Mar 172008

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.”

  1. I just wish that people wouldn’t try to divine others’ political affiliations from their views on climate!

    James,

    Please elaborate, (of course within the confines of the topic at hand).

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. Max – Hope you’re still following RC. Current thread “Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability” is very interesting. Jasper

  5. I wasn’t really getting at anyone here, although I notice you mention Obama supporters, warmists and socialists in much the same breath :-)

    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.

  6. 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):

    If you look at statistical modelling, it’s very valuable, but you do have to treat it with a lot of caution early on.

    Especially, I suggest, if you’re predicting the climate in 2100.

  7. 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:

    [Jim Boulding, in referring to the lead article:] Thanks for the post Kyle. I hope you’re wrong though, because the thought of 10 more years of the deniers screaming (increasingly loudly) about how global warming is a bunch of not happening BS is a bit more than I for one can take. They could really use this to very damaging political advantage, weakening proactive action just when it’s most needed.

    [Response: When the Keenlyside paper came out, Andy Revkin had a nice blog article on whether the drive for carbon mitigation action could survive a decadal interruption in warming. It’s a good question, but one I wouldn’t presume to know how to answer. Our best armory for the arguments you fear quite rightly is to build up our understanding of decadal variability and the extent to which it can cloud the long term trend. It’s too soon to say whether the current “pause” in warming is anything more than statistics being clouded by one unusual El Nino event, but we should be thinking now about possible explanations just in case something more interesting is going on. –raypierre]

    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.

  8. 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/

  9. 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!

  10. 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…..

  11. Jasper Gee

    Thanks for tip re RC Warming Interrupted site. Interesting exchange going on there.

    Max

  12. Max – also (in case you’re not aware of it) climatedepot.com has an interesting headline posting. Jasper

  13. Brute: #6956

    I hope I haven’t offended your boundaries……I’ve tried very hard not to.

    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.

  14. 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:

    smithies: you are waffling in your latest post. For example, where did you get all that stuff about “the earth’s own correcting systems will be interrupted and we will be locked into a one-way bet”?

    First, one point: have you actually read the IPCC AR4 report or have you only read about it? Because, if you did read it, you didn’t understand it. Your “I do not believe for an instant that such an important document … would contain such an anomaly as you appear to suggest” is nonsense. You may not believe it, but what I said about the Report is fact – go and look for yourself. I’ve given you the references.

    I agree that the globe has warmed over the last 160 years or so – by a less than alarming and not unprecedented 0.65 deg. C or thereabouts. Is it a problem? Maybe but probably not. But problem or not, unprecedented or not, the central questions are these: are mankind’s GHG emissions the main cause of recent warming and will further such emissions cause dangerous climate change? And, as I keep saying (yawn) no empirical (real world) evidence has been produced identifying man’s GHG emissions as the culprit; and, without such evidence, the dangerous AGW hypothesis remains an unsubstantiated hypothesis. You say you “believe” this or “believe” that, but the validity or otherwise of a hypothesis has nothing to do with belief – belief is a matter for religion, not science.

    In case you still don’t understand, take Darwin. At an early age, he hypothesised that the diversity of life was the result of evolution by natural selection. He didn’t claim his hypothesis was valid because lots of distinguished people agreed with him, nor because the creationists who said God created all life 6,000 years ago were wrong as the earth was patently much older, nor that as his was the only other answer suggested it must therefore be right, nor because no one could prove him wrong, nor because his opponents held foolish views on other subjects, nor because no one had proposed a better answer – i.e. the various arguments put forward by you and other dangerous AGW proponents. No, he went out and looked at nature and collected his evidence in meticulous detail and presented it to other scientists for independent comment and verification. Only then did he claim that his hypothesis was valid and publish On the origin of species. That, smithies, is how science has been practiced from Galileo and Harvey over 350 years ago to the researchers who established the smoking/cancer link or are searching for the Higgs boson today.

    We are planning to impose a massive burden on our already shattered economy for the sake of an unsubstantiated hypothesis. It’s not science and it’s completely absurd.

  15. I saw this interesting article today on Reuters:

    Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge – study
    Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:19pm IST
    By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia

    SINGAPORE (Reuters) – A dramatic warming of the planet 55 million years ago cannot be solely explained by a surge in carbon dioxide levels, a study shows, highlighting gaps in scientists’ understanding of impacts from rapid climate change.

    During an event called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, global temperatures rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius within several thousand years. The world at that time was already warmer than now with no surface ice.

    “We now believe that the CO2 did not cause all the warming, that there were additional factors,” said Richard Zeebe, an oceanographer with the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

    “There may have been an initial trigger,” he told Reuters on Wednesday from Hawaii. This could be a deep ocean warming that caused a catastrophic release of methane from hydrate deposits under the seabed.

  16. 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.

  17. This is unbelievable that a mainstream media outlet like the USAToday would publish this!

    Could we be wrong about global warming?
    Could the best climate models — the ones used to predict global warming — all be wrong?

    Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.

    “In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

    During the warming period, known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM), for unknown reasons, the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose rapidly. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth.

    As the levels of carbon increased, global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

    The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”

    In their most recent assessment report in 2007, the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by the end of the century due to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human industrial activity.

    By Doyle Rice
    Photo: President Barack Obama speaks about climate change Thursday, July 9, 2009, during the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy. Rallying rich and developing nations alike, Obama said the world’s top polluters should keep driving toward a deal to halt global warming. (Haraz N. Ghanbari, AP)

  18. 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”.

  19. TonyN: re those dreaded wind farms, this piece by James Delingpole is pretty devastating.

  20. According to this

    maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth similar to that caused by ocean currents La Niña and El Niño in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

  21. 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.

  22. Max,
    I thought that NSIDC retired this graph/feature? I thought that the satellite went Tango Uniform? Where is this data coming from?

    Arctic Ice Graph

  23. Robin Reur 6965, you wrote in part:

    “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:…”

    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?!

  24. 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.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha