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,
You say “if this guy is stupid enough to do, say or believe this ridiculous thing, his opinions on AGW are probably not much better”.
Actually I can use quotation marks as I’m quoting your words. Whereas you shouldn’t imply that you are quoting me by using them yourself.
But OK yes I agree that you are probably right. I’m happy to accept a level playing field and you can discount anyone who comes up with a pro-AGW argument too if it’s apparent that they believe in creationism or any of the pseudosciences listed on the skeptics.com website. Or, that AIDs is not caused by HIV, or that smoking has no health risks.
Your comment about Jews isn’t worthy of reply.
I’ve been quoting the wrong link. This is the one I really mean:
http://skepdic.com/
The Skeptic’s Dictionary. I think that my opinions would line up with this very closely.
Yes, scientists are sceptical about lots of things. But not AGW unfortunately.
Max, Reur 5048 concerning divining, first for water and then secondly for oil, you wrote in part:
I don’t know if you guys have heard of the Aussie adventurer/entrepreneur Dick Smith, but he might be compared somewhat with the Brit; Richard Branson, whom you may well have heard of.
Well anyhow, Dick Smith is one of the leading lights, along with e.g. Philip Adams, (whom I’ve earlier mentioned here in his other activities), in the Oz Sceptical Society.
It could be more than 5 years ago, but I watched a TV doco from that Sceptical Society, in which they implanted a series of PVC pipes underground with valving that could divert water along selected pipes by an independent controller. So, the bunch of diviners walked across the array, and indicated where they found water. According to the assurances given in the doco, it was a true “double blind”. The result was that the diviners had no greater accuracy than pure statistical chance!
Maybe, the results were polluted by the unnatural PVC in the pipes?
Peter Martin, Reur 5039: you wrote in part:
YAWN; Clearly you have not comprehended the significance and full context of the last sentence in italics!
Hi Peter,
I was not quoting you, Peter, so you can forget about the quotation marks.
The rest of your post is blatantly absurd, Peter.
So far you have been strong on ad homs, but weak on facts.
I’m sure you can do better.
Let’s see if you can get back on track.
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, Reur 5051, complaining in part to Max:
You must be referring to Max’s 5050, it seems. If so, how about you consider the context of what Max said.
YAWN.
Is it your purpose to thoroughly bore and distract us regular posters, and other readers into not visiting this site?
Hi Peter,
Reur 5039, The physical observations of Spencer et al. have shown that the net feedback from clouds with warming is strongly negative rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all the climate models cited by IPCC, thereby lending credence to the “infrared iris” hypothesis posulated by Lindzen.
The full paper can be read here:
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
Wiggle, squirm, side-track and waffle as much as you want to, those are the facts.
This study was published after IPCC published its 2007 SPM report (which had a 2006 extended deadline for new data), so it is actually an “up-date” of the IPCC knowledge. As you may know, science changes continuously with new findings, and this is just such a case.
Since IPCC had conceded in its report hat “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”, it is fortunate that this new work of Spencer et al. has cleared up this “uncertainty”, so that IPCC can correct future reports accordingly with more meaningful model assumptions.
You don’t have to go out and buy a Hummer to celebrate (I’m certainly not going to, because I firmly believe in conserving energy and reducing dependency on Middle East oil), but, even so you can REJOICE!
We are not going to be “fried” in 100 years as a result of human CO2 emissions.
Isn’t that GREAT news, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Again, you twist the meaning of my words when you write “Your comment about Jews isn’t worthy of reply”.
I have made no disparaging comments about the Jewish faith at all.
You, on the other hand, have done just that about Spencer’s religious faith.
How totally hypocritical. Shame on you, Peter!
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Thatnks for your corrected link to the “Skeptic’s Dictionary” site (5052).
It’s very interesting and pertinent to our discussion here.
Under the overall heading “junk science” I found a reference, which could apply for AGW under “doomsday & doomsday cults”. Check it out; it says:
“A doomsday cult is a group of people led by a charismatic character who has convinced them that the end is near. A doomsayer is somebody for whom the signs of catastrophe and imminent calamity are ubiquitous.”
Actually IPCC prefer the word “unequivocal” (rather than “ubiquitous”), but it fits real well.
The “charismatic character” could be either Al Gore or James E. Hansen (although I would vote for Al Gore, with Hansen being Gore’s “prophet of doom” or “doomsayer”).
The “signs of catastrophe”? Why, we have rampant warming (at least until around 1998 or 2000, depending on which “massaged” record we use), receding Arctic sea ice (anybody got a pic of a mother polar bear with cubs on floating pack ice?), decreasing ocean pH (which we can call “ocean acidification” to make it sound more ominous), rising sea levels (which we can exaggerate by switching measurement methods to a totally unreliable method that we can “jimmy” in the right direction), any tropical storms that might occur (in fact, any extreme weather: hot, cold, wet or dry, that occurs anywhere on the planet), etc. etc.
“Imminent calamity”? How about “dangerous level of CO2” (now scientifically determined to be 350 ppm by climate models) where “crystallizing scientific data” show us that “dangerous climate change” to “tipping points” with “irreversible deleterious effects” will lead to “sea level rise this century [that] may be measured in meters” and “the extermination of a large fraction of plant and animal species”. WOW! How’s that for “imminent calamity”? Couldn’t be better!
All “fits like a glove”, Peter. Don’t you agree?
Regards,
Max
Peter Martin, you wrote in part in your 5040 to Max:
I was interested that you claim that Nils-Axel Mörner believes in divining, although that does not necessarily negate his scientific research. You gave a link, and I did a number of searches on it for various key words, but could not find anything to support your allegation. (even if it is relevant).
I did find on a broader web-search the following article:
Dowsing – Science or Humbug?
by Rasmus Jansson, May 1998
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~rasmus/skepticism/dowsing.html
It made reference to:
Fields from underground tensions. Nils-Axel Mörner.
However, when I Googled that title, and bits of it, nothing was found by me.
Peter, I’d be interested to know the basis for your allegation
Bob_FJ,
You seem to be suffering from some form of sleeping sickness. Now that the weather has cooled down a bit in the Melbourne area, it shouldn’t be too hard to stay awake during the day. Maybe you should ask your carer, at your nursing home, to wheel you out into some more breezy spot.
Max,
Land of the Free?
“I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” George Herbert Walker Bush
If anyone is unsure why this causes offence, just try changing the word ‘atheists’ for Jews.
Peter
Whilst you may not have a career being able to convert sceptics, you certainly have one as a comedian.
“Bob_FJ,
You seem to be suffering from some form of sleeping sickness. Now that the weather has cooled down a bit in the Melbourne area, it shouldn’t be too hard to stay awake during the day. Maybe you should ask your carer, at your nursing home, to wheel you out into some more breezy spot.”
A terrible ad hom attack once again but classic.
Incidentally the weather forecast this morning
“sunny over all the UK with a high of 15C except down the east coast where the persistent cloud will keep the temperature pegged back to 9C”
Tonyb
Max,
You make an interesting comment about disparaging religious faiths. I hope that I’m even handed and fair about it all and disparage them all equally. There’s nothing personal about it.
If I had to choose any religious allegiance it would perhaps be the Anglicans. They do a marvellous job in England looking after some beautiful churches and cathedrals. They don’t seem to to enquire too much into personal beliefs. I’m happy to give them a donation for their steeple restoration or whatever. Also the Salvation Army do a good job looking after the homeless. So credit where credit is due.
It’s often a lot easier to be ‘diplomatic’ when confronted by religion and say nothing. It’s easy to offend people. Sometimes its unnecessary. However with the AGW issue, it is relevant to explore the religious beliefs of scientists, who claim that the climate itself was created by some supernatural force, and furthermore that it was created to be inherently stable on our behalf.
I’m glad you like the sceptics dictionary. I hope you’ll read and quote a few of the passages on climate scepticsm too.
Looks like they’ve resupplied the Pen Hadow team.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7952165.stm
Tonyb
Lets be rather careful when touching on matters concerning religion.
Peter:
A long time ago I posted a recording for you to listen to. It was a a service on the theme of climate change broadcast by the BBC just after the AR4 SPM was launched and the sermon came from Sir John Houghton, who is a committed christian.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/houghton_service.mp3
One of the leading establishment advocates of AGW in this country is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is reasonable to suppose that both Houghton and Williams believe that there is a Divine influence on the natural world, including its origin. They are both highly intelligent and experts in their fields.
Am I supposed to disregard all they say about AGW because of their religious beliefs, or does that only apply to sceptics?
Two interesting stories today.
The first, from the Telegraph, is has the usual scary headline (yawn): “Global warming could cause the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, leading to a catastrophic rise in sea levels, scientists have warned“. More doom it seems. But wait – it goes on to say:
So no need to worry then? Oh yes there is: the author concludes by warning that, on the contrary,
Oh no – there could be serious climate change in thousands of years time: once that story gets out, there’ll be panic on the streets! (Does anyone still take these journalists seriously?)
The second (more serious) story is from the BBC. Another scary headline: “Global crisis ‘to strike by 2030‘” This is a report of a warning from Professor John Beddington, UK government chief scientist, who told a conference in London that by 2030 the demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences.
“It’s a perfect storm” said Prof Beddington and spells out why:
To my mind. that’s significant because climate change seems almost to be an afterthought: instead of the usual predictions of hurricanes, floods, drought and heatwaves, all we get is a reference to unpredictability. Might official attitudes be subtly changing?
