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:
Further to my #4647, I should add that, after the recent EU Brussels conference and the international Poznan conference, it seems that even major European countries, despite their rhetoric, are unlikely to do much about reducing their CO2 emissions – largely because they are anxious, particularly in these difficult times, to protect their home industries. Moreover, even when they do introduce measures such as carbon trading (aka “cap and trade”), they are turning out to be counter-productive (see #4147). The same thing is happening with Japan – see this – and Australian greens are contemptuous of the Rudd government’s carbon reduction plans, which may in any case be delayed.
And now this article (“Lord, make me carbon neutral … but not yet”) reports that there’s yet another development: it seems that, despite James Hansen’s and Rajendra Pachauri’s dire warnings that action must be taken within four years, even the new “green” US administration has no plans to start emission taxation or even the useless (as Hansen insists) cap and trade until 2012.
Taking all the evidence (#4647 and now this) together, it would seem that practically nothing is likely to be done about curbing CO2 emissions until 2012 – and not much even then. There is, therefore, no prospect of meeting the global targets we are assured by activists are essential. So how can someone such as yourself who accepts the AGW hypothesis not think that ecological catastrophe is inevitable?
Peter, your 4622:
The money supply graphs in the Wiki link you posted looks suspiciously similar to the rise of CO2 during the (roughly) same time period.
It’s obvious, then, that human activities— causing CO2 emissions—are the cause of excessive money supply, and will eventually lead to massive inflation, a double-dip Depression.
We are all doomed unless we can dramatically cut our CO2 emissions.
Peter, for the record, I’d never heard of “Conservapedia” until you linked to it. I don’t favor anyone or any website that is willing to ‘spin’ facts to suit their point of view on a given subject. I prefer the motto, ‘The Truth, wherever it may lead.’
Peter, I must also agree with a couple of other posts that for the most part, this thread has been very interesting and enjoyable because of the generally high-level discussions and lack of name-calling and personal attacks. But this apparent obsession of yours with identities and “sock puppets”, Nazi comparisons, etc. has become rather tiresome.
Who cares whether someone uses an alias? Why should that matter? If anything, in my view it only adds freedom to write the truth regardless of ‘where the chips fall’. If not abused, if not used as a shield behind which to throw figurative rocks and spears at one’s opponents, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. [Full disclosure: my name is not really JZ Smith]. Again for the record, several of the framers of the US Constitution wrote the Federalist Papers, a series of pro-Constitution articles in the months prior to its adoption, all under the alias “Publius”. (generally agreed to be Madison, Hamilton, and Jay)
If using an alias was good enough for those great men, doing so by anyone else is also acceptable.
TonyB
Your 4645 on the pro-AGW bias of Wiki’s “entry filter” ia very informative. I had seen some blog posts hinting at this, but nothing quite as comprehensive as your post. Thanks.
Taking off the “RealClimate hat” and replacing it with an “objective and unbiased judge hat” appears a bit of a stretch for anyone to pull off.
I will continue to use Wiki on AGW info with a pinch of salt and a pound of rational skepticism.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Your discussion with Bob_FJ on the “semantics” (as well as the “scare factor” of “increasing ocean acidity” versus “decreasing ocean alkalinity” is interesting, in itself.
But don’t let it cause you to ignore the main point here.
Human CO2 emissions since 1750 have caused a barely measurable decrease in ocean pH of 0.08 points (if one can even believe the validity and accuracy of the measurements of today or the estimates for pre-industrial 18th century times).
Increasing atmospheric CO2 to the level projected for 2100 will result in a minor calculated decrease in ocean pH of another 0.09 points (again with the same caveats as above).
“Bloated” IPCC projections for future “acidification” are several times higher than levels calculated based on past changes.
The ocean is huge, it’s carbon sink is enormous and the total amount of carbon tied up in carbonate deposits in the ocean is gigantic compared to the relatively small amount of carbon contained in all the fossil fuel reserves on our planet.
Ocean “acidification” is a non-issue, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Regarding Wikipedia’s “objectivity” discussion above, it appears that Wikipedia’s ruthless defense of their left-leaning bias can be found not only in their coverage of AGW. To wit.
[…] read the rest of the report on the St. Andrew’s debate, click here. To find the comment, search for […]
I think we’ve had three denunciations of Conservapedia. From Robin, Bob_FJ and TonyB. The rest of you have shuffled uncomfortably, realising that it’s a bit of an embarrassment to have to side with them and wanting me to change the subject. But sometimes you do have to take sides.
Thankfully in Australia we don’t see much of the likes of Bill O’Reilly on TV. But, if he were to read this discussion he would know exactly what I’m driving at. He’s written a book on the subject called “Culture Warrior”. I’ve no objection at all to being described as a ‘secular progressive”. I’d take it very much as a compliment in fact. But to people like Bill O’Reilly we are dangerous subversives who want to make the USA ( or Australia?) more like Western Europe. I could understand him getting a bit upset if we wanted to make the world more like North Korea. But like France? Is that such a crime? I don’t think the citizens of North Korea would object too strongly to that idea.
Since he wrote his book, the world has changed. He’s certainly been proved wrong on the possible success of SP’s at election time. I’d disagree with him too on many of his other comments but at least he does have it mainly right in defining where the battle lines are being drawn in the 21st century.
Having said that, I should say that on a world scale the most obvious physical conflict is still between the Christian brand of fundamentalism as espoused by O’Reilly and the Muslim brand of Hamas, Al Qaeda and others. But maybe that might change soon. We’ll see.
I really don’t know what O’Reilly’s opinion is on AGW. But I don’t expect there are any prizes for guessing correctly! At some stage you guys need to decide whose side you are on. I would guess JZ and Brute would naturally side with O’Reilly and his allies. But what about the rest of you?
Hi Peter,
In your latest “sidestep” you wrote:
“I think we’ve had three denunciations of Conservapedia. From Robin, Bob_FJ and TonyB. The rest of you have shuffled uncomfortably, realising that it’s a bit of an embarrassment to have to side with them and wanting me to change the subject. But sometimes you do have to take sides.”
Wrong, Peter. No “uncomfortable shuffling” from me. I wrote you that I have never even heard of this site, let alone “sided with them”, so it is clear that I certainly do not support this site.
As I recall, JZSmith wrote you that he did not approve of any site that was bending the facts to support an agenda (including this one).
But more important, who really cares about this site?
You are the only poster here that has even referred to it.
Do you have some sort of a silly fixation on this site that no one else has even heard of?
Drop this line of argumentation, Peter. It only makes you look silly. You cannot tie the posters on this site to a ridiculous blog site that they have not even heard of.
Regards,
Max
Max, Reur 4659;
I think we are observing another Peter Martin OCD emerging
Hi Peter,
Back to our main topic of discussion.
We have been sparring on many topics here, ranging from the causes and impacts of as well as the political and policy responses to global warming to various unrelated political discussions.
It has been both educational and entertaining for me, as I have connected with someone from “a different world” who has a totally different viewpoint on life than I have.
But now I would like to get back to the very basics of global warming and see what you think.
Let’s review the latest facts.
It has stopped warming since 1998 (or 2001, depending on which record one uses). This fact is unequivocal.
Is this just another short-term “blip” in the longer-term warming we have experienced over the past 150+ years as we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, or is it the beginning of a new cooling trend? Who can say for sure? What do you think?
We do know that the latter part of the Little Ice Age occurred during a 17th century period of extremely low solar activity (the Maunder Minimum), which was accompanied by global cooling and that there were other periods of low solar activity accompanied by global cooling in the late 18th century (Dalton minimum) as well as a period of slightly lower decrease in solar activity and global cooling in the late 19th century.
Despite a lot of political posturing, human CO2 emissions are at an all-time high today.
After a 20th century period of unusually high solar activity (the highest in 11,000 years according to solar scientists), solar cycle 24 has been very inactive for the past 13 months.
Following a late 20th century period of frequent and strong (warming) El Niño events, including the 1998 event that resulted in the record warm year for the modern temperature record, these have been replaced by more (cooling) La Niña events, to which even the strong proponents of the AGW hypothesis attribute the current cooling trend.
What is really going on out there, Peter?
Is human CO2 really the principal driving force of our planet’s climate or are “natural factors” really in charge (as Pachauri has hinted)?
I, personally conclude that the observed data show that “natural factors” are playing a more significant role in our planet’s climate than human CO2, but your conclusion may be different.
Please let me know your thoughts and reasons for your beliefs on this. Thanks.
Regards,
Max
TonyB, you wrote in part in 4606/31
Sorry for delayed reply. I agree that you are totally correct, and have spoken like a true scientist. However the “environmental scientific” problems that we face are largely politically driven rather than scientific. For instance, in the AGW debate, whilst there are some extreme fringe pro elements, I believe that the political victory of the IPCC etc, is beginning to fray at the edges, and thus a PLAN B from the CO2 prophets of doom appears to be emerging.
Brute has already succinctly described “Ocean acidification” as the likely next round (PLAN B) of eco Armageddonists. I’ve seen this developing over at Gristmill with responses like; paraphrasing: OK well maybe some of the CO2 feedbacks may be positive or negative, but what about the acidification of the oceans? That is indisputably a very serious threat.
Oh, sorry, I have not been energetically following local “alternative energy” in Oz and cannot help you. We had some windmills stopped for a while under a bizarre pretext of protecting the endangered yellow bellied parrot, but the environmental minister was actually looking after his electorate activists whom did not want windmills for different reasons. (he ultimately resigned: the fruitcake)
TonyB, further my post just above
Perhaps I should add that I would like to see PLAN B (ocean “acidification“), thwarted or slowed down before there is a political consensus of fears that we may no longer have fish for dinner.
Luke Warmer, Reur 4649/p31, in an otherwise substantial and excellent post (I think), you ended with:
Luke, I need to respond in the context of my concerns in 4662/4663 above to TonyB, and as also expressed by Brute, and indirectly by Max:
Your analogy of hot and cold is not pertinent to the discussion of two different chemical states. (Acid as distinct from alkaline). A better analogy for you, of two different physical states, is that of water as distinct from ice. For instance, if you heat a block of ice from say -10C to -1C, it still remains solid ice, and has not increased its liquidity. It is however less frozen, which is analogous to less alkaline. In the process, the warmer ice would have some changed physical properties, maybe in me guessing; I think for example; reduced compressive strength and increased creep, but it still remains a solid; ice, and does not have increased liquidity. (even though it is close to a phase change into water, where zeroC is analogous to 7pH)
Reur final statement “if a solution is alkaline you acidify it to reduce its alkalinity”
Sorry, but no, you can reduce the alkalinity of a solution by modestly ADDING acid, and providing that the pH does not drop below 7 (or maybe ~7), the solution remains alkaline/basic and has not been acidified, as you claim.
Of course you can also reduce alkalinity in say sea water, by adding some neutral water to it. This may result in several complex changes, depending on the make-up of that neutrality, but it would be silly to suggest that you have made the original water more watery.
Finally, you could review the accepted definitions that I posted earlier, and see if you can find anything different.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Max, you being a chemical engineer; please correct me if I have erred in the above. (or even better; add to it)
Well said, Max (#4659). As I’ve noted, when he’s losing the debate elsewhere, Peter tries to divert attention by dreaming up an irrelevant confrontation.
So, Peter, like Max I’ll try again to get back to a basic issue. Let’s see if you’re prepared to answer the question I raised at #4647/4651: as there’s little if any prospect of China, India, Brazil and other developing economies plus Russia, other ex-Soviet states, the Islamic world and now it seems Europe, Japan, Australia and even the US doing much, if anything, about reducing their GHG emissions (and no possibility within the timescale said to be essential by Hansen, Pachauri, etc.), do you believe that catastrophic ecological damage is inevitable? If not, why not?
Peter Martin, further my 4662/4663/4664;
I hope you have carefully read and have been able to understand the issues discussed therein.
Please ask if there is anything you do not understand, because I remain interested in helping you out of your various traumas. May I recommend that you should concentrate really hard on 4664, in particular.
I hope this clears it up for you!
(on your ocean acidification = end-of-world fear)
Bob_FJ
I agree the hot/cold thing was poorly chosen (although Basil Valentine (15thC) wrote “Again, if any Member be benummed with Cold, let not the Patient neglect himself, but apply cold Snowwater round about, so one Cold attracts the other, and the Member is restored.”) but I did say it was more complex.
Re-reading the context of your discussion, it seems to hinge on words – “acidification” v “adding acid” v. “the resultant pH”. If you use the following link (and I’m having problems getting the link function to work) you can draw curves via an applet – choose adding strong acid to strong base and you can see the resultant ph curve which changes from basic to acid as the solution is first neutralised and then acidified. (there are others with more than one inflexion I seem to remember especially organic acids and I’m not even going to mention buffering)
http://www.chem.uoa.gr/applets/AppletTitration/Appl_Titration2.html
Clearly these curves are out of the range of the CO2/oceans debate but the scare stories will always be better invoking acid (as are the horror movies).
This might be wishful thinking on my part but ocean acidification is part of a “what’s left if IPPC’s wrong?” discussion. After all, measured atmospheric CO2 levels are going up and what is the impact of this on oceans? The whole thing recently about fish gut excretions also shows how little we know.
Another bizarre example of this “what’s left” issue is the letter to the Sunday Telegraph from CAFOD which (despite the science being settled) says “Fight global warming even if it’s untrue”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4403263/Americas-1970s-style-policies-threaten-a-trade-war.html
Which is not as surreal as it’s going to get, I’m sure, and is the letter writer’s get out of cognitive dissonance card.
(Link to letter found via mediocracy)
Peter
About half way down this post I used a quote from the ‘Earth Charter’ which Robin spotted:
I then pointed out that this is another way of saying that guilt is assumed unless innocence can be proved – hardly a libertarian dictum.
You seem to be applying the same principle in some of your recent comments about an association between the opinions of people who contribute to this thread and a site called Coservapedia.
How about producing some evidence, from comments here, rather making an unsubstantiated claim and then expecting everyone else to waste time disputing it.
Bob_FJ,
Re: Your 4662/4663/4664. I’ll leave you to sort that out with LW. Let me know what you’ve decided between you.
Robin,
You are right that there will inevitably be some some damage, maybe lots of damage, to the environment from CO2 emissions. The sooner it is tackled the less there will be.
I’m not sure what you define catastrophe to be. Three degrees of warming and three meters rise in sea levels?
No-one wants that but humanity will survive it, even though it’ll all be pretty ugly. It’s never too late to do something though. It will still be worth while trying to prevent six degrees of warming and 6 metre rises in sea levels.
Luke Warmer, Reur 4667,
Thanks your very interesting response to mine: However this is only a quickie from me ‘cos there is a doco’ on TV shortly that I must watch.
You quoted the sage Valentine, which I repeat in part:
“…so one Cold attracts the other, and the Member is restored.”
As a septuagenarian, I firstly ask is there any way you could elaborate on this business of restoring one’s member? It is a matter of some interest to me that caught my attention at the top of your post.
That is not to say that I have no interest in the rest of your post…. Far from it!
I’ll come back to you later on that, in about 22 Hrs. (probably)
TonyN,
I’m not sure if I do fully understand the psychology of those who are behind Conservapedia. I suppose I would have to be one them to fully be able to do that. To that extent I’m not able to fully answer your question.
I’m trying to explore the possible link between those who deny that AGW is a serious problem and those who would deny other aspects of science too. Like Evolution. In both cases decisions are made on the flimsiest of scientific knowledge. It must be the case that they’ve just decided they don’t like either idea for one reason or another.
Maybe the American contributors can suggest some figures for the percentage of Americans who would seriously question Evolution and similarly question the mainstream scientific theories on AGW. I’m guessing that it might be 40% for both? Furthermore I’d say it would be pretty much, but not exactly, the same 40%.
I’ve no doubt too that many of the anti-AGW contributors to blogs would be quick to deny the link. That might be true. I’m not saying that there is perfect correlation between the two groups. Equally, it might be that they are astute enough to know that it would be counterproductive to admit their other associations publicly. And that’s a lot easier if you keep your real identity secret!
Pete,
Don’t know about this O’Reilly character that you are gushing about; however, since you seem to be such an ardent fan of his philosophical and worldview, I’ll give him a look.
Is that Australian television? Is he a scientist like Al Gore? Is he a politician masquerading as a scientist like Gore? I’ll conclude from his name that he’s an Irishman and start there……I just haven’t seen the name pop up in any of the scientific literature or opinion papers regarding this particular topic so I’m not certain how his opinion fits in here. But, as always, I’ll keep an open mind and read his opinions since you value them so highly.
By the way, the climate changed here again this morning as soon as the that big giant ball of fire appeared over the horizon. Curious thing…..it seems to happen around this time of day and I’ve noticed that the daytime temperatures are becoming increasingly warmer than just a month or two ago……
Maybe there is something to this “global warming” thing after all…….
Bob_FJ
Alas, he was not really any clearer than that.
The Telegraph recently did a peculiar story that might be of interesting for reviving the member:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4947125/Penis-contraption-extends-manhood-by-a-third.html
But I’m not sure if they’ve mistaken spam in their inbox for a press release, though.
———–
Back to the serious stuff, let bring a new term (for me at least) to the table to describe the CAFOD letter I mentioned above:
Splendide mendax
“Glorious myths are those used for a good cause, i.e., splendide mendax (splendidly or gloriously false)”
This is from a report about the scaremongering around AIDS pandemics by international bodies to stimulate funding and action (sound familiar?)
I expect we’ll be hearing many more splendidly false things in the run up to Copenhagen.
Peter: re your 4671. It seems that either you’re still dreaming up an irrelevant confrontation or you think that those contributing to this thread who question the validity of the dangerous AGW hypothesis are thereby “denying science”. If it’s the latter, it’s a standpoint that confirms my belief that you don’t really read the material posted here: it’s obvious that the postings by, in particular, Max, Bob and TonyB are based on scientific analysis. The evidence they produce may make you uncomfortable and may challenge your cherished beliefs. That’s tough – but that doesn’t mean it’s “denying science”.
Luke and others
Im not sure quite how to put this but, Bob’s member is definitely off limits on this blog unless it has an impact on the climate, landscapes and the countryside.