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:
I hope that you are not under the impression that I wrote ‘The Case against Wind Farms’!
Wind is only partly a cop-out for not building nuclear. In the EU, nuclear does not count towards renewables targets; strange but true.
Incidentally, the poll which Robin linked to here suggests that US public opinion may be swinging towards an acceptance of nuclear, which surprised me.
So far as TBP is concerned, the scheme that he is proposing is a good example of the skills that have made him a billionare three times over, but this does not mean that it makes sense in terms of national energy policy. Energy, and particularly electricity generation, has a strategic as well as an economic dimension for all nations, and all decisions in this area must be long term; the scale of infrastructure development and capital investment are just so large. I do not think it is possible to justify short-term fixes.
Wind is a most expensive and inefficient way of generating electricity, and no degree of need will change this. If a strategic decision is taken to rely on this means of generation -and I saw something last night that suggests that Gore is now promoting this idea – then the world’s largest economy will are stuck with it for a long, long time. No nation can afford to fundamentally change its energy infrastructure every decade or so.
British wind policy is based, in part, on a report produced for the government about eighteen months ago. From memory, this predicted a backup requirement of only 2.5%, which was, of course, laughable. We will probably only learn what the true requirement is if and when large-scale wind generation gets under way. But in the UK there is a long history of overestimating output and underestimating backup.
A very good point, but what price is the US consumer prepared to pay for energy security? And will this really be less than the cost of imports when the cost of backup and distribution grid modifications are taken into account?
So far as TBP’s motives are concerned, I assume that they are the same as all businessmen, and this is not a criticism. It is exceptional entrepreneurs like Pickens who drive economies, and I see no blame in spotting a chance and taking with both hands it if it is within the law. The question is whether his scheme, and other similar ones that may follow, can be part of a sensible energy strategy. Given the situation in the US as you outline it, this may be so.
You make a very good case, but to what extent is this because it is being presented against the background of AGW hysteria and an oil price spike, a conjunction which, in itself, is unprecedented and contradictory?
#587, Brute:
I suspect that the disclaimer on the APS home page that I quoted last night had only just appeared when I saw it. No one had reported it at Anthony Watts blog then. I’ve always found him to be a very reliable source, but does anyone get everything right all the time?
The way in which the APS hierarchy are now trying to discredit one of their own newsletter editors is very revealing, but I am sure Marque would not have taken this risky line on AGW unless he was confident that it would have significant grass roots support among the membership.
This is from a comment I noticed at Watts’ site:
But as you commented just after this, you have probably seen it already.
Peter: you say that Andrew Bolt is “very right wing”. Do you mean that he advocates a military style authoritarian government that has strictly enforced racial purity as a main objective?
Even if he does, why does that effect his views on GW? After all, I think you’d probably agree that Hitler was “very right wing”. Yet he is said to have loved dogs and small children and to have been a vegetarian. Do you believe that that means that love of dogs and small children and vegetarianism are discredited?
I seriously suggest you try a little harder to avoid these pathetic ad hominem arguments.
Peter:
In #579 I said:
To which you replied:
In Harmless Sky’s one and only Sunday afternoon quiz, I asked if anyone could identify this quotation:
Robin commented:
Your response to what I said about environmentalism not being incompatible with AGW scepticism would seem to be an excellent example of what it means to ‘argue in front of your data’. But I do agree with most of what you said about wind generation.
Peter,
You wrote:
I could say the same thing about “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”, Al Gore or any number of the Limousine Liberals spouting off about their “concern” for the planet as they step off their private jets.
Bob,
Heresy! You’ve crossed the line with your Hanoi Jane worship! Have you been taking Liberal pills?
I can respect someone’s opposing views, but when a citizen of the United States lends aid and comfort to the enemy that is a treasonous act…….I don’t care if she is “easy”, (or “less than discerning”) in her sexual proclivities.
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm
Sorry Tony…….I drifted off topic again didn’t I……..
Tony/Max,
If I may………
I really don’t have a problem with Slim Pickens and his wind-mills; I just don’t want to have to pay for it.
It appears that Mr. Picken’s wind farm subsidy is about to run out and he is putting the bite on the American taxpayer to bail out his failed enterprise. I don’t have a problem with anyone making a profit; just risk your own money, not mine.
I’ve made poor decisions playing the stock market and in real estate. I had no illusion that anyone else would come to my rescue when these ventures failed.
If he is so certain about his plan he can gather some other investors to bring it to fruition…. He can lobby big business, Hollywood, (or the NBA for that matter), to raise the capital…….if it works; good for him.
Leave me out of it.
Tony: have you considered my post 580? My point there was that the APS’s policy statement is cleverly written so as to mean all things to all men, including most contributors to this thread. It is therefore not inconsistent with the line being taken by the editor of their newsletter: although their recent disclaimer is understandable given the current fuss, in my view it is strictly unnecessary.
To explain what I mean, I’ll spell their policy statement out – interpolated by my comments:
As it doesn’t specify the degree of change or whether it’s dangerous, most of us would probably agree.
That is surely a correct statement of fact.
Clearly that’s true – about 0.7 deg. C since 1850.
That seems reasonable if you take “mitigation” in its dictionary sense of lessening severity (indeed, why interpret it any other way?) – which might include, for example, building flood defences, improving water use or changing agricultural methods.
There are good economic and political reasons for doing just that.
That’s a remarkably welcome statement of uncertainty both re prediction and the impact of human activity.
No harm in that: again, there are sound economic and political reasons for sensible reduction.
Although it sounds tough at first reading, that’s IMHO a pretty mild statement – especially when you consider the pressures on the APS re funding etc (see Bob’s post 576). Where are the warnings about tipping points and global catastrophe so beloved by the alarmists? Add to all that the recent APS paper on climate change (see my quotations in post 580) and I would say that their position is sensibly balanced. The current debate would seem to be a logical continuation of that balance.
An extremely helpful (and interesting) step now would be for the APS to ballot its members to determine their individual views on the matter.
Here’s an interesting article – especially so as it appears in an Indian newspaper.
And, Peter, referring to your recent question (post 569):
Well, it seems that, as well as the American Physical Society, the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ocean Studies, the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Chemical Physics, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Inter-Agency Commission for Climate Change are on the list.
Hi Peter,
Maybe you and I are getting closer to agreement on one point. That is that the USA has a serious problem due to massive imports of costly oil, and this problem must be solved.
The French have been a lot more astute than either the Americans or the Brits (and certainly a lot smarter than the “greener” Germans) when it comes to installing nuclear power plants to reduce their dependence on imported fossil fuels.
TBP just thinks that the American have been so brainwashed by “greenie” groups that putting in new nuclear stations will be next to impossible in less than 10 years.
So, to solve the real energy trade deficit problem of the USA (not some nebulous, virtual, computer-generated “climate crisis”) he proposes a windmill solution to free up natural gas as a motor fuel.
Coal would do just as well, and the USA has large reserves, but the AGW aficionados (another “brainwashed greenie” group?) would make this very difficult to realize without silly and costly “carbon sequestering” schemes. TBP is aware of this “greenie” hurdle so circumvents it.
The Chinese do not have many “greenie” groups (and those few that exist do not have effective environmental activist lawyers). As a net exporter of coal, they can take care of their electrical power needs by building coal-fired stations as required. Problem solved.
The TBP proposal recognizes and gets around the “greenie” hurdles that exist in the USA today. That is not to say that even this proposal won’t be attacked by groups such as the Audubon Society and WWF, but TBP figures it has a better chance of flying than the two more economic and logical solutions of coal or nuclear.
Got a better idea? Let’s hear it if you do.
Regards,
Max
Hi Robin,
To your 609 re consensus of scientific organizations to “mainstream AGW view”.
Peter has told us about the consensus among “qualified” scientists on anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
But how about at the very top of the IPCC?
Here we have as Chair: Rajendra K. Pachauri, PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics.
We also have 3 Vice-Chairs:
Richard Odingo (Kenya), graduate degree in Geography
Mohan Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), Engineering, PhD in Physics, Economics
Yuri A.Izrael (Russia), PhD in Physics, Climate Science
So it appears that of the top 4 people in IPCC we also have 50% (the latter two) that would have the scientific credentials to have a qualified opinion on the science and the impact of AGW (giving Munasinghe as a physicist the benefit of the doubt).
Now, of this 50% we have one-half that clearly does not support the IPCC claim that: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Nor does he support IPCC predictions of potentially alarming negative impacts of global warming.
In dissenting with the [IPCC] scientific opinion on climate change, Izrael has stated, “climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it,” and, “there is no proven link between human activity and global warming.” “I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate,” and, “There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature’s influence, even when humanity did not even exist.” “Additionally, he does not believe the 0.6 C rise in temperature observed in the last 100 years is a threat, stating, “there is no scientifically sound evidence of the negative processes that allegedly begin to take place at such temperatures.” (Quotes from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Izrael ).