TonyN,
The rules should apply equally of course. The Anglican movement, especially the Church of England, is very different from the more fundamentalist churches of the USA. They are careful, and have been probably for the last 100 years or more, to keep out of any science versus religion controversy. There are no Noah’s Ark theme parks on C of E property as you’ll know.
I’ve no real problem with them. I’m confident that scientists of like mind will be professional enough to keep their mild religious beliefs and science totally separate.
Having said all that, I would still say that the main driver of the anti-AGW brigade is politics rather than religion. As fundamentalist religion is to Darwinian Evolution, so right wing politics is to AGW. But, of course, fundamentalist religion and right wing politics, especially in the USA, are themselves closely entwined, so it’s not possible to make a clear distinction.
Brute,
You do raise a valid point about politicians not being the best managers of large financial institutions. I guess its a fairly novel experience for you in the USA, but the nationalised industries of Europe and Australia don’t get run that way. Managers are appointed, just as they are in the private sector.
The good thing about them, as I’m always pointing out to TonyN when he’s battling away with the BBC, is that they are subject to public accountability in the way that, say, the Times or the Sun newspapers aren’t.
And yes, I do know that the BBC is funded by taxes and a licence fee. In Australia, the ABC is funded just by taxes alone. Whereas you in the USA would argue that you get your NBC, ABC, and CBS for free. But do you really? Where does the money come from? It doesn’t just appear from nowhere, that’s for sure. One way or another you’ll end up paying for your TV stations just the same as we do. And yet you don’t get any say at all in the way they are run, or what they show, or their editorial content.
Of course its outrageous that fat cat bankers are pocketing huge bonuses. The good thing though is that the democratic process is at work to bring these kind of abuses to light. If the public outrage is strong enough, a way will be found to rectify the situation.
Peter reur 5067
Just to pick up on a couple of points (briefly, as the second one is completely OT)
“Having said all that, I would still say that the main driver of the anti-AGW brigade is politics rather than religion. As fundamentalist religion is to Darwinian Evolution, so right wing politics is to AGW.”
Just to point out again, my personal politics are very left wing yet i think AGW is seriously over-hyped. CO2 does have an effect, but i see it as one of many factors and (relatively speaking) one of the more trivial ones. How does that affect your generalisation?
“The good thing about them, as I’m always pointing out to TonyN when he’s battling away with the BBC, is that they are subject to public accountability in the way that, say, the Times or the Sun newspapers aren’t.”
Actually i’d argue that the BBC is substaintially less accountable than the Sun or the Times. The BBC is funded by a license fee that you MUST pay regardless of what you watch, you can change which paper you read easily. Also the BBC is directly accountable only to the BBC Trust, and not the Broadcasting Standards Commission (much to my annoyance when i tried to make a complaint about Climate Wars). In reality the BBC is primarily accountable to the government especially after the fall out following on from the “sexed up” WMD dossier on Iraq (and it’s desire to put the license fee up). Here in the UK (and the others might agree), the BBC is little more than a government mouthpiece when in comes to anything vaguely related to current affairs that i’ve given up paying any attention to.
I had connectivity problems for most of yesterday.
When I finally got back on line properly this morning I deleted the most recent 20 comments on this thread
As I’ve said before, I’m not prepared to commit time to editing this thread when it goes off topic and I don’t want OT stuff on this blog.
Tony N
I had really thought my request for help in tackling the green ethical dilemmas that lies at the heart of the AGW discussion was relevant.
It related to generating power in a green manner (tidal barrage) which in turn would destroy the environment. If AGW is real we need to look for ways to provide the power we need. If AGW is not real our options become very much wider.
If you think that is irrelevant to the general debate I obviously have to accept your judgement and I will pose the question elsewhere. Sorry.
Tonyb
TonyN, Reur 5069,
So why did you not delete 5030 and a few etc’s?
This was a good thread, but not any more.
Bye bye Tony and everyone
TonyN;
BTW, did you not notice that I have been pointing out the OT nature of recent posts. However, I felt that it could be guided back onto topic with a bit of humour etc.
It is disappointing that you have simply deleted my work, which involved some effort.
Bye bye!
TonyB
If the just suffered with the unjust, I’m sorry. I don’t have the time to sort it out.
TonyN
It was a thoughtful question which I had thought was on topic and indeed I had used as a means to guide people back on topic.
Even Peter had made what I thought was his most sensible and pragmatic comment in some time, which provided an interesting insight into his AGW philosophy.
Some of the others -not me as I had told him it was not a trick-might have wanted to pursue this further to demonstrate that some greens (but not Peter) wanted to have their cake and eat it.
Its your blog and your decision.
TonyB
Will you all please read this, and particularly take note of the second and third paragraphs:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=26#comment-9130
I am aware that some of the comments that I deleted were on topic, but I repeat that I am not prepared to spend time unraveling exactly what is going on and which paragraphs in a comment are off thread and which are not. You all know the rules and you know when you are breaking them.