Moonbat

Terrace Stomp

Hang on. I dislike Monbiot as much as the next man; but surely he is saying the opposite of 'let there be an end to the debate.' I think he's entitled to ask why Mr Plimer why he won't debate. If Plimer's view is correct, you can hardly say Monbiot hasn't handed the fellow enough on which to sharpen his teeth.

Rhoda Klapp

Doesn't Plimer have to come from Oz? Can't you get Booker, or Lindzen, or Brignell, or Stott. Any one of them will do.

THX1138

Typical newspaper columnist then!

THX1138

How rude of me, welcome aboard.

Rhoda if you read the e-mails Plimer agreed to come over for the debate, and then got cold feet when he realized that he would have to back up the load of tripe he'd written.

Colin Pittaway

You call this journalism? Cursing at someone in print. Whoa!! Last time I come to this site.

Trumpeter Lanfried

So long as Monbiot insists on labelling those who disagree with him 'deniers' his call for a dispassionate evaluation of the scientific evidence will ring hollow.

Plimer sent him a list of questions. Monbiot protests that they were unanswerable, and were designed to be unanswerable. My reading is that formulating questions which Monbiot (or anyone else) is unable to answer is a legitimate way of demonstrating that his (Monbiot's) science is flawed.

Karla

I read some of George's opinions regarding man-made climate change and I remember thinking George was a climate-change fundamentalist.

Mohammed Choudhury

Monbiot says good things. You talk bollocks.

Love Mo' :-)

from the Appalachians...

"reminds me a little of the hardline creationists you find jabbering in the backwoods of the Appalachian Mountains"

Well that area of the US is quite diverse. No need to insult everyone and paint with such a broad brush. I suspect there are as many creationists in other places.

Rod, why don't you visit Asheville, NC and tell us how many creationists you find jabbering in the backwoods?

You're just as likely to hear German being spoken...

Carbon Nootral

Check out how Monbiot describes himself on his own website ... LOL!:

During seven years of investigative journeys in Indonesia, Brazil and East Africa, he was shot at, beaten up by military police, shipwrecked and stung into a poisoned coma by hornets. He came back to work in Britain after being pronounced clinically dead in Lodwar General Hospital in north-western Kenya, having contracted cerebral malaria.

In Britain, he joined the roads protest movement. He was hospitalised by security guards, who drove a metal spike through his foot, smashing the middle bone.

HK

Yes but (unless Monbiot is faking the email exchanges he posted on his website) The Spectator agreed that Plimer would answer written questions, and Plimer is now refusing to answer them.

Those questions were pretty simple - things like "You said XYZ in your book. What is your source."

You don't have to like Monbiot to think that those are valid questions. The Spectator agreed to the conditions, as (apparently) did Plimer, so it can't now complain that Monbiot is insisting on Plimer meeting them.

I was expecting Plimer to wipe the floor with Monbiot in this debate. Having read those emails, I think Plimer is not the man to do it.

If you haven't read those email exchanges, do read them.

Minnie Ovens

Thank God for reason!
Meanwhile back on another Coffee House page everyone argues about whether Plimer or Monbiot have been critisized or praised in the run up to a debate.
If this petty debate goes on there will be no main debate.
I, for one, do not know which side is right or wrong, or half/quarter/ein smidgen right or wrong.
All I hear is a bunch of schoolboys going on like girl's blouses with a couple of Prima Donnas waiting in the wings.
Why cannot these climate change peoople get their act into order?
And soon we will have the Copenhagen thing where gloom, doom,power and money will be at centre stage to the detriment of any attempt to get to the truth.
At the moment my attitude is that if the EC and Westminster believe in climate change then the whole theory is false since neither bodies understand the meaning of honesty or truthfulness.
They just want more of your money.
And, of course, more power to screw you over even more.
Stalin would have been proud of the whole lot of them.

Frank

Please: just what were these questions that Plimmer refused to answer in writing?

Peter

The pity is that it is not Plimer and Monbiot who should be debating, it is the political leadership of the world which has tuned its global ear out of any debate or discussion of any sort whatsoever.

"We are the leaders of the world. We have spoken. And now we will squeeze the lifeblood out of you by taxing you 'til you bleed".

Forget all the arguments and counter-arguments and claims and counter claims there is one key salient fact, which is undeniable. The climate has been changing over millenia, varying from ice-ages to extreme warmings and all of this without a single atom of CO2 being produced by man.

Dixon

"Colin Pittaway
September 15th, 2009 4:44pm
You call this journalism? Cursing at someone in print. Whoa!! Last time I come to this site."

Thanks indeed for that assurance.

Dixon

Whichever side you fancy, the fact is that the efficacy of ones public debating skills does not by definition reflect upon the quality of ones reasoning or ones argument. I saw Monbiot on CH4 news counter Bellamy's simple factual point that actual climate data do not correspond with modelled predictions by pulling a piece of paper out of his pocket and declaring that it was a statement by the Royal Society to the effect that he, George Monbiot was right and everyone else wrong. A sort of Chamberlainesque deployment of a "get out of any argument free" card.

Clearly absurd but no doubt not up to his usual standard. For I feel sure that Monbiot is a very great mass-debator indeed!

Vern

Monbiot is a tool no question but not as big of a tool as Peter Kingsnorth. Rod, you really should check out that loon's ravings. He and George had a common room chinwag in the Guardian a few weeks back about whether civilisation was worth saving or not. Hilarious stuff, you'd enjoy it.

http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/

Hours of fun.

Sebastian weaverfish Gaumont.

Listen here guys, I'm a marine biologist and have recently qualified from the world famous filletofish marine university in Ohio, Montana. Guys, guys we have to do something about this. Don't you know the planet is warming? It's totally awful and fish are starving out there. Something, anything has to be done. Rainforests are crying, I hear their howling in the dead of night even here in Cricklewood where I'm now employed as a waiter in a vegetarian restaurant. Every time a tree is felled in the Amazon one hundred species are made extinct. Be reasonable. Shout it out loud from the rooftops (not after 11 o clock though shift workers in the flat next to mine). SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.

Al

Monbiot made an annoying point in this whole debacle that he is a journalist and thus never claimed to know everything but Plimer was a scientist and claimed he did. It allows him to back out of defending his position whenever he wants to without

ndm

-- You pompous, monomaniacal, jackass.

Self description?

Coeur de Lion

I note in this week's New Scientist the prediction that we are in for a decade of global cooling, perhaps two decades. Should see me out.

Yorkshireman

George Monbiot put this question to Ian Plimer....

"5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that:

"the sea ice has expanded" (p198).

Again, you give no reference.

a. Please give a source for this claim."

This might give something of an answer :

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+1979/article13834.htm

January 1, 2009

"Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979.

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions."

and

"Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region"

Hope this helps George.

By the way, I'm not a scientist and managed to find this out.

Dixon

Yorkshireman thanks for that. On this matter of expanding ANT-arctic sea ice:

It had certainly expanded between 1979 and 1999. At least according to data from the NASA Nimbus 7 sattelite, collated from two decades by Claire Parkinson of the Goddard Spaceflight Centre and published in "Annals of Glaciology" in 2002, Sorry, cant give you the issue number.

Dirty Euro

Why are you so angry at him?

HK

Frank: "Please: just what were these questions that Plimmer refused to answer in writing?"

See:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-the-spectator/

and:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

German Reactionary

If the Spectator really wanted a debate that would merit the name, then - having already run a very positive review of Plimer by a non-scientist - it would commission a critique of Plimer's claims from a climate scientist (not hard to find, just go to realclimate.org), then invite Plimer to answer. Readers would then be able to judge the exchange for themselves. Given that the issue hinges on difficult factual questions, a written exchange is the only really adequate way of dealing with them. Since the Spec. has not opted for this, but instead offered a format in which it is far, far harder - esp. for people without the requisite background- to assess the quality of the factual claims on which the whole thing hinges, one suspects its bona fides.

Tim Lambert

So, after that little rant, do you think you can explain why Plimer can't answer Monbiot's questions?

john miller

Umm, climate change topics always attract a certain sort of person, Rod.

You really should have hung the joke sign out with this one...

Anyway, I for one am really pleased to see you here and look forward to more of the same. But perhaps you should post the occassional humourless, boring piece just to maintain the required balance.

ndm

If Dixon is really trying to use an unspecified 2002 paper by Claire Parkinson to justify assertions that Arctic sea ice has "certainly expanded between 1979 and 1999" he might want to read a more recent paper she contributed to that comes to precisely the opposite conclusion. Claire Parkinson is the second author on the following paper:
Comiso, J. C., C. L. Parkinson, R. Gersten, and L. Stock (2008), Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice cover, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L01703, doi:10.1029/2007GL031972

I find the words "accelerated decline" somewhat telling. The abstract is even more strident in its assertion that Arctic sea ice is declining:

-- Satellite data reveal unusually low Arctic sea ice coverage during the summer of 2007, caused in part by anomalously high temperatures and southerly winds. The extent and area of the ice cover reached minima on 14 September 2007 at 4.1 × 106 km2 and 3.6 × 106 km2, respectively. These are 24% and 27% lower than the previous record lows, both reached on 21 September 2005, and 37% and 38% less than the climatological averages. Acceleration in the decline is evident as the extent and area trends of the entire ice cover (seasonal and perennial ice) have shifted from about -2.2 and -3.0% per decade in 1979-1996 to about -10.1 and -10.7% per decade in the last 10 years. The latter trends are now comparable to the high negative trends of -10.2 and -11.4% per decade for the perennial ice extent and area, 1979-2007.

Since Yorkshireman "is not a scientist" he might want to read the explanation by Nina Shen Rastogi in Slate of precisely how the Daily Tech blog post he quoted was wrong.

-- As for the "substantial recovery" claim - well, sea ice always "recovers" in the winter, in the sense that it grows back after it melts. And, yes, September 2008 did show more ice than September 2007 - but [I] would argue that going from the worst summer on record to the second-worst is nothing to crow about.

Read the rest.

Another telling clue that there is something afoot is that the Russians opened up the North East passage to western shipping earlier this month. And was last summer really the first time in 125,000 years that the North East and North West passages have both been open?

David Ossitt

"It is this very certitude, and the response to critics, which makes me doubtful"

I agree.

Welcome Rod; I love your weekly column.

rod liddle

From all that I can gather it is Monbiot who has avoided debating with Plimer, rather than the other way around.
My argument is not that Plimer is necessarily right, but that his informed views should be heard.

And thanks Mo...........

Nicholas Hallam

Bellamy's point is crucial: none of the climate models predicted the global cooling which has occurred since 1998. No doubt the models have now moved on and can comfortably absorb the cooling episode, but this is just an ad hoc exercise in multi-parameter modelling to rescue a favoured hypothesis. What is apparent is that the correlation between carbon emissions and global temperature is much weaker than previously supposed - which itself gives the lie to the idea that the science is settled.

HK

rod liddle "From all that I can gather it is Monbiot who has avoided debating with Plimer, rather than the other way around."

Have you actually read the email exchanges? I assume you must have, but it is worth asking.

Yes, it is Monbiot who has pulled the plug, and perhaps he isn't being generous enough with the deadline (though nobody accused him of that). But it seems reasonable to expect The Spectator to keep its side of the agreement over Plimer answering the questions.

seanie

Monbiot agreed to a debate on the condition that Pilmer answered questions about claims in Pilmer's own book.

Despite having had weeks to answer these, and considerable handwaving, Pilmer has still not answered them.

All Pilmer had to do was answer straightforward questions as to his own claims and yet he hasn't.

Yorkshireman

Monbiot's own blog where he corrects himself on average arctic sea ice figures

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/15/climate-change-scepticism-arctic-ice

"Whoops – looks like I've boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play – 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused."

Gates

The time for discussing whether climate change is man made or not has passed, it was argued for 20 years, and its no longer debated because it was researched, proven, and accepted by the worlds climate scientists and politicians.

If the developed world were already feeling the effects as much as some parts of the third world then this discussion would not exist, because apparently western economies are more important than human lives.

seanie

There hasn't been global cooling since 1998.

1998 may've been the hottest individual year on record (although possibly surpassed by 2005) but average temperatures a
have increased since then. The smoothed average is higher.

Matthew

Hmmm. It's actually the other way around. Many biologists rightly refuse to debate creationists in public. Doing so lends them an air of legitimacy. By agreeing to debate them, biologists suggests that they are worthy interlocutors and that there is a genuine issue that informed people can disagree about. But creationists are crackpots. And so are those who deny man-made climate change. Monbiot is simply applying the same principle. When he tried to set up a proper debate (i.e. prevent it from turning into a test of the participants' rhetorical abilities) by pinning Plimer down on specific criticisms, Plimer refused to answer his questions. It's Plimer who is revealed as having more in common with the creationists.

SimonC

Rod Liddle:
"From all that I can gather it is Monbiot who has avoided debating with Plimer, rather than the other way around."

It's very hard to see how someone who has read the email exchanges between Monbiot, Plimer and the Spectator could possibly hold this view in good faith. *Have* you read them?

What's wrong with wanting factual assertions to be justified as a pre-requisite to debate? If evidence is not insisted upon, what on earth is the point of even talking? This is not "avoiding" debate; it is ensuring that it's not just a shouting match. Perhaps that's what the Spectator wanted, of course; a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Not Monbiot's fault he wants no part of such a circus.

Honestly, it really does take some doing to make Monbiot look unequivocally like the good guy, but you lot have managed it in style.

