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.
Killjoy…….
Beginning to see a trend here folks?
I surmise from these temperatures that increasing CO2 levels are causing global temperatures to drop.
Brute:
Sorry ….. Each morning I have to scan through the spam filter, typically between 50 and 100 items a day now with very predictable contents. By the time I get round to looking at the genuine comments, believe me I’ve had more than enough of members.
This little outburst draws attention to the fact that this thread is, and has been since it moved here, a purely male thing, if one discounts a certain film star. I think that’s a pity, and no doubt Peter will be able to read some deep and sinister meaning into this.
Hi Peter,
You write:
“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.”
Just to help you with your investigation to explore if there is such a hypothetical link.
1. Count me as a “denier that AGW is a serious problem”.
2. Count me as a “non-denier” when it comes to “other aspects of science too; like Evolution”.
Both judgments are based on applying the scientific principle of being rationally skeptical of any and all hypotheses until sufficient physical evidence (experimental, observational, etc.) can be brought to validate them.
“Evolution” passes the test.
The suggestion that “AGW is a serious problem” does not.
Regards,
Max
PS So far the observed data show that there is no such link as you suggest, in fact one could say they show that those who accept “Evolution” do not accept the premise “that AGW is a serious problem”.
Maybe some of the other posters here would like to help you out with your investigation by giving you their thoughts on the two separate topics in order for you to see whether or not there may be a “possible link”, or whether the link may, in fact, be an inverse relationship, i.e. those who support the theory of Evolution do not support the premise that “AGW is a serious problem”.
TonyN.
All-male site?
How do you know that my name is not really “Maxine” (and I’m just hiding behind “Max” to fool everyone?)
Bob_FJ may, in fact, be “Roberta_FJ” in hiding, as well!
Robin could go either way as a name, but I’ve seen his pic (definitely not a lady).
Brute? (Well, he just doesn’t sound like a lady, so we’ll give him a pass…)
Regards,
M.
PS Thanks for screening out all that spam. Hope this message doesn’t get screened out.
(Apologies to all: this is long.)
Peter: in #4665, having noted that there’s no realistic prospect of any of the world’s economies “doing much, if anything, about reducing their GHG emissions (and no possibility within the timescale said to be essential by Hansen, Pachauri, etc.)”, I asked if you, a believer in the AGW hypothesis, therefore believe that catastrophic ecological damage is inevitable. Your answer (#4669) was that, although there will some damage, “maybe lots” – “The sooner it is tackled the less there will be” and “It’s never too late to do something …”
That doesn’t answer my question. Therefore, I’ll restate it in more detail.
A few weeks ago, James Hansen said that Obama’s four-year term
Note: not “some damage” but “global disaster“.
At about the same time, Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chair) said that Obama
A reminder: since Kyoto, the world’s GHG emissions have risen and continue to rise. There is no sign of that process stopping, let alone going into reverse. Nor is there any sign of the world being interested in a US “lead” – in any case, such a lead is unlikely (see below).
Here are a few uncomfortable (for you) facts:
• The Chinese government’s priority is to build up its economic power and alleviate the grinding poverty of billions of its citizens – citizens whose “carbon footprint” is minute compared with those of us in the affluent West. That means it will continue to burn vast amounts of coal (see the Spiegel Online story at #4601)
• Likewise, the governments of India, Brazil and other emerging economies – especially in South East Asia – are not going to abandon their growth ambitions and the miseries of their people in pursuit of a Western goal they perceive as having dubious merit.
• Although still the world’s third largest economy, Japan is suffering a prolonged economic depression. It is most unlikely (threatened as it is by a burgeoning China) to give priority now to a scientific hypothesis the validity of which, as we have seen, it is beginning to doubt.
• The oil and gas industries of Russia, Ukraine and other ex-Soviet states are, in effect, their sole source of power, influence and wealth. So there is zero chance of their giving that up in pursuit of a US “lead”. It’s not easy to imagine, incidentally, that the powerful, influential, far-reaching and immensely wealthy criminal elements within these societies (and the Balkans) are about to be transformed into legitimate “green” supporters.
• The Middle East oil producers, along with Venezuela, Nigeria etc. are not the sort of people who will decide that, after all, their almost wholly oil-based economies and politics should be subordinated to a new US-led focus on CO2 reduction; and, to the extent that this bloc embraces the Islamic world, it’s impossible to envisage this new focus trumping religion.
• It’s unfortunately unlikely that equatorial countries will at last put an end to the massive and, so far, barely controlled exploitation of their rain forests.
• Major Western European governments, facing serious economic concerns and increasingly angry electorates, are prioritising the protection of their home industries and their carbon trading schemes are proving ineffective (see #4147). And, although they pay lip service to “green’ issues, they’re not any longer so eager to impose yet more “green” taxes and restrictions. Meanwhile, eastern Europeans are too concerned about their economic and structural miseries to think about anything much else.
• There are no plans to apply serious emission controls to national and international shipping and aviation – especially that operating from the developing and undeveloped world.
• And finally (see #4151), the Obama administration is not listening to Hansen, Pachauri et al: waking up to the economic disaster it has inherited, it has already indicated that it will not prioritise the imposition of additional and damaging burdens of emission controls and greater taxation on US industries and citizens.
Looming over all this is the reality that the vast majority of people in the world no longer, if they ever did, give a damn about the “values” (liberal or conservative), including “green” values, of what they would regard as the self-indulgent elites in Western society – or of any “leads” they may give. Their own concerns – poverty, hunger, disease, thirst, violence, shelter etc. – are immediate and pressing. And, sadly, that’s likely to continue.
That, Peter, is the state of the world. The only possible conclusion is that GHG emissions will continue to rise – throughout the next four years and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, if you accept Hansen’s analysis, you must believe that we will miss that “last chance” and that “global disaster – melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts – awaits mankind”.
Is that your view?
Hi Robin,
Your logic (#4665) is “unequivocal” (to use a favorite IPCC word).
If (a) nobody is really signing on to the drastic measures proposed for immediate implementation in order to stop atmospheric CO2 from reaching the ultimate disaster level of 450 ppmv (the point at which irreversible “tipping points” will occur), is it therefore logical to assume that (b) mankind shall all be faced with unimaginable climate disaster resulting in mass extinctions of species, severe inundations, meltdown of Arctic ice sheets, ocean acidification, drought, floods, hurricanes, tornados, heat waves and other things too fierce to mention (as “mainstream consensus scientists” such as Hansen and Pachauri) have predicted?
The question is straightforward and easy to understand.
It is however “extremely unlikely” (<5% chance) that you will get a straight answer from Peter, “as is now evident from increasingly comprehensive observations” of his modus operandi on this blog.
Since a picture is often worth (a “best estimate” of) 10³ words (keeping in mind that “larger values cannot be excluded”), I have posted this one for Peter’s reflection in pondering the answer to your question.
Is this what we face, Peter?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3344981456_61d219a24e.jpg
Max
Robin,
No apologies needed.
Your 4682 was, indeed, long.
But is was very clear, very lucid and very much to the point.
I am also eagerly waiting to read an equally succinct response from Peter.
Regards,
Max
Robin, thanks for your GREAT POST (4681)!
I’m not going to move or do anything while I await Peter’s reply….
Max and Peter
I believe in evolution. I do not believe that AGW is a serious problem.
I have never read conservapedia other than that time Peter linked to it.
I do not read other far right or far left web sites.
I am moderate, very slightly right of centre in European terms. When I was in San Francisco in the late seventies, because I thought the NHS was mostly good and that people ought to be helped if they fell on hard times I was thought a communist.
However I also believe the welfare state is a pernicious influence and has been instrumental in causing a ‘something for nothing’ syndrome, and a work shy attitude in a significant proportion of our population.
I do not see monsters under every bed. I do believe that we are becoming less capable of thinking for ourselves as the Govt interferes in more areas of life, and this leads to HL Menckens ‘hobgoblins’ being seen as real to a proportion of our population who like the state to sort things out for them even when the state has its own interests, is just plain wrong or is overly politically motivated.
I think the next generation is increasingly socially engineered and inclined to accept things at face value without querying if it is propaganda.
Voltaire said …… “Its dangerous to be right when the authorities are wrong.”
It is a sad day when many of us are starting to feel that way, and would suggest those who believe the AGW consensus should show a litle humility and remember Albert Einstein who said “If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research.”
Tonyb
To all posters here:
Peter Martin wrote: “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%.”
Let me help you out (as a Swiss contributor).
So far your survey shows that this relationship is 0%.
It also points out that the relationship between those who do NOT believe AGW is a serious problem but DO agree that the evolution theory is valid is 100%.
Let’s see how your survey works out.
Ask the posters directly:
a) do you agree that AGW is a serious problem? (Yes or No)
b) do you agree that the theory of evolution is valid? (Yes or No)
Hey guys, let’s help Peter out. I’ve already given him my vote.
How about other recent posters here: Sandra Bullock, Brute, Bob_FJ, JZ Smith, Luke Warmer, TonyB, TonyN, Robin Guenier, Barelysane and Bobclive?
It’s a simple request and it will help Peter, especially since this is an international group containing some Americans, but also others.
If we all respond, he’ll have 12 votes (including his own), all of individuals who take an interest in the scientific, political and economic debate surrounding AGW, so it should give him a fairly representative statistic for his study.
Regards to all,
Max
Hey Peter,
Since I posted my request (actually it crossed), you already have a second vote on your survey (from TonyB).
His vote is the same as mine.
“No” for “AGW is a serious problem”
“Yes” for the “validity of the theory of evolution”.
Are we starting to see a trend here, or is it still too early to tell how all our posters will vote on this?
There may even be some silent “lurkers” on this site that would give you their votes on this, as well, Peter.
It’s exciting!
Regards,
Max
Re:Peter #4671
Before supper I drafted a reply to this which began:
Just now I hit refresh to see if there was anything new on this tread before I posted it. It looks as though you may be busy for a while, which is a pity as I’d managed to drag both Sir John Houghton and the Archbishop of Canterbury into the creationist / evolution argument. I’ll save it for the next time that you try using a false analogy in an argument.
Max, to your survey:
a) No. Like you, I hold a rationally skeptical view of theory. The burden of proof lies with the proponents of AGW, and in my view, their supporting evidence does not yet meet the standard of reasonable doubt. If anything, the evidence supporting AGW theory is becoming less and less credible. Trying to link evolution and AGW only further weakens the AGW argument.
b) Yes. I do accept the theory of evolution. As an American, I can address Peter’s query about his hypothesis that those who are skeptical on AGW are also more likely to be skeptical on evolution. I know many people who question the validity of AGW, and I don’t know ANYONE who doubts the theory of evolution.
To be honest, Peter, this whole line of “reasoning” from you is a perfect illustration of the elitism so many American’s reject. We discussed this at length several pages ago. Why is it that so many on the Left, particularly the elites, think of people who hold conservative—or in my case, libertarian— viewpoints as being uneducated, redneck, Bible-thumping yahoos? It’s insulting and at the same time so predictable.
Most conservatives I know accept liberal thinking as a legitimate point of view, and we assume it is a POV that is logically arrived at. Why is it then, that liberals seem NOT to accept conservative thinking as a respectable POV? Conservatives just disagree with liberals; liberals like to berate, insult, and belittle conservatives. Peter, another question for you: Why is that?
That Max/Peter survey. My answer:
a) do you agree that AGW is a serious problem? NO
b) do you agree that the theory of evolution is valid? YES
Max,
I doubt if the Anti AGW gang on this website are typical of the movement in general.
The ‘American chapter’ have yet to report in. I suspect that JZ and Brute might have different views. It is Americans and American money which drives the worldwide anti- AGW movement. Understanding their psychology is the key to all this.
I’ll do a bit more research into this when I get time. Meanwhile I’ve turned up this survey by creationists.
http://creation.com/global-warming-what-is-the-creationist-view
According to them, in a survey (see about 3/4 way down the page) only 6% of the respondents would accept the scientific case that CO2 emissions are of deep concern and that strong action is needed to cut emissions.
Whereas most non creationists would tend to accept the mainstream scientific conclusion. Its quite easy for pro creationists to dismiss it. After all if science is wrong on evolution then its quite easily wrong on AGW too.
My 40% guess on the number of Americans who do believe in evolution has turned out to be right. 40% may be a minority but its a pretty influential minority.
Wiki say:
“According to a study published in Science, between 1985 and 2005 the number of adult Americans who accept evolution declined from 45% to 40%, the number of adults who reject evolution declined from 48% to 39% and the number of people who were unsure increased from 7% to 21%. Besides the United States the study also compared data from 32 European countries, Turkey, and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey“
PS I should have written: …number of Americans who disbelieve in evolution…
Moreover, on second thoughts, they may not be in a minority at all. The 1% difference between the two groups, and assuming that the ‘don’t knows’ would split equally if forced to choose, is just too small to be significant.
Hi Brute,
Liked your graph of 21st century temperature trends (4677).
To make it easier to visualize the robust correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, I have added the CO2 curve to your chart.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3328/3345329472_4ac7b7b9ed.jpg
Pretty compelling, I’d say.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
So far we have 4 votes on your AGW/Evolution survey (Robin, JZ Smith, TonyB and myself) all voting:
NO on the question of AGW being a serious threat.
YES on agreeing with the theory of evolution.
Presumably, you are the “outlier” here (so far) with a “YES” vote for both propositions.
Will more votes come in?
Will the currently established poll trend continue?
The responses we are getting here, Peter, are REAL LIVE DATA, not just suppositions based on some sort of a dislike of, suspicion of or disdain for “Americans”, which you somehow tend to harbor.
THE VOTE GOES ON!
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
In your musings about AGW supporters you opined: “most non creationists would tend to accept the mainstream scientific conclusion”.
Do you have any facts to support this suggestion?
I would say that the poll we are running here shows your supposition to be totally unfounded.
To use this type of flawed argumentation to arrive at the premise that “non-believers in AGW as a serious threat” are at the same time scientific illiterates that do not believe in “science”, including “the theory of evolution”, and that a preponderance of these individuals are “American” yahoos is ludicrous.
It is also a cleverly picked “side track” to divert from the actual debate, where you are not doing too well at this point.
But let’s wait and see what our simple poll results show.
Regards,
Max
JZ,
So you don’t know anyone in the US who dismisses evolution ? Even though Wiki would say the numbers are approximately 50-50? That’s statistically quite remarkable. The numbers are much less in Australia and even I can’t say that!
The term ‘liberal’ is an American misnomer. Liberals traditionally have been the political party which represented a pro-capitalist pro-free trade position. That’s still the term used in Australia.
I would describe myself as as Democratic Socialist in the tradition of the Australian and UK Labor parties. That movement has not come from the ‘elites’ in society as you put it but from the political struggle of the working class movement.
I have to plead guilty to a penchant for “berating, insulting, and belittling conservatives”, but I’m not as bad as I used to be. At one time I did consider them to be the class enemy. But, sometimes they can be quite nice people I do agree. I’d just be happier if my daughter didn’t marry one though :-)
Robin and Tony N
(the more rational climate realists on this site might enjoy this as well)
Did you see the latest report tonight on BBC news at ten about the climate change conference in Copenhagen and the increased sea level rises they are expecting?
They now forecast a 10mm-15mm a year rise three to five times their own existing measurements and completely divorced from the actual reality.
The BBC illustrated the scenario with footage of waves crashing over a railway track and hitting a train.
I have posted on this before. I look on the railway line,travel on it frequently and it has long been a local joke that you consult the tide tables before you conult the train timetable.
The point is that this has been happening ever since the line was built in the 1850’s. Brunel built it to the wrong alignment and suffered the indigity of an engineerng report at the time hauling him over the coals for it as the alignment made the line very susceptible to easterly gales at high tides.
He built a harbour and an island to house rail workers and it is there to this day with no sign of any sea level rise whatsoever.
I suppose the alarmist reports of this nature are less effective if you have to mention actual facts such as these, but of course the gullible are taken in.
Tonyb
Max,
I’m really working on getting more in touch with the feminine side that’s locked inside of me screaming to be heard.
Please bear with me.
Another generalization Pete?
Do you have any data to back this statement up?
And just who is funding the “Pro” Anthromorphic Global Warming movement?
(I feel another Peter Martin conspiratorial delusion coming on…….complete with puppet socks).
Peter, first, there are over 300 million people living in the USA. I know a tiny fraction of them. Of that tiny fraction, I know of zero who don’t accept the theory of evolution as essentially a “fact”. That’s not saying that some of them MIGHT not accept it, but none of them have ever said such thing to me. The people that I know, and I have plenty of conservative as well as left-wing (I knew as I wrote “liberal” that I was making a mistake. Here in the States, “liberal” means something different than many other places—I know) friends. We have many long discussions on politics, religion, etc., and I have yet to hear a single one defend “creationism” as a scientific fact.
Also, Brute and Max, the charts you’ve posted are exactly the ones I wrote of several months ago that I never got around to producing. Thanks!
But another thing. I have had some training in statistics (just enough to be dangerous), and one thing I do remember was that with good data like from Hadley, etc., and Mauna Loa, can be run through a statistical analysis (like Minitab) and you can calculate with great accuracy, the correlation of effect of the one on the other. Seems to me that a very simple analysis (by someone smarter than a yahoo like me!) of that same data would ‘scientifically’ prove what the chart obviously shows: No correlation between CO2 and global temp anomaly.