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.
Barelysane; Amongst the Pete-comedy above, you asked him in part in your 4369 back on February 26th, 2009:
Just to remind on those still unanswered questions, here is a copy of my relevant post, which cumulatively embraced all six questions:
Bob_FJ says: February 18th, 2009; Peter Martin, Reur 72,
I will ignore your irrelevant waffle therein, but remain interested in you responding to several issues that you have evaded in my 71 and beforehand.
1) Please clarify what you mean by your apparent accusation of me: “doctoring the BOM graphs”.
2) Please confirm that you agree that the BOM graphics that I have presented in 69, 62 & 60 show no correlation in the state of VICTORIA between monthly average MAXIMUM temperatures and global warming.
3) Please confirm that you agree that the BOM graphic link that YOU have presented in 70 shows no correlation in the state of VICTORIA between the number of very hot days and global warming.
4) Please confirm that you agree that the BOM graphics that I have presented in 60 show no correlation in the state of VICTORIA between yearly average MAXIMUM temperatures and severe bush fires, (or global warming), as far back as 1910, (The biggest was in 1851; Black Thursday)
I guess you will continue to evade these issues, so here are some alternative entertainments:
5) Please advise if you really meant to write in your 65, “But when they come from Central Australia [the north winds] they’ll be much hotter, dryer and stronger.”, and if you still believe this to be true.
6) If your answer to 5) is that you believe a “hotter desert centre” will result in stronger north winds, would you please advise why it was that when the airflow from there was very gentle during the January 3-day heatwave in Melbourne, the temperatures slowly built-up as follows: day one; ~43C, day two; ~44C & day three; ~45C?
Well, there is still no sensible response from Peter Martin, and I liken it to trying to remove an eel from the hook, or pouring water on a duck‘s back.
(or per Brutosaurus; trying to nail jelly to a wall)
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your response.
I like your analogy when you write, “Can’t you apply your solar argument against Cosmic rays just the same as against CO2? If not why not? Or is it that Cosmic ray hypothesis is plausible but the CO2 effect isn’t?”.
Both the AGW (CO2) hypothesis and the cosmic ray hypothesis are equally plausible, as far as I can see (and more important, they are not mutually exclusive).
However, neither of the two have as yet been proven by scientific observation or experimentation.
The AGW-CO2 hypothesis currently has a greater backing by the “scientific community” (and the politicians who provide tax-payer based funding for the scientific community) than does the more-or-less “maverick” cosmic ray hypothesis.
On the other hand, the cosmic ray hypothesis provides a better explanation for the pre-industrial temperature influence of the sun.
You ask, “Why is it so important for you to find an alternative to CO2?”
Peter, it is not simply “to find an alternative to CO2”, it is to find the scientific truth about what is really driving our climate.
Yes, Peter, I will agree with you that “when the CO2 question was really up for discussion, before scientific consensus had been reached, and that would mean before about 1995, we didn’t have any pre-considerations”.
Scientific knowledge advances rapidly these days. What was accepted as the “consensus” opinion yesterday may have been replaced rapidly with new scientific discoveries today.
I am certainly not saying that this has happened with the cosmic ray hypothesis versus the anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis today.
But I am also not ruling out that it could, indeed, happen some day in the future.
Whether or not (as you write) “it would be embarrassing if we all turn out to be wrong [on the AGW hypothesis]” is another point.
New scientific discoveries have often resulted in “embarrassing” paradigm shifts.
Peter, I am not predicting that this will necessarily happen this time, with the cosmic ray hypothesis of Svensmark et al. I am just not ruling it out as a possibility. I believe that the CERN experiment will tell us all more.
Since neither the AGW hypothesis nor the cosmic ray hypothesis have as yet been “proven” by actual physical observations or by scientific experimentation, I have to conclude that they both have equal merit today.
What do you think about all this?
Regards,
Max
ALL;
In addition to Peter Martin’s evasion of sensible responses to Barelysane’s 4369, and my 72 on the other thread, my following posts over there have also been evaded by him with waffle: 83; 87; 89; (direct F/U on the six unanswered questions); plus ditto and/or supplementary issues @; 91; 92; 94; 95; 96; 97; 98.
It is becoming a bit of a yawn, but I may post once more over on that thread.
On the other hand, I may devote more time to the challenge I have in determining WHY when I heat a cup for a drink or soup in my small microwave oven, the cup-handle finishes on the far side, out of reach. It is driving me to even greater distraction than trying to educate or help Pete in his trauma!
Hi Brute,
Glad to hear that your AGW-caused elbow injury was not serious.
Thanks for up-date on “global warming civil disobedience” demonstration. Sounds like everyone had a jolly good time (despite extreme AGW-caused cold), and then went back home to nice cozy (carbon-heated) homes to thaw out. A happy ending!
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
I don’t intend to reply sockpuppet “Barelysane” . The deliberate repeated mispelling of “delibaratly” and the incorrect lower case “i” isn’t really enough to hide the real identity behind the text.
I think I should only speak to contributors with verifiable identities. Which would let you out for a start.
Why are you so ashamed to put your real name to your comments? That goes for Brute and JZ. Or is that your real name JZ?
Brute
12F = (12 – 32) / 1.8 = -11C
6F = (6 – 32) / 1.8 = -14C
Ouch!
Switzerland also is experiencing Arctic cold.
Anthropogenic global warming appears to be truly rampant!
What can we do to avoid a drastic irreversible “tipping point”?
Max
Peter reur:4480
“I don’t intend to reply sockpuppet “Barelysane” . The deliberate repeated mispelling of “delibaratly” and the incorrect lower case “i” isn’t really enough to hide the real identity behind the text.
I think I should only speak to contributors with verifiable identities. Which would let you out for a start.”
I’d be insulted if it wasn’t quite so funny. Ever heard of typos? Incidently i couldn’t find “delibaratly” anywhere in the last two pages, could you point me to the posts?
This is a blog page on the internet, verifiable identities are a little hard to come by. I could very well be a transsexual called Ingrid and you a concerned and highly intellegent polar bear who’s just watched AIT.
This however is all completely irrelevant, as the questions as posted by Bob_FJ have yet to be answered despite his repeated requests, regardless of who is doing the asking.
Final Score For The Met Office Winter Forecast
3 03 2009
Guest post by Steven Goddard
The UK Met Office famously forecast this past winter to be “milder than average.“
25 September 2008
The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average.
Seasonal forecasts from the Met Office are used by many agencies across government, private and third sectors to help their long-term planning.
The meteorological winter is over, and the official results are in :
The UK had its coldest winter for 13 years, bucking a recent trend of mild temperatures, the Met Office has said.
The average mean temperature across December, January and February was 3.1C – the lowest since the winter beginning in 1995, which averaged 2.5C.
This missed forecast falls on the heels of two consecutive incorrect summer forecasts , both of which were forecast to be warm but turned out to be complete washouts. However, the Met Office appears undaunted by their recent high profile forecasting failures, and they continue in their quest to educate the public about the imminent threat of global warming.
Peter Stott, of the Met Office, said despite this year’s chill, the trend to milder, wetter winters would continue.
He said snow and frost would become less of a feature in the future.
….
The Met Office added that global warming had prevented this winter from being even colder.
They have already warned that 2009 will be one of the five warmest years on record.
2009 is expected to be one of the top-five warmest years on record, despite continued cooling of huge areas of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Niña.
Just as they had forecast that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, prior to temperatures plummeting by nearly a full degree.
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.
Based on their past accuracy with seasonal and annual forecasting, you might want to bundle up and buy some new rain boots.
Peter Martin, you wrote in part in your 4480
[1] As I have mentioned before, if you had chosen a nom de blog of Pineapplepimp, that would have no lesser meaning to us rationalists here, than your preferred “Peter Martin”. Logically…. Please think; Who pray is Peter Martin your alleged self, out of hundreds of other Peter Martins? You claim that you live in Queensland, apparently in or near Brisbane, and that is all that seems evident about you. I have a recollection somewhere that you described yourself long ago as a physicist; however you have made some appalling post-goofs in physics, so that cannot be true.
[2] I prefer Bob_FJ (or Black Wallaby previously), but if you want to know my real name, I now give it as Robert Findlay-James. Do you feel better now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before this ‘ere, I was watching on ABC2, a fascinating 1-hour doco; Eataholics; Addicted to Cheese. If you also happened to watch it, I may be able to help you further in analysing your OCD’s and thus assisting you in relief of your traumas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW: I seem to recall that early-on there were some “rules of etiquette” suggested for the blogosphere, some of which you have mentioned recently. Another one that you overlook, is that lower-case I (i) is to be recommended, and thus you should not criticise Barelysane for using it. However, it is a matter of choice I would say, and for example, my word processor does not allow me to do it without countermanding auto correction.
Bob_FJ,
Thank you for your full name. Here is my Facebook entry to show that I’m a real person too. I’ll even send you a reply if you want to contact me.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-Martin/523964379
Max,
The “delibarate” mispelling I noticed was on campaign against climate change.
You can pick that up on:
Google {site:portal.campaigncc.org definately}
I’m not picking anyone up on mispellings as such, BTW.
If you or anyone else cares to Google {site:portal.campaigncc.org barelysane} you can see classic sockpuppet behaviour between ‘Barelysane’ and ‘Randomtox’ on this website.
In one post ‘Barelysane’ even copies one of your whole posts from Harmlesssky in its entirity! Didn’t give you a mention by name either!
PS
Also see 4298. The word I noticed was “definate” not “delibarate”. Its getting too late at night!
But there is also your (and Barelysane’s) use of “reur”. A bit of phone text language?
Oh yes. You ‘both’ are fond of the word “Yep”. I’m sure I could find other little tell tale phrases but you’ve only got to read ‘Barelysane’ on Campaign against Climate change to know its you!
Don’t tell me that you don’t use sockpuppets!
Peter,
Is that you with the cat on the table? It’s funny how you create an image in your mind of what a person looks like and then compare it to real life. If that is you, you look nothing like I imagined.
Lift weights do ya?
Peter
“In one post ‘Barelysane’ even copies one of your whole posts from Harmlesssky in its entirity! Didn’t give you a mention by name either!”
That is misleading in the extreme. What you fail to mention to at the bottom of that post I include the phrase “Copied from” and then go on to provide a link to this thread and give the post number.
I don’t mind being called a sockpuppet and being part of your conspiracy theories, i think it’s quite funny. I do mind people making what looks like a deliberate attempt obscure the facts (so this post is not entirely off the topic of climate change)
Incidently the post i’m (and i think Peter) are refering to is number 16.
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2247
Hi Peter,
Your obsession with “sockpuppets”, alter egos, Doppelgänger, blog conspiracies between “climate deniers”, etc. does appear to be becoming a bit on the paranoid side.
Its “justification” (in your mind) appears to be that there can only be a few individuals who are ignorant enough to doubt the word of a “consensus of 2,500 mainstream scientists”, so that these few misguided souls have to use alternate names and “sockpuppets” in order to make it appear that they are greater in number and in order to mutually “reinforce” their “climate denial” by agreeing with themselves on the blogsites.
This is obviously a rather convoluted and conspiratorial postulation, which cannot be proven in any way.
It is also a very unnatural suggestion (why suspect people to be “dishonest” about their identity, when you have no real evidence that this is the case)?
And, finally, it is unlikely based on the messages each individual posts, i.e. a glance at the posts of the various posters involved shows that , despite some overlap, each has his/her own individual style, own topics of interest, slightly different use of the language, etc.
I do not automatically suspect that it is a diversionary tactic you disingenuously employ when the factual discussion is not going in your favor, but if you were to persist with this approach, it could be taken by some to be exactly that.
Peter, I would respectfully suggest that you drop this whole line of reasoning and get back to the topic of discussion, i.e. the many unresolved scientific, political and economic questions surrounding the hypothesis of potentially alarming AGW.
Along this line, I would appreciate your thoughts on the plausibility of the hypothesis proposed by Svensmark et al. on cosmic rays and clouds.
Regards,
Max
‘Barelysane’,
OK so who are you then? Do you have a name? Place of residence etc?
Peter and BarelySane
OK. I’ve checked out the blog interchange that Peter is apparently referring to when he accuses BarelySane of using “sockpuppets” and copying other posts without citing the reference.
Let me summarize what I see.
In response to a 4 October lead article on the CACC site by “Jo” lamenting the summer 2008 loss of Arctic sea ice, BarelySane posts evidence on 14 October that “the speed of the refreeze is quite impressive as well” and states his opinion that the AGW debate has become overhyped by the media, government, one-sided BBC reports, etc.
On 17 October a blogger named “Oisin” cites an article stating that fall 2008 Arctic temperatures have reached high levels, implying that “caribou and reindeers herds appear to be declining in number” as a result and citing a “domino effect”, blaming this all on human activities “spewing so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”.
BarelySane responds on October 17 with an updated graph showing that Arctic sea ice has again recovered back to 2005 levels.
After a brief interchange between Oisin and BarelySane on data sources, etc., Oisin states that both he and BarelySane “would both prefer to believe that global warming is not happening”, to which BarelySane replies “Not Quite”, agreeing that climate warming is indeed happening, but that it is still uncertain to what extent this is being caused by AGW, pointing out that “”consensus” has been completely wrong before” and “it’s only when scientists challenge established beliefs that understanding really grows”.
On 28 October Oisin posts another report on Arctic sea ice (this one by BBC News, entitled “Arctic ice thickness ‘plummets’”)
BarelySane counters on the same day with “that article is complete dross”, stating that the BBC report was “entirely based on speculation and opinion.”
On 13 November BarelySane posts an up-date on Arctic sea ice, which now shows that its extent has recovered to 2002 levels.
On 8 December a new blogger named “Randomtox” posts a comment quoting the earlier 14 October post by BarelySane and saying “Well put. I could not have put it better, myself BarelySane!”
On 13 Dec Oisin switches the topic from Arctic sea ice to the rate of sea level rise, quoting an earlier blog by Joe Romm on the Grist site, which claimed that sea levels are rising at 50% higher rate now than before 1990.
[This is a disingenuous claim, since Romm is comparing apples with oranges to claim an increasing trend. He compares satellite altimetry results after 1990 (which measure the entire ocean and are still highly inaccurate and unreliable) with the long tide gauge record (which measures sea level at various shorelines and shows no such acceleration after 1990).]
On 29 December BarelySane rebuts this post by quoting an earlier de-bunking I made of Romm’s original post on the Grist site, and listing his reference as my post.
Do you seriously see a conspiracy here, Peter? I do not.
Do you see any indication that the blogger, “Randomtox”, is, in fact, either a “sockpuppet” of BarelySane or of myself? If so, what evidence do you have? I see absolutely no such indication or evidence, myself.
Do you believe that BarelySane acted improperly when he quoted my earlier de-bunking of Romm’s “apple and orange” comparison on the rate of sea level rise? I do not.
Peter, this whole thing is absurd. You are seeing imaginary “demons”.
The only reason I’ve gone to the trouble of following this whole exchange in detail after the fact is to point out to you how silly your “sockpuppet” and conspiracy claims really are.
Let’s get off this topic, Peter. It brings absolutely nothing to the debate, as I’m sure BarelySane will agree.
Regards,
Max
Peter, I should let BarelySane respond to your #4491, where you demand, “OK so who are you then? Do you have a name? Place of residence etc?”
From earlier posts I have concluded that BarelySane is a UK resident by the name of Kieth (maybe I’m wrong).
Many bloggers prefer to use a “pen name” when they blog. Some of these are the among the strongest AGW-proponents, such as Tamino, Eli Rabbit, etc.
The fact that they use “pen names” may seem irritating at times, but it causes me no great concern.
I’m actually more interested in WHAT they write, rather than what their names and places of residence really are.
Is it truly a matter of great concern to you?
Regards,
Max
Brute
Referring to the UK Met Office’s consistently abominable record of forecasting ability, your 4483 stated, “Based on their past accuracy with seasonal and annual forecasting, you might want to bundle up and buy some new rain boots.”
Maybe it should be hip boots instead – it’s getting mighty deep around here.
Max
Well, it seems that the Warmers are starting to get cold feet.
JZSmith
My favorite quotation from your “cold feet” article is:
‘Swanson thinks the [cooling] trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.’
‘”When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”’
Faith is a wonderful thing, but note that there is now a “30-year hiccup” before AGW starts kicking in again with “explosive warming”.
This conveniently makes all forecasters liars by definition (because they will not be around to face their prediction). Great stuff!
I also like the part where the scientists are baffled by the cool-down. Haven’t these jerks heard of the sun? Aren’t they aware that after an unusually active sun and a high frequency of El Niño events in the 20th century (which caused at least a good portion of the warming and the record warm year 1998) we now have a very inactive sun and more La Niñas?
With their myopic concentration on CO2 these “consensus” boneheads ignore everything else around them. And that’s supposed to be “science”? Pretty pathetic.
Regards,
Max
JZSmith,
That is a rather shocking article especially coming from the likes of the uber Liberal MSNBC. Normally, they make The New York Times look conservative in comparison.
These were my favorite quotes from the article:
“Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists.” (But Al Gore and Jimmie Hansen have it all figured out and don’t want to waste any more time discussing it).
“global temperatures have flat-lined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.”
I don’t understand this reference to “heat surplus”.
It’s obvious that global warming Alarmists haven’t even a rudimentary understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
That being said, the politicians using this canard to promote their agenda are flatly ignoring and suppressing the evidence that exposes the global warming fraud to justify their goal of restraining, oppressing, dominating and eventually destroying private industry.
Max,
You say “I should let BarelySane respond to your #4491”
I can’t see what difference it makes!
Later on you say “…as I’m sure BarelySane will agree”
Yes, I’m just as sure as you are too!
Peter Martin, with reference to Max’s post 4493, where he says in part:
I would like to add that I agree with Max 100%. Thus, if you wish to dismiss validity of comment because of the use of nom de blogs, then you should equally dismiss Tamino et al.
I hope it is not too complicated for you Pete to understand this elementary statement of comparative logic!
I recollect that you have very recently supported “ChristophesJ”, an extreme fruitcake over at Gristmill, and also, was it “Oisin” and/or “Jo” at CACC some time last year? So, these people with nom de blogs are all good chaps, if they are of your ilk? Hmmm!