Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

1. manacker says:

   18/04/2009 at 2:46 am

   Hey Peter,

   I have answered your longer version of the same message as in 5723 on the other site, but will do the same for your abbreviated version here.

   You opined that this was the opinion of the “denialist” camp. I can’t speak for Robin or Brute, but let me correct you as far as my opinion goes:

   Global warming isn’t happening its all a UHI effect. Use your commonsense, puny man is incapable of affecting the earth’s climate. Its all a natural effect down to the sun and volacanoes but if it isn’t natural its not caused by CO2 emissions which are not a pollutant. The human proportion is only tiny but if it isn’t it will cost too much to fix it, it’s too late, and we’d all like warmer weather anyway. Its all Al gore’s fault.

   Wrong, Peter. Our planet has been warming since the record started in 1850 and we have been coming out of a significantly cooler previous period called the Little Ice Age. The warming rate has averaged around 0.04C per decade.

   No. The warming trend is real, although the rate of warming at the surface may be exaggerated a bit due to the UHI effect.

   Using one’s common sense is always a good idea.

   Puny man is incapabaleof changing the current warming trend. Nature is not, and it appears that Nature has started a cooling trend. Will it continue for a few decades before the long-term warming restarts? Who knows? Not you. Not I. Not IPCC. Not James E. Hansen.

   Partially true. Warming is to a large extent a natural effect (a bit more than half of the 20th century warming was caused by the sun, according to the findings of several solar scientists).

   There could also be some warming caused by anthropogenic factors (such as CO2), but this is based on a hypothesis which has not been scientifically proven so far, just as the cosmic ray / cloud hypothesis has also not been scientifically proven as yet. Volcanoes such as we know them in modern times have a short term effect on the planet’s temperature.

   Correct. CO2 is not an atmospheric pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace gas in our atmosphere without which there would be no life on our planet.

   Yes. The human contribution to global warming is small. By year 2100 it could theoretically cause added warming of a fraction of 1C so is negligible.

   We cannot change the fact that our planet is warming over the long haul, no matter what we do (see above).

   Slightly warmer weather could be beneficial for a good portion of our planet, but we will just have to take the climate that Nature deals us and adapt to it, where necessary. The Dutch have been successfully adapting to rising sea levels for centuries.

   Al Gore is only at fault for putting together a piece of scientifically shoddy work that is being used to frighten impressionable school children, but he certainly was not the “inventor” of AGW (as he was of the Internet).

   Hope these corrections to my point of view clear it up for you, Peter.

   Regards,

   Max
2. Peter Martin says:

   18/04/2009 at 6:19 am

   Brute,

   ” nice graphs Pete.”

   Maybe you’ll get them framed and put them up on your wall in your living room? I’ll ask the same questions as I asked about you devotion to the ‘icecap’ website.

   Where are they from? Who runs the organistaion that produces them? Who funds them? How do you know they are scientifically accurate?
3. Peter Martin says:

   18/04/2009 at 6:31 am

   I was wondering if any of you guys would like to be nominated for a prize?

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/04/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-prize

   It could be quite competitive but I’d say you guys could cut it with the best ( or should that be worst?) of them.

   Just let me know of any pieces that you might
   be particularly proud of.
4. manacker says:

   18/04/2009 at 7:34 am

   Hey Peter,

   I’ll pass on the North Pole kayak trip reward(after hearing about TonyB’s poor misguided neighbor). It all sounds a bit too dangerous, with all that new ice that Brute and NSIDC have been telling us about, plus the record population of thriving (but hungry) polar bears (did you see what grown-up ex “cute Knute” did to that goofy lady in the Berlin zoo, who went swimming with him at feeding time?). Scary!

   Wouldn’t mind spending a week checking how AGW-caused sea level rise is threatening the coconut palm beach at Bora-Bora, if you’ve got tickets for that trip (Mrs. Max has volunteered to carry my laptop and transcribe my notes for me on this fact-finding trip).

   Awaiting your reply, as always in the search of scientific truth,

   Max
5. Peter Martin says:

   18/04/2009 at 8:52 am

   Barelysane,

   I don’t understand what you mean by
   
   “ripped a new one” by IanFremantle.

   It a while since I’ve worked in the UK. Is this an example of what is known as “Estuaryspeak” ? I’m perhaps not as well up as I should be. I’ll have to watch “The Bill” on TV a little more often.

   Ian Fremantel is calling me a ninny etc now. I always take that to be a good sign.
6. Robin Guenier says:

   18/04/2009 at 10:32 am

   Peter, it’s evident from your weird post 5723 that you’ve never tried to understand or even really listened to the sceptical view of the dangerous AGW hypothesis. You simply revert to the lazy expedient of falling back on what you want to believe: that it’s all about mindless and muddled prejudice. The reality, Peter, is precisely the opposite. It’s about the failure to subject the hypothesis to the fundamental tool of science, established during the Enlightenment, namely the scientific method – the basis of scientific and technological progress during the past 300 years. Yet, depressingly, the alarmists’ adherence to the dogma of environmentalism seems intent on abandoning it in favour of the tyranny of consensus, authority and belief. Read my post 5313. Read it carefully.
7. Peter Martin says:

   18/04/2009 at 1:27 pm

   Robin,

   “…that it’s all about mindless and muddled prejudice”

   Well said Robin.

   PS What about an answer to my 5705?
   What would you consider to be an acceptable level of proof?
8. Robin Guenier says:

   18/04/2009 at 2:01 pm

   Peter: you’ve just succeeded in illustrating my point perfectly by confirming, yet again, your weirdly blind characterisation of the sceptical position. As I just said, “The reality, Peter, is precisely the opposite.”

   Have you lost the ability to read?

   In case you missed it (sigh), my position is clear: it’s about the the failure of those who promote the dangerous AGW hypothesis to subject it to the fundamental tool of science, established during the Enlightenment, namely the scientific method – the basis of scientific and technological progress during the past 300 years. As I said, their adherence to the dogma of environmentalism seems intent on abandoning it in favour of the tyranny of consensus, authority and belief. Once again: “Read my post 5313. Read it carefully.”

   Address that and I’ll most certainly answer your question. In any case, you seem to have forgotten that I said (5709) I would do so as soon as you clarified one thing for me: what has “the right wing American ‘psyche’” (see your 5707) got to do with it?
9. Barelysane says:

   18/04/2009 at 4:40 pm

   Peter

   “ripped a new one” is a widely used english colloquialism, in this usage meaning you’ve been knocked down so hard in an arguement i’m suprised you’ve bothered getting back up.
   For a more precise meaning look on google or wiki, i know you know how to use them.
10. Robin Guenier says:

    18/04/2009 at 4:55 pm

    Barleysane: I think you’re being over delicate about this. I’ve understood it to mean that he (Peter in this case) has had such a big hole torn out of his argument that, in effect, his body has acquired a new orifice. OK: that’s still being delicate – but you’ll follow my drift.
11. barelysane says:

    18/04/2009 at 5:41 pm

    Exactly right :)
12. manacker says:

    18/04/2009 at 7:52 pm

    Hey Peter,

    You have been kind enough to postulate your thoughts on what you called the “denialist case” on AGW in your 5723 to Robin (an abbreviated list from the one you posted over at the Guardian site).

    I have taken the time to correct your postulation, as far as my own personal views on AGW go. So, if I am what you describe as a “denialist”, this would represent one actual version of the “denialist case” (as opposed to a purely imagined version, such as the one you posted).

    Now to clear up our positions on this issue, I would like for you to return the favor.

    I have listed my postulation on what I will call the “groupie” case (i.e. the case of the strong supporter of the premise that AGW is a serious threat). It is based on observations I have made not only from your many posts on this site, but also from some other “groupies” on this and other sites, but it is only my impression.

    An overwhelming majority of concerned mainstream scientists are in strong consensus that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a serious threat. Human carbon dioxide is the primary driver of our planet’s climate. Essentially all of the warming we have seen is due to AGW. Natural forcing factors are just minor background noise. The theoretical greenhouse warming impact from CO2 is multiplied by a factor of four due to feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, which the models show are both strongly positive. Climate models outputs are good scientific evidence of what will happen. These tell us that we will see warming of several degrees C by 2100 at projected increase of CO2. Scientists are correct when they tell us that 450 ppm CO2 concentration is the dangerous level, from which our planet’s climate can probably never recover. Most of the warming that has already occurred so far is actually hidden in the ocean, from where it will come out some day to warm the air even more as equilibrium is reached. Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to add more CO2 to the atmosphere with warming, providing another positive feedback to result in even more warming. If we stop all increases of human CO2 production we will still see major warming by 2100. If we do not, the situation will be even worse. Polar ice caps are melting because of AGW, as is sea ice. This will cause sea level rise that can be measured in meters rather than centimeters as in past centuries. Droughts will become more prevalent with global warming, as will all severe weather events, such as floods, storms, extreme heat and extreme cold, causing the death of millions. We must act now to prevent disastrous warming or it will be too late for our civilization, for our environment, or many of the plant and animal species on our planet and for our planet, itself, as we know it. A good first step is to levy a carbon tax, so that carbon polluters are punished and everyone in the global community can share fairly in solving the problem. Coal fired power plants should be shut down. New oil drilling should be curbed. All new power generation should come from green renewable sources, such as solar, wind, etc., with government subsidies, where required, to make these economically viable. New technical solutions, such as carbon sequestration in underground geological formations, injection of pollutants into the upper atmosphere to reflect incoming sunlight, introduction of iron into the oceans to increase CO2 absorption by phytoplankton, etc. should be implemented to help save our planet. It is extremely urgent that we act now, and that we act forcefully to stop this impending disaster. We can only hope that it is not too late, and that we are not already doomed.

    Please take the time to read through this throroughly, and make any adjustments, corrections, deletions or additions as you deem necessary (as I did for your list).

    Thanks very much in advance, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max
13. Brute says:

    18/04/2009 at 10:05 pm

    Oh Dear……………………trending lower Temptari……..I mean, Peter.

    Is this a long term trend do you think or possibly a “regional anomoly”?

    Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update

    Mann falsifying data, news outlets recycling photographs, Antarctic temperatures decresing, sea ice rising……does this spell the end for the global warming disciples?

    Maybe their doomsday predictions were correct and the world is coming crashing down on them and their “movement”.
14. manacker says:

    18/04/2009 at 10:53 pm

    Hi Brute,

    Peter may not like your Rasmussen report, which shows that a significant majority of Americans do not blame AGW for global warming (are these the “Noah’s Ark” crowd as Peter has suggested?), but he should be pleased by one piece of your report:

    A growing number of Americans (58%) say the United States needs to build more nuclear plants. This is up five points from last month and the highest finding so far this year. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose the building of nuclear plants.

    Strangely, the report made no mention of how Americans felt about increased oil and gas exploration: in ANWR and other Arctic regions, the OCS, the shale deposits, etc. I can recall that both Obama and McCain promised crowds to increase oil and gas exploration (to shouts of “drill, baby drill!”), but Obama seems to have forgotten that (as he has also forgotten his pledge to increase the number of nuclear plants).

    Regards,

    Max
15. manacker says:

    18/04/2009 at 11:00 pm

    Hey Barelysane and Robin

    I once spent some time in the Texas oilfields and “rip someone a new one” had a very clear connotation. I suspect this expression may have come from there (if not from Peter’s Australia, itself).

    Regards,

    Max
16. Brute says:

    18/04/2009 at 11:31 pm

    Hey Max,

    Loved your stuff over at the guardian.

    Gotta leave work now. Been spending 6 days a week selling this global warming/green crap to these dopes. It’s getting old, but the Brute bank account is getting fatter.

    I’ll ride it as long as I can…………
17. Robin Guenier says:

    19/04/2009 at 6:56 am

    Peter:

    Subject to one small reservation, I completely agree with Max’s restating of what you term the “denialist” case (see 5726). My slight reservation is that, although I’m sure the sun is an important factor, I would not state categorically that it caused “a bit more than half of the 20th century warming”; other natural causes may possibly have made a greater contribution. My main observation, however, is that those who are sceptical of the dangerous AGW hypothesis are not obliged to prove anything. It’s up to the proponents of the hypothesis to do the explaining.

    Therefore, I now look forward to your rephrasing of what he calls the “groupie” case at 5737.
18. tempterrain says:

    19/04/2009 at 7:36 am

    Robin,

    You’ve seem to be in favour of “… the fundamental tool of science, established during the Enlightenment, namely the scientific method – the basis of scientific and technological progress during the past 300 years.”

    That’s good! We can agree on that.

    Now maybe you’d like to take a look at these two websites:
    http://www.wikipedia.org http://www.conservapedia.com

    Disregarding the AGW topic for now, which do you think comes closer to meeting our shared ideals of the Enlightenment?
19. Robin Guenier says:

    19/04/2009 at 8:15 am

    Peter, re your 5743:

    Both have good generalisations:

    The Enlightenment advocated reason as the primary basis of authority, downplaying emotion and ecclesiastical authority.

    The Enlightenment marks a principled departure from the Middle Ages of religious authority, guild-based economic systems, and censorship of ideas toward an era of rational discourse and personal judgment, republicanism, liberalism, naturalism, scientific method, and modernity.

    It’s tragic that the proponents of the dangerous AGW hypothesis are reverting to authority and censorship. Read my 5313.

    I’m looking forward to your response to Max’s 5737.
20. Peter Martin says:

    19/04/2009 at 8:59 am

    Robin,

    I don’t suppose there is any point trying to get you to answer the question. Like the question I asked on an acceptable level of scientific proof, you don’t want to answer it.

    Before you start accusing me, I should say that its not at all a loaded question. They are the ones that I won’t answer.

    You don’t want to tell me that Wikipedia is clearly in touch with Enlightenment values. There is no other possible answer. Conservapedia represents reaction, bigotry, irrational thought and superstition. The choice is clear for all.

    Don’t you ever wonder why your views on AGW have caused you to line up with the latter?

    As they put it themselves on their website: ” Conservapedia along with most of the conservative media has been on the front lines of debunking the liberal deceit spread by the leftist blogs and Al Gore among many radical liberal and Socialist politicians. Our efforts are paying off!”

    Front Lines? Well, yes, it is a sort of battle. A battle of ideas. You might not agree with the way the lines are drawn but that’s the choice you’ve got.
21. Bob_FJ says:

    19/04/2009 at 10:20 am

    Hey ALL, I don’t want to cut across Pete Hall over at Guardian-Singh, but I really enjoyed his recent post over there, that I copy-paste below, and since there have been deletions of some of my recent posts over there, I know not why, I thought I should save Pete’s post to over here:

    [PeteHall 18 Apr 09, 6:07pm, Guardian time:] Speaking of (deliberate?) attempts to mislead the public:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/ice-shelf-wilkins-antarctic
    Note particularly the photograph.
    Then have a look at:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23797247/
    Note that the photograph is identical, as are significant parts of the article.
    So what’s wrong with that, besides that the two articles were published a year apart?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Speaking as a mechanical engineer, I would like to point out that it is extremely improbable that the mechanical failures of ice shelves result from temperature rise of either the air or ocean. In fact it has been shown that frozen ice from sea water attaches and accumulates beneath the floating frozen fresh water from the extruded land based ice, once it floats onto the ocean. Furthermore the land based ice is extruded primarily as a result of gravitational forces, although ice melt of ANY magnitude probably lubricates that process.
    Furthermore, the failure of ice shelves is MECHANICAL as a consequence primarily of heaving from tides and wave action. This is exemplified by the long parallel chasms shown in the photo.

    Another point is that although the mechanical failure described is subjectively large, in reality it is tiny in the scope of the vast continent of Antarctica.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    BTW: My latest post over at the Guardian has been held for moderation..
22. Robin Guenier says:

    19/04/2009 at 10:53 am

    Peter:

    This overview (from Wikipedia) accords well with my general view of Enlightenment principles:

    The intellectual and philosophical developments of that age (and their impact in moral, social, and political reform) aspired toward more freedom for common people based on self-governance, natural rights, natural law, central emphasis on liberty, individual rights, reason, common sense, and the principles of deism. These principles were a revolutionary departure from theocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and the divine right of kings. The Enlightenment marks a principled departure from the Middle Ages of religious authority, guild-based economic systems, and censorship of ideas toward an era of rational discourse and personal judgment, republicanism, liberalism, naturalism, scientific method, and modernity.

    As I have already said, these principles were the basis of scientific and technological progress during the past 300 years. I am, therefore, extremely concerned that the proponents of the dangerous AGW theory seem to be abandoning them in favour of censorship and authority and by turning their backs on rational discourse and scientific method.

    I have every intention of answering your question – which I do not, incidentally, regard as loaded. But, first, I should like some indication that you are listening to what I am saying and not to what you would prefer me to be saying: read my 5313. (I know nothing about Conservapedia and, if the extract you quote is typical, have no interest in it: my personal philosophy is grounded on liberal thinking.)
23. Peter Martin says:

    19/04/2009 at 12:02 pm

    Robin,

    If it is indeed the case that your philosophy is founded on Enlightenment principles and “liberal thinking” how is it that you are on the same side of the argument as Brute and JZ?

    You’d have to put the thumb screws on both of them before that phrase would cross their lips or keyboard!

    Do you recognise the arguments in this article?
    http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution

    You should. Just change ‘evolution’ for ‘AGW’ and you have pretty much the same argument as you are making in your 5313.
24. Robin Guenier says:

    19/04/2009 at 12:16 pm

    Peter: get it into your head that I am not on any “side”. Got that?

    I believe firmly in “rational discourse and the scientific method” – i.e. liberal thinking. If you do not (which sadly seems to be the case) you are profoundly illiberal.
25. Brute says:

    19/04/2009 at 2:28 pm

    Regarding The Guardian story……..

    Wow Bob, they deleted a bunch of comments and then shutdown the thread almost as if they saw that the Alarmists were being overwhelmed, losing the debate and decided to quit while they were “ahead”…..seemed to be getting a little too hot for them.

    TonyN,

    Being a “blogger novice” as I am, how are these things normally managed? Is there a set time limit for a comments section to be open? Does the author of the article have editorial license to delete comments that don’t agree with his premise or does that fall into the hands of an unbiased moderator?

    I can understand places like Joe Romm’s site as being brutally dictatorial in their editing; but The Guardian? Being unfamiliar with the British press…..is The Guardian normally considered partisan in their views Robin? It seems that the comment posted by the guy pointing out that the Guardian recycled an old photograph of Antarctic ice was completely removed. Is it because he embarrassed them so thoroughly?

    I’ve noticed that a person cannot comment on the Guardian faked photograph story; is this normal practice?

    If they are regulating free speech, I truly fear for that society.

    Which brings to mind that I’ve neglected to thank you lately for providing this forum for the open exchange of ideas, (even Peter’s comments).

    Peter,

    Does it concern you that speech is being censored? I would think that you’d agree that even comments that you personally disagree with should be allowed to be heard…… Right?

    Isn’t free speech paramount in any society?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.