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.
James,
Please elaborate, (of course within the confines of the topic at hand).
Record Low Temperatures Hit Northeast
http://www.nowhampshire.com/2009/07/14/record-low-temperatures-hit-northeast/
Brute (6951)
Please elaborate
I wasn’t really getting at anyone here, although I notice you mention Obama supporters, warmists and socialists in much the same breath :-)
Rather, I had been reading the review of Prof Plimer’s book in the Spectator, and some of the comments there seemed to align acceptance or scepticism of AGW with political leanings. The trouble is, I suppose, that like most generalisations, there is a grain of truth in it, not aided by the Guardian newspaper playing entirely to type by giving George Monbiot a column and supporting any and every call to build windmills, eat home-grown muesli and knit your own seaweed vests.
Even the Great Moonbat himself made a comment about Plimer, but at least he didn’t accuse him of being a Nazi. Not yet, anyway.
Brute and JamesP
Political affiliation and views on AGW
There may be a general correlation, i.e. that many individuals who are more conservative in their political outlook are also less likely to be strong believers in the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
Our old friend, Peter Martin, was a true AGW believer, and at the same time was pretty left-leaning politically.
He seemed to believe that anyone who disagreed with his views on AGW had to be a political ultraconservative or a Bible-thumping religious fundamentalist (who also did not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution), despite our little poll on this thread, which showed that his opinion on this was totally wrong.
So it would be wrong to say that all those who do not support the premise that AGW is a serious threat are political conservatives.
Among scientists there are quite a few who have switched from a pro-AGW stance to one that does not support this premise; some of these are not political at all, and some are even socialists.
The problem is that the entire issue has become political. It is being misused by left-leaning politicians in order to gather support for a socialistic program of “world climate governance” (i.e. global carbon taxation).
Obama, Boxer, Pelosi or Reid (in the USA, for example) do not care a whit about our planet’s climate. They are simply interested in gaining control of the US energy policy and generating a large amount of new tax revenues, which they can use to further projects and programs of their own.
The same is true of the European leaders (including those in the UK and those in tiny Switzerland).
Once the citizens (and voters) of the democratic countries of the world become aware of this, they can act accordingly (and hopefully replace those politicians).
To date they are either uninterested or bamboozled and brainwashed by the pseudo-scientific gobbledygook they are being fed.
But it appear that maybe the tide may be turning, especially if it continues to cool off globally.
Max
Max – Hope you’re still following RC. Current thread “Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability” is very interesting. Jasper
James,
Point well taken.
Generally, if I’m if in for a penny, I’m in for a pound but over the years I’ve become wiser………I’m not (personally) a “joiner”.
I happen to think that AGW (aside from being a ruse) is a vehicle for politicians to meet their ultimate (yes, Socialist) goals……… (The definition of a ruse).
Politicians are infamous swindlers (tell me if you disagree).
Government is generally ineffective, wasteful and corrupt (please stop me anywhere along here).
I’ve yet to meet the Warmist that doesn’t support Obama or the Obama supporter that isn’t a Warmist.
Yes, Obama and his policies are most definitely Socialist, (with me so far?)
Therefore, mentioning Obama, Warmists and Socialism in the same breath logically is a legitimate description as the proposed “solutions” to remedy the “condition” of global warming coincidentally are identical to Socialist doctrine, (which has historically failed miserably wherever it is practiced).
Why Socialism Always Results in Tyranny
http://www.politic.co.uk/united-states-politics/11121-why-socialism-always-results-tyranny.html
I’ve also learned over the years not to mince words……..it wastes time and generally is counterproductive. Some may feel that such a stratagem lacks decorum…..I disagree.
My Libertarian philosophical tendency prompts me to allow or tolerate (most) things that you or anyone want to do or believe personally as long as it doesn’t compel me to adhere to another’s personal disciplines.
That being said, if a person believes that increased levels of CO2 are negatively impacting the “environment” I say they should be allowed to lower their personal “carbon footprint” to their hearts desire……They should be permitted to market products to promote such a lifestyle (as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the law and without government involvement/subsidy).
I don’t believe that CO2 is impacting the “environment” (and I possess facts to prove it) therefore, I do not desire to lower my “carbon footprint”.
Forcing me to do so is the definition of tyranny.
Believing in a free market society, I would embrace a free market approach where voluntary attraction to “green” or “low carbon” technology/lifestyles would become the rage as long as my government doesn’t force me to comply.
However, there’s the rub……”green” technology is not profitable or reliable, (yet) which is why it hasn’t been privately pursued……it’s a loser……(with the exception of nuclear).
May I ask your age?
Postscript:
Tony,
I hope I haven’t offended your boundaries……I’ve tried very hard not to.
I was surprised that no one commented on my 6917 where I noted that, only two years ago, the New Scientist was using the accuracy of computer models in the financial world to rebut “climate change deniers” who claimed “We can’t trust computer models”. It commented that “The smart money is being bet on computer models”.
Yes, as we know to our cost, they turned out to be very accurate and helpful. So I was interested to see Sir Liam Donaldson, the NHS Chief Medical Officer, comment this morning (re swine flu):
Especially, I suggest, if you’re predicting the climate in 2100.
Jasper/ Max, Re “Warming Interrupted” at RC.
I find post #22 by Jim Boulding, and the attached response from high priest Raymond Pierrehumbert particularly smile provoking:
1) So, if JB thinks that global warming is a problem, why does he wish that it be not true that there may be another decade of cooling or a plateau?
2) Looks to me that Ray is hedging his bets each way, and laying the ground for defence against possible future ridicule. Maybe he has been watching SOHO MDI too? …. I have it as desktop wallpaper!
Did you notice that the oracle actually wrote: “… the current “pause” in warming…”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, Raymond Pierrehumbert (photo here) makes me think of Mark Serreze of NSIDC, despite them being worlds apart in scientific discipline. (as most so-called “climate scientists” indeed are)
I could elaborate, but quite apart from the time factor, I fear I might transgress TonyN boundaries in say the use of naughty language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW #2: See this; RealClimate now ponders: why no warming? by ardent Oz sceptic journo Andrew Bolt
(including a group photo of Gavin, Ray, ad alarmo nausiam)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW #3: I see that Mark, (AKA; Yeah Whatever?), is rather active but mostly ignored.
I’m surprised that RC’s editorial tolerance permits his continued insult to any intelligence. I reckon it is damaging to their credibility.
Robin,
You may find this interesting…..
“There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/there-appears-to-be-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-way-temperature-and-carbon-are-linked-in-climate-models/
Politicians are infamous swindlers (tell me if you disagree)
:::..crickets..:::
—
As for age, I’m 57 – old enough to know better, but getting too old to care!
Hee, Hee,
I sort of subconsciously lost track as the thought of getting older depresses me…….maybe a involuntary coping mechanism…..
Jasper Gee
Thanks for tip re RC Warming Interrupted site. Interesting exchange going on there.
Max
Max – also (in case you’re not aware of it) climatedepot.com has an interesting headline posting. Jasper
Brute: #6956
If I hadn’t been travelling since very early this morning I might have seen the sweat streaming from your brow onto your comment- and still snipped quite a lot of it.
Robin: #6917 & #6957
If not commented on, certainly read, marked and inwardly digested; by me at least.
Those of you familiar with the Guardian‘s comments may be amused by this . You’ll see I was getting a clear upper hand with “Dr Jazz” and “smithies” when (surprise, surprise) comments were closed. To get it off my chest, here was my (rather lengthy and unpublished) response to smithies last effort:
I saw this interesting article today on Reuters:
Further to my #6965 (about the Guardian), there is however an ongoing and varied debate at the Spectator that, with fresh and interesting contributors (from all sides of the issue) every day, shows no sign of ending. It follows the interview with Plimer last week and can be found here. Some of you may find it interesting/amusing to join in.
This is unbelievable that a mainstream media outlet like the USAToday would publish this!
JZ:
Yes, it is extraordinary to find this in the MSM – although TonyN’s link (6924) to a Washington Times editorial (referring to “the premises underlying the global-warming argument [being] destroyed) surprised me. But perhaps you wouldn’t regard the Washington Times as MSM?
One point on the USA Today piece, however. Although the headline is welcome, you note that it doesn’t really strike at the fundamental assumption of the IPCC models. It speaks of “excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” (is there an established norm?) and assumes that CO2 causes warming (where’s the evidence?) but that, in this case, that was affected by “some feedback loop”.
TonyN: re those dreaded wind farms, this piece by James Delingpole is pretty devastating.
According to this
Re: Robin #6970
I just hope that someone is listening.
The day before yesterday I had to go to Birmingham and drove back over Wenlock Edge in the late afternoon with the whole of the Shropshire plane and the Welsh Marches laid out before me. A landscape of stunning beauty and a reminder to anyone who cares to look at it that humans once lived in sympathy with the natural world rather than pretending that the natural world is something that they can control. And all this within easy reach of a vast urban population in the West Midlands.
Delingpole is right to say that such places are beyond price, but the danger is not that they should be industrialised and spoiled by massive wind generation plants; these can be removed and the landscape will heal. It is that our links with the countryside, and the world of nature, have become so tenuous that we no longer care whether such places are preserved or not.
G.K.Chesterton is supposed to have said, ‘When people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they will believe anything’. In the same way, when we cease to value our countryside we do not just become capable of perpetrating gross acts of vandalism on it, we are exhibiting the extent to which we no longer understand the world that we live in, or that we are just a part of a system that was old before our species even appeared on the scene, and which will continue long after it has departed. That makes us vulnerable to whatever scientists, politicians and extreme environmentalists choose to tell us about the influence that we can have on the massive, complex, and still mysterious environment that we inhabit.
I think that the term ‘hubris’ is appropriate, and that is a very dangerous state of mind indeed.
Max,
I thought that NSIDC retired this graph/feature? I thought that the satellite went Tango Uniform? Where is this data coming from?
Robin Reur 6965, you wrote in part:
Yes; I know how you feel, but I’ve conceded/concluded that although it is fun to get stuck-in over at the Guardian, it seems that just as it may be possible to educate the alarmists and score big, they close the thread, typically and frustratingly at around a mere 7 days.
On the other hand, RealClimate appears to have a policy of generally keeping threads open for a month or more, and, despite their past reputation, will allow posts that are challenging to their dogma. Thus, but perceptually as a relative newcomer there, I’m finding it more rewarding to develop some rational arguments at the high alter.
They are however, harsh in moderation if one responds in like manner to insult or other provocations from their favoured fruitcakes. (that are allowed free reign). For instance, one Jim Galasyn was rude about Roger Pielke Sr. and my hackles rose, and I submitted post #199, which I copy-paste thus:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
199 BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
16 Jul 2009 at 7:30 am
Jim Galasyn Reur 142:
So, do you think that there is something sinister with Roger Pielke Sr’s website practice?
Go to his home page: http://climatesci.org/
And you will find that under the listing of his topics, ALL of them end with “Wordpress language” thus:
Comments off
In other words, he does not enable or invite blogosphere comment…. His choice…. Maybe he is too busy to handle it (?).
If you are unhappy with that; his choice; then your choice might be to not go there, or to discuss it on some other blog such as here, or even maybe create your own, if you can find the time to do it that you expect of him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, it disappeared without any note of edit, and 199 became something from fruitcake Dhogaza.
I’m still on the learning curve WRT RC!
One rule I’m developing/defining is that it is best to ignore provocations from some fruitcakes.
Incidentally, I don’t know if you have been following over there but Peter Martin did not receive a warm welcome, and seems to have gone on holiday.
here is my latest post awaiting moderation, # 245 at RC
_______________________________________________________________
Hey! the cricket at Lords (ashes) is gripping at the moment! What?!
Robin, your 6969:
I like the Washington Times, but the political left laughs at it as tool of the political right, hopelessly mired in outdated and now discredited (by the policies of Obama and the Democratically-controlled congress) ideas about economics, politics, and the environment.