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 Martin, I was somewhat puzzled when you wrote in part in your 4887 to Brute:
When you, Pete, say “But these buildings look relatively old…”
Please confirm that you are referring to the following two images, that you have posted above, the first in your 4800/p32:
1) From the Global Greenhouse Warming website:
2) From the NSIDC website:
I asked the question of Peter
“Just curious to know if you believe that a carbon card should be used as the means to tax people who want to travel using carbon transport and if you believe that should come about through tracking their movements.
I would also pose that question to the others here.”
To which Brute said
“My answers would be NO…..and NO.”
I especially look forward to Peters response (as well as the others).
I also asked another question still relevant in view of the faith based comments above
“If you believe that;
A) Mankind can only live in an atmospheric soup of precise proportions without causing catastrophe -of which Co2 at 280ppm is the key ingredient- surely that degree of precise engineering can only come about through;
b) some sort of intelligent design/creation by God?
Therefore if you believe in a)how can you vote against b)?
Discuss-preferably with lots of tax payers money for the robust reseatrch needed. Anyone want to jump on board this latest bandwagon?”
Max gave a very comprehensive reply-but alas did not point me in the direction of large amounts of taxpayers money.
How about providing two answers for the price of one Peter?
As for your last comment, there has been far more rational debate here than you ever see in blogs like Gristmill or Real Climate which self evidently exhibit closed minds (but stating a viewpoint of which you approve)
They certainly wouldn’t have the motto of the Royal Society;
“Nobodys word is final”
pinned above their work stations.
Take away the ability to reference rising temperatures to 1850 and Dr Manns interpretation of the MWP and LIA-both of which you have conceded are not very robust-and put that with the observational, written and anecdotal evidence that sea levels are not doing much-let alone rising at the rate predicted- and the rest of the science remains an unproven hypotheses fuelled by computer models.
Genuine proven science and related proper facts would certainly change my mind for one, but after twenty years and billions of research money that goal remains as far away as ever.
Sincerely hope you stay around Peter
Tonyb
Peter Martin, further my 4901, let me draft a simple reply that you could copy and paste:
Bob_FJ, Reur 4901: YES!
OR I (Pete) MEANT SOMETHING ELSE, as follows>>>>>>
giving links whatever
Peter,
You compare belief in AGW to belief in religion.
The difference is that my religious belief does not require anything of you as a non-believer.
Your religious belief, (Earth Worship), requires something of me whether I believe in it or not. Earth worship goes so far as to dictate what type of car I am “permitted” to drive, which light bulbs are “acceptable” to use, and even the amount of water I use to flush a toilet…………not to mention obscene taxation design to “correct” and punish the non-believer’s “heretical” behavior.
You made a thinly veiled reference to Gaza. I don’t think that the Jews in Israel object to the presence or observant Muslims in their midst; I believe it is more likely due to the Gazan’s launching explosive rockets into Jewish cities killing Israeli, (along with Cristian and Muslim), citizens.
You describe your belief in the theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming as “science”. The theory hypothesizes that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will cause increasing global temperatures; however, during the last decade, global temperatures have been flat and even dropped slightly…..thereby, (in any reasonable person’s mind), casting doubt and raising skepticism of the theory. From this observation one can only conclude that your enthusiasm and zeal in promoting the theory is based on “faith” and ideology as opposed to scientific observation. Your fellow believers prophesize apocalyptic occurrences even going so far as, (sometimes), assigning specific time frames when these catastrophes will come to pass…..when the date passes without incident they refashion and “adjust” their prophecies to further promote their agenda, (changing the fact, after the fact).
In a nutshell, this explains my reluctance to embrace the religion of Earth worship.
By the way Pete, please tell us, (in general terms), what YOU are doing either personally or professionally to combat “climate change” (aside from pontificating/lecturing at this comment board).
Cancelled vacation plans have you? Is riding a bicycle to and from work one of your daily activities? Do you utilize an automatic dishwasher? Wash your clothes on a rock in the local stream and hang your clothes outside to dry? Do you expel dangerous, toxic, soda pop gas into the atmosphere consuming unnecessary kilowatts of electricity through viewing your television? Do you refrigerate your food? Do you eat room temperature food? Take cold showers do you? Do you patronize restaurants? How much power does your computer consume on a daily basis? Is it really necessary?
You mentioned that you own/operate some type of electronics firm; is this firm and the products it produces absolutely necessary or does it further and promote wasteful electrical consumption thereby furthering the demise of the planet?
Inquiring minds want to know………
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”…..Right Pete?
Max,
I haven’t been follwing this as closely as you have. Has the NSIDC updated their graph/data to account for the 500,000 square kilometers of “missing” sea ice due to sensor degradation?
Climate change is nature at work
By Seymour Merrin
I am confused. I have a Ph.D. in the geologic sciences. I am a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and other scientific organizations. And I have worked as a research and manufacturing scientist for major corporations.
I was taught, and used professionally, what is called the “scientific method.” Although it is not easy to sum up the “method,” it can be condensed into a simple sequence: Research to form a theory, use the theory to predict the outcome of events/tests, compare the results to the predicted outcome. If they fit, you assume a certain degree of validity. If there is no correlation between the results and the theory, then you have to go back to the beginning or at least modify the theory to obtain predicable results.
Hence, the confusion. There is little doubt that the Earth’s climate is changing, as it always has. A multitude of specific evidence leaves no doubt that 10,000 years ago, glaciers covered a large part of the polar regions down to the latitude of New York City in the north. Concrete evidence shows that since then, the temperature has been significantly warmer (sub-tropical plants in Alaska) and colder during the Little Ice Age from the 15th century through the middle of the 19th. It was warmer in the 14th century than it is now.
Enter the human-caused warming of the Earth, and testing it with the scientific method. The basic theory states that, as human-produced CO2 increases, Earth temperatures increase. Simple prediction, simple to test. The predominance of “hottest” years should be in the last 20 years, but that is not true. In fact, the last 10 years have been relatively flat – with 2007 and 2008 having declining temperatures. No correlation at all – actually, a disproval of that particular theory.
Some of the computer models representing the theory (despite the fact that even the most ardent supporters of human-caused global warming admit that the models are poor and cannot even predict one year out, let alone the distant future) show Arctic sea ice declining. Yet the ice now covers the same area it did in 1980. Yes, there was a period of decline, but that has markedly reversed itself. No correlation, again.
There are simple facts in such abundance that the media never reports.
When the media lambastes a great scientist and brave patriot, Jack Schmitt, a geologist, astronaut and former senator for apostasy, you know that it isn’t science they’re talking about, but agendas. Schmitt knows more about the Earth and its environment than all the staff at The New Mexican put together. Listen to a proven scientist.
Hi Brute,
Reur query about NSIDC.
No. They have not yet made any correction to the December/January/February figures originally published. These are still the old numbers with the 500,000 km error.
Doesn’t look like they are in any hurry to make these corrections; they would make their disaster predictions by Mark Serreze look too silly.
I’ll keep checking.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
To your question:
“Just curious to know if you believe that a carbon card should be used as the means to tax people who want to travel using carbon transport and if you believe that should come about through tracking their movements?”
My answers:
A. Government issued carbon card to levy carbon tax on individuals who travel: NO!
B. Government tracking movement of individuals to control carbon emissions: HELL NO!!
Would anyone in his/her serious mind propose such a hare-brained scheme?
If so, would this individual be elected by those citizens that he/she proposes to tax and control in this fashion?
I cannot imagine that the answer to my two questions could be anything but “NO”, as well.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Ok, Thanks.
On that note then it seems that the level of ice is +/- 14,750,000 square miles, (right now) according to the graph posted on their website. Adding an additional 500,000 would bring the level to 15,250,000 square kilometers which means that today’s level is 250,000 square kilometers less than the 79-00 average and about 1,000,000 kilometers higher than the 06-07 average?
It’s unmistakable that the Arctic sea ice is growing by leaps and bounds with the rising CO2 numbers.
My conclusion is that in order to save the Arctic ice cap we must increase our CO2 emmissions.
Hi Peter,
You wrote the following strange sentence:
“It is strange you should mention Roy Spencer in connection with a discussion on the parallels between climate change denial and evolution denial.”
