Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.

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

1. tempterrain says:

   21/04/2009 at 8:49 am

   Robin,

   How can I say how the ‘the right wing American psyche’ is relevant to your view on how a hypothesis should be tested when you haven’t said what that view is?

   If you need some further explanation of the RWAP you need look no further than Brute’s postings on this thread. Rants about Obama, Democrats, taxation, etc etc etc I’m sure you know exactly what I mean.

   Now, I’m not saying that there is no difference of opinion between yourself and Brute. However you have enough points of agreement for me to suggest that you aren’t entirely free from the same motivations yourself.
2. Bob_FJ says:

   21/04/2009 at 9:31 am

   The Guardian’s profile on George Monboit:
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/georgemonbiot
   Gee, what a fountain of wisdom, with 523 diverse articles and various books!
   Quite a fruitcake!
   After a quick look, I think I’ll try a glass of Shiraz-Cab, or maybe Cab-Sav.

   Sheez; decisions, decisions!
3. Barelysane says:

   21/04/2009 at 9:46 am

   Hi Peter/tempthingy

   You’ve probably noticed i only infrequently post on this blog (working F/T and being nicely active social i don’t have time to do much more than read it). Please try to get back to raising points about the science, you raised interesting points at one time.
   Unfortunately since the guardian thread things generally seem to have come a bit more like the posts over there, you last post above this one a case in point, totally irrelevant bordering on ad hom.
   Up until recently, while i might not have agreed with you i had a certain level of respect for you and your conviction, quite possibly some of the other lurkers do to.
4. Barelysane says:

   21/04/2009 at 9:53 am

   Bob_FJ

   He is completely pants on head mad. His most recent crusade has been to demonise Agas. For anyone who doesn’t know an Aga is a old style cast metal stove about the size of a medium sized table. They last forever and burn whatever you put in them, so post manufacture they can be carbon neutral. I think he doesn’t like them because they use alot of energy to manufacture and are so frightfully upper middle class don’t you know (despite being born into moderate wealth and privilage himself and working for the guardian). It really is quite funny to watch at times.

   At one point a couple of years ago he was seriously suggesting scrapping airplanes for transatlantic crossings and using airships instead.
5. tempterrain says:

   21/04/2009 at 11:55 am

   Barelysane,

   Anyone who has followed this blog, and the earlier NS blogs, will know that I have always made the point that the argument about AGW is generally a mixture of politics, religion to a lesser extent, and science.

   I’m happy enough to argue the science but I’m not sufficiently naive to think that the argument will ever be won on scientific considerations alone.

   Brute, amonst others, would sort of agree with that. Except that he thinks that the AGW issue is a hoax, a conspiracy to enable the imposition of yet higher taxes on hard working family men like himself. The truth of the matter is that there is no hoax. Even many on your side of the argument would shy away from that word.

   There is no conspiracy either. It is the genuine opinion of mainstream science that there is a problem which needs to be addressed in a collective manner by the international community. It is uncomfortable for all but even more uncomfortable for those who shudder at the thought of collective action especially on an international scale.
6. Robin Guenier says:

   21/04/2009 at 12:59 pm

   Peter: your suggestion that I line up with “reaction. bigotry, irrational thought and superstition” was disgraceful. As was your implication that that with “my motivation”. Also I am not in the slightest interested in “ranting” about Obama, Democrats, taxation, etc. Please withdraw these suggestions.

   What I was interested in was a serious exchange of views with you on AGW – including my view on how the hypothesis should be tested. But, until you have withdrawn your disgraceful slurs and given a clear indication that you are ready to discuss these issues seriously, I will not waste any more time with you.
7. manacker says:

   21/04/2009 at 6:42 pm

   Hey Brute,

   Steven Chu is Obama’s appointed Secretary of Energy.
   http://chineseculture.about.com/od/thechinesediaspora/p/Stevenchu.htm

   Chu has been a scholar, a professor at UC Berkeley and a research scientist, who has won the Nobel Prize in Physics for work done as part of a team at Bell Laboratories. At Berkeley, Chu pushed for finding scientific solutions to climate change.

   Chu has no experience whatsoever in the energy sector, so his qualifications as Secretary of Energy are already dicey, despite his obvious high level of intelligence as a scientist.

