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.
Max wrote in his 4494 to Brute:
The Oz BOM also thankfully got it very wrong in predicting potentially horrific weather conditions Re bushfire threat in Victoria earlier this week. They predicted very strong northerlies, and around 32C in Melbourne, to be followed by the worst possible danger overnight of even stronger cool-change westerlies somewhat like the tragedy of the 90 degree reversal wind change on Ash Wednesday 1983. (where long fire-flanks became fronts). However, despite damaging gusts and many tree-falls, and consequent power-outs, we had north easterlies reversing some 180 degrees to south westerlies, and some very nice rain periods over a period of two days. It now seems that the Victorian fire threat is virtually over and has been contained at some 400,000+ hectares, compared with 1.3 million hectares in areas of low habitation in 2003, and some 5 million hectares in 1851 etc.
I tried to take the dog for a walk this mid avo‘, when it brightened up, but found the River Plenty, encountered on my favourite walk, that was easily crossable for the past month or more was too challenging to try…. Lots of water! …. Change of plan!
I have some hundred or so shrubs in my large bush garden that were looking on their last gasp. This rain is a blessing for that, let alone the unburnt parts of the Yarra Valley etc!
Hi Brute,
You wrote (4498), “It’s obvious that global warming Alarmists haven’t even a rudimentary understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.”
Yeah. That seems to be the case. These guys unfortunately skipped that part of their education. How else could they come up with this “disaster not visible today but still in the pipeline (believe me, baby)” voodoo?
I can’t really blame the politicians for this. Most of them studied something other than science or engineering, so they can be excused for being ignorant whan it comes to the laws of thermodynamics.
But this whole “pipeline” admonition sounds kinda like the Bible’s “won’t be water but fire next time” warning.
Not to knock “religious beliefs” here, Brute, but they just don’t have anything to do with “science”.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
I think I have to disagree with everyone using a pen name or an alias. Unless they choose to use a pen name but still allow their true identity to be known, as did Eric Blair/George Orwell for example. I’m not making any distinction between those who support the scientific argument or others. I know there are some circumstances where secret identities are necessary, especially where the author might be living in a non-democratic state, but I don’t believe that this argument would apply in the vast majority of cases.
If you aren’t prepared to put your own name to your own written comments there’s something wrong somewhere.
In his address to both houses of the US Congress yesterday our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, put climate change high on the agenda, speaking of “a planet imperilled”. Here are some extracts from his address:
Inspiring stuff? Hmm.
PS: (unsurprisingly perhaps) I sympathise with Peter re the use of noms de blog. Google “Robin Guenier” and you get a lot of gruesome detail including some pompous pics. I don’t recommend it.
Hey Bob_FJ
Glad to hear that the (AGW-caused) fire disaster in Victoria seems to have ended (due to positive “anthropogenic climate change” there).
Meanwhile Brute and the rest of the NH inhabitants are continuing to freeze their buns off due to rampant AGW-caused global warming.
Really proves Peter’s point that “climate change” is real, doesn’t it?
Regards,
Max
Brute,
I couldn’t work out what the journalist in your link was quoting from. A scientific report? A TV program? Maybe they were just his own words?
But, anyway it’s an old trick to claim that this that or the other scientific conclusion, such as AGW, contravenes one or the other laws of thermodynamics. Its usually the second law for some reason. Any half-wit can trot out that line.
I wouldn’t want the readers of this blog to think I was meaning you or Max. So maybe you could explain , in your own words, just how and why the laws of thermodynamics are being violated?
Aw Peter, when you write to Bob_FJ (4503), “If you aren’t prepared to put your own name to your own written comments there’s something wrong somewhere” you are a bit off base.
How do I know, for example that your own real name is the same as your “nom-de-blog”, Peter Martin (from Brisbane, Australia). Couldn’t you just be Joe Bloggs (from Liverpool) hiding behind this fictitious “nom-de-blog”?
What difference does it make, Peter?
I could really be a “flat-earther” named Edmund Wong from Hong Kong, hiding behind a pseudo-Swiss identity and Bob_FJ could really be a Hungarian “climate denier” named István Teleki, just claiming to be an Australian from the Victoria region.