Dixon

NDM: "Another telling clue that there is something afoot is that the Russians opened up the North East passage to western shipping earlier this month. And was last summer really the first time in 125,000 years that the North East and North West passages have both been open?"

And 2008 saw the first snowfall that has ever occurred in Baghdad in all of recorded history.

This is whats called "anecdotal evidence". Pull the other one NDm, you had never heard of Claire Parkinson until I mentioned her...whereupon you are feverishly scooting about the internet swotting up on her. Two ( or any number ) can play that game ( look up Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos will you ) but I am afraid some of us have got a life to live.

BTW, my reference came literally "off the shelf" behind me.

Dixon

"Nicholas Hallam
September 16th, 2009 11:16am
Bellamy's point is crucial: none of the climate models predicted the global cooling which has occurred since 1998. No doubt the models have now moved on and can comfortably absorb the cooling episode, but this is just an ad hoc exercise in multi-parameter modelling to rescue a favoured hypothesis. What is apparent is that the correlation between carbon emissions and global temperature is much weaker than previously supposed - which itself gives the lie to the idea that the science is settled."

Actually, its whats called an "immunisation" of a theory against falsification ( Popper ). The occurrence of a year of plummeting temperature ( 2007-8 ) is "explained" by a "subordinate hypothesis" ( Popper ) that forms part of a "protective belt" of such hypothesese that accumulate around a claim when its central predictions fail to materialise ( Lakatos ). In this instance a peak in atmospheric dust due to volcanic eruptions. Which in itself is an unfalsifyable conjecture.

Dixon

...AND BY THE WAY...NDM rabbits on about Claire Parkinsons subsequent refutation of her statements in a paper about ARCTIC sea ice, but the paper I cited was one she wrote about ANTARCTIC ice!

You really cannot make up a better howler than that!

NDM, the clue is in the name "ANTARCTIC" is the opposite end of the bleeding planet from the "ARCTIC"!

Philip Proven

GM has irritated me for years. I gave up reading the Guardian 50 years ago and I am puzzled by the ignorance of the "warmies" of the current state of the Sun, which is the giver of all life on earth. The absence of sunspots on the sun's surface has usually conincided with global cooling. This has been happening since records began with Galileo and others with the invention of the reflective telescope. I have yet to see published the graphs showing sunspot activity and temperature correlations that over simplify the phenomomenon, but go a long way to support there are other more powerful factors in global temperatures that affect our blue planet. Philip Proven

Dixon

Re Philip Proven and sunspots.

The AGW advocates have consistently dismissed suggestions of a significant Solar influence.

Now, however, there is an unprecedented and continuing absence of sunspot activity, coinciding with a cessation in global warming over a decade.

Prepare then to see AGW advocates suddenly change their tune about the degree of Solar influence. "Obviously" this "interruption" in temperature increases "must" be down to the weird interruption in the sun-spot cycle...they will say!

seanie

The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

When average temperatures go up, that's called warming.

Dixon

seanie
September 16th, 2009 7:09pm
The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer than the five before that"

So whose data is that assertion based upon? The cooling of 2007-8 by itself cancels out years of previous warming. The average is not increaasing

Moreover, entirely besides the point. Increase, decrease, no certain attribution to Human influence either way.

ndm

Dixon writes:

-- ndm, you had never heard of Claire Parkinson until I mentioned her

and

-- ndm rabbits on about Claire Parkinsons subsequent refutation of her statements in a paper about ARCTIC sea ice, but the paper I cited was one she wrote about ANTARCTIC ice!

Both of these statements are, in fact, true. But they inadvertently get to the heart of the matter.

I don't particularly care to bone up on man-made climate change because the scientific consensus is that it is a reality and the subject otherwise doesn't interest me. Unsurprisingly, Claire Parkinson has never crossed my path but then neither have any other climate scientists. It is far too easy to cherry pick a single scientific paper supporting some position without putting it into the global context in which its import is precisely the opposite of that claimed.

The opposition to man-made climate change comes from a miniscule number of dissenting scientists amplified through populist ignorance. Every scientific theory has some number of scientists who dissent even in the face of overwhelming proof. I once knew a physics graduate student who was among a cotery of scientists publishing disproofs of the special theory of relativity even though it is probably one of the simplest (to prove if not understand) and most tested physical theories known.

The difference in impact of man-made climate change on the Arctic and Antartic sea ice are diverting to the public but interesting to scientists in that they need to form hypotheses and develop theories that explain the difference. This process is far beyond the ability of the average layman whose immediate response is, as we've seen above, to use increasing Antartic sea ice to as disproof of man-made climate change. Science can often be counter-intuitive once we Progress beyong falling objects. Indeed, the weather itself can be as shown by the eternal puzzle as to why a -3C day without clouds is so much nicer than a 3C day with clouds.

seanie

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

The HADCRU anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.296
1999-2003: + 0.382
2004-2008: + 0.416

So the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

seanie

The GISS anomalies;

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

The anomalies averaged over five year periods.

1994-1998: + 0.38
1999-2003: + 0.45
2004-2008: + 0.53

Again the most recent five year period is warmer than the previous five years, which itself is warmer than the period before that.

seanie

There's a big problem looming for you denialists.

1998 was exceptionally warm in comparison to the preceeding years due to an exceptionally strong El Nino. However the temperature of 1998 isn't so exceptional in comparison to the last few years. The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means that some years have been close to (and possibly hotter than) 1998 in the absence of a strong El Nino.

A strong La Nina developed in 2007 into 2008, resulting in 2008 being relatively cold in comparison to recent years, although still one of the warmest years on record.

The thing is, at some point within the next few years an El Nino event is pretty likely. And given that we're starting from a higher average even a moderate El Nino could decisively surpass the 1998 temperature.

At which point you'll have to abandon your 'global warming stopped in 1998' mantra and pick this new year as the point global warming stopped.

Up until the next peak.

And so on and so forth.

It'll take an increasingly bizarre denial of reality for you to ignore the ongoing upwards trend in average temperature.

Dixon

NDM:"I don't particularly care to bone up on man-made climate change because the scientific consensus is that it is a reality"

What you are doing is accepting a line that people calling themselves "scientists" are pushing without any understanding of what constitutes "science" or indeed "knowledge". Otherwise, you would realise that the very notion of "consensus" is utterly inimical to science. Semmelweis proved experimentally that perpeural fever was spread by bacteria but was laughed literally to a looney bin, because "scientific consensus" was that bacteria were harmless.

Ndm:"Unsurprisingly, Claire Parkinson has never crossed my path..." At least you admit I was rioght about that then..."... but then neither have any other climate scientists. It is far too easy to cherry pick a single scientific paper supporting some position without putting it into the global context..."

But it is YOU who are denying my citation its context: that being Monbiots demand for a reference to Plmers statement that antarctic sea ice is expanding. All I did was provide the reference. Thats not "cherry picking", its called answering a question.