   But when Chu starts opining about rising sea levels swallowing Caribbean islands, he is literally (pardon the expression) out of his depth.

   Chu should be worried about making sure the US can again become more energy self-sufficient, by all sorts of measures, including increased oil and gas exploration, oil shale development, economically viable renewable solutions and energy conservation measures, rather than spreading his unqualified opinions on sea level rise outside the USA.

   I hope that the real experts in this field will quickly responded to refute his silly statements.

   Max
8. manacker says:

   21/04/2009 at 6:57 pm

   Hi Peter,

   In discussing the GISS fudging of the temperature record at a site in NM (USA) you opined,

   I would suggest that they have deliberately chosen one that is the other way to provide disinformation and deliberately try to discredit NASA.

   Yeah. I know that’s what you “would suggest”, but, then again, you have swallowed the whole IPCC line, even with all its obvious errors, omissions, exaggerations, etc. “hook, line and sinker”, as they say.

   Religious belief against all odds is a wonderful thing, Peter.

   Regards,

   Max
9. manacker says:

   21/04/2009 at 7:05 pm

   Hi Peter,

   Just read your silly sentence

   I found the article you’d copied all this from on the Heartland website. Where else? Were you a bit shy of mentioning them by name? You should be!

   Hey, I cited the reference, Peter, not shy at all.

   Who has more credibility here – the Heartland Institute or the United Nations? I would be hard pressed to pick one or the other.

   Theys just seem to have opposing views on the premise that AGW is a serious threat, one (UN) agreeing with Peter Martin, and the other (Heartland Institute) disagreeing with Peter Martin.

   While you might disagree, this criterium does not make one source any more credible than the other on this topic.

   Regards,

   Max
10. manacker says:

    21/04/2009 at 7:28 pm

    Hi Peter,

    In defending your religious faith you wrote (5798):

    No method will be absolutely perfect which is why the Hadcrut and Giss results are always slightly different but providing the rules are set and they stick to them from one year to the next you can hardly accuse them of cheating.

    Peter, get serious.

    In both cases (GISS and Hadley) the provider of supposedly unbiased temperature data is the same individual who is preaching that AGW is a serious threat and is predicting rampant warming if we do not change our ways.

    Phil Jones’ Hadley goes to press annually with “next year will be a record scorcher (due to AGW, of course)” press blurbs, as does James E. Hansen over at GISS. Hansen warns the US Congress and the world of the “tipping points” that will destroy our planet (as we know it), even organizing global warming “civil disobedience” rallies (that turn out to be miserable flops because no one attended).

    How can it be that you have missed these one-sided pronouncements from these supposedly neutral and unbiased reporters of the facts?

    And these guys are going to go out of their way to make sure that the records they provide do not exaggerate the situation?

    Get serious, Peter. You can’t be that naïve. Religious faith is a wonderful thing, Peter, but at some point it becomes “blind faith”.

    What about the thousands of rural stations (many in Siberia) that were shut down?

    What about the “ex post facto” adjustments that have been made to both records to make the situation look more alarming?

    Why does the satellite record show 0.032C per decade less warming than the surface?

    WUWT, Ross McKitrick plus several independent reports from all over the world have shown that there are major upward distortions to the temperature record that have not been compensated, despite the nice NASA press blurbs, which you cited.

    Regards,

    Max
11. manacker says:

    21/04/2009 at 7:43 pm

    Hi Peter,

    In the NASA GISS PR blurb you cited I saw the sentence:

    A few station data from Canada were reported as potentially incorrect and subsequently removed by NOAA.

    Then I looked at the temperature map. Yep. Most of Canada was “blue” (cooling instead of warming). Gotta remove those “potentially incorrect” stations right away!

    Keep the faith despite this, Peter – there’s no skullduggery going on here, is there?

    Max
12. manacker says:

    21/04/2009 at 8:12 pm

    Hi Robin,

    From observing your behavior on this and other sites, I have seen that you are normally well-informed about the issues, you have a very strong grasp of the English language making it easy for you to express your points succinctly and concisely and that you are very polite and courteous with your debate partners.

    It is true that in his enthusiasm to defend his preudo-religious faith that AGW is a serious threat, Peter sometimes gets carried away and makes silly allegations that his opponents are conservative crackpots, religious fundamentalists, dishonest liars or just plain fools, because they do not happen to agree with his personal belief.

    He does not do this to “put down” or denigrate his debate adversaries in order to make himself look more intelligent (as some of the less mature bloggers, for example on the Guardian site, as we both experienced).

    He does this when he cannot win his argument based on facts.

    For example, he cannot bring the physical evidence to support the hypothesis that increased human CO2 emissions have caused global warming, as both you and I have asked him over and over again to present.

    In his frustration of being unable to back his belief with physical observations when challenged, he lashes out into other diversionary directions, such as ad hom insinuations.

    These are annoying, of course, but I would not take them too seriously.

    The real challenge in debating the many ongoing open scientific, political or economic issues surrounding AGW with Peter is keeping him on the topic.

    As soon as he sees that he has lost (or is about to lose) a point, he begins the diversionary tactic, much as a religious fundamentalist will do, when his belief is challenged and he has no rational counter-argument.

    But the diversionary tactic is no more than that, and should really not be taken too seriously.

    The only thing you can do is get Peter back on topic, keep him there and gradually wear him down.

    Regards,

    Max
13. tonyb says:

    21/04/2009 at 8:12 pm

    Hi everyone

    I know this is two weeks old and you must have discussed it to death whilst I was away on Holiday (yes, very nice thank you) so I just wondered what the general consensus was
    of Moncktons extremely comprehensive letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

    Tonyb
14. tonyb says:

    21/04/2009 at 8:36 pm

    I’ve been lurking the last day or two and it seems to me that some people still believe that Gistemp s a real grown up data series that has some scientific merit.

    The following link is interesting as it mentions my particlar bete noir-the nonsense of global temperatures, especially since 1850.

    If you go into ‘how big is this puppy’ the whole glorious silliness of Gistemp is exposed.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/#comment-289

    tonyb
15. manacker says:

    21/04/2009 at 8:48 pm

    Hi Peter,

    Several of us have beaten around the bush and addressed this topic directly many times, but let me repeat it one more time.

    Please bring physical evidence (not IPCC reports, not climate model outputs) that clearly demonstates that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is occuring (not just that it is getting warmer, Arctic sea ice is melting, permafrost lines are receding, etc.) and that this represents a serious threat.

    You have stated your “credo”.

    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. (54 words, 309 characters)

    But you have not provided the physical evidence to support this “credo”.

    I have stated my “credo”, as well.

    Earth has been warming naturally and cyclically since we have come out of the Little Ice Age and there is no physical evidence to support the fear that human GHGs will lead to planetary warming at a rate significantly higher than that, which we have experienced since measurements started in the mid-19th century. (53 words, 260 characters)

    I can provide the physical evidence that it has, indeed, warmed naturally and cyclically since the Hadley record started in 1850, but it is not up to me (as the rational skeptic) to disprove the AGW hypothesis. I have stated that “there is no physical evidence to support the fear that human GHGs will lead to planetary warming at a rate significantly higher than that, which we have experienced since measurements started in the mid-19th century”.

    It is up to the supporter of the AGW premise to prove it based on physical evidence.

    The ball is in your court, Peter.

    Regards,

    Msx
16. manacker says:

    21/04/2009 at 8:58 pm

    In debating with Peter about physical evidence to support his “credo” on AGW, I am reminded of an old Soviet “Radio Minsk” joke:

    Radio Minsk reports the finding of copper wire in Paleolithic caves near Minsk, providing unequivocal proof that prehistoric people of the region had invented telephone communication.

    Radio Pinsk (not to be outdone) reports that no copper wire was found in even older Paleolithic caves near Pinsk, providing unequivocal proof that prehistoric people of the region had invented wireless communication.

    Max
17. manacker says:

    21/04/2009 at 10:28 pm

    Hi TonyB and welcome back!

    Thanks for posting the very interesting testimony and letter of Christopher Monckton to the US House of Representatives.

    As usual, Mockton’s evidence against the many horrors claimed or predicted due to AGW was crisp, precise and scientifically well-founded. In contrast, the testimony by Tom Karl, Director of the NCDC, in support of AGW disasters was weak.

    But the best part was Monckton’s very sensible appeal to the US congressmen and ladies present, to keep a cool head and not fall for wolf cries that are not founded on real scientific evidence. I will repeat these key lines below.

    They are essential reading for anyone on either side of this debate.

