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.
Robin
My link 5196 was to the article you cited in 5197. There is a lively debate going on at WUWT and the science is by no means settled.
Tonyb
Robin,
Your first sentence is of course correct. But then you go on to say that “this means of course……” and then get it all hopelessly wrong!
Are you supposed to be, or have been, a barrister? Aren’t you supposed to be a bit smarter than this?
Lets see if you really are. Suppose you are required to explain the concept of a scientific consensus to a jury. How would you do it?
TonyN,
Well there are a couple more references here if you need some more evidence.
http://www.zeenews.com/Sci-Tech/Miscellaneous/2008-04-06/434920news.html#
http://www.mail-archive.com/assam@assamnet.org/msg14447.html
I’ve never heard any right wing source try to present any counter argument. No doubt they were quietly satisfied at the time that the Bush administration successfully engineered their desired outcome. But if you can find anything I’d be interested to read it.
Peter
The ZeeNews piece is interesting. No doubt India would like the prestige of their man heading the IPCC, but do they want a tiger in that post given the implications for their economy?
Peter:
If I got it so “hopelessly wrong” (5202), you should find it easy to explain why your constant references to an unproven consensus and an unproven “overwhelming majority” have any point. Please do so.
As for “consensus”, I’m quite happy to stay with the Wikipedia comment to which you referred:
Max/Robin/Tonyb,
Maybe I should rephrase the East/West scientific disconnect as an invention of the press? Western media outlets are pushing the Anthromorphic Global Warming agenda and Eastern press outlets are not?
Curious…..
As Max has demonstrated there are plenty of Realists and few Alarmist scientists (at least willing to go on record). Media outlets report the Alarmist assertions but bury the Realist findings. Maybe we could call Peter’s quorum a “media consensus”.
Max:
Re your 5190, as Soon states, his plot of Arctic temperature was derived from work by Polyakov et al: see this. I’m surprised this is not more widely published in view of current intense interest in Arctic temperatures.
Max: you can find a link to the entire Polyakov paper here.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your latest essay (5193) about the Australian coal industry, right wing pressure groups, Lavoisier, sex with 13 year old girls, the guillotine and joining a church to learn about creationism and meet members of the opposite sex.
My “take-home” message from the first sentence of your ramble was that you are unable to produce a list of at least 600 scientists or meteorologists (with credentials) that have gone on record that they support the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
You have therefore been unable to validate your earlier claim that “many many more” scientists support this premise than those that have specifically stated that they are skeptical of it, as included in the list of 200, which I posted.
In other words your statement is unfounded and false, and the so-called “overwhelming consensus” is a sham (you cannot even substantiate a 75/25 majority). Please refrain from bringing it up in any way, shape or form in posts directed at me, because I will just remind you each time that it has successfully been refuted and is therefore unfounded.
End of discussion on that point.
Let’s get back to the reasons for the current cooling (my 5102), just to remind you:
To get back more closely on topic, why has it been cooling the past 8 or 10 years despite record CO2 emissions?
Is this because of:
(a) an end to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity and the current minimum
(b) a reversal of the unusually high level and incidence of late 20th century El Nino events (including the one that caused the warmest year in 1998) and a return to more La Nina events
(c) a longer range shift in the PDO or NAO or both
(d) a combination of the above natural factors
(e) some other natural factor of which our limited scientific knowledge of today is not yet aware?
TonyB has posted his thoughts on this (5109) adding some comments. His views are very close to mine.
Any thoughts from you?
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Thanks for link to Polyakov et al. paper on Arctic temperatures (5208).
Yes, it is strange that this information is not generally known to the public, in particular:
“In contrast to the global and hemispheric temperature, the maritime arctic temperature was higher in the late 1930s-early 1940s than in the 1980-90s.”
and
“We speculate that warming alone cannot explain the retreat of arctic ice observed in the 1980-90s. Also crucial to this rapid ice reduction was the low-frequency shift in the atmospheric pressure pattern from anticyclonic to cyclonic.”
These two statements make it clear that the most recent Arctic warming (being blamed on AGW) was less that the warming in the late 1930s-early 1940s (before much human CO2) and that there are other factors beside warmer temperatures (wind patterns), which have caused the most recent melting.
The final statement speaks for itself:
“The complicated nature of arctic temperature and pressure variations makes understanding of possible causes of the variability, and evaluation of the anthropogenic warming effect most difficult.”
