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.
Sorry wrong link in the above.
It should be
http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/stories/s194.htm
“Quantum examines the issues behind the case and interviews Plimer about his willingness to stand up and be counted, even in the face of huge financial losses.”
Peter Martin, Reur 5648, you wrote in part to Robin some more of your hilarity, in an area where I have some considerable expertise resulting from experience and lengthy study:
Well actually you misspelt Plimer’s name repeatedly which suggests you don’t know much about him, whilst seeking to ridicule him over at The Guardian. I suggest that your blatant ridicule of him, is even before you have read his book!
I’m not sure that Plimer is truly anti creationist, although that may very well be the case. His main beef of extreme creationists is the absolute bollocks that people like Dwane Gish espouse that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. He objects to this teaching in American schools and has even invented a new verb: “To gish”. meaning to even lie about a previous lie.
His earlier book: “Telling Lies for God“, is a very good read, and I recommend you (and others) try it. This scientist is obviously capable of analysing stuff outside his chosen professional field with great lucidity. (as many scientists from diverse other fields are)
This is especially not uncommon amongst coalface scientists such as geologists and engineers, whom deal much more with the real world.
I’ve kept this brief, but after you have read Plimer’s (not Pilmer’s) latest book, you might care to give us your more informed humble opinion?
Peter: just for once, answer the question.
Whether Plimer is pro or anti creationism is irrelevant. I quoted him as saying “To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable – human-induced CO2 – is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.” I followed that with quotations (about climate modelling) from two distinguished scientists, Freeman Dyson and Antonio Zichichi. My question followed. It was this: do you reject the views of these eminent scientists?
I would appreciate an answer. Thanks.
When The Inmates Are In Charge
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/04/when-inmates-are-in-charge.html
Max,
Regarding Holdren……I have a theory, being that the Obama Administration has moved the parameters of the debate regarding AGW from Realists on the “right” to Alarmists on the “left”…..
to
…..Alarmists on the “right” to out and out kooks (such as Holdren) on the “left” making the Alarmists position appear as the more reasonable, “conservative” position.
In 1960, John F Kennedy’s world view was considered “far left” using the political spectrum of the time. Today, Kennedy’s world view/political positions would be considered “right wing conservative” or “normal”.
They can now point to guys like Holdren as being the crazy aunt locked in the attic, (reflective mirrors in outer space) and proclaim that their position, (cap & trade), is the more reasoned, “centrist”, “moderate” approach.
It’s a political tactic.
Does that make sense? Have I explained this appropriately?
Robin, you posted recently (I couldn’t find your post) a short test that rates the test subject as left or right, politically. I questioned the objectivity of the test, given my results as a “far right conservative”, and since the sponsors of the test are, in my view, considerably left of center politically. Similar tests I have taken show me more of a libertarian, confirming for me how I typically view myself politically.
One such test I recently ran across again, and thought it would be interesting to retake it, and to have the rest of you take it as well. It would be interesting to see how those with differing views on AGW rank politically, especially from what I consider to be a more objective source.
I used the one for the USA, and maybe you should try the localized test for you.
My results had me as:
Economic Left/Right: 5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85
Here are some well known people’s placement on the chart:
And here are some European results:
More scary (proposed) legislation by those who seek control over your life, and are using AGW as the hammer to smash liberty.
Robin,
“Freeman Dyson and Antonio Zichichi. My question followed. It was this: do you reject the views of these eminent scientists?”
You want me to answer your question like you didn’t answer mine on Prof Jones?
Science doesn’t work on “views”. If you’d like to give me some references of work they’ve done to support these views then I can perhaps comment.
Peter: well, well – so you weasel out of answering a simple question. Quel surprise.
As for Prof Jones, I cannot remember a real question. Remind me and I’ll answer it.
Hey JZSmith,
Took your test.
Came out “libertarian right”, just barely below (-0.15) and to the right (3.12) of the midpoint.
A bit above Milton Friedman and slightly below Angela Merkel, so I’m in good company.
Last time I took this test I was a bit more to the left, but that was after a couple of glasses of wine, which may have mellowed or skewed my judgment.
Regards,
Max
Max, it sounds like you and I are rather aligned, politically as well as being “rational skeptics”!
Did I post this test here before? I don’t think I did, but if so my apologies for going over ground we’ve already covered. It is interesting that your results changed slightly. I just also realized that there is only one test; the regional links are results.
Interesting stuff. You should post over at the Guardian thread to see where those kooks line up. I doubt any of us will be surprised!
Brute,
Your analysis makes perfect sense to me.
Obama, a free-spending, high-taxing politician wants new (hidden) sources of revenues to finance his many big government programs. He has promised the “bait” of a tax cut to the “majority” of taxpayers (i.e. voters at the time) who earn less than $250,000 at the expense of the “minority” of taxpayers (voters) who earn more. This helped him to get the votes he needed to become President. He has also (more recently) promised to cut the deficit. This is hard to do if you plan to spend trillions (as he does). So the carbon cap is the perfect solution for him. It sounds logical and most Americans are unaware that this is really a heavy new tax that will more than offset the tax cut promised during the campaign. So his whole goal on “climate change” is not really to change our planet’s climate (a futile task with no political gain), but to get that carbon cap money flowing in (the “switch”) to finance his spending plans. It’s the perfect “bait and switch” scam on a trillion dollar scale (makes Bernie Medoff look like a piker).
Holdren is a certified loon, as has been demonstrated by his publications and statements in the past. He is an egg-head and a scientist of sorts, as well. He REALLY thinks (I believe) that AGW is a serious threat that needs to be addressed with mitigation plans and projects, so that is the fuzzy-headed approach he is taking.
Obama need Holdren to provide scientific support for the alarming AGW message in order to get the scare factor up so the US public (and Congress) take the bait and support the cap and tax scheme he really wants. He does not want hare-brained schemes to actually attempt to mitigate against global warming, so when Holdren comes up with these he will simply pull the rug out from under him (as he just demonstrated).
And, yes, he is also shrewd enough to know that most Americans, when given a choice between an obviously doubtful, hare-brained, risky and expensive technical scheme for attempting to stop global warming and a downplayed carbon cap, will probably go for the cap as a “middle ground” choice.
Obama is a very shrewd politician and Holdren is merely his pawn.
Those are my thoughts on it, but you are closer to the scene than I am.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Re: 5661
Seems like we’re in agreement. A political play to raise taxes to fund his dopey, wasteful projects (payoff his friends) which will do nothing to curb CO2 emissions. Another scam brought to us by Liberal politicians as an excuse to waste more money and grow government.
JZ,
My marks……dead center of the northeast (blue) quarter.
Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.56
JZ Smith
Mrs. Max just took the test. She’s also a right libertarian at 1.88 and -1.33, slightly more libertarian and less right than me (although she’ll be quick to say she’s more right than me most of the time).
Max
PS How do we get this back on topic before TonyN deletes us all?
Max, I hope TonyN will agree that this is tangentially on topic, as I believe that understanding the political perspective of a contributor is helpful in understanding their opinion on AGW. Besides, there is the precedent of Robin’s original post.
JZ Smith
Don’t recall where I saw this test before, but I don’t believe it was from you on this site.
Yeah, I’ve joined the “fray” on the Guardian site, but unfortunately the AGW-promoters on that site are a bit more emotional, aggressive, purile, evasive and flaky than the ones we have seen here (including Peter, who is usually a pleasure to debate with).
But a rational unbiased observer will come away with a good idea how these individuals carry on a blog discussion and the diversionary tactics that they use when they are losing a debate on the logic and facts.
Regards,
Max
Max, You’ve written “Brute, Your analysis makes perfect sense to me.”
Well yes it would wouldn’t it? I suppose Brute might get something right one of these days but he’s not quite there yet.
Increased taxes? No that’s just old fashioned. They just print the stuff these days. If there are problems running a half trillion dollar deficit, so what? Let’s just up that to a whole trillion and see how things go. If that doesn’t do the trick……..
JZ,
On the subject of the test it might be more interesting if you actually posted up the questions and answers.
I suspect that if you actually had to justify them all publicly that you might come up with a different score.
Robin,
“weasel” ??
I’d like to object, my Lord, to learned counsel’s offensive remarks !!
I was going to keep this to myself, because you are probably a nice old guy but a suitable anagram for you might be:
” Re Gob in Urine ” :-)
But seriously, it all very well to wheel out all who you call “eminent scientists?” and ask me if I agree with them. I can term Prof Phil Jones in the same way and I can supply you with something he’s written and has been peer reviewed and I can ask if you agree with it.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html
What I need to know is what scientific papers they have written on climate change and what exactly you are asking me to comment on?
Peter: interesting paper. No surprise there, however.
Two points:
1. Please remind me of the question about Prof Jones that I am supposed not to have answered.
2. It’s interesting that, after all this time, you still don’t understand what a sceptic is. I don’t have any opinion on the conclusion of the Jones et al paper – I don’t have to as I’m not trying to demonstrate the truth of a hypothesis. I do know, however, that, unless computer modelling of the climate is entirely reliable, that hypothesis cannot be verified. Therefore, when I find that three senior and widely respected scientists say such modelling is “primitive”, does “not begin to describe the real world” and is “incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”, my scepticism about the validity of the hypothesis is further confirmed.