    There was no “climate crisis”; there is no “climate crisis”; there will be no “climate crisis”.

    The right response to the non-problem of “global warming” is to have the courage to do nothing.

    You are the guardians of the public purse: do not loose the purse-strings too readily when the scientists cry “Wolf!”

    The measures that your Administration currently proposes by way of addressing the non-problem of “global warming” might have been calculated to do maximum damage to the very poorest voters – those who depend upon the taxes of the prosperous for their very survival; those in low-paid jobs in heavy industries that are heavy emitters; those who run the Mom-and-Pop enterprises that are tomorrow’s big businesses; those low-income families who pay a disproportionately large proportion of their income to energy providers.

    Rightly, one of the Administration’s own supporters on your Committee has stated that the principal purpose of “cap-and-trade” is not to “Save The Planet” – which it would not do even if it worked – but to raise revenue. If you wish to raise excessive revenue, be honest about it. Say that you intend to tax and tax and tax again. But desist from claiming that you are raising the revenue with the aim of preventing “climate crisis”.

    Already, every opinion poll demonstrates that, notwithstanding the most lavishly-funded propaganda campaign by the classe politique since Goebbels tried to make Nazism look good, the people are not buying the “global warming” scare any more.

    Already, millions face death by starvation, not because of “global warming” (for warmer weather saves lives, while cold weather kills), but because of the misplaced fear of “global warming” that a few malicious and ill-intentioned members of the scientific-technological elite have fraudulently engendered, with the acquiescence of a cloud of what Lenin called “useful idiots” among the academic community who have found it expedient to drift along with the scare by not looking too closely at any of the facts.

    The facts are what I have given you in this letter. You need not believe a word I say: for every fact I have given you is taken from the peer-reviewed scientific literature or from the plentiful scientific data that are publicly available. Why not verify what I have said – perhaps by the simple expedient of directing some well-targeted questions at the IPCC?

    Thus far, you have accepted what it says, either because maintaining that “global warming” is a “global crisis” is politically expedient, congenial, or convenient, or because you are impressed by the IPCC’s reputation. The fallacy of reputation – the argumentum ad verecundiam – is one of the well-worn, Aristotelian fallacies of logic. No sound conclusion can be founded upon it.

    Bernie Madoff had a reputation. He was one of the five founders of NASDAQ. Yet the report identifying some 30 red flags in his pattern of trading was ignored for years by the SEC. Why? Because, as the classe politique so often does, it fell for the argumentum ad verecundiam rather than getting someone to check out the red flags.

    You have been fairly and clearly warned that a single penny more spent on “global warming” would be a penny wasted. Your nation faces many formidable economic problems. Economic problems tend to hit the poor harder than the rich. Do not divert any more of your nation’s shrinking capital towards the further enrichment of the scientific-technological elite that has exploitatively abused its verecundia and your population’s ignorance of science for the sake of its own enrichment – an enrichment that is ultimately and chiefly at the expense of the poor.

    Pretty convincing stuff.

    But will Congress listen to reason and to the voice of most US citizens, who also do not believe AGW is a serious threat?

    Or will it simply see the “cap and trade” as a convenient but less transparent source of new revenue to help fund all those favorite projects that bring each representative more power and influence?

    Let’s see how it plays out.

    Max
18. Peter Martin says:

    21/04/2009 at 11:30 pm

    Robin,

    You don’t like the terms:“reaction. bigotry, irrational thought and superstition”? I can justify each of those terms with regard to the conservative strand of American politics if you wish.

    You may not be agreeing totally with those elements in American society, and to a lesser extent in other countries too, who are guilty of the above terms, but from where I’m sitting its looks very much like you are lining up with them on the AGW issue.

    I’m sure you don’t need me to explain to you that “ranting” about Obama, Democrats, taxation, etc. is Brute’s speciality, not yours. Your speciality is the “we’re all doomed! Doomed I tell ye” line. We all know that. No-one is saying anything different.

    Look. If you can’t answer the question just say so. It sounds rather petulant, rather 5 year old child, to say that you won’t tell me until you’re given a sweetie!
19. manacker says:

    22/04/2009 at 12:09 am

    Hi Peter,

    Please refer to 5815

    Defend your credo by supporting it with physical evidence, if you can, Peter.

    Don’t give up now!

    It’s your chance to prove your AGW belief with physical evidence.