So we have one-half of the individuals at the top of IPCC that have the scientific credentials to be qualified to have an opinion on the science or impact of climate change, and, of this half, we have half that does not agree with (a) the science behind the IPCC claims linking human activity to current warming or (b) the potentially serious negative impact of global warming.
So much for “scientific consensus at the top”.
Regards,
Max
Robin,
RE: Post #608
Good job, I’d forgotten that you are an attorney……
Re: #580 and #608, Robin
I think that you are right, and the the APS statement is carefully drafted to mean all things to all men. When it was first promulgated, I seem to remember that there was a bit of a row because it had been produced by the executive committee without any consultation with the membership, but I have been unable to find my reference for this and I may be confusing the APS with the AGU.
It is irritating that Anthony Watts relied on the DailyTech’s version of events, and now I see that Steve Milloy is taking the same exaggerated line at JunkScience.There is no need to pretend that Marque’s views are those of the APS’s governing body. The story is quite interesting enough if it is reported accurately.
Sceptics have no need to use such tactics.
I have put up a new post about a very controversial wind generation project here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=100
Hi Brute,
As a US taxpayer you should be leery of any energy problem fix-up boondoggles that may be out there (607).
I have no opinion on that.
It just seems that TBP’s proposal makes more technical and economic sense for the USA than UK windmill projects (according to TonyN input).
I think we agree that the most logical (and economic) solution would be to add nuclear stations to replace gas-fired generation, freeing up the gas for motor fuel. And there is no shortage of nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future (and there is always thorium and fast breeder technology around the corner).
Putting in coal-fired stations (with cleanup of real pollutants, such as sulfur, heavy metals, etc.) would also do the trick (and the USA has plenty of coal).
But TBP tells us these two avenues are blocked by the “greenies” (of the anti-nuke or AGW variety) and their lawyers, so that an alternate is needed.
Another solution would be to ignore the US legal process and these lawyers and just go ahead (like France has done) and build new nuclear plants or (like China has done) new coal-fired plants.
But the USA is not France (and certainly not China).
Now, I do not mean any offense to Robin, whose wise and erudite comments on this site I greatly appreciate, and who happens to be a lawyer by education (and a business executive by career, if I’m right), but here is a statistic that may help explain why France and China are having more success in addressing energy needs than the USA.
China has 110,000 lawyers for a population of 1.32 billion people (0.008% of the population). [Not a good place to be if you need a lawyer, for more than one reason.]
France has 46,000 lawyers for a population of 64 million people (0.072% of the population). [Not a bad place to be for many reasons.]
USA has 1,100,000 lawyers for a population of 301 million people (0.365% of the population). [A great place to be, I’m sure, unless you get involved in litigation or want to build a power station, refinery or whatever; cover yourself with liability insurance in any case.]
So, given the circumstances, what do you think the viable alternates are for the USA to get out of its 700 billion dollar annual trade deficit due to expensive oil imports as quickly as possible?
Regards,
Max
Robin,
I see that you still haven’t grasped the meaning of ‘ad-hominem’! Applying the term right wing to Andrew Bolt is just descriptive. Ask anyone in Australia, including Andrew himself, and they’ll tell you he’s right wing. Very right wing.
However if I’d followed the more Australian style of prose adopted by these guys
http://www.ausculture.com/archives/000882.html
who write “Andrew Bolt, right-wing piss-stain from the Herald Sun……”
You may have had a point.
PS I’m busy the rest of today but will try to answer more points tomorrow.
Hi TonyN,
Thanks for all your thoughts (601).
Again, I am not promoting TBP’s case for wind power as the only means for freeing up natural gas from power generation to motor fuel use in order to reduce the USA’s oil import bill.
He has stated his case and promises to provide more details. Let’s see what he comes up with.
Yes, I agree with you that “wind is a most expensive and inefficient way of generating electricity, and no degree of need will change this”. I might add that solar (with the exception of small-scale domestic use) is probably even less cost effective.
TBP tells the world that the new giant windmills installed in Sweetwater, Texas, have a higher efficiency than earlier smaller ones. I guess one would have to look at the installed fixed capital (plus operating cosrs) for a 1500MW station versus other alternates, including some value for the price of land (even in West Texas).
You ask, “what price is the US consumer prepared to pay for energy security? And will this really be less than the cost of imports when the cost of backup and distribution grid modifications are taken into account?”
I cannot answer that and I have not seen any estimates from TBP as yet. The installation cost for the windmills themselves plus the grid modifications would need to be considered, although I do not believe any additional investment would need to be made for the gas-fired station backups, since these already exist (it would just mean keeping the most efficient of these in backup service for wind-free periods). TBP could argue that these expenditures would largely be one time US expenditures benefiting US companies, contractors, etc., rather than on-going expenditures going outside the USA to import oil.
But I believe the crux of the matter regarding the TBP proposal is: what are the economically and politically viable alternates and how do they compare?
As far as I can see these are:
1. Do nothing and continue to import 700 billion $ annually (and growing) in foreign oil indefinitely
2. Open up drilling in Alaska and offshore and hope this will ease the import burden within the next few years
3. Open up oil shale development (assuming this technology is now economically viable at current oil prices) and hope this can start bringing in some major new oil in 10 years or so
4. Develop renewable motor bio-fuels that are more efficient and cost-effective than corn ethanol and hope this can start to ease the import burden in a big way in 5 to 10 years
5. Shut down natural gas fired plants and free up the natural gas for motor fuel by:
a. building wind stations (TBP concept)
b. building nuclear stations
c. building coal-fired stations
6. Convert US automobile industry and consumers to efficient hybrid or all-electrical cars and build the power generation plants required for this (nuclear, coal-fired or ?)
7. Use improved fuel cell technology and safe hydrogen handling technology to switch to a nuclear or coal-based “hydrogen economy” for motor fuels
8. Do not get side-tracked by chasing the AGW goals of CO2 reduction and concentrate instead on the primary issue of reducing US dependency on foreign oil
A combination of many of these alternates will probably be required.
In my mind, it is important that the primary goal of achieving energy sufficiency is not “side tracked” by other, more nebulous, goals, such as reducing greenhouse emissions, “saving the world as we know it from irreversible climate tipping points”, etc. (point 8)
You point out that, “AGW hysteria and an oil price spike”, is, in itself, “unprecedented and contradictory”, is right to the point.
To see T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore on the same soapbox is truly “unprecedented and contradictory”.
But if I had to pick one of the two for a solution to the problems, which the USA faces today, I’d go for TBP. He’s got a better “track record” of being right than Al.
Appreciate any comments you may have on all this.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyN,
There are probably more, but in my list of alternates I forgot to mention #9:
Follow the example of SASOL (S. Africa) and develop coal to liquid fuel (and petrochemical feedstock) technology to reduce the need for petroleum imports.(The AGW guys won’t like this one, since it apparently generates a lot of CO2, but it could help the USA become self sufficient, and that is the principal goal here.)
Regards,
Max
Regards,
Max
Max,
You might find this synopsis extract from a new paper interesting
Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warmingstates that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as aresult of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase inatmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and othergreenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’ssurface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which wasnever verified (Arrhenius, 1896).The proponents of this theory take intoconsideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e.,radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa >0.2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred byconvection (Sorokhtin, 2001a).
It has just been raised at CA BB, and if someone spends money to access the full paper, it will be interesting to follow the debate @
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=404&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p8419 (see link to full synopsis there)
Max,
Further to my post on a new paper claiming most heat transfer from the surface is via convection.
Here is another almost duplicate discussion at CA BB
There is also a parallel thread discussing convection displacing radiation near the surface
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=423&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Max,
You might find this synopsis extract from a new paper interesting
Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warmingstates that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as aresult of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase inatmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and othergreenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’ssurface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which wasnever verified (Arrhenius, 1896).The proponents of this theory take intoconsideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e.,radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa >0.2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred byconvection (Sorokhtin, 2001a).
It has just been raised at CA BB, and if someone spends money to access the full paper, it will be interesting to follow the debate @
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=404&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p8419 (see link to full synopsis there)
TonyN: Another two of your comments got spammed this morning. Someone who I was talking to yesterday suggested that Akismet may temporarily blacklist ISP’s because they are briefly the unwilling hosts to spammers. When the spam flood subsides, things return to normal. This might explain why your problems are intermittent. I can find no common factor in your comments that would provide another explanation.
Fair enough, Peter, I’ll take your (and it seems Andrew Bolt’s) word for it (post 616) that he’s very right wing. Presumably that means that, as I indicated before, he inclines towards a military-style totalitarian government favouring racial purity. Interesting.
But what I don’t understand is what that has to do with his views on climate change. No doubt you’ll explain.
Re: #617 & #618
All the alternatives that you mention, except wind, have the advantage of producing energy when its wanted and at a predicable rate.
