Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Max, your 3850:

    Most of the news articles I found on this “study” omitted MM’s name completely. I’m surprised they even let him take any credit at all for it. They must be so isolated on their ivory tower of AGW faith that they don’t even know how silly it looks to he critical eye.

  2. Correction to my 3851 above:

    I meant to write “…how silly it looks to the crtical eye.”

    Sorry!

  3. Correction to my correction above in 3852:

    Should have written “…how silly it looks to the critical eye.”

  4. Max,

    Re: # 3486

    I didn’t really expect Peter to dig deeper; it was a trap…….he’s what is more commonly referred to as a “follower”; thus demonstrating for all to see his religious adherence to the global warming doctrine. I knew that he would not open the small NASA link posted at the bottom of the story.

    An objective, insightful person, (such as yourself), would have researched the source of the information more thoroughly as opposed to blindly discarding the assertion outright, (as Mr. Martin did).

    I too am an Engineer. When I recruit new hires, I look for individuals that do their homework, that bring innovation and new ideas to the table, that look for the truth

  5. Continued………

    …….the correct answer.

    Mr. Martin as well as Mr. Mann and Mr Hansen, are unwilling to discover the truth….the correct answer…..as it may conflict with their preconceived notions, ideology or environmental “theology”.

    You coined the phrase “agenda driven science” which is exactly what men such as these practice.

  6. Yeah Brute. I’m an engineer (chemical) by training, too.

    This training does seem to provide people a more practical-minded approach, including a healthy and rational skepticism of what they are being told, particularly by people who are trying to “sell a bill of goods”.

    In my case, I later had several “scientists” reporting to me (I’m now retired). I always admired their deep and detailed knowledge within their specialized fields.

    At the same time I could see the inherent weakness that many had of being physically unable to “think outside the box”.

    Data points that did not fit within their “paradigm” of how things “should” be, were ignored as “outliers”.

    Unfortunately, in the real world it is exactly those “outliers” that cause the next “paradigm shift” (and become the new paradigm).

    This happened in the world of climatology, when Spencer demonstrated, based on actual physical observations, that cloud feedbacks were not strongly positive (warming) as had been assumed by all the climate models, but, rather, strongly negative (cooling), as had been proposed by Lindzen with his natural “infrared iris” thermostat hypothesis.

    Thus the previous “paradigm” among “climatologists” that overall feedbacks were strongly positive was “shifted”.

    Many “climate scientists” have not yet “gotten the word” and some camp-followers (like Peter) are stubbornly clinging to their old paradigm or religious belief, as well.

    This is their “comfort zone” or “security blanket”, and it’s so hard to let go.

    When there is a deep-ingrained political philosophy underlying the beliefs on (greedy and evil capitalist industrialist) human destruction of our planet, as Peter appears to harbor, this becomes even more difficult to renounce.

    But I think it is a very important mission of all rational skeptics to point out any weaknesses or flaws in the prevailing AGW paradigm, so that these can be exposed for one and all to see.

    Let’s both keep up the good work (along with JZSmith, Bobclive, Bob_FJ and all the others). It’s a worthwhile cause.

    And, besides, it’s kinda fun.

    Regards,

    Max

  7. Max,

    “scientists were baffled” . You’ve been reading too many poorly written newspaper stories like “scientists are baffled” at disappeance of honey bees or frogs or whatever. Its such a bad cliche that its even got a URL of its own:

    http://www.scientistsbaffled.com/?tag=scientists+baffled

    Scientists are very rarely “baffled” as you put it. That is not to say science has an instant anwer to each and every question but following the usual and correct lines of investigation nearly always points the scientific community to the right answer.

    I’ll come back again to what you think we may or may not have agreed upon. I’f you agree with me that’s good. You’ve probably moved in the right direction since howling that ‘puny man is incapable of changing the climate’ nonsense. Now it’s more like ‘Ok well maybe he is, but not as much as the IPCC make out’.

    I think both you and Brute have talked about ‘preconceived notions’. But tell me, when you first uttered your ‘puny man’ line, had you done any scientific studies or calculations at all?

    Is your current position modified, even in the slightest, by your scientific investigations? Or are your notions all pre-conceived?

  8. The Pew Research Center has just completed a survey of what Americans consider should be Obama’s top domestic priorities for 2009. Here are the results. “Global warming” came last.

  9. Robin,

    I don’t believe that global wrming can be treated in isolation to other environmental issues. I’d say that goes for most of the contributors to this blog too. There isn’t much, if any, distinction made between environmentalists and those who advocate CO2 mitigation measures.