Soon has gone a step further than Polyakov in comparing the temperature record with atmospheric CO2 concentrations on one hand and with solar activity on the other.
Soon’s study shows that CO2 does not correlated well with temperature, but solar activity correlates very well.
Another “nail” in the AGW coffin.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
You wrote about the “East” versus the “West” on taking AGW seriously.
In July 2008 the Indian government issued a report entitled “National Action Plan on Climate Change”.
http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf
After some general statements highlighting India’s challenge of sustaining its rapid economic growth while dealing with the global threat of climate change, the overview of the report concludes with the statement:
“India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries, even as we pursue our development objectives.”
This will not present much of a challenge for India.
India has a present per capita CO2 emission (2004 figure) of just under 1 metric ton per year.
This compared with an average of 11 mt/year for the 30 OECD nations and 12 mt/year for Russia.
China has a per capita CO2 emission rate of around 5 mt/year.
Population growth rates:
1.58% India
0.69% OECD members
0.61% China
-0.3% Russia
So India has essentially told the world that they plan to continue their rapid development without committing to do anything to curb CO2 emissions.
This pretty much confirms what Robin has been saying all along.
Max
Max,Brute,JZ
I guess you must pay all taxes in the USA from time to time.
If you are so convinced that there is no consensus, what are you doing about your money being ‘wasted’ on this sort of thing?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Robin, Tony,
One for you two here.
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
There are lots more glaring examples. Instead of wasting your time trying to convince me, why don’t you do something about it?
You could copy the tactics of the suffragettes and chain yourself to railings. Throw yourself under racehorses. Throw flour bombs and eggs at politicians.
When you get arrested; how about a hunger strike to show you really mean it?
It worked for them. Just think; in a few years time you could open up the GISS website and see articles about broken hockey sticks. How how the perpetrators of the great scam were all in jail. He he !
Hi Brute,
Here’s what I’ve managed to pick up on China and AGW.
China has not issued a policy statement, but has refused to agree to a carbon cap and has indicated that its energy-consuming industry is largely exporting products to other countries (estimated to represent one-quarter of the total), so that these countries should bear part of the “carbon cost” related to these industries.
In effect, this is another polite turndown.
At the same time, there are technical reports coming out of China that indicate that a significant percentage of the observed warming in China is really a distortion of the measured values due to the urban heat island effect.
So I would not expect much from China.
It looks like your congress is about to decide whether or not to include “carbon cap and trade” provisions in the multi-trillion dollar budget. You may know more on this, but from what I have heard it is unlikely that “cap and trade” will pass.
Russia has already stated that they do not plan to do much to curb carbon emissions. Even Japan is starting to grumble quietly.
So if the USA also says “nyet” to carbon caps, I believe the whole issue can be buried, because I do not believe the EU nations will make their industries non-competitive with the rest of the world just to “save the planet”.
These are my thoughts based on what I can read on the subject. We’ll see pretty soon what the US Congress does and that will have a major impact on the rest of the world
Regards,
Max
Re the very important matter of whether or not humanity is likely to curb its GHG emissions, here yet again is my take:
• As Max has found, China’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. It will continue to burn vast amounts of coal (see #4601).?
• Likewise, the governments of India (again see Max’s comment), 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 by a burgeoning China) to give priority now to a scientific hypothesis the validity of which, as noted earlier, it is beginning to doubt.?
• For Russia, Ukraine and other ex-Soviet states oil and gas are, in effect, their sole source of power, influence and wealth: there’s zero chance of their giving that up. And the powerful, wealthy criminal elements within these societies (and the Balkans) are not about to go green either. ?
• The Middle East oil producers, Venezuela, Nigeria etc. are not about to decide to abandon their almost wholly oil-based economies; and, to the extent that this bloc embraces the Islamic world, it’s impossible to envisage a green 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 carbon trading is failing (#4147). 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.?
• The US administration is not listening to Hansen, Pachauri, etc. (#4151): waking up to the economic disaster it has inherited, it is unlikely to prioritise the imposition of additional and damaging burdens of emission controls and greater taxation on US industries and citizens.
Overall, (as Brute has noted) the vast majority of people in the world don’t 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. Their concerns – poverty, hunger, disease, thirst, violence, shelter etc. – are immediate and pressing. And, sadly, that’s likely to continue.
The reality is that, dangerous or not, GHG emissions will continue to grow. We should get used to it.
Robin,
I’ve always felt I could have enjoyed being a barrister if my education had taken a different course. What would I say to you if you were in the witness box? Maybe something like:
PM: Mr Guenier: You make an interesting series of assertions and comments. Would you like to tell the court just how these relate to the accuracy or otherwise of the IPCC reports?
RG:………..
PM: I put it to you, Mr Guenier, that you are engaging in false logic. You are saying that because , and in your opinion, X is in danger of happening, or even is likely to happen, therefore we should actually expect it to happen but have little actual effect.
I put it to you Mr Guenier that your sentiments are expressed more in hope than expectation. Furthermore , this court might be entitled to ask the question of just how well acquainted you are with the scientific evidence itself. We’ve seen precious little evidence that you have any real grasp of the subject at all.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: You might very well be asking the question of why you should choose to believe this witness over the many more eminently qualified witnesses, who you have already heard, and who have clearly stated that a continuing build up of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will inevtably lead to a severe climatic disruption.
You may even be wondering why my learned friend has even bothered to call Mr Guenier to the stand.
Max/Robin,
You’d really have to experience it first hand to appreciate what’s going on here.
The U.S. Congress and the Obama administration are waging a war on prosperity.
Firstly; Obama is an out and out Marxist…..no two ways about it.
Secondly, Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) are, if not Marxists, as close to it as you can get without actually crossing the line.
My thoughts…..Western European nations tried the socialist experiment and it’s been a failure……I sense that most are turning the corner and realizing that incorporating more capitalism into their societies is the way to go.
Of course Eastern European nations have been under the iron boot of socialism for decades and understand the misery that it brings…..they’ve turned the corner also, (as have China, Russia and many Southeast Asian nations).
The United States remains the only country that (until very recently) has not fully embraced socialism. With this new administration and Congress, they are running headlong down that path. Maybe it’s simply our turn.
The East has experienced misery for years. They understand what the policies associated with “Global Warming” will bring and want no part of it.
Patience TonyN! I promise to come full circle…………..
I don’t believe that Democrat controlled U.S. Congress or the Obama administration gives a damn about “the planet” or global warming. If they truly cared about the environment and combating global warming, nuclear power plants would be being built in every city in the nation. Recently, the Governor of California proposed creating solar farms in the Mojave Desert; this was immediately shot down by environmentalists and Leftist politicians because it would “ruin the scenery” and harm some type of turtle, (we’ve all seen how breathtakingly beautiful wind farms are). Al Gore……..8 years as Vice President, (or as U.S. Senator) did not sponsor any meaningful legislation regarding global warming or the environment (there was no money to be made). If they cared about lessening our dependence on foreign oil, they’d be drilling oil and gas wells off the coasts and in Alaska instead of stymieing efforts to expand energy production. They know that wind, solar and hydro are unreliable and will not meet the needs of the country….yet they embrace the notion as a conduit to exercise more control over individual citizens and diminish the influence and profits of conventional energy providers.
What’s been happening since Democrats (Socialists) took control of Congress is that they are pushing a State-ist agenda. They are passing and advocating legislation that nationalizes private industry, that punishes entrepreneurialism and that is purposely destroying the U.S. economy to create chaos and provide an excuse to remove liberty and freedom from the American people. As Robin posted a while ago, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Romm Emmanuel, said that he did not want to let this economic downturn go to waste…..That he intended to exploit the situation to justify implementing their (socialist) policies. Their goal is to create more and more dependence on government.
The global warming ruse is simply another spoke in the wheel of this larger plan.
If this continues, America will be a bankrupt, third world morass very quickly.
So, all that being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if a political body, monopolized by socialists, would pass Cap and Trade (a scheme to nationalize industry), and that the law would be rubber stamped by a President with an affinity toward Marxism.
Robin,
By the way, I wish this guy was my Congressman, (Member of Parliment).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
Peter,
Where’s your list?
Brute,
Do you think President Obama will be wanting to design a new flag any time soon?
Just a suggestion.
Re Peter’s 5215.
(The jury returns to the courtroom after a short deliberation.)
As the foreman of the jury I can report that the jury has decided unanimously in favor of Mr. Robin Guenier, who has been falsely accused by Mr. Peter Martin in this kangaroo court (no offense intended to inhabitants of that great continent that produced the kangaroo, along with the koala, the wallaby, the and Foster’s Beer) for bringing a fresh air of truth to these court proceedings by demonstrating that there really is no serious threat from AGW, that the nations of this world are slowly becoming aware of this fact and that the whole premise of a serious threat from AGW is not, in fact, supported by an “overwhelming majority” of scientists but is a sham.