I have no problem with your underlying argument except that the Pickens scheme seems viable only because it has been formulated in very particular circumstances; expensive oil and AGW hysteria. The balance of payments problem that oil imports is causing in the US at the moment is closely linked to the former and to the weakness of the dollar.
This post outlined a scenario which links high oil prices to AGW politics. As I have been unable to find anyone who agrees with me on this it may well be rubbish, but on the other hand no one has been prepared to tell me why I am wrong either.
Having lived through an awful lot of market bubbles, there seem to be certain characteristics that they all have in common. At the outset, pundits claim that the fundamentals have changed and this is not a short-term blip. Later the market swings the other way and everyone busies themselvese with being wise after the event.
The only contingency that I know of that is likely to keep oil prices high in the long-term is my own hair-brained idea about AGW hysteria affecting sentiment in the oil production sector.
As I suggested before, energy strategy should be formulated in terms of decades. Reacting to fashionable short-term concerns seems dangerous.
TonyN, thanks your note on 621,
FYI only….. I’m not whinging
I actually tried an experiment, which was why my 619 is duplicated by 621.
I noticed that in the first case of 619, that PREVIEW
PREVIEW,
For some mysterious reason was headlined twice, but had nothing to show, but since this is fairly common for me, I submitted it anyway. It “evaporated” with no indication that it was in moderation whatever. (Some sites display your post if you are logged-in with the message; “In moderation”, so fine, you know there is no point in checking if you screwed-up in some way, and are not left wondering).
I then loaded 620, and this time, the PREVIEW appeared, I submitted it, and it took OK.
So, I thought; FUNNY! the only real difference with 619 was slightly shorter text, and a slightly shorter link, but they were both links to the same website. Neither posts had any bad key-words like terrorist or Tamino, as far as I can see.
So, I reloaded 619, (as 621) and lo-and-behold, whoopee, this time the PREVIEW appeared, and I submitted it…… Only to be disapointed
Ho Hum
These 3 posts were only a few minutes apart.
BTW, a little while back you said that you tried a different spam thingie over the W/E. I was just about to say to you, hey it looks good, because I sent a post with TWO long links OK, when you announced that you found a problem with it.
Of course, in this game, I guess a one-off bit of luck like that, means nothing!
Good luck Tony
TonyN: Thanks for your feedback Bob. I intend to try another preview plugin soon as the present one is hopeless. I do not moderate comments before they are posted and the alternative spam filter that I tried a while back certainly didn’t work for me. I think that the explanation that I suggested in my note on your #621 may be the answer, but the net is never short of surprises. Keep the feedback coming.
Brute: thanks for your comment (612). A legal training has its uses (OK, Max, you’re right: some countries have too many lawyers) – for example, it helps you to look carefully at what documents really say rather than at what people (and especially journalists) think they say. Hence my comments about the APS policy statement. Interestingly, it also applies to the IPCC: viz. its use of “most” not “all”, “projection” not “prediction”, “mitigation” not “prevention” … etc. But a legal training also helps to analyse the small print – something that most people understandably find tedious. And most journalists are too lazy to do.
I mentioned an example re the IPCC in my post 487 (addressed to Peter – also see 528, to which I awaiting his reply). I drew attention to a table (SPM.2.) on page 8 of the SPM of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, Working Group 1. It’s headed,
The table lists seven “Phenomena” – including, for example, “Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas” and “Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas”. I examined the third column, headed, “Likelihood of a human contribution”. That’s interesting itself: “a human contribution” is hugely different from the “due to” used elsewhere by the IPCC – a “human contribution” could be as little as 1%, whereas “due to” means 100%. The “human contribution” is assessed, for five of the “Phenomena”, as “more likely than not” and, for the other two, as “likely”. (Note: none is assessed as “very likely” – the IPCC phrase we keep hearing.) Moreover, for four of the seven phenomena, a footnote (f) says “Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies” i.e. it’s little more than guesswork.
So, to summarise, I’ll take one of the listed phenomena: “Warm spells/heat waves. Frequency increases over most land areas.” Here a human contribution is judged (but without a formal attribution study) to be “more likely than not”. In other words, there’s a better than evens chance that there may be some human contribution to the observed phenomenon. I would say that’s a pretty poor basis on which to be taking major steps that could seriously damage our economies – indeed it’s arguably a poor basis for doing anything much at all.
Yet there it is in the heart of the IPCC report. As Michael Caine is supposed to have said – not a lot of people know that.