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.
My apologies if this has already been addressed……..
Pickens Plan for Huge Wind Farm Blows Away
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5144913.shtml
Re: 6924, Brute
Welcome back and thanks for cheering news on a wet and cold afternoon:
$10bn might have bought him something, but you don’t get much more than a joke farm for $2m. Could be a typo of course.
Thanks Max.
Regarding the buried EPA report……..I’ve just about given up. These lunatic politicians know about all of the holes in the global warming theory, but are hell bent on pushing their Socialist agenda despite the facts.
It seems that while I was away, Obama was rejected like a 5′ tall pro basketball player at the G-8 summit regarding his anti-humankind agenda; however, continues to peddle the global warming myth to support his defense of his Cap and Tax schemes.
Everything that he and the Democrat controlled Congress does is unpopular with the rank and file but they continue to pass this nonsense faster and faster so that the citizens can’t keep up………one outrageous, Marxist program after another at dizzying speed.
The chills of Global Cooling
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/44463
Re: #6925, Max
When I saw that story reported by Christopher Booker at the weekend I had my doubts. It seemed just a little too neat to be true, but from your very well referenced comment there seems to be no doubt that it stands up, and it certainly is dynamite. For anyone who didn’t click on the YouTube link, the official response from the EPA was:
I wonder if any significance should be attached to the wording, ‘proposed endangerment finding’?
It has been exposed; however, the media executives generally support the Socialist agenda and will not print or report anything that defies the Obama administration. The general sense here is that the national media is but an extension of the Democrat Party’s press office. The big three networks refuse to acknowledge stories that are critical of these policies and the White House does or creates some story that overshadows something as explosive as this. The national media don’t care about this malfeasance because in the end they support the current administration and the leftist ideology…………they choose to cover Michael Jackson.
It’s very disheartening………journalism is dead in this country…….all in the tank for Odisaster……they refuse to do their job and report objectively.
The average citizen doesn’t even know what “Cap and Trade” is…….they confuse carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide……They have been so thoroughly brainwashed regarding “the evils of industry” that they automatically support the policy……. They carry the Democrat mantra and detest organizations/businesses that have been responsible for improving the quality of life during the modern era.
TonyN/Max,
The above is a prime example of double talk (spin). I know of this report through my interest in the topic but have only seen reference in a few publications. The Obama “machine” and the Democrat Party will play this down as “no big deal”…….they’ll paint the author of the report as a “right wing Christian “activist” and generally not comment on the specific subject and it will be forgotten.
Socialists are in complete control of Congress and the White House (and the news media). The Supreme Court is split in half between sensible people and bleeding heart Liberals.
Brute:
It’s not all bad news here at the moment.
Tony,
It isn’t only about the “climate” debate over here. It’s a monumental shift Left in every aspect and no one can stop it as the Democrats have complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government……..
No matter what facts are presented, the Warmist (or Obama sycophant), will blindly support the Warmist agenda. It’s really crazy.
I get into discussions with Warmists occasionally and physically show them the evidence, but they still continue to belief that 2 + 2 = 5………
because Obama or “their” political leadership tells them so.
It’s amazing.
The other thing is when presented with the evidence they attack the credibility of the author and paint him/her/them as “right wing zealots”, “conspiracy theorists”, etc.
Almost as if they all went to the same denialist tactic school as Peter Martin.
Brute, #6933 & #6934
But only the climate is legitimate at Harmless Sky :-) (I’m lousy at smilies, they never seem to look joyful when I use them)
If catching up after your trip to the NW didn’t include looking at Robin’s post here then you may find it interesting. The paper he is talking about is particularly good on the need for certain kinds of group to discredit anyone from outside their group who presents information that does not conform with what their group believes. This is instead of of actually listening to what is being said and assessing it rationally. And the author seems to be at the heart of the Obama administration.
TonyN,
Hee, Hee………..I figured you’d box my ears for leaving the discussion parameters…………… (Smiley face).
