THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Brute,
Yes you are right in suggesting that Freons (there are a range of different types) have largely been banned. However there are a few exceptions for ‘essential uses’, where no acceptable substitutes have been found, and these do include submarine fire suppression systems. I would expect that the US navy uses them too.
Don’t you keep up with world history? Russia is just as capitalist as anyone else these days. It is debatable if they have ever been anything else. You can’t have socialism without democracy.
Hi Peter,
You wrote Brute:
“You can’t have socialism without democracy.”
This is not correct, Peter.
The communists in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc. called it international “socialism”.
The Nazis called it national “socialism”.
The Cubans and North Koreans still call it “socialism”.
None of these are or were democratic states. Instead they are a collection of ruthless dictatorships based on bureaucratically planned economies controlled by the state.
What you are referring to is not “socialism”, it is “social democracy”, as most of the socialist parties in democratic nations call themselves.
“Socialist” parties in democratic nations usually identify themselves as an alternate to “capitalism”, yet they almost all operate in more or less capitalistic societies.
Those states that have replaced free market capitalism with economies planned by the state are, in fact, the true socialists (i.e. anti-capitalists). None of these are democratic. A justification often used by socialists is that global capitalism causes greater disparity of wealth and greater suffering, so that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is a preferable system.
(Churchill’s comment on the 2 systems has been posted earlier on this site, but I will tell a personal experience I had on this.)
Several years ago (before the Soviet Union imploded) I noticed a sign in a German taxi, in which I was riding to the airport, that read (translated from German): “under capitalism 5% of the people hold 95% of the wealth”.
I asked the driver if he believed this statement. He immediately agreed. I then asked him whether he would agree that “under communism far less than 5% of the population hold 100% of the power”. He had no answer.
The recent and current leaders of the “People’s Republic of China” have figured this one out slightly differently than the true socialist states. China has moved away from true socialism (under Mao) to a system that allows and rewards capitalism. It is by no means a democratic system, however, but in making this shift away from socialism the leaders of China have been able to increase the standard of living of the Chinese population immensely.
To “terminology”: The name “communist” has fallen into almost as much disrepute worldwide as the words “Nazi” or “fascist”, so the governments of these states prefer the name “socialist” to “communist”. What’s in a name?
But neither capitalism nor its opposite, socialism, require a democratic system to exist.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
Reur 2624
Thanks for link to latest information from Roy Spencer.
There is more real factual information in this article “Global Warming and Nature’s Thermostat” than there is in 1,000 pages of IPCC AR-4 computer-generated pseudoscience.
It shoots down the “positive feedback” assumptions of all IPCC climate models (and therefore the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C) very effectively, by demonstrating that these are simply not supported by the physically observed facts.
Too bad the AGW-controlled scientific journals are censoring this information, in order to withhold it from the public.
But I’m looking forward to Spencer’s planned book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder”, when it is published.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
Freon is a trade name…..a manufacturer name…..like Xerox. Halon 114B2 has been banned in the US (and on US boats) thanks to knuckleheads such as Al Gore. US Subs rely on manual firefighting techniques employing portable fire extinguishers and water, (pre-action systems), not Halon.
Note to Brute regarding the Spencer article.
In a sideline footnote Spencer gives a critique of a YouTube video, “Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See”, in which an Oregon high school teacher, Greg Craven, uses logic “to convince viewers that the only responsible course of action on global warming is to act as if it is manmade and catastrophic. In other words, the potential risk of doing nothing is so high that we must act, no matter what the science says.”
What Craven does as a private citizen is his business, but I sincerely hope he is not spreading his personal beliefs and fears to his high school students as “fact”.
I used the link to try to view this video but only saw the note, “This video has been removed by the user.”
Indoctrination of children is one of the more insiduous ways that totalitarian regimes (or philosphical movements) have tried to gain support for their agendas. (Goebbels was an expert at this.)
Fortunately, the success of this approach is short lived. It probably was not much more than a few months after the end of WWII that most of the children who had been brainwashed with the pseudo-scientific “master race” hypothesis realized that it was BS.
I predict that, if things keep cooling down as they have been for the past decade, most of the schoolchildren that are now being brainwashed with the pseudo-scientific AGW hypothesis will also realize very quickly that this is BS.
Kids are more intelligent than people (especially eco-activist high school teachers) give them credit for.
Max
Max,
Of course, it is only natural that the name of socialism is misused by those who wish to attain power and use it for their own ends. Lets just take a look at a dictionary definition of the word:
“a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”
How can it be possible for the “community as a whole” to be vested with with control, or ownership, without democracy being involved?
I would put more emphasis on the control aspect than the ownership. Whether people realise it or not, all western governments, under the pressure of democracy have moved to control their economies ( or the means of production and exchange if you prefer the Marxist jargon), and not necessarily in the interests of the owners. The last twenty years or so have seen the balance shift back towards the owners, but I would say that 2008 will turn out to be the high water mark for Reagan-Thatcherite economics.
Are the capitalist classes the ruling classes in the way that conventional Marxists would suggest? I’m not sure that they are. In many ways the class struggle is between the democratic process on the one hand and capitalism on the other. Of course they, the capitalits, try to manipulate the process to secure a favourable outcome for themselves, and they have the money to do it of course. Capitalism is tolerated by the working and middle classes providing it is working well. But what if it isn’t? We might well see the answer to that question emerge in the next few years.
Max,
Well said, (written), although it is still aggravating. It takes quite a bit of time everyday to “de-program” my nieces after spending the day at their public school. My other niece has a much better grasp of things and all in all a much broader view of topics, (private school). She is also far more advanced than her public school cousins.
It was especially interesting to note that the Spencer paper was rejected twice. What is the criterion for acceptance/rejection of papers such as this and what is the standard process?
Committee vote?
Bruce et al
Sunspots. As a natural sceptic I have always queried the idea of sunspots being the sole climate driver, but liked the symetry of the idea.
My attempt to graph them by hand in previous years seemed to show there was a fit- but not a perfect one. However I have always believed that the vast majority of our climate and temperatures are driven by solar activity of some kind-sunspots, cosmic rays, Pdo etc.
The atached graph should be read that the sun spot numbers (in green) that show the lowest concentration i.e. nearest the bottom of the chart, should reflect low temperatures. Those with the highest peak are the ones with the highest numbers, and should reflect greater temperatures.
There is no doubt that there is some correlation in both high and low temperature spikes, so all in all it looks to me to be a reasonable-but by no means perfect-fit.
You will note the graph now has vertical date lines to make it easier to read. Previously the 6 notes* along the bottom line were drawn on by ‘eye’. This will mean I can now position the 6 notes more accurately.
I was replying to max’s #post 2355 when I commented the co2 spikes were in 1825 1857 and 1942 (amongst others).
Consequently I will relook at the graph and the co2 spikes in this context to see if I can see any correlation between co2/temperature/sunspots.
http://www.cadenzapress.co.uk/download/sunspots_mencken.xls
Comments?
Tony B
Max, On the question of indoctrination.
“Indoctrination of children is one of the more insidious ways that totalitarian regimes (or philosophical movements) have tried to gain support for their agendas”
It has been said that the Jesuits are the masters of the science of indoctrination. Though I’m not sure if they are any worse than all those who suffer from the delusion of religion. The only young Americans I seem to meet over here are Mormons. And why are they Mormon? Because they were born and raised and indoctrinated in Mormon families in Utah. If they had been born in India they would be Hindus. If they’d born in Iran they’d be Muslim. In Israel they’d be Jewish.
Children seem to be defined as Christian , Muslim or whatever, long before they reach an age which would enable them to make sense of what these religions really mean.
What are schools supposed to do? If there is one thing that the founding fathers of the USA got right it was the decision to keep religion and schools separate. Not science and schools though. Schools should be tasked with teaching secular and progressive scientific objective opinion. And if that upsets people like you and Brute, well that’s just too bad.
Hi Peter,
To defend the inherently democratic nature of “socialism” you write (2631), “How can it be possible for the “community as a whole” to be vested with with control, or ownership, without democracy being involved?”
It depends on the definition of the “community as a whole”.
Your idealized definition might be totally different from mine or from that of a leader of a truly “socialist” country.
I’m sure Stalin would have defined the “community as a whole” differently than you might.