Can you point out exactly where I “mentioned Roy Spencer in connection with a discussion on the parallels between climate change denial and evolution denial”?
I believe your fantasy is again playing tricks on you, Peter.
I am not going to engage in a conversation with you about the totally irrelevant religious beliefs of Roy Spencer (an accomplished and recognized climate scientist). Nor am I going to waste any time discussing the fact that R.K. Pachauri (Nobel Prize winner, industrial engineer and IPCC Chairman) believes in reincarnation.
Sorry, Peter. It’s irrelevant. Our little poll here showed no correlation between acceptance of AGW and Darwin, as much as this surprised and disappointed you and your judgmental, preconceived notion (to the point that you even accused respondents of lying!).
So I suggest you get back on topic instead of continuously side-stepping and waffling.
I asked you some very specific questions directly related to our topic here back in post #4661 on March 10. You apparently missed that, so I will repeat this all below.
Read it.
Think about it rationally (not emotionally) and then respond as best you can.
Thanks in advance.
Let’s review the latest facts.
1. 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?
2. 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.
3. Despite a lot of political posturing by many nations, human CO2 emissions are at an all-time high today.
4. After a 20th century period of unusually high solar activity (the highest in 11,000 years according to solar scientists), the sun has been very inactive for the past 13 months.
5. 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 overcompensating and masking AGW (as Pachauri has hinted)?
I personally conclude that the observed data show that “natural factors” are playing a much more significant role in our planet’s climate than human CO2, but your conclusion may be different.
These are the basic questions we should address together to see if we can find any common ground, based on a rational analysis of the observed facts on the ground.
Please let me know your thoughts and reasons for your beliefs on this.
Thanks and regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Some advice for you.
Keep religion out of the debate on the many open scientific, political and economic questions surrounding the AGW hypothesis.
It opens the door to calling AGW-proponents “religious fundamentalists” of the “Mother Earth, Man Is Greedy, Industry is Evil, Let’s Go Back to a Cleaner and More Simple Life” religious mantra.
Even if I were to believe that this “religious belief” is precisely what drives and motivates you, for example, it would be counter-productive for a rational debate of the topics to bring this up, as it would move the discussion to an emotional level, where rational discussion is no longer possible.
Do you get the point here, Peter?
I do not believe that it helps either side in this ongoing debate to try to play the “religion” card.
Instead, we should all stick to the topics that can be discussed and debated rationally.
I consider myself a rational skeptic, and that’s my view on it.
So back to the (non-religious) questions I just asked you on #4911.
Regards,
Max
A few days ago, the Scottish Government published the results of a survey carried out by Ipsos MORI of “Scottish Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours”. The results (very long and detailed) are interesting. It was a substantial poll, professionally conducted and based on responses from over 3,000 respondents to a long, detailed questionnaire. Sensibly, it approached the subject in relation to other issues.
Nonetheless, I believe the results should be treated with caution for three reasons:
1. It was carried out by face-to-face interview in respondents’ homes – IMHO less likely to get a “true” response than an anonymous on-line format. Also, as Ipsos MORI notes, “a high proportion of respondents agree it is important to be seen to be concerned about the environment “these days” – i.e. the social desirability [of the “right view] must not be overlooked”.
2. It was conducted between mid August and mid November 2008 – a period when concern about the economy was not as acute as it has become today. (Why did publication take so long?)
3. The aim of the survey was to “to produce dedicated, sound and up-to-date robust social survey data on environmental attitudes and behaviours, supporting the development and delivery of environmental policy, relating specifically to climate change …”. An inevitable result was that the overall tone and, to an extent, the content of the questionnaire are based on an assumption (presumably from the Scottish Government) that “climate change” is dangerous, man-made and it’s up to us to do something about it.
Here are the main findings:
1. 12% of respondents (choosing from a list) considered “environment/climate change/global warming/pollution” to be one of the most important issues facing Scotland today, with 4% identifying it as the single most important issue – in other words, 88% did not consider it important. If people worried about pollution only are excluded, it would seem that hardly anyone cares much at all about the “core” issue (climate change/global warming). In contrast, here’s how people responded re some other issues: the economy 38% (really much more as petrol prices, the pound, energy prices, taxation and unemployment (itself 14%) were listed separately); crime 32%; Scottish Independence 17%; and drug abuse 15%.