    Max
20. manacker says:

    22/04/2009 at 12:13 am

    Hi Peter,

    Further to my 5819, let me provide you with a bit of “playback” from your post to Robin, that applies directly for you here:

    Look. If you can’t answer the question just say so. It sounds rather petulant, rather 5 year old child, to say that you won’t tell me until you’re given a sweetie!

    Answer the question raised, Peter, if you can.

    Regards,

    Max
21. Peter Martin says:

    22/04/2009 at 12:51 am

    Max,

    I guess your question about physical evidence is related very much to my question of what evidence you will accept?

    It seems to me that you won’t accept any evidence that you don’t like.

    What evidence am I allowed and not allowed to use? I suppose NASA/GISS is out, as you don’t like James Hansen, Gavivin Schmidt and co. Hadley Centre UK? I suppose that’s the same as that is run by Phil Jones. NSIDC? No Mark Serreze is too prominent there. Australian CSIRO? I have posted quite a bit of their stuff but you don’t seem too keen on them either. Maybe you think we should stick to shearing sheep down under and leave the science to the experts.

    I guess you’ll allow me to use stuff from Heartland and Icecap, but I must admit I will be struggling.

    How about these guys?

    http://www.gardening-centre.co.uk/index.php/Climate-blamed-for-early-springs.htm

    They are just a bunch of harmless gardeners who say that spring is arriving noticably earlier now. But maybe they have been infiltrated by the Reds? You’ll have to take a look through all those Stasi files to see if one of their last operations was a attempt to undermine western capitalism by planting (sorry about the pun) their agents into UK garening societies.

    Come to think of it I know someone over there who has an allotment and was a bit of a lefty in his younger days. Of course, it all fits when you think about it.
22. manacker says:

    22/04/2009 at 1:00 am

    On the Guardian site I detected that there was some confusion among one or two bloggers about 21st century temperature trends.

    To make sure we do not have the same confusion on this site, I have gone back to the basic data as reported by GISS, Hadley, RSS and UAH, and plotted the data.
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3622/3464289034_9e57f541b7_b.jpg

    The records all agree: it has gotten cooler (at an average cooling rate of around 0.1C per decade).

    This compares to warming predictions of 0.3C per decade (Hadley) and 0.2C per decade (IPCC).

    It is possible (but unlikely) that both Hadley and GISS will revise their predictions for the future based on what is actually happening out there. We shall see.

    Max
23. Brute says:

    22/04/2009 at 1:12 am

    Max,

    Maybe NSIDC is adding the 500K square kilometers that they “overlooked” last winter a little bit at a time….tacking it on bit by bit now.

    I thought that the ice was all supposed to be melted by now……polar bears drowned, water skiing in the Artic Ocean, Sunbathing on Ellesmere Island……etc. I guess I was “misguided”. The ice extent is growing contrary to the Gore/Hansen prophecies.

    NSIDC shows Arctic extent continuing to close on the 1979-2000 mean

    

    AMSR-E data shows Arctic extent extending it’s lead at a seven year high

    
24. manacker says:

    22/04/2009 at 1:14 am

    Hi Peter,

    Thanks for responding.

    You asked:

    I guess your question about physical evidence is related very much to my question of what evidence you will accept?
    It seems to me that you won’t accept any evidence that you don’t like.
    What evidence am I allowed and not allowed to use? I suppose NASA/GISS is out, as you don’t like James Hansen, Gavivin Schmidt and co. Hadley Centre UK? I suppose that’s the same as that is run by Phil Jones. NSIDC? No Mark Serreze is too prominent there. Australian CSIRO? I have posted quite a bit of their stuff but you don’t seem too keen on them either. Maybe you think we should stick to shearing sheep down under and leave the science to the experts.

    Actually it is far less complicated than you make it, Peter.

    All I want to see is actual physical evidence (the source is not important).

    But is must be physical evidence, and not climate model output, IPCC proclamations, disaster predictions, etc.

    PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, Peter. That’s all. Very simple.

    Ball back to you, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max
25. Brute says:

    22/04/2009 at 1:19 am

    Max,

    RE:5822

    Looks to me that global temperatures have dropped since roughly the year 2000…… correlates nicely with George Bush being elected President.

    Obviously, this means that George Bush is responsible for resolving the global warming issue.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.