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: re your 5516 – bring ’em on.
BTW I admire your continuing attempts to bring some reason to the Guardian thread. A hopeless cause in my view.
Hey Brute, Reur 5523: entitled: What a difference a year makes…..
Nice post, and I thought the following extract was exquisite:
Hey Peter Martin, I know that you worship every word, and the ground that NSIDC walks on.
However, are you conscious that this NSIDC forecast of nearly a year ago is a load of old bollocks?
Brute, Reur 5511, quoting in part::
Well I don’t know that it is the UTTERMOST stupidest, but in sentiment, I agree with you. I sometimes wonder why I bother responding. As you have said before; it is hard to nail jelly to a wall!
Max (and barelysane): further to my 5526, I just had a look at the Guardian thread. It’s very funny: they seem to be obsessed with me, my identity (easily available via Google) and what I had to say a day or so ago. For some reason, my straightforward comments seem to have got right under their thin little skins. Why are they so bothered about it, I wonder? Keep up the good work – but I still think it’s a hopeless cause.
Peter: you say you’re expecting me to get back to you on why I feel “qualified to have an opinion on climate science even though [I don’t] understand any Physics”. Just to be clear: I said, “my knowledge of physics is frankly limited” which is true but not quite the same thing. Because of my limited scientific expertise, I’m careful to avoid making a “scientific” point – indeed, I think you’ve criticized me for this. Here’s an example: my Guardian friend onthefence says that the basic physics says that a doubling of CO2 would increase the temperature by about 3degC. No, you say, it’s 1deg. No, says Max, it’s 0.6 – 0.8deg. I’m not qualified to argue with any of you. But I am qualified to point out that what I would have expected to be a simple enough matter is clearly controversial. Do you understand the difference?
Brute has made his position abundantly clear at 5511 with (shall we say?) unambiguous support from Bob_FJ at 5528. But I’d be interested to understand your position. Is it your view that only those who understand “climate science” (which embraces a vast range of disciplines and specialties) are qualified to have a legitimate view on one of the major economic, cultural and political issues of our time?
I see you’re going on about your beloved “consensus” again. Well, you know my views on that. But I was amused by the story of Einstein’s reaction to the news that a book called “100 Scientists Against Einstein” had been published. He said, “If I am wrong, shouldn’t one be enough?”
BTW, when you are critical of people who don’t get back to you, thoughts of pots and kettles come to mind.
Re: #5509, Robin
I suspect that AIT was edited in view of Mr Justice Burton’s findings before being shown on UK public service TV and it would be interesting to obtain an admission from C4 that this was the case. The most effective way to do so is probably via a complaint to Ofcom.
If you have the time and the patience, it would be interesting to know the time lapse between the last frame of film proper and the final ‘health warning’ screen. And also the precise wording of that screen which, as I remember it, was very brief; about 50 words.
I could then put in a complaint that no adequate warning was given in view of the High Court ruling. There are certainly grounds for complaint under the Broadcasting Code, Section 2 (Factual Accuracy) and Section 5 (Due Impartiality) in the light of the Burton Judgment, which found AIT to be a political film, although substantially based on scientific research, and then went on to identify 9 major ‘errors’ in the way in which scientific research was reported.
Much has been made of the fact that Mr Justice Burton enclosed the term ‘error’ in quotation marks throughout his judgment. Roger Harrabin and Gavin Schmidt, among others, have claimed that this was because the judge did not consider that they were really errors at all in the sense that they did not mislead. This view is at odds with the whole burden of the judgment. A more likely explanation is that the judge did not consider that he was dealing with factual inaccuracies that had occurred inadvertently, and that they were not therefore ‘errors’ in the true sense of the word.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Robin,
I did look and I couldn’t see that your friend on the other blog had actually said “the basic physics says that a doubling of CO2 would increase the temperature by about 3degC”.
There’s nothing basic about the physics of climate change. Sure you can trot out a few lines of calculations. Max nearly got the right answer. He used the right method, but he just forgot that the effective radiation temperature of the earth is about 30deg lower than the real temperature. That 30 deg represents the natural greenhouse effect. And it’s a good thing too that its there. Even in Brisbane it would be freezing without it.
I suppose if I wanted to be uncharitable I could suggest that he deliberately used T=288 rather than T=255 just so he could knock about 0.3 deg off the answer. But I’m sure we all know just how much Max is really a seeker after the truth rather than some hack denier disinformationst! Well don’t we?
Anyway, that’s the simple uncontroversial stuff. I think even Roy Spencer agrees with my arithmetic. So I’m just wondering, my learned friend Robin, if you are not so learned about Physics, if you never post up a graph, if you never trot out any figures, how it is that you know that Prof. Phil Jones, your Royal Society of Scientists and every single one of your countries universities have it wrong?
