” pals think that they’re “sticking it to big business”, when, in reality, he’s causing his own suffering.
Not only that, but since operating costs are rising, it’s another reason to diminish the workforce. Every tax increase equates proportionally to another person out of work………that you can count on……as clearly demonstrated with the US unemployment rate now at 17%.
Obama-dinejad and his fellow Fabian Socialists are doing a number on the US economy……and quickly. I never dreamed that the US economy could be wrecked so quickly and so thoroughly.
Anecdotally, I was driving into work today (Washington DC) and have begun to notice an inordinate amount of closed/closing shops. This is quite unusual as Washington, being the seat of power/money in the US, is usually far removed from the volatility of the rest of the US economy. Washington has been described as “recession proof” due to the amount of government jobs/associated businesses here.
While the government workforce has grown, people aren’t spending money choosing to brown bag lunches and wait a bit longer to treat themselves to their monthly haircut………
Hell, I’m even thinking of cutting back on the housekeeper’s hours here at the Brute estate. (Just kidding, her hours are safe).
Max,
You ask ” No interest in the “science”?” Well yes of course I do, but the evidence is that the branch of science which drives the so-called “debate” is Psychology rather than anything to do with the Physics of climate change.
Maybe I missed your posting, but I asked you for some evidence to show that you had actually discussed the scientific evidence before prouncing AGW to be a hoax.
All,
They do say that, as we get older, the better we used to be in our sporting activities such as football and cricket. Comments on this blog seem to be suggesting that the Physics and Chemistry you were all taught as youngsters was so much better and therefore you are , or were, all so much superior! That’s a bit odd because if we ever do get any scientific arguments they are usually copied and pasted from some such source as Icecap, or wattsupwiththat, and there is only Max who is actually capable of putting up an original graph.
So, its quite clear that, at worst, you are all disagreeing with something you’ve never really understood or, at best, you’ve made up your mind first, then looked for the scientific justification afterwards.
Tonyb #2331 Yes Redcar closed, with the result that Labour lost one of their safest seats at the election, which should have been big news, but wasn’t, because reporting it would have meant having to explain the crazy economic logic behind carbon trading.
May I say how much I agree with much that Brute says. I still want to see fairer wealth distribution, which puts me out on the far left, but some of us lefties understand how the economy works. Can I be a Trotskyist Tea-bagger?
A Trotskyist tea-bagger? That’s not quite as silly as it sounds. I took a slightly wider look at the author of the piece that Brute recently copied from enthusiastically – he was so anti government that Anarchist would have been a fair description. I’ve always been suspicious of labels like “Social Fascist” but that was, and in some places still is, a common term applied to Trotskyists and Anarchists in many parts of the world.
The criticism is that they are so extreme and unrealistic in their demands as to discredit the left movement generally.
Yes, I’m sure you can make a Trotskyite case that the triumph of Sarah Palin and the Tea bag movement will hasten the day of the glorious Proletarian Revolution in the USA, but is it realistic?
But the word ‘realism’ doesn’t figure highly in Trotskyite vocabulary.
tempterrain #2338
I wasn’t serious about the Trotskyism. I was about the fact that a belief that the rich are too rich and the poor too poor, and that taxation was fairer under the Tories in the 70s, puts you out on the far left nowadays. And that a popular movement like the Tea Party deserves sympathy and respect for anyone who believes in democracy.
Geoffchambers,
Have you actually looked at what the “popular movement” of the tea party are actually advocating? They’d make Margaret Thatcher’s policies look like “far left” too!
PeterM
In your side-stepping to avoid a discussion of the “science” behind AGW you are still harping on my supposed “lack of interest” in the “science” with (2336)
Let me repeat how I became interested and then give you the specific example you request.
Orginally I was pretty neutral on the AGW premise, only really getting interested around 2005 and reading the papers and reports I could get my hands on (including the IPCC TAR).
However, after reviewing the SPM 2007 report (February 2007), I started to become more skeptical. This report exuded strong confidence in IPCC’s knowledge of what makes our planet’s climate do as it does and played down the enormous uncertainties. This appeared both arrogant and ignorant to me.
I saw that IPCC considered all natural forcing factors (including solar variability) to be essentially insignificant, but when I started checking the literature, I saw that this assumption was poorly substantiated (on this point even IPCC conceded that its “level of scientific understanding” of natural forcing factors, including solar, was “low”, in other words, backing off from its “arrogance” to admit “ignorance”).
One of my first blog exchanges was on RealClimate with Barton Paul Levenson, where I wrote:
BPL objected to my use of the word “proof” and opined:
BPL cited some examples of studies providing this “evidence”, to which I replied:
So Peter, you see that, unlike you (who avoids discussing the validity of the “science” supporting the AGW hypothesis) I was interested in the “science” behind the AGW claims from the start.
Now that I have provided evidence to you that my interest has been in the “science” from the start, you can reply to my posts on this topic.
Max
PeterM and geoffchambers
I have not seen an official “tea party” platform, but here is a brief one suggested by Fred Everett, a tea-party patriot from Marietta, Ga.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/02/06/blueprint-of-a-tea-party-platform.html
These points do not sound very “right wing” to me, Peter, just sort of “common sense”.
I have seen another suggested outline, which highlights three topics:
· Individual Liberty (as a right, rather than something “granted by the government”
· Limited Government (including, but not limited to, the tasks of protection of the people by administering justice and ensuring safety from internal or external threats)
· Economic Freedom (with emphasis on the “free market” as the “most powerful instrument of material and social progress”)
This outline sounds more “libertarian” than the “platform” suggested by Everett, but, even it, does not sound extremely “right wing” to me. But, then again, I’m Swiss, so maybe I’m missing out on something.
