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.
Hey Brute,
You are right. The forecasting accuracy of the doomsayers has been dismal.
The extremists like Hansen are way off so far (you’ve posted his “20th anniversary” flop), but some more gullible folks still fall for his predictions of imminent tipping points as we reach the dangerous CO2 level of 450 ppm..
But even the IPCC (which has been a bit more cautious than Hansen) has a dismal record. The attached scorecard was last updated in 2006.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Their record has gotten even worse since then. They predicted 0.2C per decade temperature rise for the first decades of the 21st century. So far, it has cooled by a rate of 0.11C per decade, despite all-time record CO2 levels (Peter is still in denial of this, essentially calling it a speed bump).
You are also right when you say follow the money trail.
Gore has made a neat bundle already with his junk science film and hopes to make even more on carbon cap trading.
The merry men at the Hadley (UK Met) have set up a “marketing” department to sell “adaption and mitigation consulting” and make a buck.
The political leadership of many of the scientific organizations has also sold out, in anticipation of AGW research grant funding.
And the politicians are already drooling at the thought of a mammoth carbon tax (or cap and trade scheme) that puts hundreds of billions of dollars into their hands for shuffling around.
And guess who is paying for this whole circus?
Doesn’t it make you feel good?
Regards,
Max
TonyB,
Yeah. I remember Al Gore’s 1992 book.
At the time, I thought it was sensible (global warming was only a small piece of the total, as I recall).
And all the hyperbole, exaggerations and fabrications in his “AIT” film were all missing in that book.
But, then again, he didn’t make millions on that book, either (and at that time he had to show his income publicly as US VP).
Regards,
Max
I prefer warmer temperatures……….winter was interminably long this year.
I’d move to a warmer climate but the money is to be made here.
Peter believes that mankind can control the weather. I think he referred to it as “climate engineering”. If that’s the case, I say turn up the thermostat a few degrees here. Of course we could dial it down a few degrees in July with a touch of dehumidification in August.
Rain generally messes up the finish on my car so I’d request that it only rain at night while my car is garaged.
I’m not a big fan of strong winds either, perhaps Peter could dial his weather controlling machine to limit wind speed to 10 mph maximum. There would probably be an issue with numerous people requesting specific weather conditions on certain days. I’d increase the wind speed if I wanted to fly a kite with my niece which may interfere with someone’s outdoor wedding reception.
Maybe Peter’s machine could create micro climates?
Max, re Met Office Forecasts.
I suppose it all depends on whether any of these press releases are about getting predictions right, or whether they are just a means of getting a story with a particular spin into the the media. Up until now criticisms about accuracy have mainly been confined to the blogosphere, but last night’s report for BBC TV News by Roger Harrabin actually poked fun at the Met Office for getting seasonal forecasts wrong so often. The print report on their website did no such thing and embroidered the press release in just the way that, I suspect, was intended.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8026668.stm
TonyN
Yes, I can see that these Met Office PR releases have more to do with “getting a story with a particular spin into the the media” than with providing a serious forecast of what the future weather (or climate) will really be.
And I particularly liked the fact that Met Office concedes that one cannot make any short term plans based on its forecasts, but nevertheless states confidently (and, IMHO arrogantly):
If the Met Office cannot tell you what is going to happen next month, how in the world is it going to be able to predict what will happen to the weather (or climate) next year, or in 10 or even 100 years (and then provide you consultancy services for coping with it)?
The logic escapes me here, Tony. Maybe you can fill me in.
I know that Peter has expressed a theory that it is easier to predict the long-term future than the immediate future, as he says as a result of the diminishing effect of “background noise” over the long period.
But, based on the record so far, it is clear to me that “background noise” (and unforeseen “outliers”) are actually what is driving our climate rather than human CO2 emissions, so Peter’s theory appears to be false based on the actual physical observations.
The Met Office’s dismal record on forecasting global climate 12 months in advance just confirms this.
Regards,
Max
TonyN and Brute
Yes, and the Met Office uses the classical forecaster’s “cop-out” of “our prediction was correct, except for…” (add in any unforeseen natural event which occurred that caused the forecast to be totally wrong: El Nino/La Nina shifts, changes in the jet stream, etc., etc).
How many times have you heard sales managers, project managers, financial consultants, etc., etc. use this excuse?
It’s the classic cop-out.
When these guys do it, we laugh and shake our heads.
When the Met Office does it and even goes so far as to say that this background noise is temporarily masking the real trend, we all nod and swallow the line (because, after all, these are “scientists” – and we have been taught that “scientists” can never be wrong).
Hmm…
Max
Max]
The met office use the same computer models to forecast (often wrongly) the weather for a day or week ahead as they do for a century ahead
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/
Climate is merely numerous consecutive weather episodes stitched together, and if the Met office can get it wrong for a day ahead it is certain that they will get it even more wrong for a forecast being made 36500 days ahead (a century)
They are no more than 15 miles away from me here and they would often get the weather forecast more correct if they simply looked out of the window. We should not give any credence whatsover for their one hundred year crystal ball gazing.
tonyb
In the years after the 2003 heat wave, the Met Office were keen to predict dangerously hot summers happening in the UK every other year by 2050. Here’s a BBC article featuring some lifestyle advice to help us all cope.
Peter Stott: “2003 was a foretaste of thing to come if we carry on emitting greenhouse gases. It is likely to become the norm.”
They seem to have become a little more reticent about this prediction in recent years. Although of course if we do happen to get a warmer than average summer this year, the underlying Met Office dire warning trend may surface once again…
Bob, re your 6017, thanks!
This comes from Australia. It demolishes the myth that we are warming by asking where’s the proof.(no its not Peter recanting his views).
Tonyb
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/01/name-3-clear-signs-of-the-coming-thermageddon/
Brute, Reur 6028, you wrote in part to a fruitcake here:
Do you get summer “bugs” there like mozzies?
I would ask for some bio-engineering too.
Alex Cull, Reur 6033, thanks, and I extract some lines from your BBC link for comment:
Just a few thoughts:
1) The hottest summer for 500 years, based on what? And, if it was that hot 500 years ago, was it anthropogenically caused? (Uh?)
2) But I read somewhere that those 27,000 heat related deaths were mostly amongst the elderly or frail, and that it was likely a temporary pull-ahead in the normal flow of deaths, meaning that a period of low death rate followed, and the annual average was hardly affected. (A lot of people also die from cold BTW)
3) Oh wow, British summers could hit 35C again! So how have those British troops, all togged-up, head to toe, with protective gear etc, coped in T’s up to ~50C in Iraq?
And, how can the indigenous population possibly survive?
Hi Peter,
You, some other posters and myself have had several months of discussion on many open topics related to the ongoing scientific, political and economic debate surrounding the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat (in addition to many topics that are nor really directly related, which crept in and TonyN generously allowed us to discuss on the thread).
I have picked out fifteen of these that are directly related.
I have omitted some, where there was no conclusion reached, such as the validity of pre-Mauna Loa CO2 measurements brought up by TonyB, the introduction of a “carbon efficiency” indicator for different national or regional economies rather than just an absolute or per capita CO2 emission measurement, which I suggested, the ongoing discussion on global sea ice trends brought up by you, etc.
These 15 cover topics where:
· You made a claim that was subsequently shown to be false or you were unable to substantiate
· Another blogger challenged you to provide evidence for the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat, which you were unable to do
· Another blogger made a statement raising doubt on the data supporting the AGW premise, which you attempted unsuccessfully to refute
The scorecard does not look too good for you (and your AGW premise), Peter.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3493023109_4cce4ec54d_b.jpg
Out of the 15 topics, I would judge that you have lost the debate on 14 (and declined to enter the discussion on one).
Now you may be of a different opinion, and may feel that you have actually won some of the points.
Once you have gone through the list, I would be interested in your thoughts with any supporting evidence.
Regards,
Max
Hey Bob,
Summer bugs (insects) yes. Garden variety mosquitoes, ants, all manner of bees, hornets, wasps, houseflies, lady bugs, moths, etc. Generally the birds and frogs eat them up rather quickly. There is a certain type deer fly that bites/stings which is rather unpleasant.
I don’t know what Mozzies are.
We don’t get tremendous swarms, just natural amounts, he-ing and she-ing in springtime. Every seventeen years we do get swarms of a certain variety of locusts. The Southeastern portion of the United States is rather timid. No poisonous snakes to speak of or venomous spiders like Down Under.
We do get the occasional blizzard, Nor’easters, Hurricanes (rarely) and of course severe thunderstorms with the infrequent tornado attached.
I remember as a child vacationing in the more northern climates (Northern New England) lake country. During Spring/Early summer the mosquitoes were ferocious………probably due to the shorter mating season.
Hey Bob,
Looked it up……Mozzies (Mosquitoes)………
I sure wish you guys would learn to speak English down there like the rest of us.
Max
I think you are being unfair to Peter, he has made progress.
After the interminable parsing of fractions of degrees of global temperatures back to 1850 I took Peter to task on the validity of Global temperatures AND the notion that we have any sort of degree of accuracy whatsoever from 1850 from which to make assumptions for the future. I seem to recall that Peter sort of agreed, but said that as there were lots of other things that demonstrated warming over this period this concession wasn’t important.
I also had a number of exchanges with him about the Hockey stick and Peter did agree that perhaps Michael Mann had somewhat underestimated the climate of the past-both hot and cold.
So I think the scorecard should record that he does show promise and will accept that not everything that is said about AGW is true.
His weak point-as you record- is his failure to demonstrate how you get up to a 6.2C rise through a doubling of Co2 by providing us with a proper A to Z of peer reviewed calculations.
This is a puzzling omission bearing in mind that the science is settled and there must therefore be hundreds of studies out there that demonstrate this ‘fact’ AND that there is a Half Million dollar prize going begging for anyone that can prove the claim.
In this regard I believe ALL of us on this blog (including Peter) are rational people and if anyone could demonstrate with proper hard facts, observations and a proveable hypotheses that CO2 WAS the bete noir that is claimed, we would all do our best to reduce emissions and encourage others to do the same.
I think we all acceopt that theoretically we might cause .2 to .6 of a degree warming (well within natural variability and nothing to get excited about bearing in mind the benefits carbon brings)so Peter is pushing at an open door.
Surely someone must have posted their calculations on all this-other than miskolczi who came up with 0.2-which no one has yet refuted.
Incidentally there have been some major developments over the last few weeks on the sea level rise front and the govt agency I work with has postponed several major projects as the scientific evidence to demonstrate that the sea level will rise and cause flooding on the scale they had calculated has been shown to be incorrect. Major new studies are under way to take into account the reality that sea levels have dropped by several mm over the last three years. The new studies of future expected rises (that arose from the Exeter conference that I posted about here) should be available in 6 months to a year and will take the recent drop in sea levels into account.
TonyB
Hi TonyB
You are right, of course.
I did not mean to be too hard on Peter, just to sort of clear the record on the many points we have discussed here.
But you are absolutely right that the weak point in Peter’s argument that AGW is a serious threat is “his failure to demonstrate how you get up to a 6.2C rise through a doubling of Co2 by providing us with a proper A to Z of peer reviewed calculations”.
I would add that these calculations should be based on actual physical observations, rather that simply climate model assumptions.
This has been Robin’s point , as well. Without this evidence the premise that AGW is a real and serious threat is unsubstantiated.
And yes, I think we all agree that “theoretically we might see .2 to .6 of a degree warming with a doubling of CO2 (well within natural variability and nothing to get excited about)”.
Peter obviously believes the 2xCO2 warming would be much more severe, but is unable to subastantiate his fear.
Anyway, thanks for the words of wisdom.
Regards,
Max
Brute and Bob_FJ
We have a similar animal to your “deer fly” here in Switzerland in the summer. It is called a “Bremse” in German (“Bräme” in Swiss-German or “taon” in French). It is often translated as “horsefly” in English, but I’m not sure that’s exactly right. Buzzes around your head and stings you on hot, sweltery days. Said by Swiss legend to originate south of the Alps (in Italy) – ya gotta blame somebody else, right?
There is even a traditional Swiss German song that says these pests come across the Gotthard Pass.
But we do not (thank goodness) have anything like the tiny flies that you have in parts of Australia, that buzz around your head and go into your eyes looking for moisture. Is that the “mozzie”?
Will these pests multiply rampantly with the expected anthropogenic greenhouse warming of our climate?
Ask Al Gore. Or maybe Peter.
Max
Sorry Tony, posted on the wrong thread…..been working alot of hours lately.
Max/Bob,
These are the little sons of bitches I’m talking about.
Deer Fly
Horseflies, (at least that’s what we call them) on the other hand, look like ordinary houseflies but much bigger.
Horse-fly
Max,
Just pondering today…….Has anything that Hansen/Gore/Martin predicted come to pass in relation to global warming?
Gore’s Profitable Environment
http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/30/top_stories/doc49f94461cae7e846121174.txt
Brute
Al Gores carbon connections are well known (he has a co in London asd well as Washington)
However your link provides an interesting and up to date story about how the money is being used to actively promote climate change and the idea of emission caps from which he would profit. It will be interesting to see if any of the activists cotton on to the fact that he is perhaps not the noble minded saviour they believe.
tonyb
Max, you naughty boy; I paste your recent comment on the Guardian:
Do you have a copy in your word processor, for us to assess where you went so badly wrong?
I suspect that the multiple inconvenient facts that you have posted previously may have touched a raw nerve with a mediator.
However, please let us see what you said, to see if it might have been indelicate or whatever.
Brute, Reur 6043, in the pursuance of Pete’s argument on “climate engineering“, and how such science might also be applied to bio-engineering for the much better benefit of mankind;
Your ‘horseflies’ look very similar to what we call marsh flies or March flies in Victoria. They have the ability to land on bare skin undetected, and then inflict a vicious stinging bite, but fortunately without any after-effects as with mozzies. They are attracted to anyone wearing blue jeans or similar colours, and also suede leather shoes whatever.
We also have in Victoria, during the warm months, some very friendly bush-flies, similar to your house-flies in appearance. They like to tickle-crawl over ones face, and are persistent about it, being rather contemptuous of being waved away.
Thus, I would propose that bio-engineering is far more important than climate engineering!
Max, Reur 6042, and in the interests of bio-engineering, and its hugely relative importance to climate-engineering:
You wrote in part:
This sounds a bit like the caddis fly I remember from SE England and Brute’s photo of his local horse fly.
You also wrote:
I take it that when you say tiny flies, that is to say: much smaller than say the European house fly.
I’m not sure what part of Oz that you refer to, but there are some areas that reportedly have tiny sand flies that can be very irritating in their bites. I have never encountered this.
Whatever, I repeat that I think that bio-engineering control of these pests, particularly mozzies, (mosquitoes), is far more important than the dreamland of controlling our climate.
Hi Bob_FJ
Reur 6047
Yeah. Following an exchange between myself and a blogger named cannaman, where I had pointed out a few flaws in Monbiot’s trashing of Tomlinson, the site jester, MeFinny2, chimed in with some disparaging personal remarks about me to cannaman (which since got deleted by the site moderator). I replied to MeFunny that he would do better concentracting on the facts rather than attacking people personally (my reply also got deleted).
No big deal.
Cannaman has slinked into the corner, apparently unable to counter my critical points on the Monbiot trashing of Tomlinson.
I’ve tried to revive his interest, but I believe he sees that this debate would be a losing proposition for himself and has decided to break it off.
So be it.
That site seems to attract some rather immature AGW-groupies, who have nothing really to contribute to the debate other than childish personal attacks on those who dare to disagree with their opinion.
These poor misguided souls give the AGW movement a bad name, but fortunately there are some more intelligent types with whom one can carry out a reasonable debate.
Non illegitemi carborundum,
Max