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.
Apologies if someone has already posted this and i’ve not noticed. A post from ICECAP, I haven’t read the memo yet, but if completely true this is one of the most damning inditements of AGW alarmism yet.
EPA Holding a Smoking Gun Memo
Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) today exposed a “smoking gun” White House memo to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The memo warns that regulation of small CO2 emitters will have “serious economic consequences” for businesses and the overall economy.
Barrasso produced the memo while questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee budget hearing. “I received a memo this morning, that’s marked ‘Deliberative: Attorney-Client Privilege’. In this memo Counsel for the White House repeatedly, repeatedly suggests a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political and not scientific”, Barrasso said.
The EPA has failed to release the memo and has ignored the advice. The nine-page White House memo undermines the EPA’s reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health. “This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business. This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America,” Barrasso said.
See larger youtube here.
Quoting from the memo to the EPA, Barrasso said that, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.” The memo is an amalgamation of findings from government agencies’ sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA. “This smoking gun memo is in stark contrast to the official position presented by the Administration and the EPA Administrator,” Barrasso said.
Despite the findings in the memo, the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act. According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPA’s April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The memo – marked as “Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege” – doesn’t have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed to news agencies that it was prepared by Obama administration staff.
BACKGROUND
The White House brief questions the link between the EPA’s scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA’s political summary. Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that “scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified.”
The White House memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are “not well determined” and “not well understood.” It warns about the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is “no demonstrated direct health effects,” and the scientific data on which the agency relies are “almost exclusively from non-EPA sources.” The memo contends that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.
TonyN
Thought you might be intrigued by the latest job being advertised locally by the Met Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001758.html
tonyB
TonyN my 6152
Sorry, had meant to post some of the advert in order to make a comment about the considerable lack of certainty in knowledge of ice and sea levels denmonstrating once again that the science is by no means settled.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001758.html
“A significant uncertainty in future projections of sea level is associated with dynamical changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and a key aspect of this uncertainty is the role of ice shelves, how they might respond to climate change, and the effect this could have on the ice sheets. The goal of the post is to contribute to improved scenarios of sea-level rise, which is an important aspect of climate change, with large coastal impacts.
Specific job purpose
Incorporate a model of ice shelves into the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model to develop a capability to make projections of rapid changes in ice sheets, thereby leading to improved scenarios of future sea-level rise.”
tonyb
Brute, Reur 6149 foot of previous page to Pete.
You showed a photo of a cryogenically challenged kangaroo, wherein, going by the background flora, it was in an Oz situation…. and you went on to propose:
At first sight this seems to be an interesting proposal, but I can see some plusses and minuses.
Pete, up in Queensland need not concern himself with the detail, but down south where I am, it is more pertinent to “think it through“.
I guess that my love of bushwalking might become more interesting with the prospect of encountering the largest predator on Earth, whilst keeping an eye open for climbable trees for conflict avoidance purposes. However, I have some other concerns with regard to the bear’s modified, yet probably bear-healthy diet. (which despite rumours, is not currently confined to seals)
Here, all around Oz, we have had problems with introduced fauna wrecking havoc with the environment. Around my SE corner, the greatest pest is arguably the rabbit, which seems to be having a resurgence, possibly because of expert measures to “control” introduced foxes, and feral dogs and cats. (BTW, I mean sometime to write to Dessler over at Gristmill, about the astonishing number of Easter bunnies that I and my hyper-stimulated Jack Russel encountered last Easter.)
I see the proposed polar bear introduction as being initially environmentally beneficial. They could dig-up rabbit warrens and enjoy plentiful supplies of “cocktail snacks”, but at some stage that would all come to an end. Then what? Dig-up our magnificent wombats, a lovable sheep sized marsupial? Then what? Humans?
I don’t think that the mainstream Greenies here would approve your proposal.
(Although Tim Flannery has proposed introducing the Komodo Dragon, to replace the extinct mega lizards that ceased here some thousands of years ago…. Tim =Australian of the year 2007.… what a clown!)
TonyB, Reur 6153, concerning the job advertisement for Hadley, I was gob-smacked by your revelations, but the greatest gob-smack of all, my emphasis added was:
I would like to quote this over at The Guardian. Would this be OK with you?
Me and Max have some interesting stuff going on there.
Max, I see that you have been naughty again over at The Guardian, with two of your posts deleted by a moderator.
C’mon Max, give us the gory details!
Bob
Carry on. Can you provide a specific link to the page so I can observe?
TonyB
Re: #6152-3, tonyb
Why can’t the Met Office just call it a new post in fantasy physics?
I was away for the whole of yesterday, but when I got back I switched on the BBC 10pm news a saw a report by David Shukman on the Haddow expedition. The lead-in was along the lines of ‘Scietists in the Arctic have discovered the most dramatic evidence yet of global warming’. It went on to describe the rapid disappearance of the ‘ice cap [sic]’.
I know that you have followed this particular pantomime quite closely, and if you saw Shukman’s report, is there any chance that you could do a complaint? There was more misleading material in it than you could shake a stick at and it was blatant enough to quantify and refute definitively.
tonyb:
This makes that report even more weird:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8049563.stm
TonyN
This is the headline story in todays Western Moprning News.
‘POLAR ICE CAP AT CRITICAL POINT’
http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/POLAR-ICE-CAP-CRITICAL-POINT/article-991466-detail/article.html
Despite mind numbing temperatures, the fact that ice melts in summer, that they mistakenly set off across first year ice, that they didnt make their objective because of severe weather, this is being portrayed as a success and proof that the ice could melt this summer. How many people do you want me to complain to Tony, they are all at it. Sheer propaganda.
tonyB
TonyB, Reur 6157; I’m not sure if I understand your question, but if it refers to where was Max twice naughty, over at The Guardian, those two deleted posts of his have no links, but that immediately below them is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/07/monbiot-climate-change-evacuation?commentid=71b657f5-6c55-4505-b522-40809b9eed86
So just scan-up from there. (if that was your question)
regards, Bob
Hi Bob_FJ
I responded to a post where MeFinney2 wrote that he was always in search for the true science, telling him that I almost fell out of my chair from laughing. He (or the moderator) deleted my brief message, but MeFinney2 quoted the entire message in his response (which was not deleted).
Looks like a blogger named mtthwbrnd had got Bioluminescence, Aslioch and the strange gpwayne (plus a few others) on the run single-handed, with a bit of help from you.
Regards,
Max
TonyB
Love your #6160 with the newspaper blurb.
Here we have an unsuccessful scientific expedition, which had hoped to provide physical evidence that Arctic sea ice is thinning, but was unable to do so, as they got stuck in Arctic sea ice on the way and the mission had to be aborted before very much meaningful data were gathered.
Now these same scientists lament the imminent disappearance of (guess what?).
Their nemesis on the journey, the very thing, which forced them to retreat – Arctic sea ice!
The newspaper blurb makes the whole thing even more absurd by blaring the headline “POLAR ICE CAP AT CRITICAL POINT”. Duh!. We are talking about floating Arctic sea ice, not about a grounded Arctic (i.e. Greenland) ice cap. These guys are so ill-informed that they can’t even get their wording right, let alone the gist of the article. Pretty sorry journalism.
Your friend is pleased to be returning home after his ordeal, but this does not stop him from uttering dire warnings of imminent disappearance of all the ice based on the few spot readings he made before they all got stuck in the ice.
(Guess that was the purpose of his trip, all along.)
How totally silly can this whole thing get?
Max
Hi Peter,
Have not heard back from you, since I cleared up the confusion on the starting point of the current cooling trend.
Do you now agree that all 4 records show that is has cooled over the 21st century (i.e. from January 2001 through March 2009)?
This is not a situation where some records show warming and others show cooling as you alluded.
ALL RECORDS show cooling.
Agreed?
If not, please show the record that shows warming over this period, instead.
Regards,
Max
PS If I do not hear back from you, I will assume that you agree, but just don’t want to admit it.
Hi Max
Intrigued by the exchanges over at the Guardian. Also bemused by someone refuting the claim that the BBC had reported the ice would be gone in five years. Here is the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8047862.stm
The newspaper reports also clearly state much ice will be gone by this summer (see my Western morning News link)
As Monbiot and his crowd seem to believe we have ‘5 years to save the earth’ it seems odd thay are denying the BBC reports, as it matches what they have been telling the Beeb for years.
Do you remember the book ‘5000 days to save the earth’ written by the editors of the Ecologist magazine? Like most of these predictions that time expired years ago.
If TonyN would like to increase traffic to the site he ought to introduce a ‘panicometer’ this would have a graphic countdown to disaster of the many and varied predictions of global warming that have come from gore hansen monbiot et al. He could perhaps link it to a bookmaker that would give betting odds of this happening.
I would gladly put a £500 bet on the fact the earth will be around in much the same shape as now in 5 years time. At odds of 100-1 (because the science is settled and these great scientists MUST be right) I will stand to make a fortune.
Tonyb
Max,
I guess you’ve cherry picked the 2001 start date to try to demonstrate a cooling trend. Since the mid 70’s, when anthropogenic effects have generally been thought to have taken over from solar changes as the main driver for climate change, each decade has had a period of global cooling.
This decade is no different in that respect. Except that the solar minimum is deeper than usual and explains why current temperatures are lower than otherwise might be expected.
