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.
Max, further my 4926/p33 and other stuff just above, here is some data for Dawson City, (with its famous “leaning tower of Pisa”), which Pete posted as evidence of permafrost melt.
Climate (Dawson City average – celsius)
January -30.7
February -23.5
March -14.8
April -1.6
May +7.6
June +13.7
July +15.6
August +13
September +6.5
October -4
November -16.7
December -25.7
Record Low -58.3
Record High +35
Precipitation
Total (mm) 306.1
% Rain 60
% Snow 40
Latitude 64.04
http://www.alaskahostel.com/images/dawson/dwsnover.jpg
JZ: your 4942 put it beautifully. Thanks. As you know, as I’ve heard more about the subject, I too have changed my view from from a broad assumption that what we were hearing must be essentially correct (I was taken by the correlation between growing industrialisation and increasing temperatures) to an increasingly strong scepticism. That has been driven to a large extent by the warmists almost total refusal even to consider that they might not be getting it right. In my experience, a closed mind is always an indication of poor quality thinking.
I’m not sure, however, that this mindset is driven by a sort of refocused Marxism as you suggest. In my view, the theory has prevailed because it appealed instinctively to the well-educated, cultivated, respectable people who (at least in the UK) largely monopolise politics, the media, the institutions, the professions, the civil service, the justice system, the arts, etc. – in other words, most positions of influence. Such people, in my experience (and I suppose I’m one of them), have on the whole a broadly liberal (in the US sense) and genuinely compassionate outlook combined with a vague feeling of guilt that the technological developments that have made their lives so agreeable must come at a price. Man-made despoliation of the global environment filled the bill admirably.
As for only scientists being qualified to talk about science, well – as a lawyer and businessman – I’ve come across countless examples of scientists taking opposed views on the same subject. Commonly it takes an outsider, as you put it, “to apply logic to a set of facts”.
Max,
Thank you for the graph. But why the reticence? Don’t you agree with the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words?
Yes I think that the NSIDC have the situation in hand. Read it up decide for your self.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/022609.html
Do I detect a touch of glee that NSIDC may be having a few problems with one of their satellite sensors? If you are as pro-science as you claim you are shouldn’t you be on their side? Shouldn’t you be hoping that they can get it fixed ASAP?
Either you trust them to produce the correct data to the best of their ability or you don’t.
And, if you don’t, why bother quoting them at all? Surely it would be more consistent to dismiss them as part of the great hoax and scam.
Peter saya:
So does that make Al Gore a divinity?
Peter: what do you make of George Monbiot’s piece in the Guardian today? Here’s his opening paragraph:
It rather seems that George thinks we’re all doomed. BTW could you show me to these “trajectories”?
The author of this paper appears not to be talking about climate science ……..
HT, Fred Singer and CCNet
Yes, TonyN, that’s (4981) well put. And describes climate science well. This article makes a related observation:
JZ,
It seems that you’ve managed to allow a second feline its liberty.
After the revelation that you, and presumably those of similar political and religious views, consider Darwinian Evolution to be left wing, you now have just agreed that this extends to AGW too. Remarkably, you’ve probably succeeded in explaining it better than I have been able to.
In your 4942 you said that that the “supporters of communism didn’t really die with the collapse of the USSR”. They somehow transformed themselves into the modern Green movement. Yes, I do accept that is exactly what you do think. Incidentally, my wife is much more of a greenie than I am. But a modern day ‘Rosa Luxemburg’? Not really.
You’ve decided that you can’t allow the ‘new Reds’ to have this windfall political gain. I know that too. Its good that you are so honest about it. Most others of likeminded political opinions wouldn’t want to say that in exactly the same terms unless they knew exactly who was listening. I see that Robin has tried to distance himself from that line. Some even try to pick holes in the science and claim that’s the sole reason for their opposition to the idea of AGW.
But you and I know better don’t we? We both know what you are really thinking.
Peter: what do you mean by “Robin has tried to distance himself’? I hold my views sincerely and believe I express them clearly. Are you suggesting that I’m trying to hide something? I assure you I’m not.
I think I understand your position better now. Unable to deal plainly with valid criticism of the AGW hypothesis and having failed to divert attention by strawman argument and ad hominem attack, you’re trying a new tactic: to assert that the criticism is not really what it seems but is in truth motivated by a need to counter left-wing politics. It’s not true of course – but I can see how it might help you to come to terms with your sad failure to defend your position against rational argument.
RG,
Rational Argument? That’s a bit rich coming from you!
When was the last time you made a serious scientific contribution to the discussion? All I can ever remember from you is something about “arrows in the air” from the Egyptians, and the “We’re all doomed! Doomed I tell you!” argument which you must have pinched from Dad’s Army.
Which is good in a way. We do need a bit of light relief from time to time.
Peter
You said
“But you and I know better don’t we? We both know what you are really thinking”
I feel another sock puppet moment coming on here. What exactly do you mean by this cryptic comment?
Tonyb
Hmm – 4884 seems to have touched a raw nerve, Peter. Too near the truth, I suppose.
I suggest you calm down a little.
The debate about religion is an interesting one, but since we are addressing this from the PoView of science let’s at least be semi-scientific. I think the one area every contributor to this debate would agree on (including Peter) is that they believe they are reaching their views in a scientific way.
So, taking a scientific approach to this, we should begin by defining what we mean by religion. So let’s take an oldie but a goodie from Durkheim which has the important distinction of removing the idea of a deity (to accomodate many other religions):
“A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e. things set apart & forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”
(From Wikipedia)
Now discuss science v religion but if you grok Durkheim’s defintion, it is not as simple as you’d think.
The parallels between religion and the warmers do seem strong, viz – the fall (industrialisation), the garden of eden (stable and nice weather in the holocene), on a planet made for us(the goldilocks fallacy), the coming apocalypse of warming with its storms and retribution, sins=carbon footprint, indulgences=offsets, repentance=zero carbon home, orthodoxy v. skeptic, prophets (of doom), etc etc. But remember most of the things listed are not scientific but human/ social i.e. the IPCC didn’t invent offsetting, some snake oil salesperson did recognising a wealthy and guilty/well meaning segment in the market.
Peter, no doubt, assumes that a) he is being scientific and therefore b) we are wrong/irrational and hence he’s tried to link us with sockpuppets, anti-scientific (creationism), right wing etc.
We assume we are a) being scientific and b) Peter is not because his conclusion is different from ours.
This detracts from a potentially useful debate.
I thought Lindzen’s quote at Heartland was great and is worth reminding ourselves of:
“First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist.”
That’s my two-penneth (or should I say here endeth the lesson?!?)
By the way – going through the heartland stuff is quite interesting:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
How’s about sticking to the paleoclimate stuff there and going through that for issues.
I like the Tom Segalstad one – Carbon Isotope Mass Balance Modeling of Atmospheric vs. Oceanic CO2. It covers a lot of the issues from previous discussions here about acidification etc.
Be warned though one file is 45MB.
Peter, your 4953:
Peter, where did I ever say that? Perhaps you missed my post wherein I stated that I accept (and will add here that I have always accepted) the theory of evolution as fact. I have never, and never will attempt to associate the two. You must have me mixed up with another poster. Please provide a reference to show those were my words, and I will clear up any misunderstandings.
Also, Peter, your 4983, and partly to Robin’s 4977:
Robin, your description is probably better than mine, and I would agree that the majority of those supporting AGW are not communists or “new Reds”, as Peter put it. But they (the more radical elements of the environmental movement) are not an insignificant minority of AGW supporters, and they make a useful and powerful tool for the political elites to wield in their efforts to expand their power and influence. Peter, as is his practice, is attempting to marginalize my point of view as a right-wing crackpot who sees commies around every corner.
I do, however, fear what could ultimately be the “solutions” to AGW, i.e. more centralized control over everyday life and activities. I love freedom and liberty, and I believe the secret to human happiness and satisfaction are increasing freedom and liberty for everyone around the world. Almost all of the “solutions” to GHG reductions I’ve heard about reduce liberty and increase centralized control and planning, all at the expense of freedom.
One last note, Robin: your thoughts on guilt driving the elites—I agree completely
Peter,
Your discussions with Max and the others over sea ice extent are, by the way, irrelevant to the discussion over the validity of the AWG theory, the main thrust of our long-running discussion here. Whether the polar icecaps are growing or shrinking is simply a discussion of whether warming or cooling is occurring, not whether GHG are the cause.
Tonyb,
Your neighbor made Anthony Watt’s website…..
No, I did not post a comment, (not even as a puppet sock).
Another shocked polar explorer
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/another-shocked-polar-explorer/
Hi JZSmith,
I fully agree with your 4991, of course.
Arctic sea ice melts every summer and refreezes every winter for as long as records have been taken (since 1979) and even long before, based on spot data available.
The length of the “melting season” has not changed (since records began).
The past few years there has been a very slight net reduction in the amount of ice still around at the end of the melting season (measured in % reduction per decade). This was also the case in the 1930s, although there were no satellite measurements then.
Alarmists (like Serreze, the guy Bob_FJ gave us the mug shot of) have been telling us it will “disappear entirely” (at the end of some future melting season). Others (such as WWF)warn us that this will be catastrophic for the polar bears. Nobody has asked the polar bears, however (the one guy that tried got mistaken for a seal pup and eaten up).
Other experts tell us that the slow ice retreat has more to do with local wind patterns and ocean currents than with average annual temperature (but these guys are less popular in the “scientific community”, because they are not preaching “man-made disaster”).
The past 2 seasons have shown a fairly significant recovery of the sea ice, at the same time as global (and Arctic) temperatures have begun to cool down. This may well be coincidental.
None of the above provides any remote link between the receding ice and human CO2 emissions. Ths is a matter of “quasi-religious faith” and the virtual reality of GIGO computer models, rather than scientific evidence.
