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.
Hi All
Here’s an article from over at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/#more-6661
Very simple, straightforward, and utterly destroys one of the pillars of the AGW arguement
Nicholas Stern (the UK’s leading AGW alarmist) is bringing out a new book. There’s an extract in today’s Guardian. It is complete with references to “overwhelming scientific evidence” and “attempts at obfuscation” by “deniers” (who exhibit “poverty of thinking” and are “profoundly misguided”). And, of course, it includes the usual reference to the “vested interests, particularly in coal and oil extraction industries, that see a move away from hydrocarbon-based energy as a threat”. Oh dear. I was, however, amused to see this comment by Dr David Whitehouse (who, of course, was the inspiration for this extraordinary thread):
Peter
The figures are from 15.86 to 15.14-it is their figures not mine. It is 5%. That by any defintion is ‘something like’. If you want to query their figures please email them and tell them the mistake and post a copy here so we can track their reply when it comes.
Regarding the UN I asked what you thought of their view for a new world order as per the various posts-which seems to be driven in a similar way to the EU-without reference to the electorate.
TonyB
TonyB,
Can you just clarify if we are discussing 1978 or the 1979 -2000 average?
Tony,
Talk of a ‘new world order’ is nothing new. It happens after every significant historical episode. World wars 1 and 2, the fall of the Soviet Union, the financial collapse of 2008 etc.
Yes, you are right. Changes do occur without reference to any electorates. Changes are driven mainly by the nature of the society in which we live. The most revolutionary changes in the last 30 years have been brought about by what is known as ‘globalism’. This has been described as a new world order, or the driver that may lead to one, because of the scale of the changes. However, in principle, its nothing new either.
This is how Marx, who incidentally did not disapprove, described the phenomenon:
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
Peter 5354
I’m not discussing either any fuurther. Look forward to reading about your complaint to the NSIDC about their figures.
Peter 5355
thanks for your interesting reply. Nice quote, although you havent actually answered the original question I guess its the nearest you are likely to get :)
Tonyb
TonyB
TonyB,
I’ve no complaint with the NSIDC. More with your reluctance to clarify what year or time period you are talking about.
What is the ‘original question’ on the UN? But I’d just say that I’m not in to conspiracy theories. All that “New World Order stuff” as espoused by the more lunatic fringes of society is just so much rubbish.
I suppose what’s being said about AGW being a scam and a hoax, an excuse for rasing taxes and destroying America etc etc, fits neatly into the world view of those who harbour paranoid type delusions. Its all done under the control of the UN too.
Is that what you are getting at?
Let’s all applaud the horse’s mouth!
I just realized that this may be a uniquely American phrase……For my friends over the horizon:
Straight from the horse’s mouth
Meaning
From the highest authority.
Origin
In horse racing circles tips on which horse is a likely winner circulate amongst punters. The most trusted authorities are considered to be those in closest touch with the recent form of the horse, i.e. stable lads, trainers etc. The notional ‘from the horse’s mouth’ is supposed to indicate one step better than even that inner circle, i.e. the horse itself.
It is a 20th century phrase. The earliest printed version I can find of it is from the USA and clearly indicates the horseracing context – in the Syracuse Herald, May 1913:
“I got a tip yesterday, and if it wasn’t straight from the horse’s mouth it was jolly well the next thing to it.”
Brute,
I didn’t think you were meaning Mr Ed. But, you should bear in mind the meaning of “paranoid type delusions” too!
Extraordinary breaking news at:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=169
TonyN: Hmm – I wonder what you’ll be dreaming up for us this time next year.
Peter 5357
I quoted the period and the data verbatim. It suppports what I said I do not intend to repeatedly go over old ground.
You seem to be agreeing that the current levels of ice are not unprecedented. From this I take it to mean that ice levels were greater in the LIA than they would be in a documented warming period such as now, the MWP, Roman and Holocenes and other periods.
Perhaps you read that excellent book on the Vikings I suggested or have followed Prof Hunts work on the Romans and have come to recognise this current period is nothing exceptional?
It allows us to go full circle. Despite the historic precedents, you still believe this time round its different. You pin that on the hypotheses that doubling CO2 increaes temp by up to 5degrees C. Other scientits have come up with a theoretical figure of between 0.2 and 0.6 C-which I have agreed with- and whose workings have been posted here.
You need to demonstrate -by similarly posting an A to Z of the calculations- how such an increase in co2 can cause these dramatic temperature rises. Please do not post unsupported hypotheses and theories on feedbacks never before observed.
I think after the trilions that have been spent it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the proof.
Re the UN.
I do not say AGW is a scam or a hoax. The IPCC was set up to find evidence of man made climate change and few organisations will try too hard to find other evidence that will require them to dissolve their organisation. So whilst old information may have given cause for concern initially, that has been greatly exaggerated, and contrarian evidence put to one side in order that the status quo of their aims is maintained.
So misguided and exaggerated yes, a scam or hoax NO in the sense you mean it.
As you don’t seem to think a new world order is planned it would be particularly interesting to get your thoughts on the very extensive series of links I gave earlier on the UN document.
Agenda 21 is clearly linked to the AD Hoc working group. The group has five chairs of whom 4 are green activists. Several of them have openly written of the need for a new world governance. The SAGE21 education agenda from the UN clearly sets out to influence schools. I called it indoctrination because the message was unbalanced.
The meeting of Agenda 21 aims has been endorsed, and various councils and govt bodies have been instructed to follow this agenda.
Two manifestations I have personal knowledge of are in the need to accomodate a rise of 3.5mm a year into flood planning through the IPCC mandatory guidelines- although no evidence exists of any such rise. Also in a project of which I am involved where a new structure has to meet new building regulations to reduce co2, it which will quadruple the cost of the heating system and require automatic systems to ventilate and cool the buiilding-all things we can achieve by opening a window or flicking a light swirch.
As a Brit I am perhaps more sensitive than most to the idea of an agenda being carried out for my own good and without any opportunty to vote on it. We have seen this disregard for our opinions for many years with the EU’s erosion of our sovereignty- over which we have consistenly been denied a say.
The EU only got on board in 2005 with climate change
http://ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf
“The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair defined climate change as “probably, long-term the single most
important issue we face as a global community” and made climate change one of his priority topics
during the UK’s G8 Presidency, along with Africa. Climate change was also made a priority for the
UK’s EU Presidency (1 July 2005 – 31 December 2005). In a keynote speech on climate change, Tony
Blair set out three ambitious targets for the UK’s G8 Presidency in 2005:
•?To secure an agreement as to the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses, to
provide the foundation for further action
•?To reach agreement on a process to speed up the science, technology and other measures
necessary to meet the threat
•?To engage countries outside the G8 who have growing energy needs, like China and India”
The following year was the first meeting of the ad hoc group to which I refer. Both the EU and the UN are following Agenda 21 and in the case of climate change that relates to the IPCC, whose findings are endorsed by those following the agenda and who therefore subsequently have a legal obligation to implement that agenda.
As a social democrat I would assume that you would not want things to be done covertly but to have an opportunty to vote. I daresay in this instance you might like the aims of world governance that enables soverign states to be told what to do for their own good on climate change. If it were another subject with which you disagreed I am sure you would vehemently object. So whether or not you agree with the aim you should be concerned at the undemocratic nature of the methods.
History is littered with people in power who thought they knew best, no better exemplified than in the current financial crisis where the ordinary people could see what was happening better than the experts and elite.
I am not a right wing dogmatist. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I examine evidence from all sides in any major aspect of life because I am a sceptic. The evidence shows there is an asgenda for some form of world governance and the hobgoblin that is being used is climate change.
It says as much in the UN document, the AD hoc working group annex minutes and Agenda 21, It says so in the EU and these missives are being handed down to everyone at a practical -“you must do this level”
If you are able to provide one of your thougtful answers to this aspect it would be useful. I also look forward to your posting Chapter and verse the calculations behind the “Doubling Co2 equals global catastrophe hypotheses”.