NDM: "The opposition to man-made climate change comes from a miniscule number of dissenting scientists amplified through populist ignorance. Every scientific theory has some number of scientists who dissent even in the face of overwhelming proof. "

Again, you obviously dont know anything about what distinguishes science from other sources of knowledge. The case of Semmelweis that I mentioned underpins the absurdity of your above statement and your callowness when it comes to the character of scientific disputes. Just about anything in science starts with a "tiny number" of dissenting voices. And nothing in science is EVER capable of "overwhelming proof". This is pure naiivete.

Ndm:"
This process is far beyond the ability of the average layman whose immediate response is, as we've seen above, to use increasing Antartic sea ice to as disproof of man-made climate change."

On the contrary, the matter of sea ice, one way or another, is irrelevant to the question of whether climate change is caused by Human activity. These are two different questions. The point about the failure of AGW hypothesis to predict either ice expansion or a cessation in average temperature increase is not that it "proves" there is no "global warming" ( not the question ) but that the responses of AGW proponents in creating "auxillary hypotheses" to explain such failures of prediction contradicts what is the fundamental prerequisite of a hypothesis in science, that it stand or fall according to whether its predictions are borne out by occurrences.

This is really very simple, A-level philosophy of science. So you really should read some Karl Popper and get "a handle" on what "science" IS before adopting the "consensus" shared among those in certain professions who call themselves "scientists". Working IN science doesnt make someone a "scientist".

Once you understand what makes a thing "scientific" you will realise why the AGW camp...however many of its members may work IN science...is fundamentally not scientific.

Dixon

"seanie
September 16th, 2009 8:50pm
There's a big problem looming for you denialists.

1998 was exceptionally warm in comparison to the preceeding years due to an exceptionally strong El Nino. However the temperature of 1998 isn't so exceptional in comparison to the last few years. The continuing upwards trend in average temperature means that some years have been close to (and possibly hotter than) 1998 in the absence of a strong El Nino."

What you ( or the people you're taking your "debating points" from ) have done is to calculate what the temperature WOULD have been HAD THERE BEEN A NORMAL EL-NINO. Then to say that thats the "real" temperature. But the "real" temperature is in fact not this imaginary figure, but an actual figure that makes 2008 an exceptionally cold year! You are literally saying that "black is white" ( the opposite of the facts ) based upon "correcyions" for a phenomenon ( El Nino ) that has itself not been proven to have an effect warrdanting such manipulation of the figures.

This is all exemplary of "auxillary hypothesis" as explained by Popper as the "immunisation" of a non-scientific hypothesis against disproof, rendering it "unfalsifyable" .

This is basic philosophy of science. No matter what happens, AGW obsessives can provide an "auxillary hypothesis" to compensate for the failure of the core hypothesis to predict occurrences. AGW failed to predict an exceptionally cold 2008. So they invent a hypothetical El-Nino spin-off to give them the excuse to subtract an entirely bogus quantity from the equation and voila, a cold year becomes a warm one!

This is how AGW proceeds, by means of a "defensive belt " ( Lokatos ) of auxilary hypothesis. Therefore it can "explain away" any facts not predicted by the hypothesis. Therefore its not a falsifyable hypothesis. Therefore its not "science" but culture.

...and BTW, theres a bg problem looming for you AGW obsessionals, when even NS says there is going to be a period of global cooling.

But as I said earlier, they will probably rationalise that as being due to an exceptionally low level of sun-spot activity.

Peter Arctic

I have followed the "debate" between Monbiot and Plimer closely, as a semi-sceptic on the theory of AGM.

Monbiot asked reasonable questions of Plimer, mainly substantiating some of the (apparently) erroneous claims in his recent book. Plimer has totally failed to answer those questions, after nearly a month, and has instead responded with a bunch of scientific garbage. I'd say that Monbiot is well ahead on points at this stage.

ndm

I have to confess that Dixon lost me on an intellectual level when he opened his most recent response to me with:

-- What you are doing is accepting a line that people calling themselves "scientists" are pushing without any understanding of what constitutes "science" or indeed "knowledge".

They call themselves, and are, "scientists" because they seek to enhance human knowledge through their study of the natural world. They and we don't need the sophistry of those who ponder what science merely with intent to deceive.

Dixon should perhaps put down his Popper.

ndm

Regardless of all the huffing and puffing here as to what science is I take it that Plimer has still not answered Monbiot's question:

-- 5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that:

-- "the sea ice has expanded" (p198).

-- Again, you give no reference.

-- a. Please give a source for this claim.

-- b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?

Indeed, as far as I can tell Plimer has not answered any of Monbiot's questions. Reasonable as they are I don't see why anyone should deign to debate Plimer in the absence of answers. These are complex issues and it is ludicrous to believe that the spectacle of a public debate will lead to better understanding than measured query and response would. That Plimer has refused to respond so far is telling as to the nature of an honest response.

kb

seanie,

If you care to look at the graphs at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ and http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif you'll notice that the smoothed global temp has fallen since 2005. (Your block, 5-year averages are mathematical nonsense, by the way.)

HK

Rod Liddle,
Still no answer on whether you have read the email exchanges - and more importantly, had you read them before you wrote your column. Had you?

I'm a climate change skeptic. Part of the reason for that is the way the "alarmists" don't answer their critics, don't provide data, etc.

From the email exchanges, that is exactly what Plimer is doing here.

If that is representative of what Plimer is really like (who knows? he might end up answering those questions), he is doing no favours for the AGW skeptics, and neither is The Spectator, by choosing him as its standard-bearer.

Archie

Monbiot: prize merchant banker!

Russell Seitz, Cambridge , Massachusetts

Sorry to see you doing the artful dodging- Plimer 's book is as much an embarrassment to the geophysical profession as Mathew D'Ancona's reluctance to confront his dereliction is to The Spectator.

ndm

kb -

Just as one swallow does not make a summer neither does one mild year undo centuries of global warming. It is ludicrous to argue on the basis of single observations into one facet or another of climate change and these graphs are no exception.

Far more important is the reminder on the page kb linked to that:

-- The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated:

-- 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'

-- 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns'

Nicholas Hallam

I see Seanie. If we take averages over 5 years, and, carefully align them so that 1998 falls at the end of a period, we can maintain the idea that global temperatures are continuing to increase throughout the past decade while the data appear to tell a different story.

Compare this data also with the 6 temperature scenarios predicted in the IPCC 2001 report. Not a very good fit is it?

seanie

There's nothing mysterious about the choice of five year averages. It's just taking the most recent complete year (2008) and going backwards.

Five year averages are a bit rough and ready but they smooth out some of the noise. And the fact remains that the last five years have been warmer than the five before them, which in turn were warmer than the five before that.

Unless you also happen to deny basic arithmetic.

seanie

And I'm very much aware that the smoothe average has dropped since 2005 but a drop over such a short period has no statistical significance whatsoever.

The 'noise' of natural variability, year to year, greatly exceeds the underlying warming trend identified, so any trend can only be deduced over longer periods than that.

As I sadi. fivve year averages are a bit rough and ready but they do at least smooth out some of that noise.

Snowman

Can you figure what his name, and the name of the American equivalent, the Nobel prize wearer rhyme with? Should this not be a warning?

seanie

The scope for natural variability, year to year, is far greater than the underlying warming trend. Variability day to day and month to month is even greater than annual variability, making short term predictions HARDER than longer term ones. So deriving trends across short periods is essentially meaningless; even five year averages aren't necessarily going to show consistent warming. Natural events such as a La Nina or a major volcanic eruption could result in a significant temporary cooling that drives the average down. But even that would not be inconsistent with an underlying warming trend, because such effects are temporary.

The simplest way to filter out the 'noise' of natural variation and identify any trend is to average out temperatures in some way. There are various ways to do it, with varying degrees of complexity, but it's a perfectly straightforward and entirely valid way of interpreting the data that itself doesn't 'promote' any particular result. It just filters out the noise.

So, knowing that, look at the HADCRU and GISS graphs showing 'smoothed' or averaged temperatures.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.pdf

In both cases, is the average temperature (as represented by the smoothed average) higher now than ten years ago?

Yes it is.

Snowman

Just one deadly simple question for the Mr. Monbiot. Human activity- driving cars, flying, steel bashing, cooking, and the rest - accounts for 4% of the aggregate discharge of CO2. Right, or wrong.

Any time he's been asked the question he has avoided answering it. Instead, he has always said that the density of CO2 has gone from 280ppm to 380ppm in the last 200 years, and we are to blame.

The 4% contribution is correct. The rest of the argument of the ecochondriacs amounts to little more than noise, a misleading pap. If we, the 6bn of humans, all dropped dead the release of CO2 would drop almost marginally. To ask us to drive slower, or switch bulbs in order to lower our CO2 emissions borders on certifiable insanity, and is akin to asking us to pee into the ocean to stop a coming tsunami.

Nicholas Hallam

Seanie, can you do me a favour and list the unsmoothed annual numbers on which you are basing your calculations? I can see the data charted but don't have access to the underlying numbers.

seanie

I've already provided a link to the unsmoothed numbers. It's the last column.

rod liddle

I'd just like to say I'm very glad we're getting into a debate about unsmoothed numbers. They've always bothered me.

Yes I did see the email exchange between the two. The balance, to my mind, seems slightly in favour of plimer, all things considered. But that may be a consequence of my own bias. My original blog here was based upon Monbiot's exalted opinion of himself and his certitude.

seanie

The HADCRU data smoothed and unsmoothed;

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

The smoothed average going back to 1988.

1988 - 0.122
1989 - 0.136
1990 - 0.149
1991 - 0.162
1992 - 0.177
1993 - 0.194
1994 - 0.215
1995 - 0.24
1996 - 0.267
1997 - 0.295
1998 - 0.323
1999 - 0.348
2000 - 0.37
2001 - 0.389
2002 - 0.403
2003 - 0.413
2004 - 0.419
2005 - 0.42
2006 - 0.419
2007 - 0.415
2008 - 0.411

You'll see it has dropped from the highpoint in 2005 but it's higher than the start of the century and the figures towards the end of the series are increasingly provisional. Given the temperature in 2008 was depressed by a strong La Nina, the smoothed anomaly will most likely be revised upwards over the next few years.

seanie

If you look at those unsmoothed figures again, and average them out over decades, you'll find that the last decade of the 20th century is the warmest complete decade in the instrumental record.

1991-2000 averaged 0.242°C above the 61-90 baseline.

So far this century, 2001-2008, is averaging at 0.428°C above the baseline.

It's a very, very safe bet that the first decade of the 21st century will end up the warmest since records began.

William Laing

I think the Creationists' views are laughable. But you do them an injustice comparing them to the Climate Change cult. The mistaken logic and sometimes dishonest arguments, but the I cannot think of an example of Creationist selfsatisfaction selfcertitude nor any trace of an standard operating procedure of hysterical denunciation and personal attack that Greenies have made their trademark.

ndm

The scientific consensus is that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” As lay people we can debate that consensus as much as we like. But such a debate is no more meaningful than our having a debate over the General Theory of Relativity except that we sound more intelligent discussing the sea ice extent than we do discussing Christoffel symbols.

There is absolutely no doubt that human activity has caused significant pollution at the regional level – names like Auld Reekie and The Smoke show that we knew the effect even as we caused it. The move to smokeless coal, and the subsequent abandonment of even that, did much to remove the stain from Edinburgh and London.

Yet we still have horrendous anthropogenic pollution in the car-generated smog of Los Angeles and many other large urban areas. The American car industry destroyed itself because even as it died it was unwilling to deal with the fuel-efficiency problem, and consequent pollution, of the large vehicles it thought to be its life blood. Europe, at least, instituted large carbon taxes which helped move people into smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. The World would be in much better shape today had the US followed the lead of Europe and instituted significant carbon taxes. Anthropogenic pollution would have been reduced and a lowered dependency on Middle-East oil would have allowed us to address the systemic political problems of that region.

Since we know human activity causes large-scale environmental problems at the regional level the only issue is whether or not human activity affects the environment at the global scale. And the scientific consensus is that global warming is “very likely” to be anthropogenic. There is no political consensus because liberal politicians (in the American sense) want to do something about it and conservative politicians want to do nothing about it. And the reason for that difference is that liberal politicians typically favour the interests of people while conservative politicians prioritize business interests that seek to continue the free ride they have had regarding the pollution they cause.

The entire lay debate is laughable because it is not about science it is about the politics of what to do about anthropogenic pollution of the World. Conservatives seek to do nothing about it politically so choose to attack the science. We can see how worthless these attacks are when we have someone on this thread attacking the very notion of science itself. These attacks result from the cult of truthiness that has infected so much conservative thought in the last few decades. If you do not understand the problem then you have nothing to contribute to the solution – and that is the situation conservatives have put themselves in.

daniel maris

ndm -

What a pile of ordure.

1. The fact that anti-smoke regulations were introduced BEFORE global warming was ever heard of shows that humans don't need global warming theory to take action against pollution.

2. There is good evidence that the smoke that dominated urban areas for so much of the 20th century actually had a reflective effect which was a global cooling factor - an important one that when removed has led to apparent global warming.

3. The facts are that despite a huge increase in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, temps have fallen since 2005.

4. I believe that NASA's satellite measurements of temperatures do not back up the global warming thesis. But feel free to correct me on that.

seanie

As already explained, the scope for natural variability, year-on-year, far exceeds the underlying warming trend.

Inter-annual variability can be as much as 0.2C.

