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.
Peter 571,
Well I guess the APS, AGU and AAAS and many other institutions in alarmist countries all have much the same problem, in that they have to look-after their members as best they can. (Not easy; because not all members think identically)
Out of curiosity I Googled “APS funding“, and found this GEM, that I quote in part:
(Adopted by Council [APS] on April 15, 2005)
Federal investments by agencies such as DOE, NSF, NASA, DOD and NIST are indispensable to the vitality of our nation’s research programs in physics and the physical sciences. The investments are essential for maintaining economic growth and generating jobs; ensuring national, homeland and energy security; educating and training the workforce of the future; and contributing to disciplines such as biomedicine and engineering…
…The American Physical Society calls specific attention to the following statements embodied in these reports:
[1] & [2] deleted by Bob_FJ for brevity
[3] “…[T]he U.S. government has seriously under-funded basic scientific research in recent years… [T]he inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine. American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to national security. If we do not invest heavily and wisely in rebuilding these two core strengths, America will be incapable of maintaining its global position long into the 21st century.”
Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change
Do you recognise the Hansen style scare tactics here?
Members with an offended conscience are hardly likely to resign^, for professional reasons, but at least APS allows rational publications such as by Monckton, that you tried to denigrate
^ BTW, there was an interesting discussion somewhere by rebellious members of the AGU….. that I’m trying to think on how to locate again.
Max: I don’t think Peter’s question about the “world’s major scientific institutions” was addressed to me – it was addressed “Generally”. But I have a question for Peter: how many of these institutions sought their members’ detailed views on climate change before they issued their “official statements”?
Also Peter: you’re great on sweeping generalisation re, for example, “contrarians’” jubilation and “crowing prose”, but less good at reading carefully what those with whom you disagree are really saying. Read for example my post 505: I’m far from jubilant nor will you find any examples of crowing prose. On the contrary, I am utterly dismayed at the way that the leaders of the Western democracies are in thrall to poor advice about climate change (largely based on outdated assumptions and unreliable computer modelling, creating the IPCC’s “cascade of uncertainty”) – and, in consequence, are taking half-baked and inconsistent actions that do little (if anything) to reduce CO2 emissions but which damage our economies and do harm to our most vulnerable people. Yet what really happens in the world will be determined largely by increasingly powerful authoritarian states and massively growing economies that care little for the IPCC’s claimed “consensus”.
So, Peter, as I said just a few days ago, perhaps you will now “comment sensibly on my post 505 rather than indulge in unwise generalisation about other people’s motivation”. Having done that, perhaps you will have the courtesy to reply to the questions I spelled out carefully in post 528.
#573, Max
Response here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=98#comment-839
Peter, #569
Yes, the morale of sceptics is higher than it was a year ago, but why imply that scepticism about AGW is incompatible with environmentalism? Co2 emissions are only one of the symptoms of industrialisation, and that leaves plenty of room for common ground between AGW sceptics and environmentalists over other, avoidable, human impacts on the natural world.
So far as tribunals for dissenter of either persuasion are concerned, that seems to be exclusively the preserve of the eco-facists.
Peter seems very pleased with his quotation from the APS’s statement on climate change. So, it’s instructive to “unpack” it. In doing so, you have to imagine a committee of assorted administrators, bureaucrats and physicists – some perhaps with special knowledge of climate science – all conscious of the need to maintain their good name with government agencies to maintain funding (see Bob’s post at 576), sitting at a table trying to produce something bland enough to appeal to all men, including their own members whose opinions they (probably) haven’t requested. Then read it line by line and you’ll find they’ve done a good job: it doesn’t really say anything with which most contributors to this thread would disagree: the whole of the first paragraph is undeniable, as is the first sentence of the second – as is the second if mitigation is read in its dictionary sense of lessening severity; which might include, for example, building flood defences should they prove necessary. As to the “last” paragraph – there are lots of good economic reasons for reducing emissions.
I said “last” because there’s a clue to the APS’s real position in the final paragraph, which Peter chose to omit. It says,
So now we find that the APS is uncertain about AGW and about what might be done about it. And an examination of their website uncovers, unsurprisingly, many examples of this (sensible and unsurprising) uncertainty. For example, a paper published by the APS for a March conference about “Challenges in Predicting Climate Change” and referring to GCMs, noted:
Also here are some quotations from the Conclusions of a short APS paper on climate change (published like the paper mentioned much more recently than the statement referred to by Peter):
Now that’s a very different position: I wonder why Peter chose not to tell us about it.
Peter, further to the above (580), in your post 569 you asked the “contrarians” to “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?” Well, it seems that the American Physical Society, for whom you “have the utmost respect”, might be one. Perhaps you’d better double check the others.
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
Oh no Peter, another defection……
No smoking hot spot
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Oh my God…………..you were saying Peter? It seems as though your consensus is evaporating.
APS Reverses Position on Global Warming- cites “Considerable presence” of skeptics
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/
PROVED: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=310&Itemid=1
I must say that you guys are a little premature in claiming that the APS have suddenly switched over to supporting the line you’ve have been pushing for the last few years.
We can all make selective quotations from their latest pronouncement. For instance I could quote “The consensus of the scientific community is clear: increasing emissions of greenhouse gases will inevitably cause the levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere to rise, which will change the Earth’s climate.” There isn’t much in it for the most extremist of views. For instance, Brute will be particularly disappointed that he can’t quote them in saying it ‘s all been a big hoax.
If you on the other hand, if you are now saying that you agree with the APS, well that’s great. There isn’t much in the report that I would disagree with. One exception would be their statement that “The connection between energy use and climate change is practically nonexistent in the public mind ” . Its fair enough to say that public education on the issue is not what it might be, but it isn’t non-existent.
The report does emphasise the degree of uncertainties on the issue. That obviously pleases people like Robin. He gleefully quotes phrases such as “While the inevitability of climate change is generally accepted, the magnitude and nature of these changes are still uncertain”. In his mind, the word “uncertain” seems to be interpreted in the way that most sensible people would interpret the words ‘negligibly small”. The slightest degree of uncertainty negates the argument. By the same logic, if he were in a burning building he’d refuse to come out if there were contradictory evidence over the length of time that he had to spare. Or if it were the smoke or the flames that was the greatest danger.
#584, Brute
Anthony Watts seems to have based his story on a report at the DailyTech. Things may not be quite as they seem, although this is still very interesting news. The following note has appeared on the APS home page:
It is very interesting that an editor of an APS newsletter should feel confident enough to do this, but it is not quite the same as the society changing their statement on climate change.
Hi TonyM
Re your #578. Your write-up, “The Case against Windfarms”, is interesting.
It points out that wind power is (to some extent) a cop-out for nuclear generation, driven by an unrealistic anti-nuc hysteria fueled by the specters of “Three Mile Island” (a non-event) and “Chernobyl” (a real event in the old unsafe USSR days).
This makes sense. Nuclear (fission) is the way to go technically and economically, with fast-breeder technology helping increase the viability (and reduce the waste problem) in the future.
But TBP is a businessman. He is addressing a specific problem the USA faces today: the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in trade imbalance to import a growing percentage of its energy requirements. He is looking at finding a solution quickly in order to reduce this. He sees what can and cannot be done fairly clearly. He believes that the current political climate regarding nuclear power in the USA will make it impossible for the USA to implement what France has done within the next 10 years. He has stated that (with the current greenie opposition, environmentalist lawyers and the permit approval process) it takes at least 10 years to construct and start up a major nuclear plant in the USA. And he says the USA does not have 10 years to solve the bleeding from importing energy.
He does not propose new coal-fired plants to do this (another very logical solution for the USA, which has abundant coal reserves). Again, it is his shrewd businessman’s “what can and cannot be done” filter at work. With all the AGW ballyhoo and hysteria out there it will be hard for the USA to start doing what China has been doing for the past several years, i.e. start up a new coal-fired power station every week (without doing something as costly and silly as “carbon sequestering”). Again, the US system, greenie opposition, etc. make this otherwise technically feasible and economically viable alternate politically impossible to realize in time to solve the energy import crisis of the USA. China does not have this “greenie” and lawyer problem.
So he believes large-scale wind plants to free up methane for automotive fuel could be the solution to help bridge this gap.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a big fan of “wind farms”, nor am I on TBP’s payroll, but I think his proposal may make sense as a partial solution for the current energy problem the USA faces.
This problem the USA faces is totally different from the UK situation. The USA consumes over 20 million bbl/d petroleum products, of which it imports 70% today (and this percentage is growing daily). This represents a negative trade balance of close to $700 billion annually.
The UK is a net (if minor) exporter of oil. There is no major negative “trade balance” from energy. It consumes 1.8 million bbl/d and has proven reserves of over 4 billion bbl and “possible” but unproven reserves of another estimated 1.5 billion bbl (enough to cover today’s level of consumption for another 8+ years).
So we have a basically different starting point.
Your article refers to the viability of large-scale wind plants from a UK perspective (and, I suppose, a European perspective in general). These plants are ugly. They take up lots of real estate. Your study points out that a 1500 MW wind station would require 600 sq.km. of real estate, versus 2 sq.km. for a nuclear plant.
But TBP is talking about setting these up in West Texas and other similar spots, where there is a lot of available real estate and few inhabitants.