All the truly “socialist” (i.e. anti-capitalist) states I have seen have somehow defined the “community as a whole” as “the state”. This is where the power and wealth is “vested”.
As I noted earlier, China is moving away from being a truly “socialistic” state to more of a “capitalistic” one, without doing much, however, to become a “democratic” state.
Throughout her thousand of years of history China never had a good grasp of “democracy”.
The move appears to be working, in that the standard of living of the Chinese population has improved immensely on average.
The move has undoubtedly increased the disparity between the wealthiest and poorest, which would represent a real ideological problem for socialist purists, who believe in income leveling.
And, to be sure, there is still a lot of abject poverty in many rural Chinese provinces.
But one can argue that all Chinese have benefited from this (non-democratic) move away from pure “socialism” to a more “capitalistic” society, even if some have benefited more than others.
I believe that the Chinese leaders are wise (or crafty) enough to realize that it is not the disparity between rich and poor that make people dissatisfied (and therefore ready to demonstrate or revolt against their governments). It is the trend in their own plight: “am I better off than I was last year, five years ago?” If the answer to this question is resoundingly positive, most people do not really care if someone else is doing even better.
But back to your intial statement. I have seen no practical example of a long-lasting society (in the modern, industrialized world) that has successfully practiced your idealized version of “socialism” (i.e. an anti-capitalist society based on democracy and communal ownership of all property. Can you name such an example?
The concept appears to go against basic human nature and, therefore, would seem to have no long-term future in a truly democratic society.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
Science? My 10 year old niece was taught that CO2 is pollution. She had no idea that it is essential to sustain plant life which in turn sustains life that requires oxygen.
The US founding fathers and the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion…..not freedom from religion.
Were drifting off topic again……….
Also Peter, “separation of Church and State” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
However; many references to God do. And if that upsets people like you Peter, well that’s just too bad.
Hi Peter,
Re indoctrination you write, “It has been said that the Jesuits are the masters of the science of indoctrination.”
If you are referring to the ability to masterfully use logic in order to convey the desired message, you may be right.
But if you are referring to forced “brainwashing”, the Soviet Communists and German Nazis certainly had the Jesuits beat. And the reason for this is so simple it hurts: “they had the complete political control” (which the Jesuits did not).
The “mullahs” in totalitarian states run under Sharia Law have this same absolute level of control.
The Spanish Inquisition was also administered by an all-powerful (nominally) secular government (to “convert” or get rid of Jews, Muslims, and “heretical” Christians).
It’s different in our modern, democratic societies.
If we, for example, hear from our children that they are being “brainwashed” in the classroom by ideological extremists of any ilk (who happen to be their school teachers), we can complain to the school management and get these ideologists muzzled or fired.
This may be an uphill battle if we are trying to muzzle a strict “creationist” science teacher in a “Bible Belt” community or an “AGW alarmist” who is spreading his hysteria to the school children in New York City or San Francisco.
In the worst case, we can pull our kids out of that particular class or school. After all, it is a democratic society.
That is the difference, and as they say “vive la difference!”
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
To your 2633 (solar activity as a climate driver), there have been many studies out there showing a relationship.
I have posted links to several of these (posts # 87 to 98 on page 1 of this site).
Most of these conclude that one cannot relate all of the late 20th century warming to (our current knowledge of) solar irradiation alone. The mean reported impact of solar activity on 20th century temperature in the cited studies was around 0.35C (out of a total observed warming of around twice this amount). The individual studies reported values of 0.2C to 0.7C and the arithmetical average of all studies was 0.37C.
The main point is that the radiative forcing from total solar irradiance (TSI) as assumed and reported by the IPCC is understated by a factor of around 10.
The other point is that we see fairly robust correlation between solar activity and globally averaged temperature but cannot completely identify the mechanism (one of the objectives of the current CLOUD study at CERN, Geneva).
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Max
I think you’re agreeing with me-its the sun thats very largely responsible -but in what form is still unclear.
Sun spots? Clouds? PDO? Cosmic rays? A little bit of several things plus co2?
I dont think I could say there is anything like a 100% correlation between temperature spikes and sun spots, although there is clearly a relationship of some sort in many of them. Perhaps they need to be extremely high or extremely low concentrations to have the maximum effect, and anything in between is much less clear?
tonyB
Pete,
What is the primary source of heat, (energy), impacting Earth?