2. When respondents were asked to name important issues facing the world, the environment etc. was identified by far more: 32% (with 18% identifying it as the most important issue) – only international conflict ranked higher at 43% (20%). The economy was also identified by 35% (19%) (but again, food prices, inflation, fuel prices and poverty were listed separately).
Ipsos MORI notes “fewer than two in five respondents in total make any mention of the environment [etc] across the two [above] questions”. I believe these findings (especially re Scotland) cannot be very encouraging to the Government in its “development and delivery of environmental policy, relating specifically to climate change …”
Some other interesting findings (asked only of respondents who said they knew something about climate change (88%)) were these:
1. Asked what they thought were the main causes of climate change (they could choose as many as they wished), 18% identified fossil fuels, 34% CO2 emissions, 35% transport emissions and 30% industrial emissions. In contrast, 7% thought it a natural process and a mere 2% went for “impossible to say as even scientists can’t agree”. [Not many sceptics in Scotland then.]
2. However, when asked what are the main effects of climate change (again they could choose as many as they wished), 61% identified “changes in weather / seasons” [er … yees], 30% global warming, 35% “melting ice caps/glaciers/rises in sea levels” 25% “more wind” and 8% “reduction in plant and animal species”. [Strange findings these!]
3. Asked which actions they could take would do most “to help reduce climate change” (they could choose two or three items from a list), 45% identified “recycling”, 36% “avoiding creating waste in the first place”, 32% “using a more fuel efficient car”, 28% “making fewer car journeys”, 24% “using less electricity” and 12% “taking fewer foreign holidays”. [Hmm – that’s not going to help the Scottish Government much either.]
Finally, I thought another interesting finding was that, when asked who they would trust to give correct information about climate change, 45% identified “independent scientists”, but only 12% the Scottish Government, 10% the UK Government and a mere 9% “government scientists” [Does that include the Met Office?].
For anyone interested to see the detailed results of that Scottish survey, they’re here. Warning: they’re heavy going.
Hi Brute,
Back to your query on NSIDC and Arctic sea ice.
Once NSIDC corrects the December-February sea ice readings for the recently discovered 500,000 sq.km. error, these will show:
December 2008 sea ice has recovered back to a level exceeding the December 1995 level.
January 2009 sea ice has recovered back to a level exceeding the January 1991 level.
February 2009 sea ice has recovered back to a level exceeding the February 1984 level.
Quite frankly, Brute, that is the reason that I believe NSIDC will silently refuse to make the correction to their numbers (unless some “whistle-blower” steps on their neck), as this would be too embarrassing for Mark Serreze and for NSIDC itself.
Let’s see how this one plays out.
Regards,
Max
Commenting on the results of the above survey, Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham said:
Hmm.
.
Hey Brute,
Just another thought on the sea ice.
As TonyB has kept us up-to-date, his neighbor, Pen Hadow, according to his website “one of the top motivational speakers, after dinner speakers as well as being a Polar Explorer and Environmental Speaker” is now moving his way up north with a small team, and making some spot measurements of “sea ice thickness” on the way.
So this may be the NSIDC gambit.
Hold off making any embarrassing correctional changes to the sea ice record until Hadow is back with (spot) evidence that “the sea ice is getting alarmingly thinner!”.
Then NSIDC can combine the two announcements in a “it may look like it’s recovering, but, golly, it’s really getting alarmingly thinner than before” announcement.
Let’s see if these guys really have the “chutzpah” to try that ploy. After all their loaded press announcements, I really wouldn’t put it past them.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
Looks like the pollsters did not ask the public in Scotland the crucial question:
In order to reduce global CO2 emissions, would you as an individual be prepared to pay an additional 250 (Scottish) Pounds per month for all your energy needs plus all goods you consume that require a transportation component (in the form of a carbon tax)?
From what I’ve heard of Scotsmen in general, I believe the answer would have been a resounding, “HELL NO!”
All goes to show that poll results are only as good as the questions asked.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
Further to my latest post on the Scotland poll, Roseanna Cunningham was absolutely right when she said (as you quoted):
“We need to do more to get people to see the environment as a local issue. Many people see climate change as a global problem but not as an issue affecting Scotland or their communities.”
More should, indeed, be done to let each Scotsman know how the global warming issue could affect his pocketbook directly (in the form of a carbon tax) rather than just regarding it as some abstract global problem.
Believe this one would actually backfire on Ms. Cunningham.
Regards,
Max
Robin
Not to belabor this point, but back to the psychology involved in the “question and answer” game of your Scotland survey.
Scotsmen (and Scotswomen) are generally known for their frugal ways, which arguably may in part have come from (pardon me, Peter) their religion: The Presbyterian Church of Scotland with its Calvinistic tradition of rejecting the “pleasures of the flesh” and espousing hard work and thrift.
So ask a Scotsman: “should we save energy?” (his “knee-jerk” reaction will be “yes”)
Ask him “should we eliminate waste?”
Or “should we reduce the amount of fossil fuels we consume?”
These are no-brainers. A large percentage of Scotsmen will give the desired response. It’s “in their DNA”.
But ask a Scotsman “Are you prepared to pay more for everything you consume as a result of a carbon tax imposed to reduce human CO2 emissions?”
I am sure that the ”knee-jerk” answer would have not been “yes”.
Unfortunately, this question was not posed in the survey.
Max
Hi Max
Coincidentally I was just about to post a link to the latest doings of my nearish neigbour Pen Hadow when I read your post.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/live_from_the_ice.aspx
Conditions have been very tough to date and by my calculations at the current rate they should make it to the pole in mid april….2010!
Hes going to miss out on a lot of motivational speaking opportunities unless he gets a move on. Seriously, I think the weight of the sled carrying the radar is causing problems, as is the extreme cold.
This is one he can’t give up on but he needs good weather to make up some time and could cause himself problems if he presses on when its not suiotable to do so.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
Is this guy a close friend of yours?
Is he being paid (handsomely, I would hope) for lugging a GPR sled behind him over ice for hundreds of miles in the below zero cold? Seriously; there’s gotta be a better way to measure the thickness of this ice. Is he a glory seeking kind of guy?
I’m breaking my own rule and making a prediction. He’ll throw in the towel inside of another month due to frostbite, hypothermia or some other form of exposure.
Why is he doing this? Is it the “because it’s there” thing?
Oh well, God bless him……but considering his sponsers I think the results of his expedition (and forthcoming book), are pretty much already known.
Hi TonyB
Sounds like your neighbor and his team have “their work cut out for them”.
Another 12-13 months crawling across the ice at a snail’s pace with howling winds and below zero temperatures sounds like a true challenge.
Will they continue next winter when it gets pitch dark and the temperatures with wind chill factors drop to 40 below zero or less?
I presume they are getting regular helicopter visits with provisions being flown in (and garbage being hauled off), but will this continue when it turns permanently dark?
Do you have any idea what his motivation is?
Interesting story. Keep us up-dated.
Regards,
Max
Max, Reur 4872, you wrote in part:
WRT the following image:
I’ve additionally noticed that the shadows of chimneys cast onto the roofs suggest that the sun is at quite high zenith. Although we don’t know what country or time of year and day, and stuff like that, it needs to be born in mind that the shadow is lengthened because it is cast onto a downward sloping roof. Thus, if we allow for all this, I find it hard to imagine that the latitude of this location is further north than ~45 degrees.
That is a tad south of the permafrost lands, I do believe. When you visited those parts with their barely surviving slow growing scraggy drunken trees, did you notice if the sun was elevated high in the sky?
My next post to TonyB is also relevant.
TonyB, Reur 4863, you wrote, WRT my 4858, (and the image repeated just above):
Thanks Tony, my faded memory from spending time in the 1980’s based at Torino, was that the architecture and roof “tiling” was typically sub-alpine Italy.
In my recent trip to Italy, we whizzed up to Courmayer (Val d’Aosta, Piemonte)below Monte Bianco, and the architecture was similar except that all the chimney stacks had “top-hats”. I did not manage to visit other sub-alpine areas at this time.