Incidentally I haven’t plotted out the Nasa/Giss data but don’t they have 2005 as the hottest year globally?
Bob or Peter
Have you read the latest book from your Adelaide Professor yet? (From WUWT)
“Australian geologist Ian Plimer says that the planet has warmed and cooled many times before. And humans aren’t to blame.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/global_warming_been_there_done_that/
That’s why I welcomed the chance this week to interview Australian geologist Ian Plimer about his latest book, Heaven and earth: global warming, the missing science. Plimer is Australia’s best-known geologist and a professor at the University of Adelaide. His book has created quite a stir in the media. Leading journalists have lumped him together with anti-Semitic nutters as a climate change “denialist” and colleagues are shredding his claims in the letters pages.
Plimer makes two simple and challenging points. First, climate is always changing. In the past, the earth has been both much colder and much warmer than it is today. It is exceedingly difficult to understand, let alone what causes these changes. Second, the sun is the single greatest cause of fluctuations in the heat of the earth. Very small changes in solar output have a profound effect upon temperatures. The sun is the single greatest agent in climate change, not CO2, he maintains.
As he wrote in a recent newspaper article:
In the past, climate change has never been driven by CO2. Why should it be now driven by CO2 when the atmospheric CO2 content is low? The main greenhouse gas has always been water vapour. Once there is natural global warming, then CO2 in the atmosphere increases. CO2 is plant food, it is not a pollutant and it is misleading non-scientific spin to talk of carbon pollution. If we had carbon pollution, the skies would be black with fine particles of carbon. We couldn’t see or breathe.”
I find it difficult to disagree with that as it is surely just factual and logical and obviously the Australian contingent here will want to agree with their compatriot 100%
tonyb
TonyB,
Ian Plimer isn’t a climate scientist any more than I am.
However some of the points he makes are factually accurate. Yes, the earth’s clmate has naturally changed over geologicial time. But do we want to change it back to what it was millions of years ago? If you go back far enough in time, you’ll find there was no oxygen present at all in the atmosphere. So, it’s not really a good argument.
As primitive plants, and other forms of life, evolved, they started to change the atmosphere from a toxic mixture of methane, carbon dioxide , nitric oxide, nitrogen, sulphur dioxide etc into the atmosphere we have today. So, it’s not correct to say that all climatic changes have been caused by variations in the sun or orbital changes of the earth. Some have been brought about by the naturally changing composition of the atmosphere.
Particularly over geological eras the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily fallen leading to cooler climatic conditions. So where has this carbon gone? Some of it now makes up your White Cliffs of Dover. That’s all limestone made as microscopic sea animals died and locked up the carbon that they had accumulated in their bodies into sedimentary rocks.
Similarly coal and oil deposits locked up carbon in vast quantities as you’ll know.
I read recently that this being burned at rate of 300 million times faster than it was formed. I’m not sure how accurate this claim is, but it is naive to expect that no climatic changes will result from this change.
Hello Peter 6168
“Yes, the earth’s clmate has naturally changed over geologicial time. But do we want to change it back to what it was millions of years ago?”
What do you believe is the optimum climate and when did it exist?
tonyb
I’ve just returned from a (delightful) visit to Lisbon and see that Peter (tempterrain) seems to have abandoned his absurd argument that the dangerous AGW hypothesis is somehow exempt from the application of the scientific method (see 6136 and 6137). Instead, he has resorted to his old habit of insulting his critic when he can’t answer him.
Peter: for a (detailed) comment on the IPCC report, see my post 6058. I suppose you’ve ignored it because, as usual, you’re unable to respond to what I said there.
Max, Peter et al
I had not been particularly aware of Plimer before, but his material seems logical. Here is a link to some comments about him. Of particular interst are the four links at the bottom, one of which deals with Miscolski who we have discussed here before.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/critic_proves_plimer_er_right/
I like M because he has posted his calculations (a warming of 0.5C) which is more than many others have done, and Plimers work seems to have given new impetus to this study.
I know it is a question often asked -but never answered-as to how you can get to 6.2C increase with a doubling of Co2. Increasingly it appears it doesn’t get answered because it can’t be supported without ignoring observational elements and relying on computer models supporting a variety of feedbacks that may be negative, positive or-more likely-non existent in the real world.
tonyb
This article shows clearly why India (and China) will continue to rely on coal for their expanding energy needs – whatever may (or may not) be agreed in Copenhagen in December.
I was amused by Peter’s comment (6166) that “Since the mid 70’s, when anthropogenic effects have generally been thought to have taken over from solar changes as the main driver for climate change”. Hmm … “generally been thought” eh? Not much conviction there then.
Brute
Your chart in 6172 seems to show that increased CO2 causes global cooling. Discuss.
tonyb