Hi Peter,
You seem to think that belief in a religious tenet is inherently different from belief in a scientific hypotheses or a political premise. In theory, you might be correct.
But it is my observation that the difference is not so clear, when it comes to “isms” (in the sense of doctrine, theory or cult).
This would include, “socialism”, “environmentalism”, communism”, “creationism”, etc. as well as a new “ism” I will call “AGW-ism”.
Science is based on theories that are either substantiated or refuted through actual experimentation and by physical observations, whereas “isms” are deeply held beliefs, which are often based on scriptures, prophesies or oracles, even if they are contradicted by the science of actual physical observations.
A fundamentalist believer in every word in the Bible “knows” that the world is only around 6,000-years old (because the Bible says so, based on the chronological lineage from Adam to Abraham), despite any scientific observations that demonstrate clearly that it must be much older.
In the case of “AGW-ism”, the oracles are computer models. These reinforce the basic quasi-moralistic “belief” that man is guilty of destroying our planet by burning fossil fuels. When actual physical observations show that the “oracles” have been wrong in their predictions, these are rejected in favor of the computer prophesies.
Science requires rigorous discipline and, most of all, an open mind. There is no room for “glossing over” inconvenient facts that happen to disprove a “belief”.
This is where AGW has drifted away from being a science and has become an “ism”.
Just two simple examples: “it has not really stopped warming, just because all temperature records tell us so, because our computers tell us it must be warming”; “feedback from clouds cannot be strongly negative as physical observations have demonstrated, because our computer models all tell us this feedback must be positive”.
So it is my opinion that “AGW-ism” with its prophesies of doom and gloom should no more be taught to schoolchildren as “scientific fact” than any other of the “isms” .
Any thoughts on this Peter?
(Please refrain from referring to “mainstream consensus of over 2,500 scientists” as a defense of “AGW-ism” as a real science.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
One of the studies I cited in post #97 is that of K. Georgieva et al. I would recommend that you look at this study (plus all the others as well), as it answers one of your questions regarding the suitability of sunspot number as an index for solar activity.
This study demonstrates that “the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and is highly correlated to global variations in the whole period for which we have data.” [The period studied was 1856-2000.]
The authors show graphically that geomagnetic activity correlated very well with global temperature anomalies over the entire study period.
In the discussion the authors state “The geomagnetic activity reflects the impact of solar activity originating from both closed and open magnetic field regions, so it is a better indicator of solar activity than the sunspot number which is related to only closed magnetic field regions. It has been noted that in the last century the correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity has been steadily decreasing from 0.76 in the period 1868-1890, to 0.35 in the period 1960-1982.”
Three mechanisms are listed for solar climate forcing:
1) variations in total solar irradiance leading to variations in the direct energy input into the Earth’s atmosphere
2) variations in UV irradiance causing variations in stratospheric chemistry and dynamics
3) variations in solar wind modulating cosmic ray flux which affect the stratospheric ozone and small constituents and/or the cloud coverage and thus the transparency of the atmosphere”
It should be noted that IPCC considers only a fraction of the first mechanism listed here.
Regards,
Max
For those of you who are discussing co2, there may be something interesting in this edition of the BBC Rsdio4 Material World programme. First item at about 00:30secs. Probably only available until Thursday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/materialworld
Max
I think we are in total agreement.
From obsereving the sunspots data there appears to be a reasonable- but not pefect- fit. Therefore whilst i think the theory is interesting it is not the whole answer-other factors are obviously at work that are connected with the sun.
I have looked at the studies you cite-I know nothing about geo magnetic activity but it makes sense. That there are a variety of solar drivers that are by far the most important factors that drive our climate and temperatures, I have no doubt. Solar activity in one form or another is absolutely fundamental to everything that happens on earth and it is bad science to minimise its overwhelming impact.
So although sun spots are important-especially in the popular imagination-they need to be looked at in their proper perspective.
THe IPCC got it wrong with Dr Mann and Charles Keeling so it is no surprise if they have done the same with solar activity.
TonyB
Max,
I’m not sure that there such a thing as a scientific ‘fact’. Nevertheless there is as much mainstream scientific support for the general position of the IPCC, viz that AGW is real and is a problem to be taken seriously, as there is for AIDS being caused by the HIV virus or smoking tobacco being a serious health risk.
If you would like to collect ‘ism’s. How about denialism, contrarianism, defeatism?
Brute,
It is your constitution, so you should know that the first amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.’ Seems clear enough to me.
If people like you choose to interpret that as meaning that it does not guarantee freedom from religion, well I’m sure we could all could find something. I quite like the pre-Christian European religions with their ideas of respect for earth and environment. Would they be OK if I were to live in America?
The famous ‘one nation under God’ line that is part of the pledge of allegiance is quite a recent addition and against the spirit of the original constitution. It strikes me that the US religious right who are very keen to make the most of the US constitution where it suits them, are happy to try to whittle it away where it doesn’t.
But that is for you guys to decide of course.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “Nevertheless there is as much mainstream scientific support for the general position of the IPCC, viz that AGW is real and is a problem to be taken seriously, as there is for AIDS being caused by the HIV virus or smoking tobacco being a serious health risk.”
Your statement sounds good, but is fully unsubstantiated and incorrect, as well.
The HIV-AIDS connection has been scientifically proven. The smoking health risk has been proven by many clinical trials and case studies. AGW has not.
“Mainstream scientific support” is a version of the old bogus “2,500 scientists” argument. Forget it, Peter. It’s a fraud.
What counts are physical observations, not computer model outputs or “mainstream scientific support” postulations.
And the physical observations do not support the suggestion “that AGW is real and is a problem to be taken seriously”. Instead they show us that the AGW hypothesis is tenuous at best, and that there is no physical evidence that it “is a problem to be taken seriously” at all. And there are many scientists who agree with this.
But, hey Peter, if you want to “believe” in it, that’s your free prerogative. Just don’t try to “sell” it as “science”.
Others “believe” in creationism: you “believe” in AGW-ism.
As the French say “chacun à son goût” (everybody according to his own taste or to each his own).
I personally believe they’re both goofy (and not really that different).
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
A tip.
You’re losing on the “philosophical” debate on the pros and cons of “AGW-ism” and defending it as a “science” rather than a “belief”.
Your defense of idealized “socialism” is interesting, but not really on topic for this site.
Why don’t you try to go back to the specific scientific debate on the topic of AGW?
As a starter, why are you afraid to answer Robin’s questionnaire?
You have not been able to defend the Hansen “hypothesis” of delayed equilibrium and disappearing heat, the physically disproven concept of positive feedbacks from clouds, the unsubstantiated IPCC assumption of constant relative humidity with warming, etc.
In other words, you have not been able to defend the IPCC model assumptions supporting a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C (rather than around 0.5 to 0.8C).
These assumptions are a cornerstone for the suggestion that AGW is a serious problem for the future.
Take them away, and it all implodes in irrelevance.
You have neither been able to explain why temperatures have risen and fallen prior to human CO2 emissions nor why they are now cooling despite record human CO2 emissions.
Your “wanna bet it won’t warm up again after 2009” or “wait’ll next year on Arctic sea ice” proclamations do not lend any real credence to the AGW hyspothesis.
To be honest, you are doing a rather poor job in defending the AGW paradigm, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I’m not sure that ‘proven’ is the correct word for the link between AIDS and HIV. Certainly the overwhelming evidence is in favour, though.
The sceptics on the AIDS issue have their ‘Lindzen’ too in the shape of Henry H. Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Sounds impressive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bauer
And there are plenty more like him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialist
Fortunately for AIDS sufferers, AIDS/HIV deniers don’t seem to have been able to put a spanner in the works to the extent that AGW deniers have. Particularly in the USA the public have been quite systematically misled.
Max,
I’m not sure that ‘proven’ is the correct word for the link between AIDS and HIV. Certainly the overwhelming evidence is in favour, though.
The sceptics on the AIDS issue have their ‘Lindzen’ too in the shape of Henry H. Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Sounds impressive?
{http}://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bauer
And there are plenty more like him.
{http}://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialist
Fortunately for AIDS sufferers, AIDS/HIV deniers don’t seem to have been able to put a spanner in the works to the extent that AGW deniers have. Particularly in the USA the public have been quite systematically misled.