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.
Hey guys,
Loooooook I’m really really sorry for blaspheming RC above, and yet once more for reference herewith, but I have since rigourously washed my mouth out with a blue astringent fluid which contains at least: cetylpiridium chloride, ethanol, benzoic acid, cineol, (eucalyptol), and thymol.
Please forgive my passing trespass, but I think I am currently orally clean.
Peter Martin 317, part 2
In the Australian AGW perspective you may be impressed by the Garnaut initial Armageddon report on Oz, for less than 1% of the Earth’s population, and the equivalent of the UK Stern report.
Do you know who and what Garnaut is?:
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/02/25/who-ross-garnaut%3F
It sure is Stern stuff, what?
Peter Martin 317 part 3,
You wrote:
I’ve been keeping my eye on the NSDIC data for Arctic ice coverage too. The extent of the minimum observed in 2007 took everyone by surprise. Even the most ‘alarmist’, as some might say, hadn’t foreseen the situation being quite so bad. It may well be that 2008 will be slightly better, but it will be bad enough, and from the graph that Brute showed it doesn’t look like there will be much of an improvement.
Oh really? Everyone was surprised? You should do more research in the literature of the history in this topic
Meanwhile, as I understand it there are basically two conflicting interests:
1) If sea ice greatly diminishes there is an opportunity for shorter sea passages and trading and resource oppotunities. The only sensible counter argument is:
2) There is an hypothesis that certain wildlife in the region may be harmed, and polar bears are particularly emotive, because they are so cute and cuddly.
OK PM, STEP ONE: are you aware of any studies that show the minimum survival range of polar bears in units of hundreds of square kilometres per bear?
I’d be truly fascinated to know!
They currently have great big heaps of the stuff, and how they find good humpey with all their dispersal is a puzzle to me!
David: your reply (311) to my post (302) doesn’t answer my question. It does, however, illustrate my point. I’ll take it slowly:
(1) Your Tamino chart (link) shows clearly the very substantial 1906/1940 warming – at least as great as the late 20th century warming. As the chart starts in 1880, it doesn’t show the shorter but steeper 1860/1879 warming.
(2) According to the IPCC’s figures, these two earlier warming periods produced over 60% of all post 1850 warming.
(3) Therefore, it would seem obvious that they should be at the heart of the IPCC’s consideration of the reasons for post LIA global warming.
(4) Your cdiac chart (link) shows clearly how CO2 emissions increased significantly from around 1950 – i.e. later than both these 60%+ warmings.
(5) It seems, therefore, that CO2 emissions are most unlikely to have been a main cause of these earlier temperature increases.
(6) Despite all this, the IPCC’s 2007 report barely mentions them: its WG1 Chapter 9 reference to “more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20thcentury warming than the recent warming” is wholly inadequate. (BTW it’s interesting that this indicates some uncertainty about the causes of the recent warming.)
(7) It seems clear, therefore, that, until the IPCC (A) fully understands the causes of the first two warming periods and (B) can unambiguously rule them out as causes of the third, it cannot be confident that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver of global warming.
(8) Yet in 2007 it admitted that failed even on (A).
David: do you agree that this failure undermines the IPCC’s most basic conclusion? Yes or no, please – if no, please show clearly why not.
New study increases concerns about climate model reliability
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/w-nsi121107.php
Global Warming Predictions Flunk Fundamental Test
Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the
Global Warming Predictions Flunk Fundamental Test
Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the “man-made” global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth’s climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren’t even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.
Well, as it turns out, they can’t.
All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environmental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called “models” into which current climate data is entered and the programs then “predict” future climate conditions.
The problem is, they don’t work!
A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could “predict” current climate conditions.
All 22 climate models failed!
Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.
In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.
This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.
Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.
Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temperature hasn’t changed since 2001.
This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any “mainstream” media news source? No, of course not. And you won’t.
The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?
Just when I thought that I’d seen, (read) it all………..The Inquisition comes to mind……….
This guy Romm and his disciples increasingly remind me of the lunatics that were waiting in the desert for the alien spaceships to arrive or the group that committed mass suicide thinking that there was a spaceship hidden in the tail of the Hale-Bopp Comet…..truly frightening.
Polluter appeasement — should we question the patriotism of deniers?
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/04/polluter-appeasement-should-we-question-the-patriotism-of-deniers/#comments
Climate change imperils 4th of July — again!
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/03/climate-change-imperils-4th-of-july-again/
Brute suggests that the NW passage is still ice bound. It was icebound at this time too in 2007, but the passage did become navigable to conventional shipping for the first time in recorded history in late August and stayed open for several weeks.
We’ll wait and see what happens this year.
Some might suggest that the opening of the NW passage may be a good thing. And, indeed it is for the shipping companies. But, you have to ask the question of why it is happening.
Peter: re your post 303, much of the “fear of the future” you found in the UK, far from leading “to a denialist mentality” (whatever that means) is the direct result of alarmist campaigning – which seems determined to ignore the “economic terms” to which you refer. And, far from the views of each party re energy supply coinciding as you suggest, they are in serious conflict. Let me explain.
Britain faces the real risk of a near-term collapse of its energy supply. That is because the Government has delayed and dithered about taking hard decisions, the need for which was apparent many years ago. The problem has arisen because most of our nuclear and half our coal-fired power plants are due for closure within 15 years. Now, at long last, the Government has got round to publishing a strategy: unfortunately, it’s focus is on building a “low carbon economy” – which might be OK if it did not entail the madness of building 7,000 wind turbines by 2020. As Ruth Lea (see 263 above) said, “Aesthetics aside, the strategy is unworkable, expensive and irresponsible”. Unworkable because these turbines cannot be built in time; expensive because, in any case, they require substantial conventional back-up capacity (most unlikely to be available); and irresponsible because they cannot produce the power we need. Moreover, the proposed new nuclear plants are also most unlikely to be available in time – not least because of “green” obstruction. Consequently, we face the prospect of years of serious power cuts and national economic decline.
This mess is the direct result of adherence to the increasingly discredited AGW agenda – an adherence that, in any case, is completely pointless as the major developing economies are determined to look after themselves and ignore AGW theory.
So, Peter, do the views of re energy supply of alarmists and sceptics coincide as you suggest? I don’t think so.
“but the passage did become navigable to conventional shipping for the first time in recorded history in late August and stayed open for several weeks.”
“We’ll wait and see what happens this year.”
Regarding Pete’s latest comment on Arctic Ice Melt:
Considering that the state of the Arctic ice is of the utmost importance to global warming disciples I find his attitude quite telling. An increase in the Arctic Ice extent would seem to be wonderful news to a true, politically/ideologically non-partisan environmentalist. However; unimpeachable news that the Arctic Ice is 10% greater this year over last during this same time period seems to be viewed as negative news.
It’s as if a loved one is terminally sick and when news is received that the person is recovering, he is unhappy about it…..not even a hint of cautious optimism.
Someone, (Tony/Robin), should write an article about this pessimistic view on life and how it relates to the rhetoric about the environment. I’m not a head-shrinker; but it’s obvious even to someone without a psychology degree that no evidence or positive environmental information will shake these types of people out of the doldrums. I think it would be an interesting case study.
It must be a miserable existence to see things in a negative light constantly. The “all is lost”, “we’re all going to die” pessimism is obvious. I’m not certain if it is truly the way that they feel or positive news on the “global warming front” undermines their cause and therefore must be denied, dismissed or ridiculed.
Max #319
Thanks, but it was the New Statesman that published Whitehouses’ article at a time when such sceptical views were very unfashionable. They may have expected Lynas’ response to redress matters, but when this failed they still let the combined threads run on for something like 3000 comments. I suspect that even the editors on a politically committed magazine like NS are concerned when they see evidence that their policy is out of step with their readership. Where they using these contributions as a means of testing the water?
About the same time that I stumbled on the NS blog (as a result of JZ’s post at the CA message board) I noticed that a thread on The Independent’s site was indicating similar levels of scepticism among their readers, and I found this even more surprising. Look at the the comments on almost any main stream media article about AGW in the blogosphere now and the overwhelming majority seem to be sceptical. But is it possible that sceptics are just more likely to post comments on the net than those who hold orthodox opinons?
I agree with Tony, Max. I think the NS deserves credit for hosting such a long-running discussion – and, of course, for publishing the Whitehouse article that got it started. And I think you’re wrong to say that they closed it down when “the tide had turned against the arguments of the AGW supporters”. I believe that sceptics had dominated the thread long before they closed it. I was impressed by the NS’s attitude.
And, Tony, I’ve also noticed how sceptics seem to be the main contributors to blogosphere comments on MSM GW articles. This seems to be especially true of liberal/left outlets such as the Independent, Guardian and BBC – although maybe it stands out there as it is more of a surprise. But perhaps it shouldn’t be so in view of consistent opinion poll findings.
Brute: yes, it’s interesting how the alarmists seize and proclaim every hint of bad news eagerly and downplay anything suggesting the world may not be warming after all. When Peter wrote (303) about “a genuine fear for the future” I suspect that, re the alarmists, he may have meant a paradoxical fear that current cooling trends may continue.
Of course, that goes both ways: I suspect a lot of sceptics fear that warming may return.
Hi Peter,
Regarding CO2 emissions you wrote: “I should have said ‘per capita’ in relative CO2 emissions. It’s the only sensible way to do it when countries of different populations such as the the Uk, China, USA and Australia are being discussed.”
“Per capita” may be better than “per country”, as you say, but it puts all countries at the same level of economic development. Per capita, Haiti (one of the poorest small countries) will be a small emitter of CO2, while Switzerland (a much wealthier small country) will be a major emitter.
As giants like China and India increase their GDP they will consume more energy. The question is how efficiently they do this.
European economies have gotten used to high energy costs, so have found ways to reduce these costs through higher efficiencies. This is helped by relatively short distances and a good system of public transportation.
The same is true, to a lesser extent in economies such as the USA, Canada and Australia, where distances are larger and public transportation systems are not well developed.
So an even better yardstick would be GDP generated per metric ton of CO2 emitted. This is a measure of the “carbon efficiency” of an economy to generate prosperity (or wealth).
The attached table lists this (based on the year 2005 for GDP and most of the CO2, with some individual CO2 figures based on 2004 values).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3053/2640538916_28cf1e3991_b.jpg
The table ranks countries by “carbon efficiency” in generating wealth, starting with the most efficient. Here the World average is around US$1,598 per metric ton of CO2 emitted.
Switzerland (with high portion of hydroelectric power) ranks most efficient at around US$8,132 per mt CO2, France (with 70+% nuclear power generation) ranks fourth at $5,198, the UK ranks seventh at $3,765, just ahead of Italy at $3,564, Japan at $3,536 and Germany at $3,303.
In North America, the USA at $2,107 is slightly more efficient than Mexico ($1,994) and Canada ($1,891).
Interestingly, impoverished Haiti stands at $2,123.
Australia generates $1,815 per mt CO2.
The following large countries rank well below the World average: India ($687 per mt CO2), Iran ($488), Russia ($446), China ($433). Lowest efficiency of major CO2 emitting nations was Ukraine ($224).
It’s just another way of looking at the numbers that may make a bit more sense than either absolute tons of CO2 per country or tons CO2 per capita.
Sources are listed on the Table.
Regards,
Max
“I suspect a lot of sceptics fear that warming may return.”
Valid point.
Robin,
I see the scepticism on the blogs as welcome confirmation of the opinion poll findings and also as evidence of the abject failure of the sinister strategy laid out in Warm Words. But what next? What effect will a shift in public opinion have on public policy, if any?
Policy makers have invested so much of their credibility in a crusade against AGW that it is hard to see how they can change tack.
Hi Peter,
Here is a corrected table (doesn’t change anything in the post, just an addition error at the bottom).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2639796591_cf2d6a7f97_b.jpg
Regards,
Max
Robin Guenier (329) — The radative forcing of CO2 is logarthimic in concentration: each doubling, say, produces as much radiative forcing as the last doubling. So, baring climate variability, the general upswing in temperature over the entire 158 years is due to CO2.
In particular I calculated, using the standard formula, what the temperature anomaly for 1950 CE (315 ppm) should be in comparison to 1850 CE (288 ppm). This gave very good agreement with the temperature change form the decade of the 1850s to the decade of the 1950s.
Hi Peter,
I believe that it is safe to say that China and India (as well as many other developing nations in Asia and Latin America) will continue to grow their economies and improve the standard of living of their populations, and that this will require increased consumption of energy, a large portion of which will come from fossil fuels in the near term. As energy costs increase, they will probably look at improving their energy efficiency, so the growth rate of fossil fuel consumption will probably be slower than the growth rate of their economies (as it has been in the developed world over the past 20 years).
The still undeveloped world represents at least a billion people who live in poverty. These countries will also need to gradually improve the quality of life of their populations. This will mean more fossil fuel consumption (since many of these nations do not have access to nuclear power generation, nor is it desirable that they all obtain this access for global security reasons).
So global CO2 emissions will probably continue to rise, even if the developed world makes a concerted effort to switch to nuclear and other renewable sources for electrical power and some sort of biofuels plus electric drives for automotive.
If one believes (as you do) that increased human CO2 emissions could “endanger” our climate, this all sounds alarming.
If one does not believe there is any impending danger from AGW (as I do), the issues become more based on economics and energy self-sufficiency rather than on reducing CO2 alone.
But moving away from petroleum as a source of automotive fuel and power generation will happen either way.
It will take longer, but coal will also run out some day.
Just my thoughts on this, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Brute (316) — Its called natural climate variability and 1998 CE was a record-breaking year.
Recall the CET record-breaking years?
David,
You’re correct, and I should have typed 1979 in that post. It’s beginning to look more and more like the 1998 temperature spike and the 2007 Arctic ice melt were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Global Temperature Record 1978-2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/uah_june_08.png
After 20 years of hysteria, global temperatures are back where they started.
Check out these trend lines:
http://bp3.blogger.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SFs25eMZegI/AAAAAAAAAC8/pDT5GEKQTUA/s1600-h/11+Year+Temp+Data.bmp
This is the current state of the Arctic Ice:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
The projections made by the IPCC, Hansen and Al Gore simply are not happening. Someone forgot to cross a Tee or dot an I.
In my line of work that’s called a mistake, (or fraud if egregious), which would lead to litigation if it isn’t corrected.
What I do know is that a lot of people are making a lot of money from this fad and if the weather continues the way that it has recently, their will be investigations and the Justice Department is going to have someone’s ass in their briefcase.
Another typo…….
Should have been “after 30 years temperatures are back where they started.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-deserves-credit-who-deserves-blame.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/langswitch_lang/po
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-deserves-credit-who-deserves-blame.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/langswitch_lang/po