TonyB
WRT TonyB’s 5363, and Peter Martin’s 5357, TonyB wrote, within a lengthy and admirably lucid post:
Even if this may be a tad off-topic:
I recall that Robin posted a video from two British comedians, a good while before “the economic crisis” really took hold, that virtually predicted the current financial outcome!
I, and (probably) some others here, would be interested in some logical responses from you (PM) concerning your understanding of “EXPERTISE” guiding our complex world
Robin; are you able to post that video again?
Proxymax – I think you were referring to this (dated February 2008). And this, from today’s Times is interesting.
TonyB,
Its a simple question. Not at all loaded. Were you meaning the Arctic ice extent for 1978 or the average for 1979-200? I can’t see what the problem is. Why can’t you answer?
TonyN,
You are assuming that “ordinary people could see what was happening better than the experts and elite.”
Lots of ‘ordinary people’ have lost a lot of money recently. You see it on TV every night. People who borrowed heavily to buy shares. The shares lost their value. The people lost their homes. Most of my friends laughed at me when I said that the crash was coming three or four years ago. I was probably an optimist looking back.
The unis are full of economists who were saying the same thing. Its just that the banks, the hedge funds and the financial sector didn’t want to hear it. They had their agenda and there was no deviation. Your so called ‘experts and elite’, who you would have seen in the media generally, were working for the likes of Bear Sterns and Maquarrie Bank. The real experts were still there in the unis. No-one wanted to talk to them.
If you are looking for the person who predicted the crash soonest, how about this guy? (1848)
“Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.”
Peter 5356
I have answered you so many times. I quoted what I quoted verbatim. End of story.If it is wrong in your eyes please take it up with the relevant organisation not me. Now please move on and answer my question re the UN which I started asking many days ago.
tonyb
Proxymax.
My last comment should have been addressed to you, not TonyN. It a bit of a coincidence that you’re Australian, just like Bob_FJ.
Do you know each other? It sounds like you’d get on well together. I’ve sort of got a mental picture of him as an old guy who can’t keep awake because he’s a bit too fond of his Cabernet Merlot. A bit too fond of tasteless jokes too if you ask me.
I know Bob_FJ isn’t his real name. It wouldn’t be Sir Les Patterson would it? Let me know if you find out.
TonyB,
Its quicker to write either ‘1978’ or ‘1979-2000’ than ‘I quoted what I quoted verbatim.’ I don’t think you’ll ever again be in a position to accuse me of refusing to answer a straight question.
How about you start your next post with a vowel if you mean 1978 but a consonant if its ‘1979-2000’ ?
Peter Your 5369
I will be extremely charitable and assume your increasingly strange series of posts is based on your confusing the comments I made about the ice and one that Brute made. Consequently you were expecting me to post information to support a hypotheses I had never proposed and when I didn’t you started to get grumpy. As I say this is the charitable view.
To accuse me of not being helpful by not reposting my original quotation is bear faced cheek bearing in mind I had to remind YOU to quote your source, to which you responded with a very vague reference to which my further request for your source resulted in an extremely unhelpful remark to go and look at several posts some pages back instead of reposting it, which surely would have been more helpful.
I eventually found several graphs. The first was up to 2007 the second to Feb 2009. My quote clearly gave the date and time reference which was up to end of ice increase in 2008/9. The ice had increased to the levels I stated and the quote from the official web site confirmed it is correct.
To accuse me of not answering when we have been trying to drag straight answers out of you for months is a bit rich. Consequently can we please stop this fruitless exchange and concentrate on getting a reply to earlier questions as I am really much too busy to engage in this sort of parsing. Incidentally I can not begin to imagine what you mean by referring to ‘vowels and consonants’. If you want to dispute the figures contact the ice centre, if you want to dispute Brutes comment take it up with him not me.
1) My 5303 that started it
The New Scientist must be glad of the return of the Arctic ice to something like the average 1978 measurements, even though these started from a high point due to the cold of the preceding years.
2 You said
This is just not true.
“must be glad of the return of the Arctic ice to something like the average 1978 measurements”
Unless your definition of “something like” would mean ’something like’ a million sq km less.
3 Peter 5304 in reply to my;
“must be glad of the return of the Arctic ice to something like the average 1978 measurements”
said;
“This is just not true.
Unless your definition of “something like” would mean ’something like’ a million sq km less.”
I said -Perhaps you would care to post your source as to the total amount and the deviation, and whether you are talking extent/area?
4 Brute 5316
Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.
5 Your 5332
If you look back a few posts you’ll find graphs from Max and also myself which gives you the true picture.
6 5334
Peter 5332
If you remember I asked for your definition of where you thought we were with ice. I am not claiming the same, merely ’something like’. Please post your references so we can see we are comparing like for like. Also look forward to your opinion of the UN material
7 TonyB,
Please post your references so we can see we are comparing like for like.
I’ve already done this. See 4953, 4957.
Max also produced a graph in 4968
8 My 5340
Peter 5337
“On February 28, Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year, at 15.14 million square kilometers (5.85 million square miles). The maximum extent was 720,000 square kilometers (278,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles)”
If within 5% is not ’something like’ I don’t know what is. The ice measurements started at a high point in 1978 due to the preceding years of cold weather.
9 Tony B,
The year you quoted was 1978. The first reliable data we have is from 1979. The sea ice extent was 16.3 million sq km in Feb of that year.
The figure you gave was 15.14 million sq km for Feb 2009. A fall of 7% in 30 years. Not 5% as you claim.
10 I suggest if you have a problem with the sea ice data that you take it up with the National snow and ice data center from which it was directly quoted. It is 5%.
11 TonyB,
I don’t think we nee the NSIDC’s powerful computers to tell us that 100(1-15.14/16.3) = 7.12%
12 Me to Peter
The figures are from 15.86 to 15.14-it is their figures not mine. It is 5%. That by any definition is ’something like’. If you want to query their figures please email them and tell them the mistake and post a copy here so we can track their reply when it comes.
13 TonyB,
Can you just clarify if we are discussing 1978 or the 1979 -2000 average?
14 Me to Peter 5354
I’m not discussing either any further. Look forward to reading about your complaint to the NSIDC about their figures.
15 TonyB,
I’ve no complaint with the NSIDC. More with your reluctance to clarify what year or time period you are talking about.
16 Peter 5357
I quoted the period and the data verbatim. It supports what I said I do not intend to repeatedly go over old ground.
17 From Peter April 1st, 2009 at 10:48 am (perhaps An April Fool Peter)
TonyB,
Its a simple question. Not at all loaded. Were you meaning the Arctic ice extent for 1978 or the average for 1979-200? I can’t see what the problem is. Why can’t you answer?
17 Peter 5356
I have answered you so many times. I quoted what I quoted verbatim. End of story. If it is wrong in your eyes please take it up with the relevant organisation not me. Now please move on and answer my question re the UN which I started asking many days ago.
18 TonyB,
It’s quicker to write either ‘1978? or ‘1979-2000? than ‘I quoted what I quoted verbatim.’ I don’t think you’ll ever again be in a position to accuse me of refusing to answer a straight question.
How about you start your next post with a vowel if you mean 1978 but a consonant if its ‘1979-2000? ?
Now Peter, I am sure others will be able to see I have been very reasonable and I am sure that they -like me- view this as either another delaying tactic or a tongue in cheek attempt at an April Fool. End of my discussion on this silly diversion.
I am genuinely intrigued in your view on the UN because you have an interesting slant on politics, and especially look forward to returning to the main scientific subject that is at the bottom of everything-how does doubling Co2 cause such a catastrophic warming?
TonyB.
TonyB,
You obviously just made up your original comment about Arctic sea ice having returned to ‘something like’ its 1976 level. To minimise your error you then changed to the 1979-2000 average. During which time it was still falling at the current rate of course.
You now saying that there was a fall of 720,000 sq km rather than over a million sq km as your original statement would imply.
Can 720,000 sq km less Arctic ice be described as something like? The area of the State of Texas is 696,200 sq km. I guess its a comforting to know that, if somehow the Mexicans ever took it back, US politicians could still say that the area of the USA was ‘something like’ it was before.
If you are genuinely interested in spreading information rather than disinformation why not post up a graph of Arctic sea ice so that we can all see what ‘something like’ really means?
Peter 5371
Amazing. Where did I mention 1976?
Measurements started in 1978 from a high point and started to be formally recorded in 1979 which is where I quoted from. You also never mentioned the 1976 figure at any time until now. My origial figure did not ‘imply’ anything, it merely recorded verbatim the figure quoted by the ice center and within 5% is certainly ‘something like’. I do not know how or why you have conjured up these other figures.
Please read the posts.
Please absorb the meaning of the posts.
Please do not misrepresent the posts.
Please answer some sensible questions instead of making yourself look foolish.
Tonyb
TonyB,
I deliberately put 1976 thinking you might bite and you did! If you are talking about 1978/1979 then that’s fair enough of course. In which case there was 1,160,000 sqkm more ice in that winter, than the winter of 2008/2009.
While we are busy clearing up vagaries, half truths, and untruths, you accused me of misrepresenting the ‘scientific’ views of Christopher Booker on intelligent design, passive smoking , BSE /CJD , and white asbestos.
Can you either agree that what I said was accurate or detail any corrections you might like me to make?
Peter
I am interested to see that you still believe the National snow and ice center were incorrect in their statement of the average figures for 1979-2000 which I quoted verbatim. Please take it up with them as already suggested.
As for Christopher Booker I am not going to go down yet another of your blind alleys with him. It was you that put the emphasis on the word ‘scientific’ as if I made that comment about him. I did not. Booker was quoting the worlds greatest authority on sea levels. He is certainly ‘scientific’ although you do not like his message and subsequently spent much of your time launching an ad hom attack on him also. This is an unfortunbate trait of yours but one we all understand is used to divert attention away from the main theme.
If you are interested in pursuing Booker over his claims on a variety of subjects not related to climate change please do so-The Daily Telegraph address is clearly stated on their web site.
In the meantime I gather you do not want to comment on the UN story even though it is relevant to the climate debate. Your continued silence on the main theme of doubling co2 also speaks volumes.
I am away on holiday soon for a couple of weeks, so perhaps you will be back in one of your more ‘scientific’ frames of mind when I return.
TonyB
Peter Martin WRT your 5373, pontificated for TonyB:
I sense that Tony is becoming a tad irritated by your constant diversion from topic. However, I thought to interfere, and wonder if you understand what you are saying, with all these things probably being effected by emotive/ controversial knee-jerk reactions. (Without me reading Booker on these issues):
1) When you speak of the health problems of white asbestos, you may be confusing it with blue asbestos, (mostly found in OZ, and South Africa), which has quite a different fibrous structure to white asbestos. My understanding is that varied measures taken against use of white asbestos are largely precautionary, whilst its use continues in many limited applications in USA and Europe.
2) Concerning “passive smoking” I would argue that in most circumstances, other than in very bad ventilation of premises, that the dose of smoke inhaled by non smokers, is tiny tiny miniscule compared with smokers. Those that draw, (not puff), have a very high concentration of smoke in their lungs. There is no denying that heavy smoking kills people. So too does a critical dose of arsenic, but the arsenic in normal almond consumption is OK. Many good medicines are also lethal if over-dosed..
In short, I think “passive smoking” as a health risk is probably a load of old bollocks. (BTW I don’t smoke, or enjoy the passive.)
3) Whilst I have said previously that I believe in Darwinism, (as the least problematic choice), there are nevertheless some serious unexplained things within evolution of species and symbiotics etc, which are not part of Darwinian theory. In short some speciations are currently unexplained. Whilst I think that the idea of a creator is even harder to rationalise than some still unexplained evolutionary process, I don’t think that you should ridicule some deep thinkers such as Spencer et al. What makes you think that your hypothesis is stronger than theirs? You have proof?
How can you define the whole process, if you can only theorise part of it?
4) BSE/CJD….. Dunno.
Have you actually studied Booker’s comments?