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,
Clear things up ? I’d say you usually leave a bigger mess!
In my original remarks to Robin I didn’t just reference Prof Jones. I mentioned all his country’s universities and all their climate research organisations. If Prof Jones has gaps in his knowledge, as he would surely acknowledge he has plenty of colleagues to help him out.
It may just be worth conceding that I couldn’t have made the same remarks to Brute, even if I has substituted James Hansen for Prof Jones. There’s no problem with the US climate research organisations. All are pretty much in agreement. The universities too are nearly all of similar opinion.
Nearly, but not all. You’ll be pleased to know that there is one on your side. The Liberty University. Founded by Jerry Falwell I believe.
The world center of of science and enlightenment!
Is it just a co-incidence that the only university to teach that the literal truth of Noah’s ark is also the only one on your side of the AGW divide?
Hey guys.
Is it possible to be banned from a website before you’ve even posted a comment?
Having trouble over at the Guardian……….my reputation precedes me?
Must have something to do with diodes or the Ionosphere or something.
Hmmmmmm
Hi Peter,
There you go again.
Instead of staying on topic, you start rambling about Noah’s Ark (and the animals “two by two”, as the song goes).
The topic was quite simply is Robin just as qualified to have a valid opinion on what is going to happen to our climate over the next year, the next decade or the next century as Dr. Phil Jones at Hadley.
And since the good doctor has shown repeatedly that climate forecasting is not his area of expertise, my conclusion was that you, Robin, Brute, Bob_FJ, barelysame, TonyB, TonyN or even myself could have an opinion on what will happen in the future to our climate, which is every bit as valid as that of Jones.
You see, Jones is like a lot of highly specialized experts: he knows everything there is to know about a very small segment of the overall knowledge, but not too much outside his box. And, even more important than what Jones knows is what Jones DOESN’T KNOW.
And herein lies the root cause for his miserable ability to forecast what is going to happen to our weather or climate.
Got it now, Peter?
It’s really quite simple.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
BTW my comments for Dr. Phil Jones apply equally well for the esteemed Dr. James E. Hansen (please refer to my 5542).
When these guys move out of their highly specialized and limited area of expertise or try to predict what is going to happen in the future, they are no longer “experts”. They’re just plain humans like all of us, and their opinions are no more valid than those of anyone else.
This may be a hard concept to accept, Peter, but it really shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
I had an initial problem on the Guardian site.
After doing all the up-front stuff of logging in and reading the “code of conduct” page (which many of the AGW-groupies have apparently not read or possibly forgotten), I first had trouble posting my comments.
I copied them in from a Word file, but could not post them, since the button was not activated.
By simply changing one letter in the copied Word text, the button was activated and I could post.
Don’t know if that’s your problem or if it’s something more sinister.
Regards,
Max
I made it on……
Just testing the water.
Max,
“..Robin just as qualified to have a valid opinion on what is going to happen to our climate over the next year, the next decade or the next century as Dr. Phil Jones at Hadley.”
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But ‘valid’? What does that mean?
That in itself is another matter of opinion. If its valid it should be informed and not based on religion, ignorance, politics, or prejudice.
But Robin is refusing to disclose what his opinion is based on. Except to say it isn’t Physics.
Hi Peter,
As far as having a valid opinion on what is going to happen to our climate in a year, a decade or a century, you asked, “Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But ‘valid’? What does that mean?”.
“Valid = well grounded in logic or truth” or “well grounded or justifiable, pertinent; acceptable, proper or correct; related to the current topic, or presented within context, relevant”.
If we were talking about how to create, adjust, massage, correct for variances, and otherwise manipulate the gathered temperature readings from all over the world in order to create a meaningful “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly”, Jones (or Hansen) would certainly have a “more valid” opinion on this topic than any one of us bloggers. This is their expertise.
If we are talking about predicting what this indicator will be for next year, 10 years from now, or even more absurdly 100 years from now, the opinion of Jones (or Hansen) is no more “valid” than the opinion of anyone else. This is not their expertise (as the record has clearly shown).
You see, Jones and Hansen know all about how to measure global temperature and possibly also almost all there is to know about how to create model scenarios for projecting the theoretical impact of various atmospheric CO2 concentrations on climate based on various assumed inputs..
But that’s where it stops.
Neither one knows any more than any of us what will actually happen to our planet’s climate in one year, 10 years or 100 years, because it is not so important what these experts in their very limited and specialized field actually KNOW.
It is much more important what they DO NOT KNOW.
This is why their expert opinions on what is going to happen to our climate in a year, a decade or a century are no more “valid” than those of Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Gavin Schmidt, you, Robin, Brute, Bob_FJ, Barelysane or even myself. It’s a crap game.
Got it?
Regards,
Max
Max,
Its true that no-one can exactly foretell the future. We could be lucky and only have a couple of degrees AGW this century. If our luck is out it will be much worse. The message from the scientific community is quite simple and unambiguous, which is that we shouldn’t trust to luck.
Its my turn to ask you if you’ve got that? :-)
Peter: your 5549/51/57/59:
You really don’t understand do you? Go back to your comment, “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”. Let’s examine that on the basis of Prof Jones contradicting me on a matter of law:
Well, I’d be very surprised if he said, “Robin’s got this hopelessly wrong and here’s a precedent from a High Court ruling of 1876 that establishes the point conclusively; one should note especially the important inference that may be drawn from Mr Justice Martin’s obiter dictum on page 346 of the Law Reports”. Reading that, I’d suspect he was parroting something he’d seen somewhere and half understood.
But I’d have a different reaction if he said, “I doubt if that’s correct – I know of several lawyers who hold what appears to be a different view and it doesn’t appear to make sense in the light of my understanding of a case reported in the Times last week. Anyway, even if he’s right on the very specific point, how does he account for having expressed a rather different view last year and for these broader examples that seem to contradict his general conclusion?” In that case, I’d probably be quite interested – and quite possibly want to follow it up. He might be on to something.
Can you can spot the difference? Sigh … no, I suppose you can’t.
Robin G, I received an Email from The Guardian, which did not explain what went wrong in my attempted registration before this, but that I can now go ahead; that I’m a gen’ chap.
I’ve made three posts over there on their pages 6 & 7, concentrating on some scientific issues, that may interest you. (I wonder if I will get a sensible response though)
Brute, Reur 5547, you distressingly wrote in part:
“…Been busy refinancing the Brute palace lately also…”
Hey Brute, have you seriously considered the number of light bulbs (electric lamps?) in your palace, and what their average (wattage x n) totals? I suppose you also have illumination along your long driveway and in your car museum!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, I like your painting too, although have not seen it before. Is there any story about where the strong guy is headed, carrying that clearly submissive maiden?
All
Possibly interesting new website being reported on ICECAP atm.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/40/ClimateDepotcom-Launch-Aims-Tonbsp-Redefine-Global-Warming-Reporting
Hi Robin, re your 5514, I found Newsweek’s article interesting and a lot more open-minded re AGW than most of the stuff I (very) occasionally read in New Scientist. What annoys me about New Scientist is that they will publish articles such as “Gravity: Were Newton and Einstein wrong?” (29/04/06) or “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” (21/01/09), which is fair enough – but never anything questioning That Which Must Never Be Questioned.
Robin,
Yes, indeed you would be very surprised if, on a point of law, any half way competent lawyer was accused in the way you describe
“Robin’s got this hopelessly wrong….”
Correct me, if I’ve misunderstood what you, and all your fellow deniers, are saying, not just about Prof Jones but all those like him who support the position that AGW is a serious danger, but doesn’t the phrase “hopelessly wrong” just about sum it up?
Peter/tempterrain/whatever
Just properly read your last post on the guardian thread. Don’t you ever get bored of calling me a sockpuppet on various blogs, tell you what i sometimes post on the BBC HYS using the same alias as well, why don’t you go there and accuse me of beinging a sockpuppet as well, it’ll save you the bother of typing “barelysane” into google again.
(i’m not a puppet, i’m a real boy! :))
Excellent point Bob.
I have reconsidered the driveway lighting as well as the indoor/outdoor lighting and come to the conclusion that they are woefully inadequate. Taking measurements from distances of up to a mile away incrementally, the driveway light foot-candle readings drop off significantly. My ultimate goal is to have the Brute Palace visible from the International Space Station on a clear night.
We’ve also decided to add additional high wattage tanning lights on the back lawn as Mrs. Brute is modest and prefers to tan at night.
I’ve been in contact with the local power utility and requested beefing up the grid to accommodate the additional load. Engineering studies are being formulated to add additional generating capacity to the regional source.
Of course all of this costs money. I’ve submitted the necessary paperwork to the Obama administration explaining my predicament and they have agreed to expedite the process to alleviate my “lack of illumination” issue under their program of relieving local hardship and have forwarded the necessary taxpayer funded grant subsidy to an offshore account where it will be earning 32% interest (under my name) until the “infrastructure” improvement has been completed.
All in all, a “win-win” for everyone, I’d say.
Re: the Guardian blog:
I tried to post a seventh comment over there:
However, the “Post Your Comment” button is repetatively greyed out, despite restarting the whole procedure etc.
(= I’m unable to continue posting there at this time)
Bob,
As far as the Brute automobile museum, I’ve decided that I need to downsize somewhat in that area. With that in mind I purchased an economy model truck yesterday.
Photo attached:
This is a mite small for my daily commute, but, we all have to make sacrifices…..
Let’s see if it comes through this time…..
Here it is…..
Brute, Reur 5569, you wrote in part:
Your photo link would not work for me, and I’m intrigued. Is it a Hummer perhaps?
Brute Reur 5571,
Now seeing your photo, I truly admire your sacrifice in order to save the world. However I notice that the rear end of your truck does not have a great deal of cargo space. Are you able to still carry a bale of hay to feed your horses?
Did you really think this decision of yours through , or were you swayed by the Greenies?
Peter Martin,
Whoops, I’ve just noticed that my local time is around 2:20 am Friday. (Oz EST)
Please do not be distressed by this.
I do this stuff from time to time, depending on my mood, and perhaps the extent of my afternoon nap.
Well Bob, just doing what little I can for the Collective.
Shucks……no need to thank me, I’m just happy to help.