The underlying warming trend,albeit relentless, is less than 0.02C per year.

The 'noise' of natural variability drowns out such a trend over any short time scale.

So drawing conclusion from temperature records since 2005 is essentially inane.

seanie

And instead of inviting people ot prove your 'belief' wrong, how about some evidence that your belief is justified.

Because the four principal global temperature records, the two satellite and two surface records, actually correlate pretty well.

seanie

The four principal temperature records in use match each other pretty well. The surface records HADCRU & GISS, going back to 1850 and 1880 respectively, are compiled differently vary on detail (such as which particular year is the warmest) but show similar warming trends. The Satellite records, UAH & RSS, only date from 1979 but correlate closely with the surface record. That four differing records, compiled by different methods, all correlate well is good evidence that the data is robust.

ndm

daniel maris -

1) "humans don't need global warming theory to take action against pollution" but todays conservatives don't want to do anything about anthropogenic pollution regardless of the scientific consensus that it is "very likely" a significant source of global warming.

2) 3) 4) As I pointed out it is ludicrous for lay people lacking the requisite knowledge to argue about the significance of "apparent global warming," " temps have fallen since 2005," and "satellite measurements of temperatures."

It is not that I don't like an argument but I see little point in ignorant debate. As to my preceding comment being "a pile of ordure," how is the smell down there?

Anthony Burnet

One cannot help but wonder if Mr. Monbiot, like Al Gore, has some serious investments in the shady world of "carbon trading"... can he not see through the morass of data in Ian Plimer's book and just focus on the basics, eg. the FACT that there has been no truly GLOBAL warming in this century ?

ndm

Anthony Burnet's criticism of Al Gore made me curious as to the background of Ian Plumer. And, blow me, if Wikipedia doesn't describe him as a "director of three mining companies." Tie me kangaroo down, sport.

Augustus

The 2009 UN Climate Change Conference is already taking a chaotic twist. More and more people are voting with their feet. They've had over 20,000 cancellations so far. Those
'experts', who live off this future horror scenario, would be financially bankrupt if they weren't able to go on with their warnings, and CO2
emmissions targets. In the meantime, the American research institution Heartland in Chicago
has warned that this warming lark will certainly lose 1m Americans their jobs, and that it will cost every American $1,500 per year.

seanie

No. They haven't had 20,000 cancellations.

The conference is only expected to have 12,000-15,000 delegates for one thing.

Feste

Like many, I do not have the scientific knowledge to know who is right and who is wrong in this debate.

My instinct is to be sceptical of the climate change activists' claims of impending doom but if the evidence really is there, then we need to face up to it.

The various climate change sites in the blogosphere each adopt either an activist or a sceptical stance, publish the "evidence" that supports their position and are generally read by those who are predisposed to their side of the argument.

I would like to see each of the sceptics' objections to the man-made global warming theory debated rationally and on the evidence, without degenerating into the usual ad-hominem attacks.

Seanie has made a start, let's continue it.

Katherine McKinney

Not all of us Creationists are jabbering in the backwoods of the Appalachian Mountains. My particular Church, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, happens to have some of the most well educated minds in the world, and, while obviously in the minority, there are a number of highly qualified scientists out there who agree with our position. Despite the propaganda, the science on creation is no more "settled" than global warming. So what makes you different from Mr. Monbiot?

seanie

There's no doubt much more to learn about it, and aspects to be explained, but the fact of evolution is rock solid, settled science. The evidence, from a multitude of disciplines, is absolutely overwhelming.

The science of AGW isn't so settled but it's still pretty overwhleming. The array of evidence supporting it, from a variety of disciplines, is considerable.

seanie

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.

CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.

That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.

The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.

That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It's exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.

It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the observed warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it.

Because basic physics tells us it should be.

HK

Seanie: "It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the observed warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we'd also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn't causing it."

I'd start with asking why the Earth warmed enough to produce a Medieval Warm Period that allowed agriculture on Greenland. Then cooled so much that the Thames iced over to such an extent that there were fairs held on it, then pulled out of that cool period (i.e. warmed) well before industrialisation started setting the planet off on the road to doom by increasing CO2 levels.

Evidently there is "some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism" because it happened, and equally evidently, CO2 had nothing to do with those earlier episodes.

Fabian the Fabulous

Getting a bit off-topic, this thread, isn't it?
It's supposed to be about the fact that Monbiot is a preening, self-regarding prat.
Any deniers?

rod liddle

Fabian, thank you. Though I was getting sucked into the smoothed/unsmoothed numbers conundrum.

Augustus

From The Copenhagen Post (19/8/09):

"The Foreign Ministry has cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel
reservations meant for people
attending the United Nations Climate Change conference in December."

Jim

"and let there be an end to the debate"

That's self-evidently the opposite of what Monbiot is saying and doing, *by trying to have a debate with Ian Pilmer*.

"It is this very certitude, and the response to critics, which makes me doubtful."

So Pilmer's response (bury head in the sand, ignore any invitation to reasoned debate) doesn't worry you in the slightest? How consistent of you!

Funny how I only come to the Spectator website by clicking on one of those 'look what these clowns are saying now' links.

Eli Rabett

Really now, go look in the mirror. Plimer hauled out the harumphing regalia and spewed a whole bunch of twaddle, demonstrating exactly how one can ask meaningless questions surrounded with infinite pomposity.

There is an old saw, that to ask a question with an answer you need to know 80% of the answer. On that criteria, Monbiot's questions meet the test. Plimer's get an F-. They are like the old joke test question: Explain the universe, give two examples.

Bah humbug indeed,

Nicodemus34

@Seanie: So, there has only been enough CO2 around since 1860 has there, to cause the planet to die? What kind of "basic science" is that?

How arrogant of you, as a human, to suppose that taking the period 1860-2009, which is 149 years (and therefore not one millisecond) in the entire history of this planet that those 149 years can be seen to be responsible for MMGW.
I believe the temperature records in England go back only to about 1659... We can take Arctic ice samples which may give us clues as to the temperature tens of thousands of years ago... These tens of thousands of years are MERE SCINTILLA in the geological history of this 14 billion year old planet. So, your statistical sample of 149 years starts to look a little silly, doesn't it?

Have you any idea how much CO2 was being produced as a result of the volcanic activity that lasted BILLIONS of years when this planet was in its infancy?

@HK- and the Romans cultivating grapes in Scotland as far north as the Forth/Clyde valleys

ndm

An article in the Copenhagen Post states:

-- The Foreign Ministry has cancelled 20,000 overnight hotel
reservations

-- Reservations in a number of hotels across Zealand and parts of Skåne in southern Sweden have been cut from 120,000 to 100,000 overnight stays.

-- The two-week conference in December is expected to attract between 12,000 and 15,000 participants. The ministry described the cancellations as a natural "adjustment."

So much for that climate catastrophe, Augustus.

DavidCOG

I knew The Spectator (owned by the Barclay brothers / Daily Telegraph) was a bit of a ranty right wing rag, but what I didn't know was that it was stuffed to the rafters with weak-minded liars, who will use every fallacious mechanism to deflect and distort the truth. And when that's not good enough, outright lie to fit their political bias and agenda - truth and science be damned.

Monbiot set clear conditions from the outset. These were agreed to by both Plimer and The Spectator. Plimer then weaselled and twisted for weeks without answering some very simple questions, mainly about the sources for the information provided in his own book. Instead of answering he employed the most petty, pompous distractions to avoid answering the questions. It was blatant to anyone with a functioning cranium what his game was.

Now we have a little coven of juvenile Spectator hacks whose best argument amounts to "Moonbat!". It's pitiable.

> ...there is no argument, we are not qualified to argue, man-made climate change simply IS, and let there be an end to the debate.

You got one thing right - *you* are not qualified. Until you can produce credible science that refutes the century+ of accumulated science that demonstrates anthropogenic climate change to be fact, *you* play no part in the scientific debate. You can, of course, stand on the sidelines, hurling sophistry and abuse at it - exactly as is printed here and elsewhere in this rag.

"Ranty right wing rag" is too good for The Spectator. It's a font of dishonest, politically-motivated propaganda, penned by ideologues and scientifically illiterate weasels.

GC

Anyone interested in what really happened here should have a read of the correspondence between Monbiot and Plimer. It makes fascinating but excruciating reading. Plimer agreed to the debate under the terms proposed by Monbiot but after a series of 'dog ate my homework' excuses, culminating in the car-wreck of Plimer's questions to Monbiot, it becomes pretty clear as to who the real moonbat is. It also shows that The Spectator's editorial staff in less than a flattering light.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

Nathan

What a stupid column you wrote Rod. Did you have anything of substance to say? Ian Plimer is an embarrasment to Australia and his book is a parade of incoherent rambling.

rod liddle

COG? Spart, surely?

Augustus

Ian Plimer isn't the first highly qualified scientist to say that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history.
It has also often been well-argued that, not only is it highly ridiculous to suppose that human nature is causing current trends and cycles, it is
quixotic, if not idiotic, to suppose that cleaning up our act
through expensive sleight of hand taxation tricks can reverse
these trends.

Man-made global warming is just another in a long line of mankind's supposed sins of degradation which the intolerant, and power-crazed fanatics of man's urban elites have made into a religion.

HK

Augustus - you might well be right.

It's just that Ian Plimer IS the person that The Spectator has decided is the standard bearer for the fight-back (as you note, there are many others it could have chosen). Based on those email exchanges, Plimer doesn't deserve to be and will simply discredit himself and The Spectator.

The Spectator seems to realise this, which is why it has tried to portray this as Monbiot backing out, rather than Spectator reneging on their agreement with Monbiot and Plimer being unable to provide basic answers to simple questions.

THX1138

Nicodemus34 the earth is only 4.5 billion years old not 14 billion, I think you're confusing it with estimated age of the Universe.

Nicodemus34

Thanks THX1138- you're quite correct. I meant 4 point odd billion. I don't, however, feel that my argument has been particularly undermined by my mistake. What's a few billion years in geological history when nutcases like Seanie assert that humanity has irrevocably harmed the planet merely since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? I laugh like a drain at such an infantile argument.

THX1138

Nicodemus34

I suppose it's a good thing that unlike most of your brethren, you don't think the world is 10,000 years old and science must mean something to you.

Since the industrial revolution we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 260 ppm to about 385ppm now.

I laugh like a drain that you think that this has no effect on the climate.

Snowman

U R all mad, quite seriously mad. The details of smoothed data, ice core measurements and all the other stuff is just pap. The facts are simple. Human contribution to the aggregate discharge of the gas amounts to some 4%, the increase in the gas density in the atmosphere (if correct) has gone from 0.028% to 0.038% (228ppm to 338ppm), which equates to an additional 0.01%, and the hockey stick nonsense is just that a nonsense. If the relationship between CO2 density and temperature were as the graph shows then there must be a third variable that drives them both.

That's it, the agrument's finished, it has expired, it's kaput. The parrot's dead.

Nicodemus34

THX1138

Yes, since you ask, science does mean a lot to me. However in some matters it takes a lot longer than you might imagine for theories to be demonstrated & proven eg. dark matter/dark energy/the Higgs Boson etc- all these things currently stand as postulations to fill a gap in a Grand Unified Theory. Similarly, in fields as chaotic as meteorology, climatology or geophysics sufficient evidence has simply not yet been amassed for the existence of LONG-TERM IRREVERSIBLE anthropogenic global warming.
This CO2 you're going on about has always been here and emitted, in one form or another, be it by sustained volcanic activity over eons, continuing on a smaller scale today, or by rotting animal & vegetable matter. I'm not disputing the increases in ppm to which you refer; what I'm trying to say, admittedly not very well, is that good science can only be good science if our sample time-line is thousands of years from when it is alleged the warming must have started ie shorlt after the Industrial Revolution. Not a few decades. It is risible that this religion has been created around an arrogant supposition by people that Earth cannot cope with more CO2 & that it is going to eradicate humanity. Come back to me in 1000 years with your raw data & a neutral panel of scientists from a wide range of disciplines & then we'll be able to have a reasoned discussion armed with a statistically relevant number of years data.
Regards
Nicodemus34

Pricky Gayes

ndm -

Well done - that's about the most intelligent summary I've read of the state of the lay debate.

Susan Hill

Totally right. There IS debate, there ARE scientists who disagree, and it is absolutely a fact that 1. the planet has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled since it began 2. there has been cooling in the last 11 years at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher 3. if the hubris of those who think man so important that he can roll back the waves if worrying, not to say laughable, 4. it is despicable to call sceptics 'deniers' with that implied equation with holocaust deniers. As you say. I am a sceptic who used to take it as gospel that there was global warming aka climate change because apparently they 'knew.' Then I read one or two serious opposing views and began to investigate the subject. I also noted that I was told in 1975 that we would by now be in a new Ice Age, and in 1990 that we would be living in a parched scorching desert, yet strangely, here we still are, miserable summers, golden autumns, bitter winter, fantastic spring - just as it sometimes was when I was a child. Or occasionally not. It's also worrying that the warmistas seem to believe that this is more important, not to say more likely, than Iran having nuclear weapons. But to deny any form of debate and attempt censorship when it is suggested is not the mark of a civilised rational intelligent man.

Christopher Crow

Oh dear, methinks the lady doth protest too much ...

Woodsong

yes this is the last time I will have anything to do with the Spectator. Goodbye.

Barry

Just get Plimer to answer Monbiot's questions, and the debate can go ahead.

What's so hard about that?

Rob W

Rod: why do you consider debate an absolute good? What the Spectator did in publishing the Pilmer article was to suspend all other criteria in deference to the idea of "debate", despite that Pilmers indefensible (even by himself) book can create debate only between people who pursue the facts and those who don't. This is demonstably true, Rod, as even a brief look into the facts of the clash will tell you. But you'd rather concentrate on your personal dislike of George Monbiot. Perhaps accusations of pomposity can rest until climate change is being taken seriously across the board? Because until then, pomposity is a small charge against the irresponsibility of publishing articles of no scientific worth on the most sensitive and important subject of all, as the Spectator has done.

Reg Perrin

If you have finished your dummy-spit.. I guess you don't have any published evidence to back up Plimer's assertions either then ?

henry blince

There is indeed someone with a more exalted opinion of himself than George Monbiot and his picture and name are at the head of this column.

Ngulbis

I have no interest in anything eco or global warming I will leave that to the 'experts' but please spare a thought for we Maglonians. This maniac has come to live among us and is already hated by the locals for his pomposity!!! Would you believe he is leading a campaign to try and stop us having a supermarket in our town!!!!

Roger Otip

When someone denies something supported by masses of compelling scientific evidence and accepted by virtually every climate scientist in the world, what else can you call them but a denier? Richard Dawkins talks about evolution deniers, and you mention holocaust deniers. Denier seems to me to be the right word for one who denies the overwhelming evidence that exists for the holocaust, evolution by natural selection and anthropogenic climate change.

Lone Wolf

Rod, please spare a thought for us poor souls whose town Monbiot has moved to. He hasn't been here long and already he is trying to tell we 'natives' what to do. He is reviled by all. A pompous prig.

Linda Smith

Roger Otip, science does not work by finding masses of evidence; it works by falsifying the hypothesis. You apparently are unaware of Popper's famous example - the hypothesis: all swans are white - Finding lots of white swans does not "prove" that no black swans exist; it is the scientist's job to search for a black swan to falsify the hypothesis. The supporters of anthropogenic climate change refuse to engage with the falsifying evidence for their hypotheses, as do holocaust deniers.

Fearless Frank

Blimey, is this row still going on?!

@ Roger Otip and others:
Denier = Heretic - so why not just say what you mean.

If climate warming is really such a serious threat, what a shame it's been taken over wholesale by a doomsday cult.

Daniel Taghioff

Yes, clearly Monbiot's tactics of self promotion in order to get Climate Change debated have failed utterly. None of us are talking about it or him...

Phil Burrows

I thought Monbiot seems to have been treated rather unfairly. It may be worth reading his articles and following the links so you don't become known as the kind of journalist that Nick Davies talks about in his book Flat Earth News.

Mike

Moonbat = Monbiot.

I see what you did there. You must be a very clever journalist with a watertight case.

David Watt

Well said.
Pompous monmaniacal Jackass just about covers it

Pete, Shanghai

ndm
September 16th, 2009 9:08am
"Another telling clue that there is something afoot is that the Russians opened up the North East passage to western shipping earlier this month. And was last summer really the first time in 125,000 years that the North East and North West passages have both been open?"

Try http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6210015/Hopelessly-lost-in-the-North-East-Passage.html

Liberty Prime

Monbiot - aswell as writing for the soon-to-be-defunct Guardian, which automatically makes him a tool - is a First Church of Environmentology cult member. He's got a head full of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and so anything he utters out of that eminently hittable badger-baiting face of his, should be treated with the contempt it truly deserves.

Tom

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Bad news for the hockey stick.

jens robdrup

Bravo Liddle
Here is a quote and if anyone can guess who said it, he has earned a bottle of whisky:
When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall."

Klortho

Didn't read all the comments here, but read the ones by Liddle. Unbelievable. Where do you come off saying Monbiot has "an exalted opinion of himself"? Did you even read the article that you linked to? You describe it as dealing "exclusively with ... himself", but that's absurd! Yes, it's evident that he has a tone of exasperation, but the content is solid, and it's not about himself -- it's about Plimer, the global-warming debate in general, and their recent kerfuffle, in particular.
And you call him a jackass? How do you live with yourself, I wonder.

Mark Chopping

"You pompous, monomaniacal, jackass. "
-- takes one to know one? That's the level of discourse in the Spectator now: schoolyard.

Simon

Not everything is simple, not everyone is qualified to speak on, or even claim an understanding of every topic.

Many people here have claimed the debate needs to be undertaken, but it has been, it has been examined and discussed and debated by those with the knowledge and empirical data.

The analogy to creationism is apt, but it runs against the author. Continuing to generate controversy over a question that has been settled is what intelligent design advocates do, it is what holocaust deniers do, and it is what anthropogenic climate change deniers do.

Of course things need to be considered critically, just because there is a consensus does not mean questions cannot be asked. The science is not infallible. But you can't ignore all the science, which is vast and considers enormously complex and diverse issues, simply because you aren't aware of it.

Andrew Trigg

Calling Monbiot a pompous, monomaniacal jackass debases your publication. Since when did name-calling win arguments? You also deliberately misrepresent how Pilmer's failure to back up any of his claims with facts scuttled the debate -- not Monbiot. If you're going to question climate change, do it honestly, and use experts who can back up their claims. Don't scapegoat Monbiot, who does, for your "expert"'s failure to answer simple questions of fact!

Ben

Liddle, you have the debating skills of a flea. What is the purpose of this article? Only to insult Monbiot as if this somehow amounts to attack on his views. Nevermind 'apparently' failing to rise to Monbiot's challenge, he DID fail to. Clearly, you yourself are unable to debate the subject yourself, by claiming the subject matter (both Mobiot and climate change) to be dull. It may be, in your opinion, but your opinion is grounded in your own ignorance and avoidance of the facts surrounding this debate, and your lack of willingness to engage. If therefore, you are unwilling to engage, man up and admit as much and refrain from wasting valuable cyberspace.

Rose M.J. Bergeron

To Rod Liddle

I read George Monbiot's series of columns on the subject of Ian Plimer, and read about the "challenge". You are misrepresenting facts, Mr. Liddle. Like we say in Canada, you are completely off tracks!

What are you doing, working as an editor, when you cannot even understand, analyze and summarize accurately a series a columns which are crystal clear?

Mr. Monbiot's demandsw were simple and reasonable: he asked Mr. Plimer to back up his arguments and explain discrepencies between the research he quotes and what he writes in his book. Duh!

A 6th Grader would get this.

It seems obvious to me tat Mr.Plimer cannot back up what he wrote in his book and therefore it can be considered a rag. Maybe your newspaper can be considered as such as well.

Doug Varney

Pot kettle black. How unusual for a journalist to have an inflated opinion of themselves. You probably need to if you are going to make a living from being opinionated in public.

So here's your man Plimer in debate with Moonbat, and in my opinion, doing himself no favours.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm