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.
Hi Brute,
NSIDC is still having a hard time reporting the recently found, previously “missing” 500,000 sq.km. of Arctic sea ice.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
They still show the same December 2008 and January 2009 figures they reported before they “discovered” their error.
Wonder how long it will take them to include all that unreported ice in their reports?
Regards,
Max
Max,
Well I notice that you haven’t denied that you’ve used sockpuppets or even that you aren’t Barelysane.
You ask “What difference does it all make?”
How about that someone who has to sink to the level of using sockpuppets must have serious pyschological problems?
The pen name ‘Barelysane’ may turn out to be a slight exaggeration!
Max,
If you can do whatever it takes to resume a level of sanity, at least temporarily, maybe you could explain why its Ok for Solar scientists to include positive feedback in their models but not OK for everyone else?
Brute, Reur 4385, yes indeed, BPD, (being a collection of OCD’s and hard to define, or “Borderline neuroses“), is very distressing for family members and friends, whom however hard they try, are frustrated in being unable to help the victim. I was not looking for sympathy in my case with my step-daughter, but used it as a demo of how the human mind can go so badly wrong.
Clearly, Pete has at least one OCD concerning suspicions about the ID of various contributors to this blog, although he appears to have at long last accepted that Max Anacker, (AKA Max or Manacker), is normally resident in Switzerland, and among other things appears to be fluent in German, and at least to some degree in French.
I also see a fundamentalism in Pete’s dogma, that is similar to Christian fundamentalism where every word in the Bible is argued as true, despite many internal impossible to resolve contradictions, and external contradictions of well recorded history and geological evidence etc.
Max, Reur 4389
Did you see over at Gristmill that Pete accused you of inventing a sock puppet named “Burn the Witch”. However, he had a bet each way and wrote that if YOU did not invent BtheW, then it must have instead been me! How ludicrous is it possible to be!!!!!!!!!!
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/14/11568/7296#comment17
Peter Martin, Reur 4402, could you please explain how it was that you could not decide if BtheW was a construct of either Max or me on 23 Feb 09, but today, you appear to assert that BtheW was Max’s invention?
Correction for my 4404:
Where I wrote to Pete: Reur 4402, please read: 4398/4402
Bob_FJ,
Yes I’m pointing the finger at Max. he’s probably got a whole army of sockpuppets. Just look at these posting from “Randomtox”.
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2110
Do they remind you of Max or do they remind you of Max?
He talks to himself too as “Barelysane”.
Its fair enough to offer a genuine opinion if you are honest about who you are but to hide behind false identities and, even worse, use sockpuppets, to create the impression of numerical advantage is just despicable.
Sorry, I was looking for the Harmless sky web site but I’ve obviously stumbled on a re run of a sketch from Monty Python
TonyB (or is it?)
Pete,
Who knows? Maybe you and Max have been carrying on the debate all of this time just between the two of you?
I certainly hope it doesn’t keep you up nights.
My theory is that Max, (aka Manaker, aka Bob_FJ, aka Robin Guenier, aka Brute, aka Mrs. Brute, aka JZ Smith, aka Tonyb) clandestinely jets around the planet secretly opening up various IP addresses in order to refute your assertions. Of course, TonyN is in cahoots with Max…….
Maybe Max is, in reality, Peter Martin also?Maybe Max has spent all of this time and effort creating this website to carry on a conversation with himself exclusively?
Maybe Max is not even a resident of this planet at all, but a visitor from another planet to sew the seeds of dissent in our society in an effort to destroy ourselves so that the planet can be inhabited by his race of space aliens, (read The Monsters Due On Maple Street-Ray Bradbury).
I’m actually Peter Martin, i just thought i’d see what it was like to join the other side for a bit :)
I’m afraid i can’t answer my own post on Campaign against Climate Change questioning who i am as they keep blocking my IP addresses. Hopefully Max can lend me some of his and i’ll be able to answer myself.
Hi Peter,
Now, Peter, me boy, you’re starting to get impertinent (and downright silly) with all your talk of “sockpuppets”, “psychological problems” and other sidetracking BS.
It is very apparent to me (and probably also to most of the other posters and lurkers on this site) that you realize that you have lost the rational debate on the solar impact on our planet’s climate change since the middle of the 19th century, and are, therefore, desperately trying to change the subject.
I have cited several studies by solar experts that conclude on average that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (the highest in several thousand years) was responsible for a global warming of around 0.35C, equal to approximately one-half of the warming actually observed over the entire period. Your favorite University of Leeds reference source puts this at the lower end of the range, at 0.26C.
These studies were based on the actually observed empirical relationship between solar activity and global temperature over a very long pre-industrial period, when there was no impact from human CO2 emissions.
You have been unable to show that the many solar studies I cited were wrong in their assessment, so you have resorted to various diversionary tactics to try to distract from the obvious conclusion that you lost this part of our debate.
Sorry, Peter, your tactic did not work.
Let’s move on to another topic, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Peter was kind enough to provide a link to a “Campaign against climate change” site, which I had not seen before. It had a 2-week run of comments that ran from April 16 to May 2, 2008.
Then curiously, long after the site had essentially died, a confused blogger calling himself Peter Martin added a comment that one of the posters from back almost a year ago was, in fact, you (or maybe me), or maybe both of us combined. Could this be our Peter Martin? Or is it a secret “sockpuppet” of James E. Hansen (or some other confused fuzz-head) who has stolen Peter’s identity? We’ll never know unless our Peter Martin confesses.
The level of the ongoing scientific, economic and political debate surrounding the global warming hypothesis has obviously sunken to a level of irrational absurdity.
But let’s give our Peter Martin credit for one thing. He may get silly at times when he is backed into a corner on the rational facts, but he rarely resorts to personal insults and never uses foul language as so many of the AGW-aficionados tend to do in defending their “sacred cow” against rational skeptics.
Regards,
Max
Barelysane (#4410)
Sorry, I’d like to help out, but I’ve loaned my address (which I borrowed from Brute, who got it from Robin via JZSmith, who originally got it from TonyB) to Bob_FJ.
Brute and Bradbury are right and I’ve been exposed (as Peter suspected all along).
All I can say now is, TMTYL.
(Take me to your leader).
On second thought, Brute, I’m not so sure I want to see your newly elected “leader” (I’ve seen enough of him on global TV already). ut can you get me an interview with Sarah Palin?
Max (a.k.a. Mechanized Alien Humanoid #1103432)
Speaking of aliens………….
Curses……Foiled Again Max! Your diabolical plot has been uncovered!
I’m trying to think of the name of the TV game show where they had three contestants….. all but one masquerading as the real guy…..What’s My Line?
At the end of the game they always said, “Will The Real (Max Anaker) Please Stand Up”?
Max,
You may think I’m impertinent but you haven’t yet actually denied that these sockpuppets are yours!
Do you indulge in the use of sockpuppets? Yes or No ? Its a simple question.
How many other identities do you masquerade under?
Its also a simple question of why its OK for solar scientists to use positive feedback in their calculations but not anyone else? Have you no answer at all on this point?
Maybe you don’t realise that it waht they are doing with their use of the values close to 0.85K/W/m^2?
I’d just remind you that to attempt to prove your point of low CO2 climate sensitivity you settled on a value of about a fifth of this.
This really is the crux of the issue. You can’t claim to have ‘won the game’ when your opponent is calling you out and you have a busted flush in your hand!
Hi Peter,
To play your silly game (my answer to your questions in caps):
You may think I’m impertinent but you haven’t yet actually denied that these sockpuppets are yours!
I HEREBY DENY THAT ANY SOCKPUPPETS ARE MINE
Do you indulge in the use of sockpuppets? Yes or No ? Its a simple question.
NO
How many other identities do you masquerade under?
NONE
Its also a simple question of why its OK for solar scientists to use positive feedback in their calculations but not anyone else?
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SOLAR SCIENTIST REFER TO POSITIVE FEEDBACKS
Have you no answer at all on this point?
PLEASE SEE ANSWER ABOVE
Maybe you don’t realise that it what they are doing with their use of the values close to 0.85K/W/m^2?
PLEASE REFER TO SOLAR STUDIES I CITED FOR DERIVATION OF EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVED SOLAR ACTIVITY AND OBSERVED GLOBAL TEMPERATURE PRIOR TO ANY HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS
I’d just remind you that to attempt to prove your point of low CO2 climate sensitivity you settled on a value of about a fifth of this.
I HAVE USED THE VALUE CITED BY IPCC (see AR4 SPM 2007, p.4)
This really is the crux of the issue. You can’t claim to have ‘won the game’ when your opponent is calling you out and you have a busted flush in your hand!
THIS IS A SILLY AND IRRELEVANT STATEMENT. I HAVE 10 DIFFERENT STUDIES BY SEVERAL SOLAR SCIENTISTS “IN MY HAND” AND YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF HOT AIR.
SORRY. YOU LOSE.
IF YOU CAN SHOW ME WHY THESE MANY SOLAR SCIENTISTS ARE ALL WRONG IN THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE SUN CAUSED 0.35C OF THE 20TH CENTURY WARMING, PLEASE DO SO. IF NOT, KINDLY ADMIT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW MORE ABOUT SOLAR FORCING OF 20TH CENTURY CLIMATE THAN ALL THESE SCIENTISTS AND WE CAN END THIS DISCUSSION.
IF YOU ARE TOO STUBBORN TO ADMIT DEFEAT, SO BE IT.
Regards,
Max
Max
Max,
I’ll come back to the sockpuppets later.
If you don’t like the poker analogy maybe it should be a chess one. You can’t claim to have won when you’re in checkmate. Or if its bridge you can’t claim any points when you haven’t taken a trick!
You its OK to cite the experts if they come up with something that you think supports your argument? But not otherewise? Although you are wrong there too. As I’ve shown, solar science is providing vlauable supporting evidence for the IPCCs case.
All those Capitals shows you are losing your cool. That’s a dangerous thing to do when you have multiple personality disorder. You never know who or what you might change into next!
Hmmmmmmm. Al Gore must be coming to town.
Yep, I was right……(as usual).
Hansen’s Coal and Global Warming protest may get snowed out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/hansens-coal-and-global-warming-protest-may-get-snowed-out/
Hi Peter,
I have answered all your silly questions.
Now let me repeat:
If you can show me why these many solar scientists are all wrong in their conclusion that the sun caused 0.35C of the 20th century warming, please do so.
If not, kindly admit that you do not know more about solar forcing of 20th century climate than all these scientists and we can end this discussion.
If you are too stubborn to admit defeat, so be it.
Regards,
Max
Max
Who does this remind you of?
“Don’t waste your time or ours tugging at heart strings, speaking of the need for action rather than wasting time on irresponsible ‘denial’.
Don’t even waste time speaking of climate ‘change’ – it should be correctly regarded as climate evolution or variation.”
Submitted by “binjaminimum” on 19 June, 2008 – 23:01.
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820?page=3
Maybe you black out when you switch identities and you don’t remember anything?
Thank u ,very good info Try this cool site http://www.solarwindenergytips.com