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.
Hi Alex,
Your comment about the angry adults who realize that they were fed a skewed political sales pitch on global warming as school children is interesting.
The school teachers and administrators that are feeding them this message know full well that small children are impressionable.
They are easily “brainwashed”, particularly by adults who are in a position of authority or knowledge (such as school teachers).
They also tend to retain the messages they were told as children into adulthood, without questioning them. These are “burned” into their memories.
Now, if global warming has indeed stopped, and we are indeed shifting into a prolonged period of pronounced global cooling, these individuals will eventually see for themselves (as they are shoveling larger quantities of snow than before) that the AGW sales pitch which they were given as school children has turned out to be a myth, and that humans are not really affecting our planet’s climate as they were taught in science class.
Will they complain (as you suggest) “why were we all fed this stuff”?
Or will they just conclude that all school learning was bogus?
I hope it is the former, but I fear it may be the latter for some.
IMHO, this is why frightening impressionable school children with a very scary but extremely doubtful message that AGW is a real and serious problem for our future should be stopped.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB
Further to my post to Alex Cull, yes, I am appalled that confused school teachers and administrators are feeding our children the IPCC version of the AGW story as “science”.
Peter may try to equate this with teaching the Darwin theory on evolution as “science”, but it is, of course, totally different.
AGW is a multi-billion dollar big business (evolution is not).
The Darwin theory of evolution has been around a long time, and has been validated over and over again by many scientific disciplines.
The IPCC slant on AGW has not, despite some silly claims that “the science is settled”.
Giving impressionable school children a one-sided (IPCC) pitch on AGW and cloaking this as “science” is political brainwashing in its crudest form.
Just my opinion on this, Tony.
Regards,
Max
TonyB
Yes, please dig out more info on the “Agenda 21” and the planned June meeting and let us all know what is going on here.
I hope there will be representatives of other schools of thought (than the IPCC sales pitch) at that meeting.
But maybe it will be a closed group, like the old “Commintern” meetings.
Regards,
Max
Max,
You’ve made a mistake in your 6096.
If the linear equation is:
y = -0.00105x + 0.4786
then the decadal cooling is 0.0105 degC per decade. Which I would suggest is statistically just the same as saying that the temperatures have been flat this century.
Its just a matter of sliding the decimal point along one place in the first term of the equation.
You managed to do it right in your posting #3073 on page 21. There we had a discussion on whether the temperature was warming by 0.018 degC this decade, or cooling by a similar amount. But it’s not significant either way.
What I’m suggesting is that the quiet sun has almost exactly counteracted the effect of increased GHG concentrations so far this century.
Science taught in Aussie schools is subject to advice from all sources. But particularly, the Australian Government funds the ‘Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’ (CSIRO). What’s the point of doing that if they aren’t going to use their findings in the educational system for instance?
I suppose if Bob_FJ had his way he’d close it all down and rely on websites such as wattsupwiththat. Fortunately Australians are more enlightened than that, so its not going to happen any time soon.
Max
This is a composite of my various postings on Agenda 21 and the ‘AD Hoc’ group that is behind much of the impetus for climate change legislation in the EU. Hope the narrative thread is clear. The group actually met in April-and not in June.
Crosspatch on WUWT has posted probably one of the most significant links ever to appear in this Blog. I followed it through to the UN paper which-if true-is dynamite and IMHO warrants a thread by itself so as not to hijack this one. Here is the link right through to the UN Discussion document
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf
it is indeed a UN document to reorder the world
Whilst everyone should scrutinise each line in order to see what we had always believed was an agenda behind the IPCC (they couldn’t seriously believe all their models could they) some highlights are
Page 6 item 17
page 8 item 25 and 27
page 9 item 34
page 10 item 37
page 14 item 60
Conclusions on p15
This is the ad hoc working group composition and its aims, that have fed into the UN report above.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/awg6/eng/08.pdf
These are the key chairs
Harald Dovland Norway –chair minister for environment http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-180526631.html
Mam Konate of Mali Vice chair http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop11/enbots/enbots1704e.html
Chan Woo-Kim Republic of korea http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:py3_vPi45-wJ:www.unescap.org/esd/environment/mced/singg/documents/Programme_SINGG_Final.pdf+chan-woo+kim+republic+of+korea&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Ms Christiana Figueres Costa Rica http://figueresonline.com/
Nuno Lacasta Portugal http://www.wcl.american.edu/environment/lacasta.cfm
Brian Smith New Zealand (also a Bryan Smith-same person?
Marcelo Rocha Brazil http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50347.pdf
Talking about carbon markets and here
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12378e.html
Smokey at WUWT commented as follows;
After reading the relevant passages you posted, I have a few comments:
The UN climate proposals are more stringent than the changes imposed on the defeated nations following WWII, and they are aimed directly at the U.S. and the West. They are hostile, and they are based on fraudulent science as a means to an end.
Following the end of WWII the Soviets expropriated not only massive amounts of industrial equipment from Germany, but also tens of thousands of highly educated engineers and scientists, and made them slaves of the Russian state. Almost none of those individuals were ever released or repatriated. The immediate result was the detonation of the Soviet Union’s first atomic bomb, less than one year after the war ended. Russia’s first hydrogen bomb test occurred only a matter of months after the first U.S. test.
[The West, despite what is portrayed in history books, took similar actions. For example, the giant cranes and gantrys lining Long Beach harbor were dismantled in Germany at the end of the war and moved to California; taken with no compensation as the spoils of war.]
The UN now demands nothing less than the complete surrender of the West to its version of world socialism, with the UN as world dictator. The spoils of this undeclared war are in the posted documents; industry will be forcibly relocated to other countries, with no compensation. Taxes will be raised as high as necessary to enable this theft — all in the name of “combating climate change.”
It is all there in the UN documents. IMHO, simply evicting the UN from the host country is completely inadequate. The UN is the enemy. They are extremely hostile, and must be destroyed. It is quite clearly them or us.
It should be pointed out that the latest move in this concerted effort is toward a single world currency. Why? Because along with a world monetary system, there must also be a world police force to prosecute financial crimes, and a world court to adjudicate financial crimes. Note that financial “crimes” were high on the list of Soviet offenses committed by the kulaks [the Russian middle class, which was forcibly exterminated].
Climate alarmism is just part and parcel of the deliberate move toward a dictatorial world government. It is simply a means to an end, as is the demand for a world currency. And in the approaching world government, there will be zero sympathy for Western values, because those involved in the UN agenda do not possess Western values.
I desperately want to be wrong about this.
But I am not wrong. Look, and you will see it happening.”
Aron said;
“You forgot Agenda 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
Note how they have planned to act on such a vast level without asking any population for approval. Aren’t agendas and manifestos supposed to be presented by representative politicians to a voting public instead of being crafted by faceless unelected bureaucrats who make the decisions for everyone.”
I replied
Thanks to those who have taken the time to read this. Those of us who did not believe the science always matched the reality will recognise that it is the politics that are pre-imminent and the science is a façade.
I have always been reluctant to accept the IPCC/UN had an agenda, but this document clearly describes the world order they seek to put in place through scaring everyone with tales of catastrophic climate change which gives an added dimension to H.L.Mencken who wrote:”The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature-quite the opposite-as a sceptic I have found there is usually a rational explanation to most things if you look hard enough, which generally centres on money, power, prestige, politics, ignorance and idealism.
However the UN document elevates debate on AGW to a different league. The ’science’ we have always been sceptical about-doubling co2 causes a temp rise of up to 5degrees C (How!) All sorts of unproven exotic feedbacks promoted as facts. The use of ridiculous proxies such as global temperatures to 1850, nonsense about rising sea levels, scorning history demonstrating we have been warmer than today and that polar ice has been as extensive as today.
These and many more things simply don’t add up to a compelling argument that ‘WE’ are dramatically changing the planet.
