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.
Sea Level Has Not Risen for Three Years – New Monthly SPPI CO2 Report
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/feb_co2_report.pdf
Apr 03, 2009
U.S. Senate Votes Down Obama’s Climate Plan
By Andrew Ward and Sarah O’Connor in Washington, Financial Times
President Barack Obama’s plan to push through climate change legislation as part of his $3,600bn federal budget appeared all but dead on Thursday after the Senate ruled out fast-track action on the issue.
A Republican-sponsored amendment passed on Wednesday night ruled that Congress should not try to set up a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as part of the budget “reconciliation” process.
While not binding, the amendment, which drew support from more than 20 Democratic senators, showed the Obama administration has little chance of forcing through climate change mea-sures as part of the budget.
It also underscored the difficulty that Mr Obama will face winning support for his proposed cap-and-trade system even outside of the budget process, raising the possibility of the US arriving empty-handed at the next round of United Nations talks on climate change in Copenhagen in December.
Mr Obama had wanted legislation either passed or making progress before the Copenhagen meeting to signal US commitment to reducing carbon emissions and to encourage other nations to take action.
But opposition is mounting on Capitol Hill as Republicans and some Democrats raise fears that cap-and-trade would undermine economic recovery by increasing energy costs.
“Families and small businesses are struggling to get by, but the Democrats’ budget would raise taxes on every American who drives a car, flips on a light switch or buys a product manufactured in the United States,” said John Boehner, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
Republicans claim the average family would face up to $3,100 (?2,160) a year in additional energy costs under a cap-and-trade system.
Both the House and Senate were on Thursday expected to approve preliminary budget plans passed by their budget committees last week, signalling broad Democratic support for most of Mr Obama’s proposals. But the congressional blueprints contain only vague commitments to the healthcare reform and climate change laws that Mr Obama put at the heart of his budget.
A congressional lobbyist for an environmental group said he was not surprised by the backlash against climate change measures. “I never ever thought it would go through budget reconciliation,” said the lobbyist, who asked not to be named. “I think it was a smart threat for Obama and people to have on the table, but never thought there was a prayer they could use it.” Read more here.
Hey Brute, I’ve just woken-up from my afternoon nap, rather later than usual, around 4:15 pm local time; don’t know why so late; maybe I was chuckling too much in my dreams last night, and never got into a deep sleep cycle, (alpha or delta whatever it is), following Peter Martin’s 5393. (page 36).
I really enjoyed your 5400, (Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism), but doubt if PM can comprehend it because it is a bit too logical in its technicalities.
But anyway, getting back to the humour provided by Peter, whilst the following is totally unconnected, has anyone seen the German comedy movie; Manitu’s Shoe? (English subtitles)
It is VERY funny, in my opinion! I have it on DVD from SBS TV, and have watched maybe four times, and each time it seems funnier to me.
Even more ludicrous than PM
Hi Brute,
Thanks for your very informative posts 5400-5402.
Peter may not be pleased, but the news that the University of Colorado has confirmed that sea level has not risen since 2006 is good news indeed, as is the fact that the US Congress has turned down President Obama’s ”cap and trade” (or “cap and tax”) proposal.
But I am alarmed at the projection that we could be in an ice age if the current cooling continues to 2100.
The long-term temperature curve from Dr. Akasofu is more reassuring: it shows the actually observed multi-decadal temperature oscillations since recovery from the Little Ice Age that I have been trying to explain to Peter. Akasofu’s projection to 2100 is more reassuring than either the “new ice age” prediction or the ridiculous IPCC projections of rampant warming, which Peter seems to believe.
I truly hope Peter reads your posts carefully and with an open mind, in order to allay his previous fears that “AGW is a serious threat”.
Regards,
Max
Hey Max,
Welcome back.
I’m not certain through reading this comment if your alarm is genuine; however, I believe that the author of the report was simply projecting that if the current rate of cooling continued to occur, at this pace, we would enter an ice age. The author, (I believe), fully expects the temperature to oscillate upward again periodically as it has, (naturally), since the end of the last great ice age.