The AGW-aficionado, Tamino, could really be Al Gore, James E. Hansen or some anonymous Joe Blow from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Who knows for sure? Who cares? Why obsess on this issue, Peter? Is this a diversionary ruse on your part or a pseudo-psychopathic fixation?
As I’ve advised you earlier, I’d suggest you “get real” on this issue, Peter, i.e forget it, because it truly makes you look silly.
Concentrate on the substantive issues instead.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
It is not the basic AGW hypothesis that is contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics (even if has not been validated by physical observations any more than Svensmark’s cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis).
It is Hansen’s “pipeline” postulation, whereby a large portion of the AGW warming which has already occurred to date is still lurking somewhere, undetected and unmeasured, to eventually re-appear miraculously to fry us all some horrible day in the future.
This is “won’t be water but fire next time” religious belief, not science.
Regards,
Max
Max,
It might seem a bit old fashioned to you, but I do believe in the principle of standing up to be counted, on any issue, rather than lurking in the shadows and writing anonymous notes on the internet. That’s an Aussie way too. We do feel that you should play hard but fair.
You raise a valid point of how an internet identity can be established. There probably is no fully secure system but it would be a good start for everyone to provide some evidence of their identity when asked about it. Such as a Facebook reference for instance. You can have an ebay one from me here too if that gives any more credibility.
http://myworld.ebay.com.au/peter_martin_2001/
There is nothing hard to understand about the ‘pipeline’ theory. All that James Hansen is saying is that the land will warm up, and is warming up, faster than the oceans. The land/ocean index is weighted more towards the slower rate ocean warming because the ocean is 70% of the earths surface, and the effect of the ocean on the land is greater than the effect of the land on the ocean.
There’s nothing even remotely against any of the thermodynamical laws in that.
JZ drew our attention (4495) to the remarkable MSNBC Discovery Channel report of the Swanson/Tsonis (University of Wisconsin) and Isaac Held (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) comments about the failure of the temperature record to follow the warmists’ expected heating trend over the last ten years. This struck me as a less sophisticated version of the story we heard from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre’s Vicky Pope three weeks ago (4135): they are all saying that we must not allow current or future cooling to divert attention from acting now to forestall the dangerous warming that is inevitable in due course. After all, as Held states “… the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again.” As I commented re Ms Pope: AGW has become a hypothesis that can never be disproved.
As others have indicated, the Discovery Channel story is hilarious: warming has “gone into hiding”; “This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950”; “a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate.” [Things must be very bad when climate processes are getting together and “conspiring”.]; “temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees C during that time” [Yes they should – these temperatures are really, really naughty.]; “… just what’s causing the cooling is a mystery. Sinking water currents in the north Atlantic Ocean could be sucking heat down into the depths. Or an overabundance of tropical clouds may be reflecting more of the sun’s energy than usual back out into space”. [But, wait, they forgot another possibility: perhaps the “well-funded” oil industry/denier axis is manipulating the data.]
But we can relax: “it’s just a hiccup” – yes, good ole warming’s coming back. And with a vengeance: “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.” [Phew, so there’s no need to worry: those research funds will keep on flowing.]
As Max has indicted, these people seem not to have a clue about what’s happening. Yet I thought the science was settled. Seems not.
Re #4504, Robin
Why would a rather undistinguished European politician with the skids under him be invited to address Congress? Could it possibly have anything to do with the presidents problems getting cap and trade legislation on the statute book? Risk free politics again?
Incidentally, a BBC report this morning said that although there didn’t seem to be an empty seat in the house, this was because staffers were imported to fill the ones vacated by a significant number of politicians who chose to be elsewhere.
Peter.
This is the very last time i will respond on the topic as i agree 100% with the others that it is a pointless distraction.
My name is Keith, i even mention it here
http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2220. I live in the UK in Dartford just SE of London. I studied biology at university specialising in ecology, behaviour and evolution, and hence have a considerable interest in the biosphere. I worked for 10yrs as a biomedical scientist before moving into computer programming (it pays enough to live on unlike science in the UK).
For me i use aliases precisely because i do work in IT. I’m well aware how easy it is for someone with the know how to find out additional info based on unprotected blog sites such as this. Maybe a little paranoid, but i can live with it.
I’ve no way of proving to you that what i’ve written is the truth and no intention of trying. It’s up to you what you want to believe.
Anyway, back to the climate, i won’t post on this again.
TonyN reur 4511
http://www.order-order.com/2009/03/you-neednt-make-it-up.html
It would appear the Americans are as interested in what he has to say as us in the UK. I thought the cap and trade system had gone into complete meltdown with the collapse in the cost of carbon?
Interestingly yesterday, I was watching a “news comment” segment on a network one hour show. The panel of guests were debating the topic of cap and trade as well as global warming. I was quite surprised to hear that the guests defending cap and trade completely ignored the fact that there has been no warming over the last decade and that they favored the scheme in an effort to reduce “pollution”.
Again, not even a rudimentary comprehension of basic chemistry or thermodynamics…..just ideologically goose-stepping along with the rest of the Marxists to demonize and punish the industries that benefit mankind.
This entire global warming/climate change “initiative” has nothing to do with “saving the planet” or protecting polar bears. This is about government control of private industry and increasing taxes to forward a Socialist political agenda…….nothing at all to do with science or ecology.
I had been wondering if it might be a way to reduce dependence on the mid-east and russia for oil and gas. Moving to a non-carbon based energy source was always going to be incredibly expensive, and i thought that if you can create a disaster that demands that you do regardless of cost you give yourself that mandate to make it happen. We know that supplies of coal, oil, gas, are finite whether they run out in 10 or 500 years is another matter.
Barelysane,
Would you happen to know what percentage of the UK’s oil comes from Canada?
From what I understand, the US gets the majority of its oil from Canada with Mexico a close second.
Appears that for the US it’s Canada then Saudi Arabia
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Still trying to find the UK data
Hmm, didn’t expect that, apparently the UK is a net exporter.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/ene-energy
First time i’ve used nationmaster, really is a fasinating site.
Another example of sceptics beginning to break cover?
TonyN: I’m shocked that Drayson is shocked. He said:
(BTW how does he know it’s only a minority – his evidence?)
He is supposed to be Science Minister (hmm – he graduated in Production Engineering and has a PhD in robotics). Doesn’t he take note of current serious debate about the uncertainties associated with “climate change”? For example, he made these comments at the opening of a new centre to coordinate research using information from satellites about how the Earth’s environment is changing. Yet at the same event, the centre’s director, Alan O’Neill, said
Doesn’t Paul Drayson know that most of the “evidence” these senior managers don’t accept comes from those very computer models? Er … probably not.
He’s reported as saying that “there was an urgent need to restate the scientific evidence for global warming“. I, for one, look forward to that. Especially if it demonstrates, from observation not computer models, how said warming is the result of mankind’s activities.
Robin
A strange choice of words for a scientist. I suppose he is, primarily, a scientist?
TonyN: yes it would seem so – he is (or was) Professor of Meteorology at the University of Reading. Given this background, perhaps Paul Drayson should listen carefully to what he has to say about computer models – and the “significant issues” associated with them.
Hi Peter,
That “the land will warm up, and is warming up, faster than the oceans” is not rocket science, Peter. It happens every day/night and every summer/winter. It happens to a greater extent on a diurnal bases when the atmospheric humidity is low than when it is high. It is the direct result of water having a significantly higher specific heat or heat capacity than dry air.
This has nothing to do with the “pipeline theory” of Hansen, which postulates that the greenhouse warming of the atmosphere gets transferred to the oceans, where it lurks undetected until some horrible day in the future when it is miraculously released from the ocean to warm the atmosphere even more.
This is “voodoo”, Peter. It has nothing to do with “science”. Forget it.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
It appears from your #4509 that you are attempting to put Hansen’s “pipeline” postulation back on the table for discussion.
We discussed this once before, and I de-bunked it as “voodoo” based on “circular logic” (post 2320). You were unable to refute this de-bunking then, so let’s let this bit of “bad science” R.I.P.
Regards,
Max