    When you put the two together, the environment/AGW category comes fourth.

    That’s pretty good considering that we’re entering a deep recession. It’s also good when the weather is as cold as it is in the USA right now.

  10. Robin,

    I should probably correct my previous statement. It should come fifth.

    You can’t separate Medicare, Health care and Health Insurance either. Add them all toegther and the health issue jumps to the top of the list. That I can understand, and wouldn’t disagree at all.

  11. Re: #3858, Robin

    That is a remarkable find, not least because of where it came from. Pew has a lot of history in the AGW debate and they are about the last people on earth who one would expect to publish such a finding.

  12. No, Peter, there is a huge distinction. I, for example and as you suggest this view may well be shared by other contributors, am very concerned about “environmental matters” such as air and water pollution, potential flooding, despoliation of the countryside, destruction of forests and wildlife habitat, etc. But I am not concerned about CO2 mitigation. To conflate the two would make it impossible for me to express my view.

  13. Robin, Peter: I agree with Robin, and can reference Max’s thinking above as well (rational skepticism). I consider myself a serious environmentalist. It is painful to fly over the Pacific Northwest of the USA and see huge swaths of conifer forests clear cut for the paper and building industries. I hate it when I see someone flick their cigarette butt out their car window. I am a vigorous recycler, and it pains me to see so many people even here in “green” California failing so badly to recycle. My wife uses canvas shopping bags at the grocery stores, and I have written local government officials often urging them to take the side of environmental protection over commerce.

    But like Max and Brute, and as the mantra of the 60’s went, I “question authority”. When the Hockey Stick was debunked was when I really became a skeptic. Not that I assumed all the climate science and scientists were biased, but my ‘rational skepticism’ view forced me to look very closely at any report supporting (or opposing) AGW. Robin, you are a barrister, and had my life taken a different path I may have also gone into law. Thus my general view that the burden of proof is on the accuser; those who believe that humans are causing GW need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are guilty. The American people, apparently, agree with my position.

  14. JZ: yes it seems that the American people do indeed agree with your position (which I share) – and do so in increasing numbers. This interesting poll was published recently by Rasmussen. The headline figures are that 44% of respondents said that long-term planetary trends are the cause of GW, whereas 41% blame human activity. Three years ago the equivalent figures were 35% and 46%.

  15. Thus my general view that the burden of proof is on the accuser; those who believe that humans are causing GW need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are guilty.

    More on this: When assertions are made that lead to legislation that impact my personal choices, these assertions must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    I’ve always said (written) that if Mr. Martin would like to “go green” and voluntarily contribute additional portions of his wealth or income to combating “global warming” more power to him.

    Live a “green” lifestyle if you want to; just don’t force everyone else to adhere to your religion of environmentalism.

  16. Hi Peter,

    I have to agree with Robin, JZSmith (and the Pew Research Center).

    There is no real substantive connection between true environmental efforts and the AGW movement.

    The underlying reason for this is very simple.

    Human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are not “pollution”. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential for all life on our planet. No CO2 = no life.

    If all the known and optimistically suspected fossil fuel reserves of our planet were burned and all of the CO2 thereby emitted would stay in the atmosphere, this would theoretically increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration from today’s 385 ppm to around 1100 ppm. This level would have no negative impact on human, other animal or plant life.

    The theoretical greenhouse impact on our planet’s “average” temperature would be to raise temperature by 1C. This checks with the 0.3C portion of the temperature increase that one could theoretically attribute to CO2 over the period 1850 to 2008, as pointed out earlier.

    I believe TonyB has pointed out fairly effectively just how shaky the foundation of the whole CO2/temperature “causation” really is, but even if one accepts it at face value, the absolute maximum greenhouse warming we would experience from all the CO2 from all the world’s fossil fuels is no big deal and certainly no potential problem for our environment.

    Real pollution involves the discharge of unnatural toxic or noxious substances into the “environment” (atmosphere, streams, oceans, soil, groundwater, etc.). Many of these substances are directly harmful to human, other animal or plant life.

    Also included in the “environment” category is destruction of the environment, i.e. “despoliation of the countryside, destruction of forests and wildlife habitat, etc.”, as Robin puts it.

    So you see, there is a basic difference, Peter.

    The Pew Research Center is correct in listing the “environment” and “global warming” separately. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

    I would have given the “environment” a fairly high ranking, but would have (like the Americans who were surveyed) given “global warming” the lowest priority of all.