The UK report discusses the pros and cons of subsidies currently available in the UK and EU for constructing wind farms; this is not directly relevant for the USA proposal of TBP.
Audubon Society members (believe it’s the Birdwatching Society in the UK) will tell you how they chop up birds, etc. Death of raptor birds is cited as a major concern in the UK report. In the desert country of West Texas there only a few high flying buzzards around.
If home appliance builders can figure out a way to put a screen around a home fan to keep a 2-year old from sticking his fingers in, the windmill guys should be able to figure out something similar for their giant “fans”. Don’t believe this is “rocket science”.
The UK coastal areas are described as “Britain’s ‘green lungs’ and havens of peace for the mending of broken souls”. The loss of income from tourism is mentioned. Sure the windmills in West Texas will “defile the pristine high desert” (I can already here the howls from the WWF and Sierra Club) and inconvenience a few coyotes, rattlesnakes and other local denizens plus the occasional desert backpacker, but it is a different story than in densely populated Europe. And the wind blows incessantly.
This is another point made in the UK report. It points out that wind is not constant, so cannot provide a source of uninterrupted power.
Wind is more “reliable” in West Texas than in North Wales (TBP presentation shows the USA wind corridor), so this may be less of a concern. For the UK the report states that an 80% installed backup capacity would be required to assure uninterrupted supply (maybe this is only 40% in West Texas).
But the most important difference is that TBP is proposing replacing power from already installed gas fired power plants in order to free up the natural gas consumed there for use as an alternate motor fuel. A good percentage of these existing plants use gas turbines. The more efficient ones could be left in standby service for wind-free periods, without involving new capital investment for standby stations (gas turbine stations are particularly flexible and suited for standby use). This would still divert the major portion of the gas currently used for power generation to motor fuel use.
The UK does not have this situation today, as the article points out, “so the paradox of building windmills is that you have to build a lot of ordinary power stations to back them up and these are going to be almost certainly gas in the short to medium term”.
The UK windmill article is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (an endeavor of highly doubtful significance), while the TBP proposal is focused on reducing a major trade imbalance (that is rapidly bleeding the USA to death).
So, all in all, the differences between the UK situation and that in the USA are so great that a comparison is really hard to make.
Now as to TBP’s motives. He apparently believes the USA is in a crisis and believes his proposal would offer a solution.
Sure, he is probably figuring on being in on the action (and making a buck on the deal).
Just as Al Gore is also cashing in on the AGW hysteria, TBP will probably do the same with his scheme.
The difference is that his proposal might help the USA solve a real energy crisis, while Al Gore offers no real solutions to a virtual, computer-generated global warming “non-crisis”.
Sorry for being long-winded, but went through the UK report in detail, so figured a detailed reply would be in order.
Regards,
Max
The Australian newspaper isn’t exactly another defection. They, like the UK’s The Sun have consistently taken an anti-AGW line, not to say anti-science line.
Both newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch. It must be a just a co-incidence that his newspapers tend to push an anti-AGW line. He has always given his full assurance that his editors have full and independent editorial control of ‘their’ papers.
You don’t understand Peter. I don’t believe or claim “that the APS have suddenly switched over…” Notwithstanding the DailyTech comment, there’s no reason for the APS to change its position that “the evidence for global warming [is] “incontrovertible””. It is incontrovertible – the globe has warmed by about 0.7 deg C since 1850. But that fact is wholly compatible with the APS’s views I quoted at post 580 (views you somehow overlooked): these make it clear that the APS has consistently been aware of uncertainties about climate change. I see their current activities as a logical continuation of that position. BTW “most sensible people” have no difficulty in interpreting “uncertain”: it’s the opposite of “certain”. And alarmists (and the APS is clearly not one) have been telling us for years that dangerous global warming is certain unless we mend our ways.
Incidentally, my five final quotations (post 580) are not “selective” in the sense of hiding less appropriate quotations but are essentially a complete summary of the 2008 document’s conclusions. Go and read them for yourself.
Also, it is interesting that the editor of the APS newsletter acknowledges that,
It’s good to see an important scientific institution drawing attention to this: so much for the much-vaunted “mainstream” science. These are welcome developments.
BTW, Peter, your burning building analogy is false. As I’ve told you before, I dislike argument by analogy. But, to humour you, I’ll review yours: for the analogy to be accurate, the uncertainty would be about whether the building was on fire or not. Before evacuating it (in an orderly manner), I would determine the truth of the situation. You, however, would doubtless rush out immediately, shouting “fire, fire” – thereby causing dangerous panic.
Tony/Peter,
I simply found the announcement on Anthony Watts page and forwarded it……I didn’t add (much) commentary. Robin and Peter were discussing the APS just yesterday……I thought the timing was coincidental. Another coincidence is that Al Gore made a speech today and while I didn’t listen to it in it’s entirety, what I did hear was a softening of rhetoric and a less condescending, less confident, tone. It seems to me that the APS has been stalwart in their assertion that “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”; for the author to write this opinion in any publication remotely associated with the APS is noteworthy. My only point is I’m seeing differing points of view from outlets that were formally blindly adhering to the global warming talking points…..that’s all……..and I am teasing Peter somewhat.
From the article in the Australian: “As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
As far as my “defection” comment, I was referring to David Evans…..the author of the article printed in the Australian not the publication itself. I didn’t know that Murdoch owns the paper, (of course he owns quite a few things, so I’m not surprised).
Also, Peter may have been misinformed regarding Murdoch’s views on Global Warming.
Rupert Murdoch Changes Mind On Global Warming
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1734160/posts
I don’t know much about Evans except that he was self admittedly a proponent of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming doctrine and has since changed his mind, (come to his senses) and worked formerly in the Australian Greenhouse Office researching this topic.
Peter,
Climate Progress is run by Soros and Hillary Clinton……….not exactly pure as the driven snow, (and I can go on and on and on); shall we discuss RealClimate.org? Every news organization/blog site/web site is funded by someone/something.
I view this site as a friendly discussion amongst people interested in a common topic. It is a stimulating debate and helps keep, (what’s left of), my mind sharp……..a pleasant, early evening diversion………….
In the grand scheme of things, “most likely”, nothing written here will have an enormous impact on the overall debate and I would hope that we would all be able to shake hands and go our separate ways at last call.
Postscript:
I’ve also been around long enough to recognize when a topic/viewpoint is being promoted for reasons other than it’s intended purpose. Many prophets of global warming have much more on their minds than “saving the planet”. Alarmism and inflated rhetoric have been proven throughout history to garner a “consensus”, when the truth is something wholly different.
Robin,
I liked your anaolgy, Post # 591……chuckle, chuckle.
Evidence doesn’t bare out alarmist claims of global warming
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-25717,00.html
Peter,
Does Murdoch own this one also?
Yes he does.
Rupert Murdoch may claim to take a hands off approach. But he does have a habit of hiring those with a very right wing political inclination such as Andrew Bolt.
PS Now that you come to mention it, I do seem to remember that Rupert Murdoch is supposed to on ‘our’ side on this one, but I’ve seen precious little evidence in practice that he, or any of his news empire lends any support at all. You’ll be familiar with his Fox so called news channel.
Tony,
I take your point that you are an environmentalist , in the sense that you have raised valid objections to the construction of large scale wind turbine farms. Wind turbines have their application, but not in the way that is being promoted at the moment. However, you are in the strange company of hardeneded climate sceptics, for whom the term ‘environmentalist’ conjures up images of hippies, Jane Fonda, Swampy, Al Gore etc and no doubt makes them want to reach for their guns!
I would summarise the thought process of politicians on the contsruction of wind turbines as: 1)CO2 emissions are a problem. 2) We must do something. 3) Building Wind turbines is something.
It may be something but it not enough, and due to the nature of the electricity grid, new technology in the form of cheap energy storage would have to be developed, and invented, for it to make a significant difference. At the moment I’d say that renewables could supply about about 20%. Absolute tops. The problem is that the energy consumed has to exactly equal the energy produced. By its nature the energy produced from wind is unpredictable.
Like or not the choice is between coal and nuclear for base load supply. Natural gas can be used to provide extra supplies to satisfy the peaks at short notice.
You might like to know that not all environmentalists oppose nuclear power. You might want to take a look at :
http://www.ecolo.org/
This French based environmental group might make better allies too! I have been following the Tour de France on TV and I haven’t seen a single wind turbine to spoil their beautiful countryside.
Hey Peter,
You somehow seem to equate an “anti-AGW line”, as you state “the UK’s The Sun have consistently taken” with an “anti-science line”.
Peter, do you truly believe that an “anti-AGW line” is the same as an “anti-science line”?
If so, how do you explain all the scientists who do not support the “AGW line”?
Please elaborate.
Regards,
Max
Peter,
I would like to declare that I admire Jane Fonda in her broad principles, if not entirely.
I might be slightly influenced by my personal perception that she was a gorgeous woman to me in her more youthful years.
Brute, you may be offended by my opinion?
Sorry, if that is the case, but I also ADMIRE your rationalism, views, and and your humour!
Pete,
You wrote in part:
I do seem to remember that Rupert Murdoch is supposed to on ‘our’ side on this one
‘Our’ side?