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.
Peter: two articles for you.
First, I suggest you read this one (re China’s CO2 emissions) from Spiegel Online reporting data compiled by the International Energy Agency and China’s National Bureau of Statistics. Here’s a key passage:
Then read this article – by one of your hate figures, Fred Singer (doubtless a candidate for your “Nuremberg Style War crimes court”) – about the proposed application of the Clean Air Act to US CO2 emissions. Towards the end he asks – why reduce CO2 emission at all? And, having made the obvious points about CO2 not being a “pollutant” and the climate not having warmed since 1998 despite increased CO2 levels, he says:
Hmm: it seems that Western nations are about to inflict yet more damage on their already wrecked economies – for no discernible benefit.
And you’ve reason to worry, Peter. One of your heroes (?) Prince Charles (a well-known authority on matters environmental) is warning (see today’s Sunday Telegraph) that we’ve got “less than 100 months to act” to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change. So, as China is not cooperating, we’re all doomed I tell you – all doomed.
Robin Reur 4585 link, you lamented and quoted in part::
Oh gore blimey!
Does this possibly mean that high members of Scripps have seen and have approved, (not criticised) the Gore movie and his other stuff? For instance when Gore points to the chart of temperature versus CO2 in ice-cores, (in his movie), arguing “proof that high CO2 causes higher T’s,” he fails to mention the well published lag which implies the opposite? How come Scripps high officers “cannot” pick-up such crap?
So if Scripps are that inept or deceitful, why should we believe anything emanating from them?
Bob_FJ,
There was no misrepresentation. I’m sure that you all detect some sort of scientific conspiracy to generally mislead the public but there really isn’t any.
For instance human blood has a pH of 7.4. Which means, as you correctly point out, it is slightly alkaline. But, look up at how it is described in common parlance, and you’ll find the term ‘blood acidity’. Just the same as with sea water.
The point is that the pH of the oceans is being lowered. I doubt that TonyB’s opinion can be relied upon to say that this is no problem! I suspect that Tony doesn’t know the first thing about oceanic chemistry.
That won’t stop you all agreeing with him though.
And you might be right. I just don’t know for sure. No-one does. Its just another risk. My guess is that there will be some consequences, such as a reduced ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
Peter Martin, Reur 4592/4593/4594,
This might be the image you tried to post, which I tested OK over at Admin:
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/5/5e/Hitler_and_Darwin.jpg
You wrote in part:
I’m not sure what the image (with no explanation) is meant to portray but would think it has a satirical source somewhere. There is obviously no visual similarity between Darwin and Hitler, or any other parameter that comes to my mind. I see there is a link to Richard Dawkins, and I believe that both you and I agree with his views on the popular “God” cultures.
Could you please elucidate what you were trying to say.
BTW, me too…. have not previously come across Conservapedia!
Peter Martin Reur 4603, in response to my 4598 (probably)
You do not appear to have understood my comments in my 4598, so I’ll give you the opportunity to review PART of what I wrote again, with some emphasis added here and there!
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?
Peter 4603
I have posted frequently on marine aspects here, giving information which Max has sometimes partly used in his own detailed and excellent analysis.
In connection with one aspect of my professional duties, this week I have read current scientific studies on Sea levels, sea temperatures, currents and acidification. I had to talk about two of them last Wednesday in connection with a major project that is proposed in the region.
I will be writing a paper on several aspects of the subject shortly, and am currently speaking to a number of marine experts. Acidification is simply not an issue in the real world. Please read Max’s succinct analysis and move on to something else.
If you want to be helpful you can respond to an earlier email where I asked if anyone could point me towards any serious studies/projects concerning wave and tidal power. This is a subject that interests me and is the subject of my paper. There are lots of things happening in my part of the world-unfortunately 20 years later than they should be-and I would like to know what the latest situation is in Australia.
I consider renewable energy to be an important issue and one which is of far more consequence than non existent acidification or trying to slay other monsters that do not exist.
Lomborg has his head screwed on and recognises the danger that obsessions with non existent problems cause.
So how about being constructive and let me know of any tidal/wave projects in your neck of the woods? Thank you in advance for your help.
TonyB
Bob_FJ,
What you have quoted is perfectly correct. Anything with a pH of 7.0 or above is indeed considered to be an alkaline.
However, and its possibly too subtle a point for you, but its quite common for the term acidity to be applied to the whole pH scale from 0 to 14.
It’s not ususal for the term alkalinity to be used. Reducing the pH is known as acidification. Even though it may be from 10 to 9. Increasing the pH from 9 to 10 is known as reducing the acidification. It could, I agree be known as alkalinification. Maybe it is sometimes, but I’d say it was less common.
Look, I’m sorry that you disagree with it. But that’s the way it is. Its been that way long before AGW was much discussed!
I can’t say anythng else. You’ve drained me dry!
The Hitler/Darwin pic was used on the main page of Conservapedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
See about 2/3 way down the page.
You can also see an image of President Obama with an added hammer and sickle. He’s only been in the job a couple of months and rightly or wrongly isn’t doing things much differently to the previous regime in its dying months.
Take a look at what they have to say on Noah’s Ark, and Climate change too. Anything else you can think of.
So you like what they say of Climate change but nothing else? That’s quite possible of course but you should realise that the climate change denial movement is largely sustained by exactly the same people who are behind Conservapedia.
What do our American friends think of Conservapedia?
The “oceanic acidification crisis” is simply the transformation of the Alarmists into another goofy theory as the earth continues to cool, (despite rising CO2 levels disproving their previous prophecies), in order to implement their dopey political/social policies. They’ve lost the battle of global warming, switched to “climate change” and now that the public realizes that the weather (climate) changes daily politicians and special interest groups have redirected their efforts to another obscure, vague “emergency” caused by mankind that will be discussed and debated for years……another smokescreen to wrest more control over private industry.
10 years from now global warming as an environmental crisis will be forgotten….climate change will be another phrase in the lexicon that has all but disappeared and “ocean acidification” will be the new environmentalist crusade that demonizes technology and industry that has beneficial results to the human condition. A compliant media will trumpet the disastrous implications of “ocean acidification” unless we all vote/support the pro-environmental (collectivist) candidate now!
The term “acid” or “acidification” is a familiar word to the layman and connotes something destructive and negative as opposed to the benign term “less alkaline”……the general public simply won’t fear the “sinister effects” of a “less alkaline ocean”.
“Acid” is a much more inflammatory rhetorical term.
Another red herring to validate additional political boondoggles.
Will on warming: The cold facts
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_614870.html
After George F. Will wrote a column last month questioning the faulty premises and apocalyptic predictions of global-warming alarmists, he caught holy heck from America’s “eco-pessimists.” He and his editors at The Washington Post were blasted with thousands of angry e-mails, most of which challenged Will’s assertion that global sea ice levels have not been dramatically reduced by man-made global warming, as environmentalists claim, but are essentially the same as they were in 1979. Will, who had used data from the Arctic Climate Research Center as his source, also was accused of multiple inaccuracies by The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin. Will wrote a second column defending his data and returning fire at Revkin.
All is calm now and Will is getting ready for the start of his favorite season — baseball season. I talked to him by phone on Thursday from his office in Washington.
•Q: You have felt the righteous wrath of those who believe in man-made global warming. Are you still all there?
•A: Oh, heavens. Yeah. The odd thing about these people is, normally when I write something that people disagree with they write letters to the editor or they write a responding op-ed piece. These people simply set out to try and get my editors to not publish my columns. Now I don’t blame them, because I think if my arguments were as shaky as theirs are, I wouldn’t want to engage in argument either.
•Q: The big issue was about how much global sea ice there is now compared to 1979.
•A: And that of course was a tiny portion of the column. The critics completely ignored — as again, understandably — the evidence I gave of the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.
•Q: They like to pretend that there really wasn’t any hysteria back then.
•A: Since I quoted the hysteria, it’s a little hard for them to deny it.
•Q: What disturbs you most about this global warming consensus that seems to be pretty widespread and doesn’t seem to be eroding?
•A: Well, I think it is eroding, in the sense that people sign on to be alarmed because it’s socially responsible … (and because it makes them feel good). But once they get to the price tag, once they are asked to do something about it, like pay trillions of dollars, they begin to re-think.
I’ve never seen anything quite like this in my now 40 years in Washington. I’ve never seen anything like the enlistment of the mainstream media in a political crusade — and this is a political crusade, because it’s about how we should be governed and how we should live; those are the great questions of politics. It is clearly for some people a surrogate religion. It’s a spiritual quest. It offers redemption. But what it also always offers, whether it is global cooling or global warming, is a rationale for the government to radically increase its supervision of our life and our choices. Whether the globe is cooling, whether it’s warming, the government’s going to be the winner and the governing class will be the winner.
Now, it seems to me there is a 100 percent certainty that at any moment the planet is warming or it is cooling. That’s what it does. There are cycles well-recorded through history. The climate was once warm enough for Greenland to be called “Greenland” for a reason — the Vikings farmed there. There was a time when the planet was so cold that Eskimos landed in Scotland in their kayaks. There was “The Little Ice Age.” There were warm periods — we’ve been through this before. What’s different now is that we have a media addicted to hysteria and we have enormous political and financial stakes in convincing people that vast shifts of power and resources should be given to the government to combat climate change. The prudent people in this refer to “climate change” so whatever happens they can say, “See, we told you.”
•Q: Will you dare to do any more on global warming?
•A: Well of course! It doesn’t take daring. Seriously, I don’t understand what there is to worry about. In fact, the global warming “caucus,” if you will, seems to me singularly toothless. They can’t even get the globe to cooperate. It stubbornly refuses to warm at the moment.
•Q: Is there any big lesson that you’ve learned from this encounter with the global-warming people?
•A: This is not a life-changing experience. This is just another encounter with another interest group doing interest-group politics. This strikes me as a very minor event.
•Q: In your career or … ?
•A: In the week! In the week! This is just not a big deal. I’ve written 5,000 columns and a lot of them have caused ruckuses bigger than this.
•Q: But Andrew Revkin and The New York Times? They don’t usually pick on you, do they?
•A: No, but they no doubt have their reasons.
Robin,
RE: Your 4601
The salient point, (In My Humble Opinion), is the conclusion which really tells the whole story……
Peter,
RE: Your 4547
It doesn’t matter what my political opinions are in this case. The facts don’t support the Anthromorphic Global Warming Theory, so it’s a mute point.
We don’t need to bail out a boat that isn’t sinking.
Brute: I sympathise with disagree with your humble opinion (4610). To my mind, the key point arising from the two articles I cite is that, whatever we do in the West to combat this perceived threat, is completely pointless as China (and other developing economies) will continue to emit GHGs whatever we do. And it’s exacerbated by the damage we are doing to our already wrecked economies – likely to bring yet further misery to millions of our citizens.
My favourite economics journalist is Liam Halligan. This week his Sunday Telegraph article is about “quantitative easing” – aka printing money, Zimbabwe’s solution to economic difficulty. Normally this would be OT – but this week I thought you might be interested in his opening paragraphs:
Halligan should be careful about what he says: next he’ll be labelled as being mentally unstable.
I think I’m going to be sick.
That’s almost as silly as a phrase being bandied about lately……”Light Harvesting”, (opening the window shutters). I just wanted to grab the guy that said this by his necktie and shout SAY WHAT YOU MEAN!
Ocean Acidification……please……
Yes, Brute, it’s both absurd and sinister – used as it is to make a desperately worrying action sound warm and cosy. For those interested, the article’s here.
Robin,
By the way, I’d like to apologize for the shameful way that our President treated the British Prime Minister and his wife last week.
Inexcusable…………
Don’t worry, Brute – our Prime Minister deserves whatever he gets. Believe me: most Brits (at least those who noticed) were amused.
Regardless, he arrived with very thoughtful gifts as a representative of the British people and should not have been snubbed. The British have been important and stalwart allies of the United States and we do appreciate it.
Thanks, Brute – I appreciate that. Anyway, I don’t think an invitation to address to both houses of Congress is exactly a snub: Churchill, Thatcher and Blair thought it an honour. So (for what it’s worth) do I.
I’m not sure if this (go to question 3 on page 4) is genuine – maybe someone knows how to check? I’m dubious because of the spelling of “sulfur”. However, it looks genuine: and AQA is the UK Awarding Body for A-levels, GCSEs and other exams.
But, if it is, it’s seriously worrying. And not just because they can’t spell.
Do you really have to accept the AGW hypothesis to pass GCSE these days?
Brute,
You’ve not commented on the Wikipedia links that I’ve given recently.
They say about AGW “The theory enjoys broad based political support from Liberals, Greens and the US Democratic Party, and theory supporters frequently assert the existence of a “scientific consensus” favoring their viewpoint (see Politics of global warming).”
So although it is written by a collection of religious nutters they do at least realise that politics involved in opposing it.
Are you (and JZ) prepared to follow TonyB and dismiss conservapedia as “absurdly silly”?
PS Good point about other GHGs. You’ll be pleased to know that James Hansen has raised the same point about the importance of methane emission reductions.
Robin,
It’s not true that ‘quantitative easing’ is exactly synonymous with ‘printing money’. Although I do agree that is how it has been explained for popular consumption. If you look at the amount of money in circulation of all the major countries see for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
You’ll see it has increased almost exponentially everywhere in recent decades. In fact decades before too. So where has this money come from? It has of course been printed by the central banks. The link with Gold has long since been abandoned. The USA, as the owner of the world’s reserve currency can, and has, printed as many dollars as it has wished. Other countries have adjusted their economic policies to set targets for inflation and exchange rates with the US$.
Normally the printing of money is covered partly by the issuing of Government Bonds and partly by the country’s central bank to be able to lend money at a certain rate of interest. When the rate of interest is pretty close to zero that doesn’t work any more so Governments and their central banks have to decide how much money to print independently of interest rate considerations. Its possible, but maybe not likely, that they will actually print less than in previous years.
Pete,
I’ve never heard of Conservapedia (I suppose the above quoted comment contains a typographical error). I’ll look at it…..
To be candid, I’m not one for “surfing the net”. This site is really the only place that I regularly post comment. I do get my news almost exclusively on line now (and television). I can’t see purchasing a newspaper filled with junk, most of which I’m uninterested in and spending time flipping the pages only to become trash as soon as it’s read.
Peter: yes, you’re right that ‘quantitative easing’ is not be exactly synonymous with ‘printing money’. But it’s essentially the same thing by a more sophisticated route. Indeed, an unscheduled and massive monetary expansion as is now happening in the UK is commonly described as “the modern way to print money”. I believe that Ben Bernanke once described it – before he became Fed chairman – as not so very different from dropping dollar bills from a helicopter.
In common with, it seems, everyone here I’ve never before heard of Conservapedia. Why do you waste time looking at such rubbish?
Since posting 4620 (re a GCSE Physics paper) I’ve looked at other questions: and found a lot more AGW-related stuff. Unusually for me, I’m lost for words.