    Regards,

    Max

  17. Max,
    Re: 3856

    In my profession I come into close contact with many government employees and what I’ve discovered is that they do not want to “rock the boat”. Generally, they display a lackadaisical attitude toward their endeavors; carrying the mindset of “we’ve always done it that way” or “close enough for government work”. There is no incentive to get it right the first time (or at all for that matter) as upward mobility in the public sector works at a glacially slow pace compared to the monetary incentives of the private sector. Generally, these individuals lack critical thinking skills (there are exceptions)…..because they have been trained to follow the party line…..this mindset creates a massive bureaucracy of “Yes Men”.

    The other interesting observation concerns their budgets; there is always a mad rush at the end of the fiscal year to spend every last nickel allotted to their specific agency or it will be deemed by the GAO (General Accounting Office) that the agency is capable of operating at a lesser amount.

    The word “conservationist” doesn’t apply here as they are unaccountable for expenditures (why should they care? it isn’t their money) and the aforementioned “use it or lose it” budgetary philosophy.

  18. Human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are not “pollution”. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere, which is essential for all life on our planet. No CO2 = no life.
    If all the known and optimistically suspected fossil fuel reserves of our planet were burned and all of the CO2 thereby emitted would stay in the atmosphere, this would theoretically increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration from today’s 385 ppm to around 1100 ppm. This level would have no negative impact on human, other animal or plant life.

    Max,

    Interesting point comes to mind regarding your comment above. I have designed and installed control systems that introduce outside air into occupied spaces via monitoring CO2 levels, (currently the trend as opposed to fixed amounts).

    ASHRAE Standard 62-l989, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, specifies the outdoor air ventilation requirements at a minimum of 15 cfm per person in non-smoking areas, regardless of occupant usage, and a minimum of 60 cfm per person for smoking areas. Also the concentration of CO2 should not exceed 1,000 parts per million in conditioned spaces.

  19. Regarding the “Antarctic Global Warming” report originally referenced in my 3827 and subsequent discussion, I ran across this gem further (if that’s possible) eroding the credibility of the “study”.

  20. Max,

    I notice that you don’t want to answer the question about when you first made up your mind on the AGW issue.

    For my part, when I first became aware of the issue, some time in the 1980′ and was curious to know more. The evidence didn’t seem too strong and certainly in the early 1990’s, when there was a cooling cycle, I wouldn’t have attached the same importance to it.

    Yes, I tended to believe what people like NASA, the AAAS and the UK’s Royal Society were saying before I looked into the science myself.

    I can respect those who know enough about the science to come to a genuinely different view, but, I have to say that those rabid types who rant on about hoaxes and conspiracies, without knowing what they are talking about, are just a bunch of ‘dickheads’!

  21. Update on stuff on Romm & Dessler @ Gristmill.

    When Max and me started recently to tease Romm and Dessler over there with some scientific type enquiries, on their rhetoric, their usual large following of groupies spontaneously and enthusiastically responded with typical OT nonsense and insults which included towards us, the dreaded “troll’ word.

    However, as we have progressively upped the logic and science stuff, the groupies seem to have gone reclusive.

    You may be interested in my latest post over there, on one of some six threads, that I’m rather pleased with.

    Both Romm and Dessler have not responded to any stuff from me and Max either!

  22. Robin Guenier, you wrote in 3858:

    The Pew Research Center has just completed a survey of what Americans consider should be Obama’s top domestic priorities for 2009. Here are the results. “Global warming” came last.

    Phew, me not know about PEW, so Googled it and found: http://pewresearch.org/
    Me still not know much about PEW!

    I guess there must be some definitions of the poll items, but the one which really struck me as rather vague was: ‘Military’, Whazzat?

    I think there are also some VERY IMPORTANT real-world issues that were not asked in that poll, but, I’ll try not to enrage TonyN, or Brute, or Zionists, or American suppliers of phosphorous shells and whatnot to the Israelis by stating any of them.

    No matter, let the American public be “dumbed-down” rather than be informed about what is really going-on in the world out there!

  23. Hi Peter,

    You wrote (3870): “I notice that you don’t want to answer the question about when you first made up your mind on the AGW issue.”

    Wrong, Peter. No one has ever asked me this question so far, so it is a bit of a “stretch” (or possibly an out-an-out fabrication on your part) to claim that you have “noticed that I don’t want to answer this question”.

    But I will answer the question now.

    My suspicion started with the exposure of the Mann “hockey stick” as a lie and fabrication.

    I did not classify Mann (and his loyal followers) as “a bunch of ‘dickheads’” (as you might have done), but I was surprised that these so-called serious “scientists” would bend the truth in order to prove a point, the “point” being that the warming of the late 20th century was unprecedented compared to that in previous periods and that the last decade of the 20th century was the warmest in 1300 years.

    Having studied my history I had learned that our planet had experienced a warmer period back in medieval times (when Greenland was really “green” and Vikings sailed to Newfoundland, which they named “Vinland” because of the wild grapes growing there), so I was surprised when Mann et al. attempted to inform me (based on a “US bristlecone pine tree ring study”) that this was untrue.

    When Mann et al. was subsequently exposed as a fraud, I became very suspicious.

    Why would serious scientists “invent” an untrue story of “unprecedented late 20th century warming”? Is there an “agenda” here?

    So I started checking all the claims that are out there in support of “unprecedented and potentially alarming anthropogenic global warming”, starting with IPCC claims.

    The new IPCC “SPM 2007” had just come out, and to my surprise I found more errors, exaggerations and outright lies in this IPCC report. Here is a group financed by taxpayer money directly lying to the people who are paying them!

    In analyzing the IPCC report I first looked at statements relating to past changes:

    · IPCC claims relating to sea level, ice caps, snow cover and polar temperatures
    · IPCC claims denying past warm periods
    · IPCC claims on solar forcing
    · IPCC claims on water vapor
    · IPCC claims on surface vs. troposphere temperature record, distortion of the surface record due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect
    · IPCC claims on observed tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events

    I found that these IPCC claims were all false. The questionable IPCC claims all went in the same direction: to present a more alarming picture of anthropogenic global warming.

    The more I scrutinized this report, the more my rational skepticism grew. I asked myself, “are these guys trying to sell me (and the rest of the world) a phony story? Why would they do this?”

    I then looked at IPCC forecasts for the future:
    · IPCC temperature projection to 2100 plus use of positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds to amplify greenhouse impact
    · IPCC sea level projection for 2100
    · IPCC projections for tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events

    I found that ALL of the the IPCC errors, omissions and exaggerations (particularly for the future) went in the direction of making AGW sound more alarming than it would otherwise be, and my rational skepticism grew even stronger.

    I concluded that IPCC was using “agenda driven science” to promote a story of “unprecedented and potentially dangerous anthropogenic global warming” when there was no real scientific evidence to support this postulation.

    I then saw Al Gore’s “AIT” movie, with all its errors, exaggerations and outright lies, and my rational skepticism of this whole hysteria grew even more.

    So, Peter, that’s how I became a “rational skeptic”.

    Like you, “I tended to believe what people like NASA, the AAAS and the UK’s Royal Society [and the IPCC] were saying before I looked into the science myself”.

    I now observe how AGW hype, exaggeration and hysteria is being methodologically used to “sell” a story to the unsuspecting public of “imminent disaster” if we do not immediately embrace the concept of draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes(ultimately paid by every man, woman and child on this Earth) to “force” the world to reduce CO2 emissions.

    As a rational skeptic, I have concluded that this is basically a tax boondoggle being based on agenda driven pseudoscience.

    Hope this answers your question.

    Regards,

    Max

  24. Hi Peter,

    Just to remind you: your 3857 “side step” has not responded directly to my 3841, where I outlined the conclusions you and I had reached in our discussion on the theoretical 2xCO2 climate sensitivity as well as the anticipated AGW impact on “global average temperature” to year 2100, as based on the actual physical observations to date.

    Instead you stated, “I’ll come back again to what you think we may or may not have agreed upon.”

    Great! I am awaiting your response to each of the specific conclusions that I listed.

    If you have issues with the points of agreement, which I listed, please bring specific bases for your objections on a point by point basis, rather than just generic “happy talk”.

    Regards,

    Max

  25. Max,

    You’ve said that “The more I scrutinized this {IPCC2007} report, the more my rational skepticism grew”.

    Having just done a quick Google for your comments on the net, the earliest one I can find is:

    http://www.climateark.org/blog/2007/02/ipcc_report_finds_climate_chan.asp

    about 3/4 way down the page

    Just the same sort of stuff we’ve been used to reading. But, interestingly, no mention of the nasty Dr Mann who so magically turned your opinion.

    This was written 5 or 6 months before the release of that year’s IPCC report. If anything I’d say that you’ve toned down your scepticism since then. And yet you say it was this report which turned you away from the IPCC case. You must either be clairvoyant or have some good inside contacts at the IPCC!

    You also went on to say that “I {too}tended to believe what people like NASA, the AAAS and the UK’s Royal Society [and the IPCC] were saying before I looked into the science myself.”

    Can you provide any evidence of contemporary comments, such as letters to weblogs etc, you’ve made to support this, somewhat difficult to believe, assertion?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha