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.
Barleysane
I have been in contact with Mr Courtenay in the past-who is a lead contributor to the IPCC and also Prof Morner-whose studies I have cited here and elsewhere.
AS mentioned here previously I have been attempting to persuade either the BBC or The Royal Society to hold a televised debate along the lines of a trial, on the evidence that could support the idea that Co2 is killing the Planet.
The AGW case is very weak on actual evidence and as a result hypothetical feedbacks based on all sorts of assumptions are continually produced as factual. The IPCC themselves admit the computer studies are flawed and they should be treated with caution. Yet we still have many who prefer to treat every word of the IPCC as gospel, opponents as evil or stupid, and refuse to discuss observational evidence-such as REAL sea levels.
I see this debate as a template as it seems to have been conducted with some rigour, although the opponents were not that good. They typify a large group of believers who think everyone should fall into line as soon as they utter the magic words “the IPCC says…’
Any televised debate needs to look at actual evidence-not circumstantial material, guesses, wishes and hopes, or theories-no matter how compelling they may look and no matter how many pretty graphs they may contain.
I will keep persevering although it is difficult to get anywhere when a supposedly public tv service AND one of the worlds oldest scientific institutions refuse to become engaged with the subject in an even handed manner.
TonyN
Do you have any contacts at the BBC who it might be worth approaching with this idea-I appreciate it may be best not to mention your name to them…
Tonyb
Barelysane, in your 4572, you quoted Richard Courtney on his recent personal account on a debate at St Andrews University. Great link!
I have long been an admirer of Richard Courtney, because of his wonderful ability to elucidate, (sometimes with great humour), the lack of real science in the AGW “consensus”. For instance, I was particularly impressed by his expert review comments, in the two drafts for the IPCC 4AR of 2007. (although those comments were not evident in the final report). TonyB has also expressed admiration for Richard, I seem to recall.
In that account by Richard, it almost looks like the pro-debate-participant Robinson might be a sockpuppet of Hansen? Whatever, the following quote in part of Robinson is truly astonishing:
Uh????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Eh????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I would have loved to have been there, in that debate, and for instance have witnessed Monckton “explaining things”
Robin et al
For the sake of good order I have summarised the events surrounding the original link from you on 4551.
This conference has now become a thread over at WUWT to which I have posted the following in response to the lead article;
From Brendan O’Neill-excerpt;
“A few months ago, for a joke, I set up a Facebook group called ‘Climate change denial is a mental disorder’. It’s a satirical campaigning hub for people who think that climate change denial should be recognised as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, and that its sufferers – who probably engage in ‘regular chanting and intensive brainwashing sessions in cult-like surroundings’ – should be offered ‘eco-lobotomies’ to remove ‘the denying part of their brain’. The group now has 42 members. Yes, some have signed up because they get the joke, but others are serious subscribers to the denial-as-insanity idea. ‘Thank God I’ve found this group’, says one new member, who is sick of other Facebook groups being ‘hijacked’ by unhinged eco-sceptics….”
Read the link for the rest of the article;
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/6320/
This is a short excerpt from the conference prospectus cited in the link above;
“Man-made climate change poses an unprecedented threat to the global ecosystem and yet the response, from national policy makers right through to individual consumers, remains tragically inadequate. The Centre for Psycho-Social Studies at the University of the West of England is organising a major interdisciplinary event Facing Climate Change on this topic at UWE on 7 March 2009. Facing Climate Change is the first national conference to specifically explore ‘climate change denial’.
The rest can be read here;
http://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/UWENews/article.asp?item=1438
This is an excerpt of the speakers profile;
“He has longstanding interest in the role of emotion and unconscious forces in political behaviour and his current ESRC project focuses on the `emotion work’ required of regeneration workers as they negotiate the ethical dilemmas of their jobs. Major research contracts in the past have included the Home Office, Joseph Rowntree and the European Foundation.”
The rest can be read here;
http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/politics/staff_pHoggett.shtml
UK readers already know about the wilful waste of our taxes on the public sector and the EU by our profligate government and will only shake their heads at more state funded idiocy. However, it is an indicator of the shape of things to come for American readers who don’t yet realise they elected a socialist as their president.
Tonyb
Sandra
Bearing in mind they are holding the levers of power the increasingly hysterical response from the authorities perhaps indicate they are losing their audience-the general public- who are not quite as gullible as they believe.
Tonyb
Hi Peter,
Looking at the curve you posted on solar irradiance from 1611-2001 and putting in some linear trends, a few points become evident.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3335090068_88d9c04e47.jpg
Solar activity increased from the unusually inactive and cold period of the Maunder Minimum from around 1645 to 1710 to the 20th century period of unusually active solar activity (as confirmed by many solar scientists).
The most rapid rate of increase in solar activity occurred over the 20th century (as confirmed by these same solar scientists).
The increase in solar activity continued after 1970, but at a much slower rate than over the entire 20th century.
All makes sense to me, Peter.
Regards,
Max
TonyB & Barelysane; Further my 4577, my post crossed TonyB’s 4576.
Otherwise; my wording might have been a bit teensy-weensy different. However, since some of my adoring fans say I’m still “good looking“, that does not mean that I’m dumb. I do comprehend this climate change stuff you guys!
As for that Peter Martin fruitcake; All I can do is give my inimitable nose-snort.
Yep, what you’ve heard on my movies, is truly mine, not from some other audio-freak. Totally genuine; my good snort, maybe a ten!
Re: #4576 TonyB
I think it is unlikely that the BBC would welcome any ideas for programmes from me much before the end of the century. They are, of course, well aware of my name and that I run this blog. There is also a serious flaw in your proposal; the BBC would choose the principle speakers.
barelysane / tonyb / sandra:
Re Richard Courtney & the St Andrews debate, perhaps it should in fairness be noted that those proposing the motion got more votes (57) than those (such as Courtney) opposing (42). The motion was lost because 18 abstained and, under the Rules of the House, those proposing must obtain a majority of votes cast. Also it may be that, as a speaker, Courtney was not wholly objective in his review of the debate.
However, there were about 180 people present – so 63 chose not to vote. Therefore, it seems more people were unwilling to support either side than supported either side. Overall that’s an interesting result at a student gathering where one might expect AGW supporters to be in a substantial majority.
As I think I’ve said before, TonyB, I don’t much like the idea of a “trial” (your 4576). A parliamentary style debate (on the lines of the St Andrews debate) would IMO be far better. But I fear there is little chance of either the BBC or Royal Society being interested in the idea. I suspect they agree with the Goracle (see Brute’s post 4540) that:
But, in contrast, here’s a rather different warmist approach. Thinking of today’s conference (4550) I had a look at The International Community for Ecopsychology website. It “enthusiastically endorses the Earth Charter”. Here’s an extract:
Groan – the Goracle is to get another award:
The story’s here. At least the comments are amusing.
Robin #4584
I think that with your background you use a more precise definition of ‘trial’ than I do.
The requirement is that the quality of submissions i.e. ‘evidence’ should reach certain admissable standards. Somnebody merely saying that all sorts of feedbacks might occur if something else happens is hearsay not proven fact and needs to be exposed as such.
The main point is to debate key contentions of the case for either side, and see if they can be proven to be ‘facts’ and of any material consequence in front of a ‘jury’ or ‘judges’ of sufficient competence that will ensure that rejected evidence on either side can not be recycled againn as being factual.
There is no hope in hell of something of sufficient standing to be set up at present, but it is worth nudging those who could be instrumental in staging such a debate.
I think the St Andrews event was great although you fairly point out the ‘not proven’ verdict this is astonishing bearing in mind the audience make up. As I said, I see it as some sort of template, but major events are needed that have a much higher profile and attract AGW debaters who can argue a case properly.
As regards your groan re the Goracle, didn’t Roger Revelle and Al Gore have a serious falling out over co2 which required an apology from Gore to avoid court action?
Peter
I think you have found your soul mate in Sandra, she could almost be your alter ego expressing your real innermost thoughts. Funny though!
TonyB
TonyB: re 4586.
I completely disagree. First, in a trial, one party would be the “accused” in “the dock”. If you think the BBC would allow that to be the warmists, I can only say: in your dreams. No, it would be the sceptics – almost certainly labelled as “deniers” – who would be the accused. Add to that, the probably of a biased “jury” and an establishment judge, and you can imagine the result.
No – far better would be a debate. The sides would first negotiate and agree a motion: “That this House believes that mankind’s emissions of greenhouse gases are a serious threat to the planet’s ecosystem” might be a starter for example. Then an independent (preferably online) pollster would ask (before the debate) a representative sample of the public for its opinion on the agreed motion: agree or disagree? Before the debate started, the studio audience would record their opinion also – the results would be kept secret until after the second vote at the end.
Each side would field, say, three speakers. The side proposing the motion would start and they would speak in turn, each having, say, eight minutes – if wished, they could call witnesses – provided they kept to the time allocation. Speakers would not be allowed to speak more than once (in some formats a short closing statement might be allowed) except to raise a point of information, order, etc. Then the discussion would be open to the floor – no one having more than, say, two minutes.
At the end, the studio audience would vote again and the results (both initial and final votes) announced – a point of interest being the number who had changed their mind as a result of the debate. And, during the following week, another opinion poll would be carried out and published – showing a comparison with the earlier poll. An instant telephone poll is a possibility but such polls are hopelessly unsatisfactory in my view.
I think it sounds great – but, for the reasons I have stated before, it’s not at all likely to happen.
An ‘establishment judge’ and a ‘biased jury’ Robin? Are you saying our legal system is so flawed that the truth could not come out?
My interest is in seeing the subject debasted rationally with proper rules, a definition of what is evidence and what is hearsay, someone who mediates properly,good debaters on either side and a large audience.
Yes I had thought of taking a poll before a debate but this is highly dependent on the studio audience-if it is unbiased or equally split, fair enough. If it is packed by the plane stupid crowd and other well organised special interest groups- the result is a fore gone conclusion.
I don’t really care what it is all called other than a trial probably has more dramatic appeal than a debate. I know it is unrealistic Robin, but some really strange-and sinister- things are happening in the name of climate change. Nowhere better illustrated than your link to the conference.
Did you read the paper yesterday where it is being claimed our traditional thatched roofs are at risk because of climate change affecting the production of reed? Not because of the hot and dry weather promised by the Met office as typifying our future summers (which was also going to affect the thatching industry) but because of our current cold wet summers.
Trivial perhaps but there is so much of this nonsense going on which needs to be publicly exposed for the idiocy it is.
TonyB
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Dr. A.D.J. “Tony” Haymet, an Australian chemist, became Vice Chancellor for Marine Sciences, Director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Dean of the Graduate School of Marine Sciences, UC San Diego, in September 2006.
If you want to know why Scripps is pandering to the Goracle, read what the director of the organization thinks. It’s scary.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/07/04/news/haymet070408.txt
Haymet tells the reporter, “I take my hat off to Roger Revelle and David Keeling and my predecessors at Scripps. It’s been a 50-year journey. To come from 1957 where no one thought CO2 was a problem, (except for) a couple of theoreticians. The Scripps journey over 50 years has been pretty successful. They went from Roger Revelle and Dave Keeling and their dog thinking this was a problem to six billion people thinking it’s a problem — including Republicans and minus a few people. To me, that’s an amazing accomplishment. How you go from three people to six billion blows my mind. It’s the power of that Keeling Curve (which was the first documentation of the year-over-year rise in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide levels).”
6 billion people that believe today that human CO2 is a potentially dangerous problem for our planet? Sorry, TonyH, you’d better go back to your poll numbers.
When asked, “You’re given a free pass to [have the answer to] one science-related question. What’s your One Big Truth that you want solved?”, Haymet did NOT answer:
“to find out whether human CO2 emissions are really the root cause for the warming we have experienced over the 20th century and the apparent reduction of the ocean pH or whether these are more closely related to natural climate forcing factors, which have begun to reverse to a cooling mode.”
Instead, he answered:
“I want to know how long we have in terms of acidifying the ocean. Whether we have 300 years or 50 years matters a great deal to me. I’d like to know the answer to that. In that same line, I want to know how the whole biology of the ocean is going to respond. I have a feeling that it will be easier to adapt to a slightly warming earth — even though it’s going to be expensive. It’s horrible, but it’s easier than adapting to an ocean that’s changing its acidity.”
So, the “science is settled”, disaster for the ocean from AGW is certain, it’s just a question of whether we still have 300 years or only 50 years until it strikes.
No wonder these guys are pandering to Gore.
Max
PS As a chemist, Haymet should know that the ocean is not “changing its acidity”, as he told the reporter. It is alkaline today (and will be forever, since there is not enough fossil fuel carbon in the world to change it from its alkaline state today to becoming “acid”).
Sure, Haymet “knows better” (or he would not have graduated in chemistry).
But “changing its acidity” sounds a lot more ominous than “slightly reducing its alkalinity”.
Right?
You don’t really have to tell a lie in order to sell a lie.
Max
Max,
There is nothing wrong with the terminology used by Haymet. Chemists have always used the terms acidity, basicity and pH synonymously to define the entire scale of pH values from 0 to 14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph
Furthermore ocean acidification is the generally used term too. Everyone uses it not just Haymet.I suppose you could wage a one man campaign to get these terms changed: Alkanity maybe?
But what about a term to indicate that ocean pH is reducing? The reduction of ocean alkanity?
A good place to start would be Conservapedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
I’ve just checked and they haven’t got round to writing anything up on the topic. They’d like you. Haven’t you thought of writing a few articles for them on global warming too? You could get all your sockpuppets to give you a hand. You’d be an American hero!
Robin and TonyB,
It did cross my mind to suggest a Nuremberg Style War crimes court to try all climate change deniers.
But I thought better of it. Its not good to compare everyone you don’t like with the Nazis. JZ got quite offended when I even used the word in the same sentence.
However maybe you guys could have word with your mates at Conservapedia. They wouldn’t listen to me but they would to you.
This sort of comparison between Hitler and Darwin really is of questionable taste:
Try again.
I’m not sure why my image link won’t work. Maybe it shouldn’t be displayed to prominently anyway and someone is trying to tell me that!
Here is the link!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Hitler_and_Darwin.jpg
Hi Peter,
Glad to get you engaged in a discussion on the minor reduction in ocean alkalinity some AGW-proponents like to misnlabel “ocean acidification” (check your old chemistry book for correct nomenclature).
But to the main topic.
IPCC warns us (SPM 2007, p.14):
“Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to acidification of the ocean. Projections based on SRES scenarios give reductions in average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units over the 21st century, adding to the present decrease of 0.1 units since pre-industrial times.”
[Haymet did not get very specific, but just indicated that we have somewhere between 50 and 300 years for “acidifying the ocean” (i.e. reducing its pH to less than 7), with dire consequences for all oceanic life.]
Haymet’s statement is obviously absurd, so can be written off as “balderdash” (“BS” in more modern terminology).
Aside from the misnomer “acidification” (the ocean is alkaline and added CO2 would tend to make it slightly less so, but not lead to acidification, i.e. turning it from alkaline to acidic), how reasonable are the IPCC “projections”?
There are some 40,000 GtC in the vast ocean carbon sink, whereas the atmosphere contains only around 800 GtC and all the fossil fuels remaining on this planet contain only around 2,000 GtC. Adding in another 15% for deforestation, cement production, etc. puts the total man-made CO2 ever to be realized at around 2,300 GtC.
If 60% of the CO2 emitted by humans “stays” in the atmosphere (as is currently the case), this means that around 920 GtC will be added to the current 40,000GtC in the ocean (an increase of 2.3%).
The ocean pH is inversely related to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, with a logarithmic relationship (as between greenhouse warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration).
Studies tell us that the “pre-industrial” ocean pH was 8.18, based on estimates and that this had risen, based on spot measurements, to 8.10 by the end of the 20th century. This represents an increase of 0.08, close to but slightly less than the value stated by IPCC
Over the same time period, IPCC tells us that atmospheric CO2 levels rose from 280 to 380 ppm.
So how much does atmospheric CO2 need to increase to result in the projected 0.14 and 0.35 units increase over the 21st century?
To arrive at a pH decrease of 0.14 would require an atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 680 ppmv. Projections for the year 2100 lie well below this value, at around 520 ppmv. So this projection is on the high side.
To arrive at a pH decrease of 0.35 would require an atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 1710 ppmv. The entire fossil fuel reserves of our planet could only get us to an atmospheric concentration of around 1000 ppmv, so this projection is not only absurd, it is physically impossible!
Conclusion: The IPCC claim on “ocean acidification” does not pass the reality test.
A more realistic projection, based on an increase of atmospheric CO2 to 560 ppmv by 2100, would be a pH decrease of 0.09 units below today’s value, or 0.17 units below the value in pre-industrial 1750, with an absolute maximum human impact (based on the consumption of all fossil fuels on this planet some day in the far distant future) of 0.23 units below today’s value.
Just another IPCC exaggeration. “E pluribus unum”, as they say.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
I know you were joking when you wrote to Robin and TonyB, “It did cross my mind to suggest a Nuremberg Style War crimes court to try all climate change deniers.”
Leaving aside the silly misnomer “climate change deniers” (who in his right mind “denies” that “climate” is continuously “changing”?), there are some AGW-aficionados who propose something along this line.
Hansen, with his allusion to “death trains” carrying coal and the suggestion to try oil company executives sort of go in that bizzare direction.
Peter, I am sure you will agree that there is no comparison between the actual horrible loss of life recklessly and intentionally caused by the Nazis and the virtual inconvenience from AGW that may be caused by human CO2 emissions some possible day in the future. One was real, with major documented loss of human life. The other is an imaginary computer-generated mirage, with no loss of human life to date (and none to be expected).
The real “deniers” out there are those who “deny” that there is a basic and fundamental difference between the Nazis and “climate change deniers”.
Regards,
Max
Max,
What you are saying is that the oceans are now nearly 20% more acidic than they were in pre-industrial times and even if they became 48% more acidic it wouldn’t matter.
Well do you know that? I have to say that there is nowhere enough known for anyone to say conclusively that it is safe to change the ocean pH from 8.18 to 8.01.
Incidentally I have used your figures of 8.18 (pre-industrial) 8.10, (present day), and 8.01 (when CO2 levels double) for the calculations. Although Wiki has slightly different numbers.
The oceans will have had lower pH levels some time in the past so you you could argue that they are safe. On the other hand, changes would have ocurred naturally at a much slower rate than the anthropogenically induced kind. It is an unknown just how ocean biology will cope with the speed of the change.
You might want to read up on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
There is nothing on conservapedia I’m afraid. That’s another little job for you and your sockpuppets.
Peter Martin, in your 4591, you wrote in part:
Peter, Further to Max’s 4590 & 4595, you and other alarmists are obviously playing with semantics when claiming that the oceans are undergoing (tragic) increased acidity. The most appropriate (but imperfect description) in lay terms could be that some parts of the oceans are becoming less alkaline, but are unlikely to ever become acidic. (even in small concentrated areas). However, the alarmists find that trumpeting “increasing acidity” has a lot more spin than ‘reducing alkalinity (or basicity)‘, or ‘increasing pH towards neutrality’.
You quoted Wikipedia to back-up your assertion in 4591, but that entry includes the following which is clearly contradictory to your assertion:
Thus Peter, you appear to have either not understand your own Wiki reference, or you have deliberately misrepresented….. Perhaps trolled? I hope it was a mistake. Do you agree?
Incidentally, (although I’ve always struggled with chemistry), my understanding is that alkalinity and basicity generally have a close equivalence, but are not identical as sometimes implied, such as in your reference. Also that the pH scale is not a perfect measure of some of the complex chemistry in a multiplicity of competing solutes such as in sea water. It is also a bit weird to me that the pH scale has a phase-change-point at mid scale of 7. I would argue that solution neutrality (phase-change-point) should more cogently have units of zero, with alkalinity being positive and acidity as negative. (or vice versa, but we can‘t change this history). In this respect, an analogy is the centigrade temperature scale where zero is the freezing-point of water. The strange pH scaling may be part of why you may be confused in this topic.
Er, I’d better stop now
Peter
I had never even heard of conservapedia until you linked to it. Do you have a fascination of right wing web sites as some additional manifestation of your alter ego? Its as absurdly silly as some of the green activist web sites out there.
With regards to acidification you are imagining monsters where none exist. As Max points out, ‘acidification’ in the term anyone would understand it, is impossible. No matter how much you might want to imagine that man is going to be guilty of yet another eco crime our effects on acidity are tiny and can never be more than that, unless of course the very well documented ‘feedbacks’ can be found somewhere, or there is acidfifcation hiding in the pipeline somewhere.
Of course I might think differently once I get reducated on my return from the deniers conference, as I am coming to realise that as a denier I am a truly awful Nazi like person when I had originally thought I was merely being rational and not believing everything anyone tells me, if it was demonstrably untrue, unlikely,uneventful or unproven.
Perhaps me and Robin can both go together in order to ensure our attitude is thoroughly programmed out of us? Bristol is not a million miles away from TonyN either, so perhps we can all have a plgrimage to the font of correct eco attitudes?
…Or pehaps we will just shake our heads instead at the silliness of a publicly funded Professor who should know better, and wonder at the gullibility of a certain proportion of the population who will be attending this nonsense.
As Lomborg points out this is all distracting us from the important things in the world that are broken that we can do something about.
TonyB
Hey to ALL; first of all this site is great fun; better than Christmas in Lake Tahoe Nevada!
Robin, you wrote in part in your 4583; Re Richard Courtney & the St Andrews debate:
If those 63 were stunned by Courtney and Monckton et al’s revelations, I can imagine them wandering out of venue in a bit of a daze, not knowing if they were Arthur or Martha. Let’s hope they subsequently crystallized their thoughts into some rationality, and then discussed these logical new comprehensions with others.