Mr. Guenier is innocent of the “crime” of which he was accused, i.e. damning our planet to irreversible tipping points that will lead to certain extinction by denying the AGW claims made by the IPCC.
It is our recommendation, your Honor, that the plaintiff, Mr. Peter Martin should pay for all legal and court costs relating to this trial.
The jury further respectfully recommends to this court that, in a separate proceeding, the plaintiff, Mr. Peter Martin should be charged with and tried for presenting a frivolous case to this court.
Max
Hey Peter,
You got the USA flag wrong. There are 50 states unless you want to eliminate two (Sen. Inhofe’s Oklahoma and Sarah Palin’s Alaska) for ideological reasons.
Back to our topic, Peter. Why in the world is it cooling when all the IPCC models tell us it should be warming?
Are the thermometers wrong? Or could the models be the problem? Need your wise input on this dilemma.
Regards,
Max
Brute,
I’m meant to say that I thought President Obama may have gone up in your estimation. I’m sure he’s well aware that no one likes paying extra taxes. So he’s decided to print the money instead. Isn’t that nice of him?
You’ll all be multi-millionaires in no time at all! The drinks should be on you guys for sure then.
Actually, if you’d like to check I think its called Keynsianism (note: NOT Kenyanism). I don’t think that you can pin that one on KM. I don’t think it ever ocurred to him that the wicked Capitalists would ever try to bail themselves out of the sh*t by printing a trillion dollars ‘worth’ of the stuff.
Max,
Yes good point about the number of states. Maybe Canada and Mexico will take advantage of the revolutionary situation there and grab back some territory that they lost in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I wasn’t thinking of putting poor Robin in the dock. You maybe. But really there are much bigger fish to fry. I thought though that we might start with some of the more senior ‘executives’ of Exxonmobil.
I’m sure the Royal Society would supply some pretty impressive witnesses.
What do you think?
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=5851
They’ll have a word with their mates in some of the more exclusive London clubs to make sure we get a judge who’ll be ‘sensible’ in his directions to the court.
What do you think?
Hi Peter,
ExxonMobil (among other companies) has historically provided a significant portion of the petroleum and natural gas that have helped the nations of the developed world reach their current levels of prosperity. They have made a profit for their shareholders along the way, a significant portion of which they have reinvested into finding new sources of petroleum products to satisfy the growing needs of the world.
James E. Hansen, who has recommended “trying” senior Exxon executives (among others) for “pollution” of our planet), has not contributed anything positive to the wellbeing of our society, but has instead engaged in reckless fear-mongering in order to sell his own personal ideological agenda of imposing draconian taxes on fossil fuels, to be paid by every man, woman and child on the planet with particular burden on the poorest inhabitants of the world.
Who should be on trial here, Peter?
Would you like my vote on this?
Regards,
Max
Hey Brute,
Peter seems to like your new president.
I just heard that the budget proposed by President Obama is $3.6 trillion, a figure that most people (Americans or not) would have a hard time truly comprehending.
But just how much money is that?
King Ramses II of ancient Egypt was born in 1303BC. That’s 1.2 million days ago. If we spent $3 million per day, every day, since his birth we would have spent $3.6 trillion by today.
How big a pile of cash is $3.6 trillion?
A dollar bill is 0.0043 inches (0.11 millimeters) thick.
A pile of 3.6 trillion dollar bills would be 0.396 trillion millimeters or 396,000 kilometers (246,000 miles) high.
This is slightly more than the average distance from the earth to the moon (384,000 km or 239,000 mi).
A big wad of cash!
As the German beer-drinking song goes, “Wer soll das bezahlen?” (who’s going to pay for that?)
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
For TonyN’s sake, let’s get back on topic.
Why is it cooling now, despite all-time record CO2 emissions?
I hate to admit it (especially to you, Peter), but I’m confused.
The multimillion dollar climate models cited by IPCC told me it would warm by 0.2C per decade (Hadley even warned me it would be 0.3C per decade), but now it’s cooling by a bit more than 0.1C per decade.
This is a real dilemma. How could all these experts be so wrong? Do they really have any idea what they are talking about? How can they predict (pardon me, “project”) temperatures for the year 2100 when they cannot even get the first eight years of the new millenium right?
This is disturbing.
Do you have any ideas here, Peter?
Regards,
Max