Some AGW-aficionados call the Arctic sea ice “the canary in the coal mine”. If it continues to recover as it is now doing they’ll quietly shift the subject to some new hare-brained hypothesis of an imminent disaster caused by evil man (primarily homo sapiens industrialis americanus, of course).
TonyB believes the “new crisis in waiting”, as it cools off and AGW is tossed onto the trashheap of history, will be “ocean acidification”.
Who knows? Sounds very plausible.
Regards,
Max
Hey Guys,
We should all follow JZSmith’s good advice to stop the silly discussion of “religion versus science”.
As I recall, Peter first brought it up (and still keeps bringing it back into the debate), but some of the rest of us have also fallen into the trap of sliding into this silly and irrelevant “side track” discussion.
Claiming the “mantle of science” for one side of the argument while relegating the other side to “religious superstition” is a cheap shot.
Whatever Dr. Roy Spencer (the example brought up by Peter) may believe (as far as his religion is concerned) does not distract from the fact that he is an accomplished climate scientist, who has brought advances in the world’s knowledge on climate forcing and satellite measurement of temperature through his research work and publications.
To “write him off” as a fundamentalist religious “flake” would not only be stupid, it would be extremely arrogant.
Let’s all get off of this silly side track and back onto the main topic.
Max
Hi Peter,
Reur 4978
Am still waiting for NSIDC to correct their earlier measurements reported for November-January, for the added 500,000 sq.km. sea ice they found. I’ve seen the nice “moving picture” showing the location of the “missing” ice, but the original numbers NSIDC reported have not yet been corrected (since thay are still the same as before the error was found).
Let’s see what happens next, Peter.
Regards,
Max
My fears about radical environmentalism can negatively impact society have been realized here in California. This article about how environmental restrictions on water use have severely impacted many communities in the Central (San Joaquin) Valley.
We are already in a stage 1 alert here in southern California, and it is all because of a little fish in the Sacramento delta. Recent court decisions have restricted the use of water to protect this little fish. I am confident that if the fish became extinct, that life on Earth would go on. Everyone would have more food, and the economy of one of the world’s most productive farming areas would be restored.
The strange part is that despite lower than normal rainfall, we are not in a severe drought, yet the effect is that we are. The radical environmentalists have, for now, won. I fear similar, larger scale self-imposed calamities await the planet if the AGW crowd gets their way
I would like to follow up on JZ Smiths tale of the fish to relate how the green agenda appears to have become a substitute for common sense over here as well.
I am involved with our local museum and have helped to fund raise the money for an extension (we hope to have a section to feature the local whalers who warned the Royal Society about melting Arctic ice from the 1780’s onwards-see my post 4975)
The building has to meet certain specifications in order to comply with tough new co2 emissions guidelines. This entails us having to find money for a different type of heating/cooling system to the gas one proposed, which will cost literally three times as much.
To achieve the energy figures needed the building has to be firmly sealed. In consequence in order to achieve the cooling when required we have to use an energy consuming machine. The alternative-opening a window or door is not acceptable.
Item 2. As you know I am writing an article on wave/tidal power. The govt is extremely keen on a barrage acros the river severn in the west of England. It will cause enormous environmental damage, have an huge co2 construction footprint because of the vast amounts of concrete, will change tidal patterns,disrupt wild life, require a new channel to be dredged for navigation threatening an unstable area of coast, and be so expensive that any electricity generated will be vastly subsidised.
However it will enable the govt to achieve their legally binding requirement to cut co2 emissions from electricity generation and meet their energy renewables target.
Far better value for money and better overall environmental impact could be achieved by building nuclear, coal, or waste, power stations and ensuring every home was properly insulated. However the greens have been against any of those for years-(although a few months ago the govt made vague noises they would build nuclear)
Quite where people think we will get our power from in 5 years time only they know.
TonyB
Robin and JZ,
It is interesting that the ‘ruling elites’ as you describe them are driven by a sense of guilt? I’m just wondering exactly who you might mean.
We too have had to get used to water restrictions in Brisbane in recent years. The population responded by just about halving their usage. All voluntary. There was no real economical motive. But guess which suburbs still used the most water and achieved the smallest reductions? The most affluent or the most ordinary?
Maybe you might be thinking of the highly paid financial executives of the world’s banks who are so consumed by remorse for their actions that they have willingly foregone their multimillion dollar bonuses and pensions?
Ordinary people are basically honest. If they borrow money they expect that they have to pay it back. If they things go badly at work they expect that they’ll lose their jobs with little or no compensation.
Do we see that sense from the ‘leaders and captains’ of industry at the moment? It’s quite normal for CEOs, who are paid millions of dollars a year, and at at a salary ratio of around 100:1 compared to average workers, much higher than it used to be just twenty years ago, compensated at least as much again if they are ‘asked to leave’, or just reach the end of their contracts.
Its quite a mystery to me that those who support this status quo are labelled ‘conservatives moderates’! What’s moderate about supporting such an unjust system?
Pete,
RE: # 4998
Have you now become completely deranged?
More evidence that curbing GHG emissions will not happen.