Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Hi Peter,

    Back again. You wrote of Christopher Monckton: “Is this the same Christopher Monckton that the Realclimate guys accuse of Cuckoo Science?”

    Realclimate?

    Get serious, Peter. Realclimate is no source of serious information. Might as well quote “Exxonsecrets” or some other really cuckoo site.

    Regards,

    Max

  2. Hi Peter,

    You cited (of all sites) Realclimate as a source of information. Here’s a quote from an op-ed entitled: “Is Realclimate part of the ‘reality based’ community?”:
    http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2005/02/is-realclimate-part-of-reality-based.html

    “Realclimate is a group blog compiled by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and other adherents to the “IPCC consensus” (their term) that the up-tick in global temperature since 1970 is human caused and can be projected forward to catastrophic warming over the next century. There is indeed solid theory and evidence that some global-warming is caused by human activity, especially greenhouse gas emissions. There is just as much evidence that some global warming has been caused by the abnormally high level of solar activity since the 1940’s.

    Any competent climate prediction (whatever its range of uncertainty) must account both of these likely sources of warming (along with other evidenced sources of warming or cooling). But the folks over at realclimate refuse. As far as they are concerned, solar-magnetic warming is not evidence to be accounted, but an enemy to be dismissed, however disingenuously.”

    Michael Mann? The guy that put together the since discredited hockey stick to convince the world (against all prior evidence) that there was no Medieval Warm Period?

    Ouch!

    Get serious, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  3. Max,

    I’ve just composed a response to Peter, off-line, which is a tad more angry than yours, and was not intended to cut-across your views, in which I entirely agree!
    My only critiscism is that after uttering certain names above, you should really wash your mouth out with something astringently cleansing

  4. Hi Peter,

    To my earlier post #544 (pointing to the IPCC subterfuge in AR4) one could add the statement:

    “The 40-year period 1906 to 1945 saw a linear warming of 0.54°C, compared to 0.74°C for the entire 100-year period 1906-2005. This shows that roughly 73% of the entire 20th century warming occurred before 1945.”

    Regards,

    Max

  5. Peter, you wrote, very arrogantly and spontaneously:
    [1] Is this the same Christopher Monckton that the Realclimate guys accuse of Cuckoo Science? [Link deleted for spam protection]
    [2] According to his Wikipedia entry he read Classics at Uni. Its good that he’s now taken an interest in a scientific study in later life.

    My responses:
    [1] You consider RC, the supreme nest of “Cuckoo Science” to be the judge of what is good science? Remember that professor Mann et al were the fabricators of the disgraced hockey-stick and the creators of RC? You consider them to know more about real science than the APR? :
    Wiki: The American Physical Society was founded in 1899 and is the world’s second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche… … [publications] including the world renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than twenty science meetings each year. Over 40,000 members belong to the Society…
    This is a lesser science knowledge base than RC?

    [2] What is that snide remark meant to convey? You fail to mention that he is obviously a very talented man with a wide range of interests, ex Cambridge and University Cardiff, and has published 9 books on diverse subjects including “Sudoku Xtreme”. (plus a whole bunch of papers etc). The largest entry in Wikipedia concerns his activities within the AGW debate. The paper that you wish to denigrate, and which you could not possibly have had time to digest, (Me too) is accepted by the second largest organization of physicists in the world. (according to Wiki)

    You might also be aware that Wiki is famous for being unbalanced in emotive issues, where there is a much greater majority of “consensus holders”, ever ready to write-in their preferences. Thus, he is likely to be denigrated for his work on AGW
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Peter, one of the things I hate in science, and it seems most prevalent amongst physicists, and especially amongst teachers of physics, (with the exception of one I know), is the arrogant elitism that you are clearly displaying in your post above.
    You remind me of Andrew Dessler over at Gristmill, who sneers at any scientist that is not a physicist of his own ilk.
    (Yet oddly, Dessler contradicts the IPCC and DBB on sensitivity)
    Ho hum!

  6. Hi BobFJ,

    “My only critiscism is that after uttering certain names above, you should really wash your mouth out with something astringently cleansing.”

    Yep. Used “Listerine”. Tastes pretty bad, but “Mann-aged” to do the job.

    Regards,

    Max

  7. Hi Peter,

    Of discredited scientists you wrote: “If they fall off the scientific horse then they might have to find work in some creationist musuem in the American mid-west.”

    Yep.

    Or, like Michael Mann did when he was discredited, open up a pseudo-scientific blog site like Realclimate.

    Regards,

    Max

  8. Furthermore Pete,
    If David B Benson 408 can get away with writing:

    Lawernce Solomon is a fool!

    Then I will now declare that you are also a fool.

    (I avoided the temptation to add a whole range of possible strongly emphasizing adjectives)

    TonyN: David only got away with that very obvious ad hominem attack because he and Peter are brave enough to hang in on a blog where they are heavily outnumbered, and IMHO deserve a little lattitude. And also because it only happened once. I certainly don’t want to spend time moderating comments, so lets all try and maintain the mainly good natured atmosphere which now stretches back over eight months and 3500+ comments. You never know, you might make it into the Guinness Book of Records.

  9. Max,
    I guess you would have the German ALDI supermarket-chain in Swiss-land? Here in Oz, they offer two kinds of mouthwash, red and blue, that each have apparently good specifications, but are cheaper than the locally violent Listerine in the normal outlets here.

    If I ever utter unmentionables, I use both red and blue, and afterwards feel that it might be that I have been to an RC confessional box. (In my imagination)

  10. These quotes from Jim Peden in an article here may be of interest:

    Quoting RealClimate.org as a reliable source of information on climate science is like quoting Disneyland.com for reliable information on mouse behavior.

    Jim Hansen and Al Gore are not inherently evil persons, but what they have done to spread worldwide panic and a hysterical rush to find a cure for what I and my 32,000 science brethren consider a nonexistent disease, is potentially the greatest calamity in the history of mankind which will lead to starvation for millions, if not billions of people on our planet.

    I’m rather less sure about the article itself, but the correspondence is worth reading.

  11. Sorry, Peden didn’t write the article – he was commenting on it.

  12. Robin 560,
    My word! you found a blog with some very knowledgeable commentors there, including expert reviewers of AR4 WG1 drafts!
    For others here, may I encourage a full read of it! There are some to-and-fros of course.

  13. Robin,

    Hee, Hee,

    Very good quotes…..

  14. Hi Bob,

    Thanks for tip. Yes we have ALDI.

    Will start off with the “red”.

    No “political decision” (European or US, where “red” is not quite the same), but having spent a few years in Hong Kong I’ve learned that the color “blue” brings bad luck if not instant death.

    Regards,

    Max

  15. Hi Robin.

    Very interesting dialogue on the site you cited.

    Interestingly, there were only very few “ad homs” (all from the pro-AGW camp), but most of the exchanges were well thought out.

    Thanks.

    Max

  16. Max:

    A while ago I put a comment here that was addressed to you:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=98#comment-599

    You may well have felt, with good reason, that it wasn’t worth a response, but there is a question in the last line that I would be very grateful for a reply to if you can spare the time.

    This isn’t in any way a windup, but it does refer to something that I have no first hand information on.

  17. Robin,

    Good link! I don’t think the author thought that he would be refuted so thoroughly. Wow…..the guy walked into a hornet’s nest.

    Max,

    The Blue vs. Red mouthwash…..is it environmentally sensitive? Is it “Green”?

  18. Peter:

    I have uploaded the Houghton Service here and, having listened to it again, I am no less astonished.

  19. Tony,
    Thanks for the link. Will listen shortly.

    Generally,

    Its interesting that you contrarians are all so jubilant. To read all the crowing prose that’s been written, you’d think that a Victory Parade had been organised for the weekend, with street parties to follow! Victory over the Environmentalists. A new VE day ! Will there be any Nuremburg type trials to follow?

    Just remind me again, how many of the worlds major scientific institutions have now come around to the idea that you guys have been right all along?

  20. Robin,

    Another quote from your article:

    “Real Climate” is a staged and contracted production, which wasn’t created by “scientists”, it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering. There you will find the word “model” used a million times, for the entire basis of the Global Warming Hoax is based on computer modeling ( not climate science ) which has thus far failed to predict anything accurately since day one.

    For example, one of their past clients, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, hired them to create the illusion that Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) was somehow dangerous, despite the fact that it had been fully tested and approved by the FDA. After a lengthy national fearmongering campaign by Environmental Media Services, Ben & Jerry’s proudly announced that their ice cream was “BGH-free”… as if it made any difference.

    Real Climate has become the Alamo for folks like the highly discredited Michael Mann, whose original analytical blunder led to the famous “hockey stick” curve, which helped kick off the Great Global Warming Hoax after it was picked up by science illiterate Al Gore and proudly paraded around the globe. The hockey stick was proven to be an absurd blunder, but by then you couldn’t put the genie back into the bottle, and today we are wasting billions of dollars on a cure for a nonexistent disease.

    Perhaps the best summary of “Real Climate” was given by a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who said,

    “This website appears to constitute a support center for global warming believers, wherein any criticism of global warming is given an answer that, however implausible, is then repeated by the reassured believers.”

  21. Bob_FJ,

    It’s good that the American Physical Society, and for whom I have the utmost respect, incidentally, is being mentioned approvingly by yourself, on this blog.

    You might like to include this quote, maybe on one of the other forums which are lucky enough to benefit from your insightful contributions to science, at some stage:

    In November of 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.”

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

  22. Hi Peter,

    At our last exchange you still had faith in the “consensus” opinion of a 3°C “climate sensitivity” (impact of doubling CO2, including assumed “feedbacks”).

    IPCC in its AR4 WG1 report (Chapter 10, p.759) states, “In response to a doubling in atmospheric CO2, the specific humidity increases by approximately 20% through much of the troposphere.” (Specific humidity is a measure of the mass of water vapor per unit mass of air, including the water vapor, expressed in %.)
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

    While this statement sounds very definite, it is not based on physically observed facts as one might imagine, it is rather an explanation of the assumption made and programmed into the computer models (GCMs), which are cited in the IPCC report.

