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.
Pete,
Right; which means that if I want to worship a pomegranate on the steps of the US Capital I can. I can erect a 60’ crucifix in my front yard without fear of persecution.
It also means that you are free to worship the Gods of AGW-ism………as your faith.
What it also means is that the US Congress shall not establish an “official” State religion, i.e. The Church of England.
Max, I don’t suppose the ‘controversy’ over smoking has died down completely either. The Smoking / Health deniers have had their Prof Lindzen’s too. This link is quite interesting:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/10/208009.php
One claim is that over 20000 doctors said that smoking was safe.
The techniques pioneered by the smoking industry to protect their profits are being used to this day.
As one tobacco company said in the 60’s “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. … Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won’t know what to believe”
{http}://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_controversy
Sound familiar?
That’s great Pete…….let’s look at a couple of other assertions made in (relatively) recent history:
“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
“The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
“In the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.”
65 million Americans will die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million.
“If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
The world will run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.
Americans are using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will be using all of them.”
“The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years”
By 1995 … somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Shall we discuss Y2K Pete? Have you consulted recently with Madame Blavatsky? If you send me $9.95 I’ll predict the weather of next summer for you.
Max,
I wish you would be more careful with your quotes. The attributed remarks aren’t mine.
For a start you don’t have to wait to see the effect of AGW on Arctic sea ice. 2008 was slightly better than 2007 but was still the second worse year on record.
Secondly “wanna bet it won’t warm up again after 2009” weren’t my words either. There is natural variability between one year and the next. Because of the combined effects of La Nina and a solar minimum the temperature for 2008 has been predicted, probably correctly, to be lower than the record or near record temperatures of recent years . It will still prove to be one of the warmest years on record though. Lets just wait to see what the final figure turns out to be.
Here’s another prophecy from the church of AGWism….this one from 5 years ago.
Global warming threatens ski resorts
02 December 2003
“Hundreds of ski resorts will go out of business because of global warming, according to research published by the United Nations Environment Program on Tuesday.”
Here’s a report dated today………
Snow arrives early at Snowbird
Snowbird marks its second-earliest start in 38 yearshttp://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_10945505
Let’s examine the facts here………CO2 rising, Arctic ice increasing at record pace, Antarctic ice increasing, global temperatures dropping.
Here’s a Southern Hemisphere report from August……
Turoa claims largest snow base ever.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10527882
All of this snow must be the result of “regional anomolies”.
Brute,
And your point is???
There are all sorts of wacky predictions. None of the ones you have mentioned have been accepted by the scientific community as part of a general consensus.
Groups regularly assemble on mountain tops after receiving inside information on an imminent second coming. In fact millions of Americans, maybe even a majority?, believe that they will see this in their lifetime. How wacky is that?
If they really do believe that, why bother about AGW? Surely it will all get fixed in an instant at some point. If water can be turned into wine then maybe carbon dioxide and methane can be turned back into water ?
That is my point exactly Pete…..you’re learning……good for you.
Through clever marketing, hyperbole and a sympathetic media these Hucksters are taking you and your wallet for a ride. You’ve fallen for it hook, line and sinker. They have you praying on your knees to the Earth Goddess Gaia…….and you thought you were so enlightened.
I’m not sure I should be posting this up. George Monbiot has a bit of a side swipe at us Aussies too. But, we’ll let it go for now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-obama-bush-mccain
I’m not sure I should be posting this up. George Monbiot even has a bit of a side swipe at us Aussies too. But, we’ll let it go. For now.
{http}://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/28/us-education-election-obama-bush-mccain
Max,
If you feel that the link between HIV and AIDS is ‘proven’, how about adopting my role on this forum?
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/
I doubt that you’ll be any more successful than I’ve been with you lot, but you’ll probably end up learning a fair bit about AIDS, the politics of it, and the psychology of your opponents.
I think you’ll also come to appreciate just how I feel at times too!
There’s too much about religion and general politics creeping in again. I accept that these comments have some relevance to the subject matter that this blog is concerned with, but they should not become the subject themselves.
TonyN
I think Peter is trying to divert attention awat from a number of core subjects, including my chart showing that the supposed 280ppm co2 levels do not match with historic high temperatures. Nor has he commented on my long post demonstrating that co2 has been measured in the past at similar levels to today.
It would also be interesting to get reaction to the sunspot chart. I agree with Max about the correlation he suggests and that sun spot numbers are just an indicator.
BY the way I thoroughly welcome Peter’s AGW input- he keeps us on our toes!
TonyB
Hi Peter,
“One claim is that over 20000 doctors said that smoking was safe. ”
Sounds about as phoney as: “over 2,500 scientists say that AGW is a serious problem”.
This type of claim is always BS, intended to give credence to the message one wants to sell, be that “smoking is safe” or “AGW is a serious problem”.
One statement is no better than the other.
Regards,
Mx
Re: #2553, TonyB and Max
Parker and Horton in 2004:
UNCERTAINTIES IN CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE 1878–2003 AND SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SERIES
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/ParkerHorton_CET_IJOC_2005.pdf
This suggests that adjustments made when a sation is moved may be based on as little as four years paralel observations.
There is some discussion of of CET at ClimateAudit here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1803
The graph on the Met Office web site that RomanM and I referred to vanished within hours!
There is also detailed discussion of the particular problems of maintaining homogeneity when a station is moved from one river valley to another, even if the distance is short, elsewhere on that blog.
There is discussion of possible in-inhomogeneity in the CET series since Manley’s death here:
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=40981&view=findpost&p=1078207
This includes quotations from Philip Eden’s website criticising the Met Office’s continuation of the series. He specialises in historical weather data and is now a vice-President of the Royal Metiorological Society. Unfortunately, since his elevation, criticisms the Met Office’s inclination to spin it’s data in press releases (which used to be common in the excellent columns that he writes for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph) have virtually disappeared.
For an example of how the CET can be misused, even by Philip Eden:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=34
Good luck if you take any of this further.
Hi
In an ideal world ALL temperatures would be taken over hundreds of years by the same person, making the same observations, at the same time and the same place, using the same instruments. Unforunately that can’t happen.
Therefore -despite all the well known criticisms that Hadley reads ‘high’- I take the view it is by far the best data we’ve got.
Its pretty good as regards selecting similar locations when a site needs to move, but all in all there is undoubtedly a UHI now, that wasnt there at the start of the set in 1660.
If I do adjust them down I will be accused of tampering with the figures. Consequently I believe that leaving them as they are means they can act as a benchmark which enables us to immediately spot any suspicious temperature sets from elsewhere – as happened with Zurich-and look at the causes individually.
I have attached the revised Zurich graph based on very modest adjustments to allow for UHI as the city has expanded leaving its weather station marooned. They are as follows;
1950 to 60’s nil
1960 to 70 less .2 C
1970 to 1980 less .4
1980 to 1990 less .6
19980 to 2000 les .8
200-2008 in proportion.
So all in all the adjustment is a total of less 0.95C or so, taken gradually from each decade
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/zurich_mencken_modified.xls
Current Zurich temperature is similar to the period around the 1950’s (The apparent dip in 2008 is because all the stats arent in!)
In 1998 the temp now was around .2 of a degree warmer than the 50’s and around 0.45 warmer than the earliest records in 1860 or so.
Interestingly the mirror of Hadley continues and if you look at the hadley graph around 1740 you can se how the temperature rises several times again from the 1860 point.
Consequently I think it is fair to say there has been no warming of any note in Zurich since that period.
TonyB
TonyN #2664
Good post. Yes I noticed a distinct change by Philip from his sometimes ascerbic comments about the weather data when he was elevated.
A shame as we need honest reporting-we have far too much ‘The warmest or wettest since records began last week’ for my comfort. And every slightly unusual occurence is blamed on AGW.
TonyB
Hi TonyN,
Thanks for link to your January 2008 article “News: 2007 second warmest year since when?” While this article is almost a year old, it is still very much to the point.
We have a strange situation, both at Hadley in the UK and at GISS in the USA.
A somewhat “inbred” group of meteorologists, etc., who honestly (?) “believe” that man-made CO2 is causing an alarming and potentially disastrous warming of our planet, are being paid by tax-payer funding to provide the public an unbiased and objective picture of what is really going on with our weather and climate.
Based on data generated by their computer models, these same “scientists” use the media to spread gloom and doom predictions, proclaiming that next year will be one of the warmest ever measured and linking this unusual warmth to man-made CO2 emissions, of course.
The media love “disaster stories”, particularly when they are backed by words of wisdom from “scientists”; in addition, most media “environmental editors” are, by definition, firm “believers” in the AGW proposition.
When the gloom and doom projections fail to materialize, the “scientists” cherry-pick another isolated statistic to make the situation still sound alarming, such as last year was among the five warmest years in this century in England and Wales.
Now it is obvious that this type of reporting of weather data by government-paid “scientists” is not providing the public unbiased and objective data. Instead it is “selling a story” with means that border on dishonesty.
Are these same “scientists” also manipulating the numbers?
During the late 20th century period of actual warming this may not have been really necessary (except maybe for some minor “tweaks”), but things have changed since around 1998, when an all-time high temperature was reached.
It has been cooling since then, even though these same “scientists” assure us that it really isn’t cooling, but that there are just external factors (ENSO, etc.) that are “masking” the underlying warming.
Why is it that the two satellite records show over five as much cooling over 2001-2008 as the two surface records?
Hadley: -0.024C/decade; -0.02C cooling over period
GISS: -0.024C/decade; -0.02C cooling over period
RSS: -0.132C/decade; -0.10C cooling over period
UAH: -0.144C/decade; -0.11C cooling over period
Why is it that the temperatures originally released by Hadley for January-April 2008 were subsequently adjusted upward, with the result that the relative 2008 cooling was reduced by 50%?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2720385677_7af5ccfd90_b.jpg
These are questions that will probably never get answered until those responsible for the record taking are replaced with individuals that do not see it as their responsibility to “sell” the public a “story” (but instead just to report the facts objectively).
But if the current cooling trend does indeed continue for a few more years, it will be hard for anyone, except a truly fundamentalist AGW “believer” (or an extremely naïve person), to take Hadley “wolf!” cries very seriously in the future.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Enjoyed your analysis (2665).
But since I live within 100 km of Zurich (outside the UHI zone, unfortunately), I was hoping that there had been some warming (and was even looking forward to a continuation of a warming trend, especially now that winter is coming on).
Now that it looks like there was no real warming (and there is none in sight) it looks like I’ll have to get out the woollies after all.
Regards,
Max
Max
I’m hoping for some considerable warming as our energy bills are so high!
We have some friends we visit near Chur who have a tiny energy bill because they have a local geo thermal community supply.
TonyB
Hi TonyB
Taking your whole modified Zurich data series over the entire 150-year period and drawing a linear trend line, shows a linear warming trend of 0.047C per decade and an overall linear warming of 0.69C over the entire period.
This sounds reasonable as the record represents a significant part of the recovery from a generally colder period than today.
With all the bumps and grinds in the curve, the R^2 correlation is not very good at 0.09, but I think one could identify multi-decadal warming and cooling trends with steeper trend lines and a better correlation.
Regards,
Max
Re: #2667, Max
Nothing changes, or not up to the day-before-yesterday anyway:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4318
As McIntyre suggests, if the latest error had showed cooling, then no doubt it would have been identified immediately. The chart that RomanM and I discussed at CA was something to behold. A perfectly orderly bar graph except for one data point which burst through the border of the chart area way up into the margin near the title. Yet it still made it to the website with no one at Hadley suspecting that it might indicate an error. Sadly I didn’t keep a copy.
Global Warming Link To Amphibian Declines In Doubt
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2008) — Evidence that global warming is causing the worldwide declines of amphibians may not be as conclusive as previously thought, according to biologists. The findings, which contradict two widely held views, could help reveal what is killing the frogs and toads and aid in their conservation.
“We are currently in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event,” said Peter Hudson, the Willaman professor of biology at Penn State and co-author of the research study. “And amphibians are bearing the brunt of the problem.”
Studies suggest that more than 32 percent of amphibian species are threatened and more than 43 percent face a steep decline in numbers.
Much of the massive declines associated with amphibians appear to be centered in places such as Central America and Australia, said Hudson. “It appears to be linked to a chytrid fungus — Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) — which we did not know affected frogs,” he added.
TonyB,
If you would like a graph showing both the world temperature rise and increased CO2 emissions:
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/3025139351_2e8ee88a78_o.png
Max,
There is an interesting article here called “True Believers of HIV/AIDS: Why Do They Believe Despite the Evidence?”
{http}://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/true-believers-of-hivaids-why-do-they-believe-despite-the-evidence/#comment-1795
It struck me that all you guys would have to do is change HIV/AIDS to AGW, alter a few of the names, do a bit of editing, and you’d have your own contrarian AGW article. Much less effort than writing it all yourself.
Its all there with phrases like ” They are very well aware of the inconsistencies, problems and failings of HIV-AIDS [AGW]-theory and their horrible implications regarding AIDS [Climate Change] politics and medication [mitigation], and find some overriding self-interested reason to continue to uphold what they know is wrong …”
What more could you ask for? The HIV contrarians have found a nice word in ‘rethinker’ too. Have you ever considered using that?
Peter,
Your post above (2646):
I wrote a lengthy post in 2005 on this subject on my blog The Lost-Tooth Society. I urge you to give it 10 minutes and you will see the err of your argument.
(Plus linking to it there may keep TonyN’s cyber scissors comfortably ensconced on the desktop!)
New Ice Age Predicted — But Averted by Global Warming?
Mason Inman
for National Geographic News
November 12, 2008
Deep ice sheets would cover much of the Northern Hemisphere thousands of years from now—if it weren’t for us pesky humans, a new study says.
Emissions of greenhouse gases—such as the carbon dioxide, or CO², that comes from power plants and cars—are heating the atmosphere to such an extent that the next ice age, predicted to be the deepest in millions of years, may be postponed indefinitely (quick guide to the greenhouse effect).
“Climate skeptics could look at this and say, CO² is good for us,” said study leader Thomas Crowley of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
But the idea that global warming may be staving off an ice age is “not cause for relaxing, because we’re actually moving into a highly unusual climate state,” Crowley added.
In about 10,000 to 100,000 years, the study suggests, Antarctic-like “permanent” ice sheets would shroud much of Canada, Europe, and Asia.
“I think the present [carbon dioxide] levels are probably sufficient to prevent that from ever happening,” said Crowley, whose study will appear tomorrow in the journal Nature.