(I then carried out some more research;)
This is the claimed agenda of the UN
http://worldinbalance.net/agreements/1992-rio-agenda21.php
This is the schools agenda
http://sage-agenda21.site.voila.fr/
(click on the English button-top right.
(Many worthy aims being hijacked by climate action material)
If this is all some eleborate joke it is extremely well thought out and executed.
http://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/2000-unglobalcompact.php
gives UN declarations covering 10 principles.
http://worldinbalance.net/agreements/gov-agreements.php
This gives an idea of the organisation and funding. Along the top are various links leading to a better description of their work.
They follow the general principles of Agenda 21 which is an overall UN aspiration whose aims are described succinctly here
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
The UN document posted earlier to be discussed in April 2009 in Bonn seems to be correct and is firmly baseed on the work of various sub committees voted for by the representatives of govts who are funding the UN . It is nothing more or less than an attempt to bring forward a ‘one world’ through a variety of socialist measures including removal of industries, serious tax increases and re-education to ensure we all do the ‘right’ thing. The link is repeated here for convenience. The IPCC seem to be the agent for this reordering through scaring the population into accepting its findings and stessing there is no option other than to radically change our ways.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf
Agenda 21 is clearly linked to the AD Hoc working group. The group has five chairs of whom 4 are green activists. Several of them have openly written of the need for a new world governance. The SAGE21 education agenda from the UN clearly sets out to influence schools. I called it indoctrination because the message was unbalanced.
The Agenda 21 aims has been endorsed, and various councils and govt bodies have been instructed to follow this agenda.
Below is the first session of the AD Hoc group in 2006
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cmp1_00_consideration_of_commitments_under_3.9.pdf
Good resumee of events below;
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12357e.html
Two manifestations of policy I have personal knowledge of are in the need to accomodate a rise of 3.5mm a year into flood planning through the IPCC mandatory guidelines- although no evidence exists of any such rise. Also in a project of which I am involved where a new building has to meet new building regulations to reduce co2 which will quadruple the cost of the heating system and require automatic systems to ventilate and cool the buiilding-all things we can achieve by opening a window or flicking a light swirch.
The EU only got on board in 2005 with climate change
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:eGPj89Zrb2EJ:ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf+tony+blair+ad+hoc+working+group+for+annex+first+session&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
or as a pdf
http://ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf
“The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair defined climate change as “probably, long-term the single most important issue we face as a global community” and made climate change one of his priority topics during the UK’s G8 Presidency, along with Africa. Climate change was also made a priority for the
UK’s EU Presidency (1 July 2005 – 31 December 2005). In a keynote speech on climate change, Tony Blair set out three ambitious targets for the UK’s G8 Presidency in 2005:
•?To secure an agreement as to the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses, to
provide the foundation for further action
•?To reach agreement on a process to speed up the science, technology and other measures
necessary to meet the threat
•?To engage countries outside the G8 who have growing energy needs, like China and India”
The following year was the first meeting of the ad hoc group to which I refer-no coincidence at all. Both the EU and the UN are following Agenda 21. In the case of climate change that relates to the IPCC whose findings are endorsed by those following the agenda and who therefore subsequently have a legal obligation to implement that agenda. This includes teaching propaganda to our school children
As a Brit I am perhaps more sensitive than most to the idea of an agenda being carried out for my own good and without any opportunty to vote on it. We have seen this disregard for our opinions for many years with the EU’s erosion of our sovereignty- over which we have consistenly been denied a say.
I am not a right wing dogmatist. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I examine evidence from all sides in any major aspect of life because I am a sceptic. The evidence shows there is an asgenda for some form of world governance and the hobgoblin that is being used is climate change.
It says as much in the UN document, the AD hoc working group annex minutes and Agenda 21, It says so in the EU and these missives are being handed down to everyone at a practical -“you must do this level”
Tonyb
What a remarkable coincidence……….
Max,
Why do you think that “AGW is a multi-billion dollar big business” ?
Incidentally, billions of dollars aren’t that much these days. Its all measured in trillions now.
The renewable energy sector is getting bigger. Is that what you mean? Or the nuclear power industry? Naturally they will use concerns about AGW to their own advantage.
But on the other hand the fossil fuel industries hate the idea and they are still a lot bigger and wealthier. You don’t have to dig very deep to find evidence that they are very active in funding the denialist campaign of disinformation presently.
The guys who are doing the research don’t seem to be in it just for the money. I noticed an advert for a post doctoral researchers at the UEA (if I remember correctly). The pay was on a sliding scale of about UKP30k pa. It doesn’t seem very much for such highly qualified people. Maybe you should pay them banking type salaries to attract a more money orientated type of person.
You seem to think that it is ‘arrogant’ to suggest we have the ability to stop CO2 concentrations rising to 450 ppmv and higher. It isn’t going to get to that level on its own! If not us then who else?
Can’t speak for Max; however, it’s a marketing tool…..it’s a gimmick for industry, retail and politicians alike.
In other words, it’s a farce, a ploy to convince you to buy my “green” crap as opposed to buying Max’s “non-green” crap.
I do it………and I’m making lots of money selling “green” crap that is no better (or worse) than non-green crap…..people will just pay more for it because we market it as “environmentally friendly” and you’ve bought it……hook, line and sinker.
Brute,
That’s just the nature of capitalism. Just add a picture of a smiling dolphin to a tin of tuna, and hey presto a ‘green’ product. Of course, the dolphin may not have much to eat but who cares?
That doesn’t, of course, make any difference to the question of whether or not its safe to let atmospheric Co2 levels rise uncontrollably.
What about these anti AGW ads in the USA? Its that right? Who’s behind them?
Hi Peter,
You asked, “Why do you think that AGW is a multi-billion dollar business?”
Climate-related research expenditures in the USA are estimated to have been around $30 billion over the past six years.
Globally this figure has been estimated to be around twice this amount, or around $10 billion per year, largely fueled by the politically sponsored AGW scare and financed by the taxpayers.
But this is just the “ante”.
The whole aim of the AGW movement is to move to the “mitigation” phase.
The goal of this phase is to levy a carbon tax on every ton of carbon emitted as CO2. This tax will eventually be borne by every man, woman and child who consumes energy directly or indirectly via products or services that require energy.
Cap and trade schemes achieve essentially the same goal, but preferred by many politicians, as they are less transparent and therefore easier to “sell” to unsuspecting populations.
The ruse is often used that it will be “the big oil and coal companies” that have to pay this in any case (glossing over the obvious fact that it will be the consumer who pays in the end).
There are many estimates floating around on the eventual cost of a carbon tax. Like all taxes, it will start off small and increase rapidly. In order for this tax to provide an incentive to drastically reduce carbon emissions (the AGW goal), it will have to be high enough to hurt.
One estimate places it at $100 per ton of carbon emitted (other estimates are much higher, but let’s use this one).
The world emits some 30 GtCO2 per year, or around 8 GtC per year, so this is equivalent to $800 billion per year.
Another estimate I’ve seen tells us that the average US household would have to pay around $1,500 to $2,000 per year in added costs resulting from a carbon tax. At 115 million households this equals $170 to 230 billion for the USA alone (represents around 20% of the world CO2 emission), putting the world total at $850 to 1,150 billion (getting up to your “trillion” figure).
So yes, Peter, AGW is indeed a multi-billion dollar business. And free-spending politicians are licking their chops in gleeful anticipation of having such obscenely large sums of taxpayer money to shuffle around for pet projects, etc. A true bonanza!
Not only are the scientists lining up at the taxpayer trough, but many corporations see great opportunities for government handouts for “green” projects and products (and are lobbying accordingly). Consultancies are being set up (Hadley, as an example) to cash in on a new boom in adaptation or mitigation services.
Everyone will be “doing well” by “doing good” (all at the expense of John Q. Public).
Regards,
Max.
Hi Peter,
Coming back to the two “old saw”s, which you have just regurgitated:
Let’s analyze both.
The amount of corporate shareholder money spent by the fossil fuel industries to fund a “denialist campaign of disinformation” is quite small, in comparison with the total amount of tax-payer money being spent to fund the “alarmist (= IPCC) campaign of disinformation”.
I have seen estimates that we are talking of a few millions of dollars (compared to the $10 billion annually going into “climate research” to support the 1,000-page IPCC reports), plus the additional millions being spent by AGW-activist and lobbying firms, financial speculators, “green” industries, etc. on TV commercials and PR blurbs. Truly peanuts, in comparison, so you can lay that old saw to rest.
Are the “guys doing the research” in it for the money? I am sure that none of the “2,500 mainstream climatologists who support the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat” are doing their work on a “pro bono” basis, so, yes, they are, indeed, “in it for the money”. The relative pay scale for climatologists and bank workers is totally immaterial to the discussion, as is the relative job security. Scientist become scientists because this is what they want to do. So do bank employees.
So both of your “old saws” have been kicked in the head, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
UKP30k pa; that’s about US$45k pa. The guys on Wall St, or in the ‘city’, would claim more in entertainment expenses and it probably wouldn’t take them a whole year to do it either. So that’s being in it for the money? I don’t think so.
You guys don’t seem want to tell me anything about these ads on US TV. Are you saying that the good citizens over there are so appalled at the prospect on the extra cost of a carbon trading scheme that they have got together and paid for some TV airtime?
Call me cynical if you like, but I would have put my money on big business, especially the likes of the coal companies and Exxonmobil being behind it all. But if you are saying that isn’t the case………
WordPress automatically flagged comment #6105 from TonyB for moderation because of its length and the number of links it contained, so there has been a delay in it appearing. If you missed it, you may want to go back and have a look.
Hi Peter,
To your final point:
You are asking the wrong question here, Peter.
It is not “who?” Leaving out the obvious question “why?”, the next question is “how?” (And “how realistic is this?”)
The world currently emits 30 GT/year CO2.
Assuming 50% of this “stays” in the atmosphere, this means an increase of 1.92 ppmv per year.
To reach 450 ppmv at the current level of global emission would take until year 2043 (when James E. Hansen turns 100 years of age).
But world population is growing at 1.3% per year, developing giants like China, India and Brazil are not about to stop this development once the current slowdown ends, and the poorest nations of the world also want to see their dream of a better standard of living realized by building up their energy infrastructures with relatively inexpensive and abundant local fossil fuels.
If CO2 grows directly with population, we will reach 450 ppmv by year 2025.
But let us assume that the wealthiest nations actually reduce their CO2 emissions despite continuing modest growth by energy conservation measures, more fuel efficient hybrid or electrical transportation, conversion to nuclear power and renewable sources in small applications where this makes sense, etc.
And let us assume that the developing nations, such as China, India, Brazil, the “Asian Tigers”, etc. continue their rapid growth as their economies and standards of living catch up, but that their fossil fuel consumption grows at a slower rate, due to energy conservation measures, improved manufacturing efficiencies, etc.
And, finally, let us assume that the poorest nations of the world are successful in building up their energy infrastructures with relatively inexpensive and abundant local fossil fuels.
By all these measures we might be able to extend the time period until we reach 450 ppmv to 50 years, or to year 2059.
But, in my opinion, “to suggest that we have the ability to stop CO2 concentrations rising to 450 ppmv” without turning the whole world economy on its head is a pipe dream, Peter.
If you are of another opinion, please describe specifically how you would go about this.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
In your 6104 you opined:
You are dead wrong here, Peter. The Hadley temperature anomalies quoted were MONTHLY data, so the equation is -.00105C per MONTH (not per year as you have assumed).
To get to a decadal rate, you have to multiply by 120 (number of months in a decade), not by 10, as you have assumed.
So (-.00105) * (120) turns out to be -0.126C per decade (a fairly steep cooling rate, actually equivalent to the 1976-2000 warming rate, which was also calculated in the same manner).
So the mistake is yours, Peter, not mine.
Regards,
Max
PS And the temperature has not been “essentially flat” but has cooled sharply since January 2001.
Hi Peter,
Bringing up relative pay scales to claim that climatologists are not earning their living from the AGW scare is silly, Peter, as I mentioned earlier. Facts are facts, and relative pay scales have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that climatologists are earning their living from the AGW scare.
Now to your second point, where you wrote:
I am not in the USA, but was last winter. I did see several TV ads relating to AGW, energy dependence, etc. T. Boone Pickens had a whole series promoting his natural gas / windmill “Boone-doggle”. Al Gore’s PR group had a bunch on saving the planet (and indirectly helping him make a few more millions with his cap and trade biz). The energy companies had ads pushing for more oil and gas exploration; creates jobs! (plus profits for the companies involved, of course). The coal companies had some on “clean coal” and “energy independence”. The railroad companies explained how they could move freight with much less energy than trucks. Etc., etc.
I’d say the TV ads of pro-AGW camp were at least half of the total.
It appeared to me that the brunt of the message there was more related to energy independence than AGW, which does not appear to be a major concern of most Americans.
But the ad agencies love it. Big bucks.
Don’t see so many here in Switzerland (where TV commercials are limited anyway).
How about in Australia? Is the ratio about 50:50 there, as well?
Regards,
Max
TonyB
Thanks for your very comprehensive post on Agenda 21 and the planned “new world order”.
I will go through it very carefully.
Makes the concept of “agenda driven science” even more sinister than I thought!
Wonder what Peter thinks of all this?
Regards,
Max
Frankly, I haven’t seen any “anti” global warming ads. Admittedly I don’t watch much television and when I do it’s usually the news or some variant of the History/Discovery Channel. What I have seen are ads from companies such as British Petroleum and Exxon/Mobil exploiting the “going green” movement to further their product which is counter intuitive in my mind. These companies were founded and are in the business of selling oil, which is fine, but I’m not fooled for one minute into thinking that they are going to abandon their oil platforms, drilling rigs, delivery systems and gasoline stations in order to finance and produce wind energy systems because some blonde bimbo tells me they are.
I’m not saying that crass commercials exposing AGW as a hoax don’t exist; I just haven’t seen them. I have seen “pro” AGW ads on televisions that are blatantly misleading and espouse outright lies to frighten people into buying “green” junk and convince them that paying higher taxes is laudable and “beneficial”. I’ve also seen programs (particularly on the History Channel) that weave the myth of Global Warming into the story/”documentary in an effort to give AWG theory an air of legitimacy.
I wrote a while back that I attended a “green” symposium related to my industry and as I sat there eating my $100.00 a plate lunch listening to all of the “experts” ramble on and on, hawking their wares all masked by a disingenuous “concern” for “the environment”, all I could think of was this was a gigantic sales pitch wrapped around the lie that global warming was a serious concern that threatens the planet. I played along, but honestly, it’s a ruse to sell stuff.
What I do is consult. I advise businesses on how to conserve energy (which is what I’ve been doing for 25 years anyway and which they could do themselves if they just screwed their heads on straight)……long before “going green” became the fad that it is. I don’t promote my “product” under the guise of “saving the planet”, although I do benefit from the hysteria.
And……Max is right…………Politicians are creating and promoting the hysteria as a ploy to increase taxes to get their hands on more taxpayer money to fund [insert pet project here] and line their own pockets as well as people/organizations that keep them in power/voted for them.
The more insidious groups are promoting a subsistence type society/economy/philosophy………which is antithetical to human nature and detrimental to the human (and the planets) condition.
Hi Peter,
You opined earlier:
Now that we have cleared up your error (of confusing months with years) and confirmed that the cooling rate was TWELVE TIMES what you have stated, it is obviously not true “that the quiet sun has almost exactly counteracted the effect of increased GHG concentrations so far this century”.
It has way overcompensated any effect that the increasing GHGs may theoretically have had.
Please confirm that you understand this.
Thanks.
Regards,
Max
Max,
If there is any confusion between months and years and various warming/cooling rates its because you seem to be changing your stance without any explanation at all.
Isn’t this your graph? Or have you disowned this now?
In it you seem to be saying that the earth is either warming or cooling by about 0.02 degC per decade. But now you have some new ‘improved’ figures? Things have really changed that much in just 4 or 5 months?
I don’t think so. You chose the 2001 start because you could just about show some cooling.
If you had gone back to 2008, you’d have had to concede that the earth was still warming.
Max
We have discussed UHI before and I think we are both sceptical of the claim that it only accounts for a fraction of a degree rise in temperarure.
This latest report therefore makes interesting reading
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6256520.ece
In effect UHI dwarfs the notional impact of co2 and is something that observationally can be felt to happen. As over half the worlds population now lives in cities perhaps the city temperature becomes the ‘norm.’
Short of reducing the population and curbing our instinct to cover everything with concrete, it is difficult to see how much we can reduce any uhi effect by in the future.
Tonyb
Hi Peter,
You certainly have tenacity even if logic does not appear to be your strong point.
An updated chart with the monthly data starting with January 1998 and going through March 2009 will show you an essentially flat trend (Hadley), very slight warming (GISS) and slight cooling (UAH and RSS). An average of all records shows a very slight cooling over this period.
This plateau over the past 11.25 years has been discussed previously (even by Pachauri).
Some have objected to starting the trend in 1998, since this was a record high El Nino year.
I have started the new trend line with the start of the 21st century (January 2001), as a convenient break point.
All 4 records show a cooling trend over this 8.25 year period, as the charts I have posted clearly show.
The Hadley record (your favorite) shows that this cooling trend is equal in magnitude (but opposite sign, of course) to the warming trend from January 1976 through December 2000 (the late 20th century “poster” period cited by IPCC, which is admittedly 3 times as long as the current 21st century cooling period (and therefore, by definition, three times as pertinent).
Will the current cooling continue and eventually become another multi-decadal trend, as we have had over and over again in the past?
Who knows?
But for now we must admit that it is real.
Facts are facts, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for UHI update and comments.
Another interesting update on the US stations is provided by Anthony Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
A good way to solve the impending threat from AGW could be the following solution.
Shut down all weather stations in urban areas (population >1,000) and relocate these to the nearby countryside, where there are no asphalt parking lots, waste water treatment plants, buildings or AC unit exhausts nearby.
Make sure that existing rural stations, which have AC units, etc. nearby are relocated.
This simple step may cost a few million dollars (but is infinitely less expensive than the draconioan “mitigation” steps that will otherwise be implemented or levied).
If we see that these changes have resulted in additional global cooling of 0.4 to 0.6C (above the 0.1C cooling we have already observed in this century, even with those thermometers next to AC units), we will have cancelled out all of the 20th century warming and AGW will have been proven to be nothing more than a figment of the imagination in the virtual world of the climate models.
Problem solved, so everyone can go home and worry about something else (ex. an invasion by aliens?)
Regards,
Max
No, its human nature. If I am sucessful in selling you my product, (at a higher price), which is the same as Max’s product, you’ve bought it because you have been convinced my product is better.
Why did you buy my product over Max’s? You bought my product because you want something better than the status quo…..you want something better than “average” and are willing to pay more for it, (which is why Communism/Socialism will fail every time).
For the same reason, Cap and Trade will fail, and attempts at social conformity will ultimately fail. Someone will always want something “better” than what everyone else has.
I know you better than you think I do. You think that if government simply legislated that everyone be forced to drive a Yugo, or use X amount of energy, then everyone would adhere and tow the line. It won’t work……it has never worked.
Wealthy people/societies will simply continue using as much energy as they always have……poor people will be forced to ration or do without.
That’s what your “green” agenda will bring.