Do you hear voices when you are walking through the wilderness? Is it the pattern of the tea leaves in your tea cup? Tarot Cards? Or maybe you feel that James Hansen’s eyes are too close together and he’s got a shifty look when he smiles? Please do share your secret.
Peter:
Here’s my question again:
Is it your view that only those who understand “climate science” (which embraces a vast range of disciplines and specialties) are qualified to have a legitimate view on one of the major economic, cultural and political issues of our time?
An answer would be nice – rather than dopey twitterings about tea leaves and tarot cards.
BTW here’s what onthefence said at 10:38 on 5 April: “You get about a 3degC temperature rise per doubling of CO2”.
Bob_FJ,
I’m not sure if Prof Phil Jones disagrees with me or not. I haven’t asked him. I wouldn’t hav e expected that he’d have drawn up the graphs himself.
But its good that you are quoting him as an authority. Will you soon be quoting all the other things he says about AGW too? Like its a serious problem that needs addressing?
If you are going to come over to my side, I’d just have to set a few groundrules first. You’d have to stop talking about ‘worms’ for a start! And, yes I know it is tempting to use phrases like “a load of old bollocks”. The number of times I’ve had to resist the temptation to call you a ‘dumb fuckwit’ ! But, on balance, I think I’d like something a little more constructive and witty.
Pete,
Fair enough. I’ve looked at the courses offered and decided that I do indeed need to re-enroll in university. Below is a short list of my course selection. With these pillars of academic achievement under my belt will I be qualified to sit with the rest of the 2500 “scientists” that are the bedrock of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
The Universe Of Sportsmanship: Modern Theories
The Archetype Of The Rite Of Passage In Urban Minority Dance
Computer Science As Interpreted In Liberated Native American Poetry
Synchronized Swimming In The Postmodern Era: From Rypstra To Capps
Cross-Cultural Perspectives On Female Lifestyles
The Influence Of Rural American Folklore On Microbiology: Policy In The 21st Century
Foundations Of Feminist Queer Theory In The Postmodern Era
‘Star Trek’ In The Real World: A Paradigm Shift
Senior Seminar In ‘Star Wars’: A Quest For Discovery
Arguing with Judge Judy: Popular ‘Logic’ on TV Judge Shows
Underwater Basket Weaving
Learning From YouTube
Philosophy and Star Trek
The Art of Walking
Daytime Serials: Family and Social Roles
The Joy of Garbage
The Science of Superheroes
Zombies in Popular Media
The Science of Harry Potter
Cyberporn and Society
The Simpsons and Philosophy
Myth and Science Fiction: Star Wars, The Matrix, and Lord of the Rings
The Strategy of StarCraft
Brute, Reur 5535, on available Uni courses. I’m struck in particular by:
“Underwater Basket Weaving“
How many years does it take to become a professor in this discipline?
Peter Martin, in your 5534, you wrote in part:
Typically, you miss the point entirely. It does not matter if he himself drew the graph, but whatever, it has his name on it.
I’ll say it again, for the umpteenth time ; Phil Jones recognises the plateau in temperatures in the last decade or so, but shows not the slightest hint of your naïve claim of similar cooling periods described by you as 1, 2, 3, & 4.
Max has also explained to you rather well, that what you see in those four periods of yours, is clearly DIFFERENT to what Phil Jones admits.
I agree with Phil Jones in his smoothing plateau, except that perhaps he could have given more weight to the 2008 value.
Peter Martin, Reur 5534, you wrote in part:
It is appropriate to repeat part of my 5527:
The issue here is that NSIDC made a silly forecast, almost a year ago, which turned out to be a load of old bollocks. That was not intended to be witty on my part but was a measure of my disgust at this gross hype.
Incidentally, are you going to answer the question? Can you see that question mark (?) at the end of the quote?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, it is at this moment, a little after 1:00 am Thursday Oz EST. Please do not be distressed by me being up at this hour. I am quite relaxed about it.
Peter: a footnote to my 5533. You seem keen to cite my views on Prof. Phil Jones. In 5519 you said, “I’m not sure how Robin would react if he were contradicted in his field [the law] by Prof Phil Jones. Yet Robin feels quite able to do it the other way around”. No, I don’t. Then, in 5532, you said that I “know that Prof. Phil Jones … [has] it wrong.” No, I don’t. I have never expressed a view on the veracity of Prof. Jones’s views.
Bob_FJ,
I’m not sure, but I’d bet you’d be a shoe-in as a climate scientists at the UN with a degree in basket weaving.
Thinking out loud……..who came up with that? I mean, why would anyone go out of their way to weave a basket under water?
Reminds me of a comedian who opined:
“Swimming isn’t a sport……swimming is something you do to keep from drowning”.
Hey Peter,
Reur exchange with Robin et al. on Dr. Phil Jones.
Let’s do another logic test.
I’m no “climatologist”.
Phil Jones is.
Phil Jones warns me (and the rest of the world) in 2005 that 2006 will be a record hot year (due to AGW, of course).
His own non-transparent massaged, manipulated, variance-corrected and adjusted temperature record tells me later that 2006 was not a record hot year.
Undaunted, the good doctor repeats his forecast a year later for the year 2007.
Again, his own non-transparent massaged, manipulated, variance-corrected and adjusted temperature record tells me later that 2007 was not a record hot year.
So do I need to be a trained “climatologist” to decide whether or not the good doctor knows what the hell he is talking about when he makes predictions for the next year, or even more absurd, for the next century?
Ot can I just come to this conclusion as an astute observer of the facts?
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
After following the lively interchange between yourself, Robin, Brute, Bob_FJ, I believe I can see where you have fallen into a trap.
No one of us would argue that Dr. Phil Jones, Dr. John Christy, Dr. Gavin Schmidt or Dr. Richard Lindzen or Dr. James E. Hansen do not know immeasurably more about their own specialized field of climate science than any of us on this blog. To do so would be both ignorant and arrogant.
The problem arises when these learned gentlemen do one of two things (or both):
(a) when they step outside their very limited and specialized field of expertise to enter the field of policy change or political activism (examples are Hansen’s congressional testimony, coal “death-train” pronouncements in the UK and recent civil disobedience flop in Washington)
(b) when they fall into the trap of arrogantly believing that they can actually make predictions of what is going to happen to our planet’s climate based on the infinitesimal bit of specialized knowledge that they currently have (Phil Jones’ repeated warnings of “record years” and long-term 0.3C per decade warming forecasts, Hansen’s “tipping point” predictions).
In either case, the learned gents mentioned above are no more likely to get it right than you, Robin, Brute, Bob_FJ or me, because they are OPERATING OUTSIDE THEIR FIELD OF EXPERTISE.
Get the difference, Peter?
It may be subtle. But it is significant.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
Reur 5526
Looks like one of them has already backed down.
I do not expect much reaction from the other two, either.
But let’s see.
Regards,
Max
Well, Max – re your 5543, we certainly seem to have livened up their limited lives over there on the Guardian thread. Seems we’re all part of some sinister conspiracy – kept at bay by the sole efforts of the brave and embattled Peter. Something in the latter point however: Peter’s persistence is admirable. Too bad he’s not getting some support.
Where is that link to The Guardian? I’ve gotta go back and read this.
Hi Brute,
Here’s the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/01/climate-change-sceptics?
Regards,
Max
Yep, I “re-found” it. Evidently they think that you’re some type of professional, traveling, roving, Global Warming Realist.
They even mentioned me!
I’m flattered.
I’m just leaving work. Thinking of jumping in to satisfy their goofy conspiracy theory that we’re some type of organized cabal designed to ruin the world. Maybe when I get home I’ll jump in……but Mrs. Brute will probably have me cut the grass. If I delay long enough it’ll get dark and won’t have to.
Been busy refinancing the Brute palace lately also….interest rates are a point lower than I paid 6 years ago…..maybe I can get the “politician’s discount”…..which is why I really don’t have time to engage the Cassandras over @ The Guardian.
(See: Friends of Angelo)
I always liked this painting..
Its Ajax and Cassandra by Solomon Joseph Solomon, 1886 (Before Global Warming)
Robin,
You pointed out that you “have never expressed a view on the veracity of Prof. Jones’s views”. I didn’t say you had.
You also say that you don’t know that Prof Jones has it wrong. Prof Jones is saying that recent global warming has been largely caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and is a problem which needs to be taken very seriously.
You are saying no it hasn’t and no it doesn’t.
It strikes me as being a very reasonable inference that you know, or think you do, that Prof Jones has indeed come to the wrong conclusion.
Whereas he has based based his opinion on science and education, you are reluctant to divulge what your opinion is based on. I would suggest a mixture of predudice and ignorance.
But don’t take it too personally. The same goes for most nearly all other deniers too!
Hi Peter,
Dr. Phil Jones is an expert on measuring temperature.
He is not an expert on defining the cause and effect relationship for past, present or anticipated future climate change. His predictive capabilities have been shown to be seriously flawed over and over again, as I have pointed out.
So, yes, I believe Jones knows how to measure temperature, as well as how to adjust, massage, manipulate and variance-correct the raw data in the attempt to arrive at a meaningful “globally and annually averaged land and sea surfface temperature anomaly”.
But the actual facts show that he sure as hell has no clue when it comes to predicting the future, one year in advance, and even less an entire decade or century in advance.
That is where his “expertise” is no better than yours, Robin’s or mine, using a crystal ball or ouija board.
Get the point?
Hop this clears it up.
Regards,
Max