Hi Peter,
To JZ Smith’s test: did you take it? What was your score?
From the test results I have seen so far, it looks like the bloggers on this site are all over the map.
The skeptics may agree that they do not support the premise that AGW is a serious problem, but they seem to have widely ranging opinions on other issues as the test results show.
Regards,
Max
Hey Peter,
You referred to Brute’s analysis on how President Obama is using his scientific adviser, John Holdren, to provide support for the premise of potentially alarming AGW, in order to push through his cap and tax proposal through the US Congress with the final goal of getting his hands on trillions of dollar of new tax revenues to finance his spending spree.
As a bystander, I could broadly support Brute’s analysis.
How do you, an another bystander, feel about this is Brute’s analysis valid? Is Obama using Holdren to get a radical new tax implemented? Is this a good thing for the US taxpayer (and energy consumer)? Will it help reduce global CO2 emissions? Will this result in a reversal of the recently observed global warming? If so, how much warming would we expect to see say by year 2050 and 2100 with and without this carbon cap and tax scheme?
All interesting questions.
My off-the-top answers.
– Yes, Obama is using Holdren as his scientific proof that “something must be done urgently”
– Yes, the “something” Obama is really interested in has nothing to do with our planet’s climate and everything to do with levying a draconian new tax to help fund his trillion dollar spending spree without causing a disastrous deficit
– No, this is not a “good thing” for US taxpayers, who have been promised a “tax cut”, but will, in effect get a gigantic tax increase instead.
– Maybe; it will not really curb global CO2 emissions, but it might result in an extension of the current recession or even the onset of a true depression (which would result in lower CO2 emissions for a few years at a pretty heavy cost to mankind)
– No, this will not result in a reversal of global warming (the underlying 0.04C per decade warming); as far as the rapid warming of the late 20th century is concerned, that appears to have reversed on its own due to natural forcing factors
– Forecasts for 2050 or 2100 with or without the carbon cap and tax scheme are anyone’s guess, but it is unlikely that they will be influenced one iota by the U.S. cap and tax proposal of President Obama.
What do you, as another interested outside observer think?
Regards,
Max
JZ:
I’ve done your test. First, I must say (as a professional pollster) that I thought it was poorly done: some of the propositions are badly drafted (unwarranted assumptions etc.) and, in particular, it’s always a bad idea to have only 4 choices – so that, on a matter that many might regard as finely balanced, you have to choose between a crude “agree/disagree”. You should always have a fifth: preferably “neither agree nor disagree” or perhaps “unsure” or “don’t know”. Otherwise, respondents may feel they’ve been forced into a position that doesn’t really reflect their true opinion. Once that’s happened, they can cease to take it seriously.
End of rant. Here are my results:
Economic Left/Right: 1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
Sorry, Brute – a hopeless liberal. But then Peter thinks I’m “probably a nice old guy”.
Peter, (and Max, Robin, Brute, et al) re your 5667,
At your suggestion, I have reproduced the questions and my answers at The Lost-Tooth Society (worried that TonyN may snip this line of posts for being OT). Besides it’s long. I urge you to add a comment there with YOUR answers. Everyone else is welcome to post as well.
For the record, my answers today are slightly different than yesterday. (4.25, -2.31)
Robin, I agree with many of your comments on the quality of the test. In many cases I would have wanted to answer “not sure” or similar, but also remember that the test is to gauge your position on politics, not what you actually think, so they force you into taking a position.
Please feel free to post your replies here or at Lost-Tooth.
JZ,
As far as being off topic I don’t think so…..I think it’s quite telling, interesting and appropriate.(No kidding around).
Politically, this group is all over the place, but (roughly) 4 of 5 of us don’t fall for the AGW con game.
Robin is a flaming Commie Red Liberal, (Now I’m kidding around)and I’m a normal, red blooded, flag waving, patriot……(I am).
In the final analysis, it would seem that political affiliation/philosophy has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in AWG.
Could it be that 4 of us are simply wiser than the 5th and know when we are being rooked/swindled? Hmmmmm………………
JZ,
Can you tell me how you saved the complete results of your test? I’ll save mine too.
I have similar criticsms of some of the questions. But they’ve got it right on some things. This is worth quoting
You can’t be libertarian and left wing
This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism. It was, after all, the important French anarchist thinker Proudhon who declared that property is theft………
Continued on http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq question16