I suppose my larger point is that indoctrination into the cult of global warming is an actuality. What I would consider rational people blindly follow the global warming religious decrees without any reasonable understanding of the science or what the results (or lack of results) of the proposed legislation will entail. They are either too lazy or simply unwilling to actually educate themselves on the subject and are satisfied that crooks………(I mean politicians and junk science hustlers) tell them to believe……………”group think” very similar to previous (and a few existing) societies that resulted in some of the most catastrophic periods in history.
Disturbing………
Brute:
If you are right, and I certainly wouldn’t argue with a lot of what you say, then the warmist lobby are relying on very fragile public support and opinions could change very easily and very fast.
The present situation is certainly disturbing. but is it permanent?
Max, your 6920:
I’m not sure what will happen. I’ve heard predictions both ways, but I won’t underestimate the Obama administration nor their allies on the left in Congress’ desires for bigger government, higher taxes, and less freedom for the people.
If I can stray just a bit, while I was not a big fan of Bill Clinton, I never once suspected that he wanted to completely remake the entire US culture, economy, and government-people relationship to one far more left-wing than any reasonable American would want. I truly, truly fear for our republic, and I hope I am wrong.
But getting back to Cap-n-Trade, and given my fears above, consider this position by one of my state’s senators, Barbara Boxer. Do you think they will let anything get in their way with an argument like this?
Tony,
Public support doesn’t come into play……..I would wager that 95% of Americans could not describe the Cap and Trade system even in general terms. Politicians such as JZ’s Boxer above aren’t doing what’s best for the people, they are doing what’s in the interest of the few people/organizations that finance their campaigns and get them re-elected year after year.
Boxer is another Statist. The more power and control government has over the individual citizen, the better in her mind…….They’re working on the energy/consumption side and next will come control over health care.
UAH Global Temperature Anomaly for June 09 ~ ZERO
Re Steve Fielding;
The Goracle is in Oz, and Fielding is eager to have an audience with him.
Here is an article by Michelle Grattan, a respected journo in the respected Melbourne Age.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nice-breakfast-but-fielding-unmoved-20090713-ditf.html
There is also this in the Herald Sun…. which shows the graph itself:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25780570-661,00.html
You guys seem to like getting angry about politics, but the following is especially sickening to me…. try this:
More from the Melbourne Age:
Interference in the Bushfires Royal Commission has the potential to endanger lives.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/state-plays-with-fire-20090708-ddct.html?page=-1
Do you remember how Peter Martin, back in February attributed the wild-fires to AGW, and how it would all come out in the Royal Commission, with presentations from the Oz BOM. (although bigger fires and droughts in the pre AGW past were, he asserted, irrelevant) Well actually, I don’t think the BOM was even called; it was mostly about evidence of what happened, and what to do about avoiding such disaster next time. (should the fires, by geographical circumstances again have critically affected townships in their path)
Following the terrible and vast fires in 1939, the Royal Commission then noted the effectiveness of fire bunkers that were attributed to saving very many lives. It strongly recommended the increased use of bunkers.
However, no lives were saved this time in bunkers, because there were no bunkers; at least where it mattered..
Of the 173 who died, 113 were in houses, under the so-called stay and defend policy. (unless you leave early, your choice, using your crystal ball)
One expert recently stated that bunkers were unreliable in care and maintenance, and might even be dangerous as they were ideal territory for red-back spiders. (that are modestly dangerous, that I find under nearly every rock airspace in my backyard.)
Bob (6941)
(Mr Gore) said ‘look, the schedule’s tight but hopefully we can work something out’
I think that translates to: ‘the schedule’s tight and hopefully I can get the hell out’…
:-)
Brute,
Thanks for your posts on the Carlin saga.
As Carlin has pointed out, the EPA’s TSD report is full of questionable claims, mostly taken directly from the IPCC AR4 report.
One of the more striking lies in this report can be seen on page 23 of the report.
The statement is made:
“The warming has not been steady, as shown in Figure 4.2. Two periods of warming stand out: an increase of 0.35°C occurred from the 1910s to the 1940s and then a warming of about 0.55°C from the 1970s up to the end of 2006.”
“The rate of warming over the last 50 years is almost double that over the last 100 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.07°C ± 0.02°C per decade).”
The first sentence is an outright lie.
According to the Hadley record (cited by IPCC) the warming from 1910 to 1944 was 0.53°C (not 0.35°C) and that from 1976 to 2005 was 0.43°C (not 0.55°C), so the later period actually had less warming than the earlier period, rather than more as indicated in the TSD report.
The second statement is not a direct lie, but it is misleading. Figure 4.2, the infamous multi-colored graph (Solomon et al.) is a bit of “smoke and mirrors”, which Bob_FJ and I have chuckled about previously on this thread. It was copied directly from IPCC AR4, Chapter 3 FAQ.
It shows comparisons for 1981-2005, 1956-2005, 1906-2005 and 1856-2005, and purports to depict graphically that global warming is accelerating over the 150-year period from 1856 to 2005.
But it actually shows nothing of the sort. In a record with multi-decadal warming/cooling swings (such as we have seen over the 20th century) it is easy to “cherry-pick” a shorter period with a steeper slope than a longer period.
One could have picked the period 1906 to 1945 and compared this with the period 1906 to 2005 and stated:
“The rate of warming over the first 40 years, 1906-1945, is almost double that over the last 100 years, 1906-2005 (0.139°C ± 0.03°C vs. 0.073°C ± 0.02°C per decade).”
This is also not an outright lie, but it is an equally misleading statement.
And this is just one small example, which Carlin actually did not even mention specifically.
But it looks like Carlin’s report on all this is being covered up.
I hope the Alan Carlin exposé gets more coverage in the press than it has so far. Some heads in EPA should “roll” for this whole fiasco (and it shouldn’t be whistle-blower Carlin’s).
(The two curves are copied below, just for laughs.)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2534926749_f2be35e86f_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/3719582743_83bf4938c0_b.jpg
Max
JZSmith
Thanks for post. Looks like Boxer has her work cut out for her (and the Carlin saga won’t help if it can get some legs).
Max
If I can pull up this graph and deciper that the temperature is dropping while CO2 is rising than any politician can do the same thing……..Any responsible person would analyse the information available, educate themselves regarding the topic…..before voting on a global warming tax bill that will affect the lives of every man woman and child in the country.
Looking at this information it’s obvious that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature……which leads me to the conclusion that politicians that support Cap and Trade are not interested in lowering the global temperature but increasing tax revenues to the government coffers.
Brute
It’s pretty clear that you are right.
Cap + trade has nothing to do with global warming, energy independence, green energy job creation, or any of the phony slogans that are being used to sell it to a gullible public.
It is all about tax revenue generation. You make the campaign promise to cut taxes for everyone earning less than $250,000 per year, and then you slam every man, woman and child with an effective tax on anything that contains an “energy” component (i.e. everything).
It’s the old “bait and switch” game.
The tax revenues are ostensibly to be used to develop new “green” sources of energy, but a major portion will be used to finance all of the other multi-trillion dollar projects and programs.
Max
multi-trillion dollar projects and programs
Much of which has already been spent bailing out the financial sector, whose troubles were largely the result of using computer models!
Is there a pattern here..?
And (US) tax revenues are down 18% due to Obamanomics. They could tap the oil in Alaska, California, North Dakota and off the coast of the eastern US (proven reserves) to increase revenues today instead of pursuing this pie in the sky fantasy of green energy windmills and non-existent cars that run on lawn clippings…..insane……
Budget deficit tops $1 trillion for first time
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090714/D99DSUG00.html
North Dakota could have a huge new oil field
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99EAOH01&show_article=1
I consider myself a liberal but that doesn’t equate to ‘left-wing’ in the UK, and isn’t a pejorative term either. What we call ‘left’ here is regarded as communist in the US, I think!
I note that there is a regular conflation among commenters of AGW and ‘environmentalism’ (see George Monbiot and others) which is regularly used by the warmists to beat us sceptics. Wood, trees and all that. I just wish that people wouldn’t try to divine others’ political affiliations from their views on climate!