Alarmism here is the appropriate word. I had a discussion with an AWG “believer” yesterday who was astonished to learn that the temperature increase that is causing so much concern has only amounted to a few tenths of one degree over the last 150 years….exclaining, “thats all?”, “what is all the fuss about?”
Re: #5398, Brute
I’m beginning to feel more like a headmaster than a blogger. Where did I go wrong?
Hey Max,
Peter Martin knows his theory is a dog, he just doesn’t want to believe that it has been thoroughly discredited…..doesn’t mesh with his world view.
The evidence is overwhelming that the theory is a dog and pony show, he simply likes demonizing entire groups of people that he envies….call it sanctimony……call it arrogance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show
He knows that he’s wrong, but his pride won’t allow him to admit it.
Tony,
My Mother used to shake her head ruefully while muttering that when I was a youngster. Poor woman…..The grey hairs that I must have caused her.
He knows that he’s wrong, but his pride won’t allow him to admit it.
No. I’m still saying I’m right. I’m still offereing to bet $100 that the temperature record of 1998 will be broken in the next three years.
Only Max has accepted so far. Any other takers?
Good afternoon all.
Some may be interested to have a look at this article in the Guardian. It tells us that “those who still do not believe in climate change” should be termed “climate numpties“. So there you have it. And the author concludes by saying that:
That’s nice.
It’s attracted over 150 comments – including some from me. It’s a change to be debating with “believers” other than Peter. But some heavyweight help would be welcome. Thanks.
To add to our joy here in the UK, Channel 4 TV is tonight screening an alarm-fest: “The Day After Tomorrow” about a climatologist racing to save his son after freak weather sweeps the world, followed by – wait for it – the Goracle’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. Can’t wait.
Robin
If you happen to watch AIT could you please note whether there are any ‘health warnings’ broadcast before the programme. As a public service broadcaster C4 are bound by Ofcom not to mislead its audience and Mr Justice Burton’s ruling in the Dimmock case identified eleven gross inaccuracies in the film. If there is no warning then there may be grounds for complaint.
In my part of the world we do not get C4, just S4C (Telly Welly)
Hi Peter,
Here’s a logic test for you.
Can you see what is wrong with this picture?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3411826039_d291acca96_b.jpg
Look at it for a while and see if you can find the fatal flaw.
Is it related to the actual record (see link for source)?
Is it related to the projection for 2100 (see link for source)?
Regards,
Max
PS For a clue, check the text plus chart from Dr. Akasofu, which Brute posted (5400).
TonyN:
I’ve decided that I prefer to read my current book this evening (Tony Judt’s “Reappraisals – reflections on the forgotten twentieth century“: thoroughly recommended) so am recording the Goracle’s movie. But I watched the lead-up — no “health warning”, just “Al Gore introduces an intriguing debate”. What debate?
Thanks Robin. Apparently AIT eventually reaches Wales late on Monday night.
It will be interesting to see how Ofcom deal with complaints about AIT in view of what happened over TGGWS where there was no real evidence of misleading scientific information other than one graph which the film makers corrected immediately the mistake was pointed out to them. Apparently AIT has not been updated in view of the Bruton decision, which was quite clear. See last paragraph (before updates) here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=105#comments
I wonder if one should attach any significance to the C4’s use of word ‘debate’ rather than ‘documentary’, which is the term chosen by the Radio Times?
Max,
I have two questions:
What is the age of the Earth?
How long has humankind been keeping accurate global temperature records?
More Good News!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E&feature=related
We’ve really nothing to worry about after all!
Brute,
RE your 5416. Why don’t you ask your Republican politicians or the elders of your church?
They might well say that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that even now there aren’t any accurate temperature records because NASA and other climate science institutions have been hopeless compromised by infiltration of radical environmentalists.
But if you are asking me, I can give you the very sensible answer that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. And that temperature records have been kept since about the mid 19th century.
There aren’t perfectly accurate of course. Nothing is. You should look at the size of the error bars which should be smaller now than they were 100 years, or even just 50 years, ago
Where you are going with this? I suspect to argue that we shouldn’t be scared of changing the earth’s climate to what it was in pre-historic times. Well you’d be pretty scared if you were transported back into the world as it was in its first billion years. Not for long though. You’d be dead after maybe a half a minute.
You’d be scared a bit longer in later eras. You have headaches and a shortage of breath from high CO2 levels. The dinosaurs of the time would have evolved to suit their environment and wouldn’t have much trouble in grabbing a quick snack.
If you could sample life in different climates, at various times in the earth’s history, I’d say you’d happily end up choosing the one that you are used to and have evolved in.
Terrain Temp Reur 5417;
Whilst I’m wondering if there might be an element of IRONY in you saying:
“We’ve really nothing to worry about after all”!
I (and probly others) did enjoy your post, and I hope you will keep joining us!
Peter Martin, Reur 5418 to Brute, with regard to two questions he asked in 5416 of Max, (Not you), you [Peter] responded with; in part:
Well, that and the rest of your post, is not only silly, but is also a diversionary ramble, which I’ll not otherwise comment on. (not that I want to discourage Brute from doing so, if he can avoid yawning too much)
However, may I draw your attention to Max’s 5413 to you in which he asks in part:
He was kind enough to offer you some clues.
Any chance you could put your brain into gear, return to topic, and respond to Max’s enquiry?
Peter Martin,
I would like to refocus some of your attention to some silly WRONG graphs that you have continued to repetitively post in recent times, despite you having been advised that they were WRONGLY daft.
If you might accept Phil Jones of CRU UEA as a higher authority than you, perhaps you could consider the following comparative graphics?
Max, in your 5413, you asked in part of Peter Martin:
Well, I tried something similar for Peter at the link below, but typically, it led absolutely nowhere.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=124#comment-8434
Hey Guys,
If you are wondering why I’m a tad more effusive this early evening than usual, it is because I suddenly found a whole hour of spare time. I forgot to set some of my clocks back one hour last night. Whilst I do have some clocks in reserve on Queensland time, (to save resetting labour on my part), and no adjustments are necessary, I still forgot about the significance of the day.
Struth, I envy those Queenslanders (like PM) not having to worry about this stuff!
Bob_FJ,
I was waiting for an answer from Max to my question in 5391. Whe he comes up with some plausible explanation, it will be my turn to answer him.
Can I give you a tip on the use of the word ‘worm’? Its probably OK to describe things you dig up in your veggie garden and might put on your hook when fishing, but its not really going to give the casual reader any sense of confidence in your mathematical ability. Instead you might want to consider terms like curve, trace, plot, locus (note no T on the end). Smoothing polynomial sounds impressive and you could fool a few people into thinking you knew what you are talking about with that piece of vocabulary.
In fact I think that’s what Prof Jones has used, whereas I’ve used a five year average, just like NASA do. That’s why the two graphs look a bit different.
Now if you think about it, if you put your brain into gear, (you’ve not been on the Merlot again I hope?), even you should be able to appreciate that you can’t have a five year average unless you have five years of data. With me so far?
So the four data points should be blank and the first one goes in on the fifth year. Still with me?
The next one on the sixth.
This is exactly what Excel, and my graph, does.
You might have had a point, albeit a somewhat pedantic one, if you’d said that the black ‘worm’ in my graph had values starting right at the beginning!
Robin Guenier, in your 5410, you quote in part about a Guardian site that has attracted many fast moving comments, including in part, the following exchange
Onthefence quoting you: Guenier: Despite expensively funded research, the dangerous AGW hypothesis is supported, as bickmeister notes, only by computer models.
And Onthefence responded with:
Er, no, it’s supported by the basic physics of how infrared photons interact with molecules.
I intend to point out to Onthefence, that Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric physicist (and AGW alarmist), has declared that the physics of CO2 warming alone is not a serious matter. It only becomes serious, (according to him), if there is strong positive feedback from water vapour. However, he refuses to respond to questions on strong negative feedback from clouds; as peer reviewed in GRL
See Max’s latest comment over there:
http://www.grist.org/article/Negative-climate-feedback-is-as-real-as-the-Easter-Bunny#c143490