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.
The Ethanol Bubble Pops in Iowa
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000832377530477.html
Well, well – it seems from this that our allegedly “green” Government is beginning to face reality at last:
Brute: I haven’t looked at that Guardian thread for some time – I ceased to bother with it when the alarmists’ “arguments” became absurdly childish. Therefore, I cannot comment on current developments. But, generally, I would say that, although the Guardian itself has a left wing agenda, it seems pretty open to alternative views. For example, some of its political columnists have tried recently to speak up for our increasingly beleaguered and seemingly corrupt government. Many (probably most) of the online criticisms of these articles have been extraordinarily hostile – but they’ve been allowed through. On the other hand, re the Singh thread, I complained about two posts that were insultingly rude (one for example, instead of dealing with my argument, called me “a liar”) and both were removed promptly.
But the bottom line, I suppose, is that its their site and they are entitled to do what they like there – just as TonyH is here and Joe Romm is on his site. The fact that they are free to regulate their site is, I suggest, the mark of a free society. Surely you’re not suggesting that there should be some overriding regulation of web sites? That would be a frightening development.
Understandable.
No, but in the interest of journalistic integrity I would think that those operating the site would allow alternate views. I would think that if anyone would be adamant about respecting free speech it would be a newspaper. How is the Guardian funded?
Of course, here in the United States, lately, newspapers and other media outlets tend to respect free speech rights that they agree with and attempt to suppress those that they disagree with. I wasn’t knocking the British press earlier……I just was of the mindset that they were slightly more “fair-minded” in general.
There has been a lot of discussion on this site as well as elsewhere (and extensive media hype) about sea ice extent (especially in the Arctic), but it might be good to summarize the situation.
For the past 29 years the NSIDC has been measuring the extent of sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic.
Both regions show a large seasonal variation. On the average, the end-September / end-March readings have been 6.7 and 15.6 (million square kilometers) in the Arctic. In the Antarctic this seasonal swing is even greater due to the differences in geography, with average end-March / end-September readings of 4.4 and 18.8.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135
Over the brief period that we have been able to measure with satellites, we have seen that the sea ice extent has declined slightly in the Arctic and increased slightly in the Antarctic. The extent is measured monthly and compared to that same month over the baseline period of 1979-2000 to determine the trend.
In the past, we know from spot records that Arctic sea ice appears to have receded significantly over multi-decadal periods (1930s/1940s, for example), but we have no comprehensive records prior to 1979.
The rate of Arctic sea ice decline appeared to accelerate rapidly in 2007, reaching an all-time low, as is now believed to have been caused by a combination of shifting wind patterns and slightly warmer Arctic temperatures. This accelerating trend appears to have reversed itself and the extent is back well above the summer 2007 levels.
There has been much attention given to the recent summer melting. AGW-supporters have used this recent decline of Arctic summer sea ice to “prove” that humans are causing global warming, calling it the “canary in the coal mine”, and predicting an ice free Arctic summer, with dire consequences for the polar bears. A second concern has been that our planet’s surface albedo would be altered due to the smaller extent of sea ice (reflecting less of the incoming solar energy), thereby providing a “positive feedback” with global warming.
NSIDC spokesman, Mark Serreze, has issued several press releases warning of the dire consequences, which have been picked up by an eager press.
The Antarctic sea ice has been growing steadily since measurements started, but there has been very little media attention, as this does not provide a “canary in the coal mine” to support AGW.
Globally there has been a slight linear reduction statistically (about 1% per decade) due to the extreme Arctic lows of 2007, but on average the overall levels are well above 1980 levels and slightly above the 1979-2000 baseline. As a result, the global extent has actually increased slightly (so there should be no global albedo problem leading to more global warming) as feared.
Unfortunately “bad news travels fast and dies hard”.
The fact that Arctic sea ice has again recovered from its 2007 summer lows, and that Antarctic sea ice is growing steadily is “good news”. This travels much less rapidly.
Mark Serezze has been quiet recently, but everyone still remembers the dire warnings of two years ago of an ice-free summer and the predictions of disaster for the polar bears.
The only ones that have not heard these messages of doom are the polar bears, themselves, whose population has grown from a few thousand 40 years ago to around 25,000 today.
Max
Robin,
I seriously doubt that Peter will respond to my post outlining my imagination of what the “AGW-groupie” belief system looks like, in comparison to Peter’s imagined “AGW-denialist” viewpoint, which I corrected and adjusted to fit my personal viewpoint (and to which you have also added your comments).
It would force him to get too specific, which we have seen is not his real strength.
But who knows?
He may surprise me and state his specific beliefs.
Or he may just reply that he “joins the mainstream consensus of 2,500 scientists and virtually all scientific organizations that are not somehow under the thumb of the oil and coal cartel”.
Let’s see how he plays it.
Max
Brute: the Guardian is privately funded. I had a quick look at that thread. It seems to me that they are deleting posts from both sides of the debate. My guess is that all those deleted infringed their clearly stated house rules: especially re abusive language. Incidentally I think they only delete if you first click on “report abuse” and then only if they agree. I’ve found their approach to be fair.
Max: no, I think Peter will respond. He’ll look rather foolish if he doesn’t.
PS: I’m still keen to comply with his invitation that I respond to his 5705. I think, however, that my repeated request (that he first shows some sign of not assuming my point of view but reading and trying to comprehend what I’m actually saying to him) is reasonable.
Max and Robin,
I can make the mainstream scientific case much more succintly. A single sentence if fact.
Increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels, have already led to measurable global warming, and the current level of emissions will lead to further dangerously high temperature increases of several degrees if mitigation measures to bring these levels under control are not seriously implemented in the near future.
Your turn.
I do accept that you have a harder task. Some of you think that it’s not warming at all. Some of you think the warming is natural. Some think that the warming is a mixture of natural and anthropogenic, but with a tolerably small anthropogenic content to be expected in the coming century. Some think that GHGs are indeed increasing but are benign and so shouldn’t be termed that way. Some of you think that there is evidence that CO2 levels have dropped since the 19th century. Some of you even accept that the warming is happening, pretty much as mainstream science says it is, but that it is a good thing. It may stave off a future ice age and lead to increased plant and crop growth.
Have I forgotten any particular strand of contrarian opinion? Yes, probably. But anyway let’s see you put all that into a single sentence.
Robin, Reur 5757, in the case of many of my post’s being deleted, it seems to be a rather unfair action. For example, below is the most recent of mine, as it was composed in my word processor. It responded to 3 posts from Onthefence, only partly quoted here, and which were mildly insulting. My restrained reply was deleted but the original insulting 3 posts remain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
On the Fence, You wrote in part on page 16, 18 April
No, I said that Peter Martin’s comment was quaint and naïve; then followed my explanation as to why, which you do not appear to have comprehended.
I have fully understood what energy is, and conservation thereof, for some 50 years. You may be confused, but energy exists in various forms, and I’ve mentioned HEAT, EMR, and electricity. I’ve used upper case for HEAT and EMR to emphasize that they are two different forms of energy, because many people including some scientists confuse or misstate the two. Furthermore, energy such as HEAT can be converted to other forms of energy. For example, sunlight is EMR, not HEAT. However when it falls onto your skin, it is partially absorbed as HEAT, when the photons cause molecular excitement, and as a consequence the T of your skin increases. The temperature/wavelength spectrum of Sunlight is ~8,000C BTW.
How quaint and naïve of you to assume that
It is not a silly question, (and I did not say that). I was referring to the rest of your comments. I understand the purpose of this question is probably to change the subject
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To sum-up, I believe that you either have no understanding of the topic, OR, you are trolling. (per blogosphere usage)
You could vindicate yourself by explaining SPECIFICALLY which parts of the following, which I repeat, are incorrect:
If you refer to AR4 WG1, page 96 of Chapter 1, you will see a lovely cartoon by Kevin Trenberth (of Chris Landsea fame), showing 24 W/m^2 from thermals, and 78 W/m^2 from evapo-transpiration departing from the surface and getting to a fair height in the atmosphere.
HEAT is not only converted into a different form of energy called EMR, at the surface, but at any point in the atmosphere, in all directions. Consequently, HEAT, by working its way up there from the surface is eventually lost to space as EMR at ever increasing heights. Thus, according to Kev, only ~39% of the HEAT lost from the surface is via EMR.
Thus there is an element of negative feedback in these [other] bits adding up to ~71% of the total HEAT lost from the surface.
It is part of the Earth’s amazing thermostat that is not heard about much.
BobFJ,
Sounds pretty tame to me compared with my post to Nasty-Farian where I opinioned that he must have ingested a rather large amount of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, (LSD).
Not certain why they deleted that one.
The purple line is an extension of the latest warming trend that ended in about 1998. Like all trends, that one came to a sudden halt.)
Source: A paper delivered by Don Easterbrook to the recent Heartland Conference.
Hey Peter,
Thanks for your very concise and succinct AGW-believer “credo”, which I will repeat below:
To return your favor, here is mine (in one sentence, as you requested). Let’s see if the other bloggers on this site go for your “credo”, or mine (or have a third view).
Once we have agreed on the “credos”, we can resume the debate on the details (I believe it was Brute, who once opined on this site, “the devil lies in the detail”.
Regards,
Max
PS Saw your last blurb on the Guardian site (before they cut off comments). Will study it and eventually respond to any points that require an answer.
Hi Peter,
You made a point that the AGW-supporters (or “believers” that AGW is a serious threat) all share essentially the same line of reasoning, while the “non-believers” had many different lines.
I countered with my personal line of reasoning on AGW, and we’ll see if others on this site agree.
But the main point you made, can indeed be valid.
It is another version of Tolstoy’s line on happy and unhappy families,
It is also the line of thinking used by fundamentalist Christian “believers”, who are firmly convinced that their own personal view on religion is the only true one while many different types with differing viewpoints (atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, agnostics, etc.) make up the “non-believer” camp.
Pretty much confirms your statement.
Regards,
Max
Brute,
Where did the end point results in the graph come from?
They look like 0.18 and 0.29. What is the source of these.
It also come from icecap.us. I did ask you about this site. Like which organisation runs it? Who are the key individulas? How do you know its scientifically accurate?
Peter:
You said (5759) that those who do not accept the dangerous AGW hypothesis “have a harder task”. The opposite is true: sceptics don’t have to prove anything – believers must demonstrate that their theory survives the hard test of reality.
I’ve found the list of icecap personnel.
Surprise , surprise it includes Fred Singer!
Look this isn’t a proper scientific website. Its just a disinformation site I’m afraid.
“believers must demonstrate that their theory survives the hard test of reality.”
Which would be?
JZ,
I posted up my answers on your website. many of my answers are the same as yours and I have added some comments to justify some of the answers given.
http://lost-toothsociety.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-perspectives.html
The formatting seemed to go slightly wrong in the copying process. I’m not sure if you can fix this for me?
Thanks,
PM
Brute, Reur 5761, you wrote concerning deletion of my last post at the Guardian:
Well actually, I can’t see anything wrong with your post as I remember it!
I recall that following a bizarre doggerel from Nofactus, that you enquired whether he might be overdosed on some hallucinatory substance. (drug). You then consoled him to say that he should recover when the effects of the drug wear-off. Sounded like good advice to me!
However, I think that where it all started to really go downhill, was when Ian Fremantle, took strong exception to NefastAss’s last line of wanting to line-us-all-up, (we rationalists), and shoot us. Ian wrote that he would make a complaint and suggest that the intolerable Nasty-Farian be blocked from that blog.
I read that the policy of the moderator(s), is that if a post is deleted, then any replies to it may also be deleted. Hence Ian’s anger and your GOOD ADVICE were also deleted. There also appears to have been some retaliation from somewhere.
One strange thing about the many posts of mine that were deleted is that they seem to be only those that were substantially on some scientific argument. Yet some others of a trivial or more derogatory nature, where I lost my cool, such as naming Nefustas as Nofactus, remain.
I suspect that the moderator(s), may have seen that Myfanny2, Nastyfesterus, Offthewall, and PeterCretin, were actually a liability to their cause, and I’m a bit disappointed that rational lurkers can no longer see their inanity over there.
Peter re your 5768: you don’t know how a hypothesis is tested?
Robin,
I was hoping you were going to enlighten us all.
Re #5750, Brute
I’m no expert, and each blog seems to have its own way of dealing with these things.
A national newspaper like The Guardian is likely to use in-house moderators in their web department who are, of course, aware of the editorial policies of the paper and will work to guidelines set out by editors. On the other hand, should the great Monbiot deign to cast his eye over the comments on one of his columns and feel inclined to click on the ‘Complain about this comment’ button, then there is little doubt that the moderator, who probably has no specialist knowlege of AGW, will do his bidding.
This might explain the disappearance of a particularly telling comment on Antarctic ice, but there is no way of knowing.
Peter (re 5772):
You support a hypothesis the acceptance of which means that Western governments are imposing additional economic and other burdens on their already struggling fellow citizens. Please explain to us how that hypothesis has been tested. Thanks.
TonyN (Brute to note):
I think you’ve got this wrong. The Guardian has clear guidelines. Here’s a summary:
I suspect all the posts deleted were caught either by this or by their rule that responses to deleted items are also deleted – not a bad rule as it means you can either post a reply to an abusive item or respond to it, but not both. I suggest it is a calumny to suggest that a moderator would bow to editorial policy and delete an item if it was otherwise not in breach of the guidelines.