Max
PeterM and geoffchambers
Until you mentioned the US “tea party”, I never had much interest, but then I started looking (in vain) for one clearly formulated official “tea party platform” (see earlier post).
A more recent one I’ve seen mentions:
These guys are beginning to sound fairly reasonable to me.
Austrian Economics?
Wiki tells us:
Hmmm… Sounds better to me than the “5-year Plan” approach.
Incentives to save and invest? Does this include reducing waste and energy consumption plus encouraging cutting unnecessary costs? Does it mean giving tax incentives to those who make investments, which will lead to job creation? Does it mean not spending more than one earns or “balancing the budget” (as President Clinton did)? (If so, doesn’t sound too bad to me.)
Discard “PC”? Absolutely! This concept has been carried to its absurd extreme.
Make official the Jihad declaration of war against the US? No comment except: Whether it is “made official” or not, it is a fact. (And, BTW, the Jihad is not only against the USA, it is against Israel plus all of Europe, as well.)
Defeat Cap and Trade? Indeed! (It sounds like that one is “history” now, but maybe the proponents will try to resurrect it out of the “garbage can of history” again.)
Investigate collusion between government and industry on AGW? Hard to do (back to the powerful “military industrial complex”, which Eisenhower warned of), but a noble endeavor nonetheless. Question is: who is going to carry out this investigation if the government is part of the “collusion”?
I have absolutely no affiliation with the US tea party movement but to me, as a Swiss, the above points do not sound that “extreme” or “wacky”.
What do you think?
Max
Wow, glad to see that the tea Party principles are catching on outside the US.
As a Tea Party “member” (there is no “party” affilation or membership cards or dues), I’m happy that this has caught notice outside the United States.
Maybe other countries will begin to invoke some common sense principles into their politics. Seems like Sarkozy and the new British Prime Minister are getting the message.
Brute #2344
I wouldn’t say Tea Party is catching on in Europe (we don’t have the same problem of elective office being limited to millionaires) but I was intrigued by a movement so fiercely opposed by the Guardian (the leftwing paper we leftwingers love to hate). Just as, during the primaries, they ignored Ron Paul until they had some mud to sling at him, so, the only thing they could find to say about a recent successful Tea Party sponsored candidate was that she was “against masturbation”. If the Democrat candidate comes out for, it should be an interesting election.
Not entirely off-topic. The Guardian has two full-time journalists in the US. One refuses to hear anything said against the Democrats, and the other refuses to hear anything said against global warming. Oh for the days of a wide variety of opinions in the liberal press, when, for instance the New York Tribune employed a certain Dr Karl Marx as its London correspondent.
Geoff,
No, however; if nothing else the Tea Party “movement” (I really don’t know any other way to describe it) may just wake people up from their comatose day to day activities and cause them to take a good hard look at what politicians are doing with THE PEOPLE’S money and the underhanded/behind the scenes dirty tricks and graft that has become rampant in political circles.
Less than two years ago, I had never heard of the Tea Party. Now this thing is deciding national elections………don’t get me wrong; I don’t expect there to be landslide Tea Party candidate victories……but, the derision, denial, ridicule heaped upon it made me think it was just a flash in the pan and would die quickly. Instead, it is growing in popularity………a true “grass roots” movement with like minded people communicating via E-mail, snail mail, word of mouth and the internet.
The current Congress and President have (unknowingly) caused the creation of the Tea Party and now they are fearful of the people as opposed to the other way around.
By the way, “Tea Bagger” is evidently a pejorative relating to some sort of sexually depraved activity (so I’m told).
Brute: “Instead, it is growing in popularity………a true “grass roots” movement with like minded people communicating via E-mail, snail mail, word of mouth and the internet.”
It may prove to be extremely useful for us here in Europe to look carefully at how the Tea Party movement came into being and how it has grown and thrived, because we’ll need to do something of the sort here, too.
A corresponding movement here will not have the same aims and general “flavour” as the Tea Party in the US, as our politics and history are different, but it would surely need to arise in a similar way. I think this could be something we need to observe and learn from.
TonyN and Geoff Chambers
It would be very interesting to see an article where the link between losing jobs and carbon credits is expressly set out. That Redcar was closed was a direct result of the carbon policy which had the effect of transferring jobs to India, who got paid whilst we got penalised.
That can be tied in neatly with the new policy of penalsing much smaller UK firms by sending all the money to the treasury instead of rewarding the ones who cut their emissions. I think that when people actually realise that jobs will be lost in even quite modest sized companies as a result of carbon taxes they might start taking notice.
tonyb
Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html
Tonyb,
I can’t speak for Redcar (because I don’t know what it is), however, recently a General Electric factory close by closed its doors and relocated to China……..a direct result of “green” legislation. This is but one example of tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost due to “green” policy/legislation.
Incidentally, General Electric’s CEO Jeffrey Imelt is on President Obama-dinejad’s advisory board……an unelected political advisor (Czar).
General Electric is big on “green” projects and has been handed millions of dollars in bribes from Obama to prop them up under the guise of integrating “green” technology into the economy.
General Electric just fired 18,000 people in spite of receiving 24 million in taxpayer funded “bailouts”……The company that has been tasked with creating “green” jobs is shedding employees.
GE gets hefty federal grants in spite of laying off U.S. Employees
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=38714
GE Aviation Layoffs Job Cut: fires 1000 employees
http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2009/01/ge-aviation-layoffs-job-cut-fires-1000.html
Brute
The whole insane story of the redcar steel works is here
http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/climategate-corus-redcar-steel-works-the-price-of-gordon-browns-insane-climate-change-policies/