    This assumption results in GCM projections of a significant “positive feedback” from increased atmospheric water vapor concentrations resulting from the temperature increases caused by higher CO2 levels. This feedback alone more than doubles the warming impact from increased CO2.

    “Water vapor feedback” is the most significant assumed “positive feedback” leading from a 2xCO2 warming of 1°C, as assumed by IPCC).

    Ant comments on this, Peter?

    Cloud feedbacks come next.

    Regards,

    Max

  23. Hi TonyN,

    To your question on the T. Boone Pickens proposal, I replied on your other site, but will also post here.

    Hi TonyN,

    Thanks for input on the T. Boone Pickens “wind” proposal.

    Is it a “Boone-doggle” or just a lot of Texas “hot air”?

    In any case, I’m sure TBP will be prospecting for some big bucks (and his wells usually do not come in “dry”).

    As I understand his (still to be released in detail) proposal, it starts from the assumption that the US balance of payments is seriously impacted by the massive amounts of very expensive oil imports (70% of its demand).

    It goes on to postulate that 30% of US electrical power generation comes from natural gas, and that this natural gas could easily be used as automotive fuel, thereby reducing the amount of oil imported.

    Further, he postulates that it is virtually impossible in the USA today to convert these natural gas power generation plants to nuclear plants in the next 10 years, due to resistance from green “environmental advocacy” groups that still hum the “Three Mile Island” and “Chernobyl” mantra.

    Then he points out that there is a lot of wind (not just hot air) in Texas and other regions from Texas to Canada, and that large scale German/Danish wind turbine technology (as piloted in Sweetwater, Texas) shows promise to be able to generate electrical power competitively at today’s energy costs.

    So his proposal to shift natural gas from power generation to automotive fuel by replacing it with wind power appears to make sense.

    Nuclear plants would make just as much sense (and probably be more viable economically), but his point is that they are not viable politically due to anti-nuc greenie groups (and their lawyers) today.

    I cannot judge whether or not his assumptions and postulations are correct or not; I can just say that this old oilfield guy and corporate raider has been right more times than he has been wrong, so his story is worth considering (for the USA, that is).

    Now to Switzerland.

    Wind power generation is an even worse prospect here than solar. Look out on Lake Geneva or other lakes. The wind surfers have a real hard time getting any action here.

    This is not “wind country”. Maybe (unlike in Texas) there are just too many mountains in the way.

    Regards,

    Max

    Message #2

    Hi TonyN,

    Back again.

    To the TBP proposal.

    Coal-fired power plants also make economic sense (for the USA that has major coal reserves), as does automotive fuel generation from coal (SASOL in South Africa), but with today’s AGW hysteria, these alternates also have a political hurdle to overcome.

    If the current global cooling trend continues for another year or so, this hurdle may just disappear as IPCC gets disbanded, Hansen gets retired and politicians (including Al Gore) switch to a new “crisis of the day”.

    But wiley old TBP is betting that that may take a bit longer and there are “problems to be solved and bucks to be made” today. After all, he’s getting up in years.

    Regards,

    Max

  24. Hi Peter,

    You asked Robin, “Just remind me again, how many of the worlds major scientific institutions have now come around to the idea that you guys have been right all along?”

    Hope you will both excuse me for chiming in.

    Peter, give them time. These guys are not the quickest to switch stories where ingrained paradigms are concerned. “Scientists” (and particularly “scientific institutions” are a bit stodgy that way. But that does not mean that they cannot eventually recognize and accept a “paradigm shift”.

    I’d say by 2010 (if current cooling continues) you’ll see the first reluctant defections. By 2015 (if it continues that far) you’ll see warnings from the same groups of another “human induced next ice age crisis” (1970’s style).

    What goes around comes around, Peter, as will the groups you mention.

    Regards,

    Max

  25. Peter,
    My 546+548 identified the Monckton paper discussing climate sensitivity.
    Your 549 denigrated Monckton as a “Cuckoo scientist” and thus he should be ignored.
    My 555 mentioned that the Monckton’s paper was published (on-line) by APS.
    Your 571 gave your utmost respect for the APS.
    Max’s 572 made certain enquiries and suggestions concerning your belief in a sensitivity of 3C.
    Max’s 470 earlier advised: Three more recent estimates of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity:
    1.1C Schwarz
    1.2C Minschwaner + Dessler
    1.8C Goosse et al.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    With that as background, I have several enquiries of you:
    1} Does your admiration of the APS exceed the admiration you have for RC, and do you think that the APS endorsement of the Monckton paper is more valued than any denigration from the fruitcake-minority group at RC?
    2} If you can find time to digest the Monckton paper and Max’s comments, would you please be kind enough to advise if you have any sound reasoning behind any preferred value of sensitivity?
    3} Do you think the IPCC range of 2.5 – 4.0 is reasonable?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha