Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

1. James P says:

   02/08/2009 at 7:24 pm

   I see a vicious spiral here – if people aren’t using aircon as much, those mis-sited weather stations that were warmed by their exhaust will read even lower temperatures, possibly even accurate ones!
2. Brute says:

   05/08/2009 at 1:05 am

   ‘Consensus’ Takes Another Hit

   http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
3. Peter Geany says:

   05/08/2009 at 1:48 pm

   May I comment on the letter to the Royal Society?

   I don’t entirely share some of the views that it is altogether unhelpful. It is obviously written by a very frustrated person, one who does not expect the Society to give any sort of satisfactory reply. And here is the rub for me; because the Society is publicly funded (does it have private funding as well?) I expect it to behave in a far more responsible way than it has. For me personally the leadership is corrupt and has prostituted itself to the lord money, rather than upholding the principles of scientific research. It has even engaged in censorship, something it has no mandate to do what so ever.

   I would question the judgement of all those at senior level in the Royal Society as I expect scientists and those who purport to represent the interests of science to go out of there way to avoid engaging in Political spin, and not become another arm of a very poor Government. The Society does not really deserve any polite letters any more, although I entirely agree that if we were back at the beginning of the AGW affair politeness would have been appropriate.

   Where do scientists turn to when they find Politics is distorting or miss-representing their research? One would hope the Royal Society, but not any more. I therefore think that a deluge of less that polite letters is perhaps the only way to make an impression on people who obviously think they are beyond reach and beyond being called to account.
4. Robin Guenier says:

   05/08/2009 at 2:25 pm

   Peter Geany: are you referring to Rupert Wyndham’s letter? If so, you may be interested to read the comments here – especially from 30 July onwards.
5. Brute says:

   05/08/2009 at 9:08 pm

   ‘Experts’ now predict quieter hurricane season…

   http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5776793/experts-predict-quieter-atlantic-hurricane-season/

   Unusually mild year in Tornado Alley — frustrates scientists…

   http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2009/08/04/news/local/doc4a76ee88886de874619734.txt
6. Peter Geany says:

   05/08/2009 at 11:44 pm

   Robin a most interesting exchange and I find myself agreeing with both sides. You are (or were depending on timing) of course correct in the best way to ultimately get this whole issue resolved. I have written before that unless scientists themselves move to distance themselves from what is being done in their name, we the public with lose all faith in science itself. The consequences of this could set back civilisation by hundreds of years and allow religious zealots to take over.

   However in the case of the Royal Society I believe they have forfeited any respect what so ever. I accept what you can read into their Climate Change wording on the website, but I feel that this wording is just part of their whole wishy washy attitude, and a deliberate attempt to convince wavering scientists that they hold a balanced view rather than any intrinsic balance.

   I think it is to the eternal shame of all of the RS luminaries that none have been prepared to speak out. By not doing so they are bringing upon themselves ridicule the likes of which we have never seen. I take no pleasure from this situation as it’s destroying the reputation of science, which for the most part has been impeachable over hundreds of years.
   However I believe that scientists are not now capable of fixing this problem on their own, because they have let the situation run out of control for too long. What is now going to change matters is the electorate. Europe is entering a period of polarising views and because our main centre right parties have failed to listen on a range of issues voters in increasing numbers are voting for what are perceived as far right parties. This will continue until the centre right comes to its senses. At present these parties are confused as to just which policies to ditch, and are best illustrated by the Tories led by David “windmill” Cameron.

   I feel more confident there is going to be a peoples revolution as unlike 2 years ago when most of my friends and acquaintances thought I was barmy for my views, I rarely meet anyone now that believes in AGW even if they don’t know why. And unlike 2 years ago when it was difficult to get anyone interested in listening, I have no problems in getting and holding people’s attention. It’s yet another indicator of the “esteem” in which our politicians are held.
7. JZ Smith says:

   06/08/2009 at 3:00 am

   To the old timers on this thread, what ever happened to Peter Martin? Did he finally give up?
8. Robin Guenier says:

   06/08/2009 at 8:26 am

   Peter Geany:

   You may be interested to read my posts on this thread on 29th March (5313) and 5th May (6068). I agree with your view of the RS – except that I would not entirely give up on them. Although the electorate should be the key and certainly public opinion does not regard “climate change” as being of much importance, I don’t think we’re likely to see your revolution until some prominent scientists summon the bravery (and duty) to speak out.

   JZ:

   Peter’s still around. He went off to join his co-religionists at RealClimate and appears to be “monitoring” this site. But he’s back in force here (see some of the most recent comments). Groan.

   PS: I’m away from my computer for a few days – but might be interested to continue the exchange with Peter Geany when I get back.
9. manacker says:

   06/08/2009 at 11:34 am

   JZSmith

   Peter Martin has moved on to greener pastures.

   After a brief stint on RealClimate (trying in vain to get confirmation for his non-logarithmic theory of CO2/temperature relationship), he has moved on to the “Spectator” site (review of Ian Plimer’s latest book, “Heaven and Earth, global warming – the missing science”), where he posts under the name “tempterrain”.
   http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml#comments

   Views and approach have not changed.

   Max
10. manacker says:

    06/08/2009 at 11:50 am

    TonyB

    Have just finished reading Peter Taylor’s “Chill”.

    Prior to that I read Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”.

    Both are very interesting.

    Taylor gives a very good summary of how the AGW movement became what it is today. As an environmentalist himself, one can read “between the lines” his sadness that AGW has in effect “hijacked” environmentalism. His conclusion that the late 20th century warming was driven by an unprecedented combination of natural events is well written and documented. His 6-point summary at the end of the book is a very concise chronological listing of how the AGW movement became what it has become.

    Plimer’s book is also a good read. He gives an excellent summary of earlier warming and cooling periods in our past history, with over 2 thousand references to peer-reviewed studies on the sun, earth, ice, water and air and a powerful chapter on the politics of AGW.

    Thanks for the tip on Taylor’s book. I’ll be looking forward to reading your review.

    If you get the chance, read Plimer’s book as well. Many of the points are similar to those made by Taylor, but with a different slant.

    Max
11. JZ Smith says:

    06/08/2009 at 2:43 pm

    Robin and Max,

    Thanks for the update on PM. Since you’re giving book reviews, I saw this one recently at The American Thinker on Why We Disagree About Climate Change, (Mike Hulme).

    An excerpt:

    More than a few people will be tempted to buy this book based on the promise, implicit in its title, that it offers an examination of the ideas and motives of both sides in the global warming debate. But that is not what this book is about. Rather, it is the musings of a British socialist about how to use the global warming issue as a means of persuading “the masses” to give up their economic liberties.

    And

    The real purpose of this book isn’t revealed until late into it. “The idea of climate change,” Hulme writes at page 326, “should be seen as an intellectual resources around which our collective and personal identifies and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.” According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot: “Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs” (p. 329).

    In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue in such as way as to achieve seemingly unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, social justice, and many other items on the liberal/socialist wish-list.

    Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once said “we have to offer up scary scenarios make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have . . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest,” Hulme says “we will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects” (p. 330). These “myths,” he writes, “transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false'” (p. 341). He suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel, and Celebrating Jubilee

    .
12. JZ Smith says:

    06/08/2009 at 2:43 pm

    OOPS! Here’s the link to review above.

    American Thinker
13. James P says:

    06/08/2009 at 6:53 pm

    These “myths”, he writes, “transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’”

    A candidate for of Pseuds’ Corner (in Private Eye). I may have to submit it…
14. Bob_FJ says:

    07/08/2009 at 9:35 am

    Re Max’s 7084

    “Peter Martin has moved on to greener pastures…
    [to]
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml#comments
    Views and approach have not changed.”

    I had a look over there, but had great difficulty avoiding falling asleep.
    I find it amusing that his iconic website; RC, did not give him a warm welcome, and he departed with his tail between his legs.

    But who cares? The fourth “Ashes” 5-day Test Match between England and Oz starts shortly, with England leading 1- 0 , after 2 drawn.
15. Brute says:

    07/08/2009 at 9:29 pm

    But who cares? The fourth “Ashes” 5-day Test Match between England and Oz starts shortly, with England leading 1- 0 , after 2 drawn.

    Bob,

    Is that thing still going on? (Sorry Tony)

    Hell’s Bell’s!

    Weren’t you talking about that thing weeks ago?

    Ponderous………
16. James P says:

    10/08/2009 at 3:07 pm

    Brute – the term ‘5-day test’ may have misled you. That’s just one match in a series, I’m afraid. As Wikipedia puts it, “Test cricket is the longest form of the sport”.

    It doesn’t always take five days to complete a match, though. Bob’s friends won the last one in three… :-(
17. Brute says:

    10/08/2009 at 4:37 pm

    Political climate for energy policies coolshttp://www.lvrj.com/news/52828402.html

    JamesP,

    I am teasing you guys about the match. I’m certain that the coverage is riveting.
18. TonyN says:

    10/08/2009 at 9:48 pm

    Brute:

    An interesting link. I particularly liked this section.

    Ask Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, why increasing numbers of Americans dispute global warming and place the economy ahead of the environment, and he’ll say those findings are wrong.

    “I don’t accept their premise. I think the Gallup Poll is mistaken,” said Weiss, whose organization will send its chief executive officer, former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, to Monday’s clean energy confab. “I would want to look at their questions to see how they got to this place.”

    Weiss pointed to surveys that contradict Gallup’s results. A Pew Environmental Group poll found that 77 percent of voters want lawmakers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and 55 percent said efforts to curb global warming will create jobs. Another poll from the National Wildlife Federation found that 55 percent of those polled strongly support a global warming plan that reduces pollution.

    But it’s not just Gallup that shows flagging concern about global warming. In a July Rasmussen poll, 56 percent said they didn’t want to pay higher taxes or utility bills to generate clean energy and fight global warming. A January Pew poll placed global warming last among the top 20 priorities Americans have for 2009. Nos. 1 and 2? The economy and jobs. Even trade policy and lobbyists outranked global warming. And Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think-tank, pointed to a study from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association that showed 58 percent of respondents were unwilling to pay more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change.

    I wonder whether politicians will go with the Pew and NWF findings or with Gallup and Rasmussen? And very typical of a warmist to dismiss inconvenient evidence out-of-hand rather than consider what can be learned from it. Such attitudes will make it extremely difficult for them to respond effectively once they loose the initiative.
19. Bob_FJ says:

    11/08/2009 at 9:59 am

    I copy-paste a comment from the open comments thread on WUWT@
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-to-wuwt/

    E. J. Rensink (19:30:33) :
    STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW !!!
    Significant decreases in the geomagnetic indices in the ascending phase of Solar Cycle 24.
    Research article just published on-line by Yasuhiro Minamoto and Yosuke Taguchi Aug 3rd 2009
    Kakioka Magnetic Observatory records from 1932 until present. Check out the second graph!
    Enjoy WUWTers!!!
20. manacker says:

    11/08/2009 at 3:44 pm

    JZ Smith (7086/7)

    Scary stuff!

    Max

    PS But the Taylor and Plimer books are worth reading.

    Interestingly a pro-AGW Aussie prof named Enting has already gathered “criticisms” of Plimer’s book in an effort to discredit it. But that is pretty hard to do, in view of the many studies he cites and the logic of his argument.
21. Bob_FJ says:

    12/08/2009 at 2:06 am

    Re 7094…. sorry, the missing link:

    E. J. Rensink (19:32:19) :

    http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2009e/6107e025.pdf

    Ooops.. sorry guys
22. BobF_J says:

    12/08/2009 at 8:33 am

    Peter Martin is reincarnated in his original moniker and has given this new OT profound wisdom over at RC:

    I must say that you are extraordinarily patient with people like Max.
    But they are a big distraction to those of us who are generally interested in the science and maybe have a few questions of our own. Max is of the belief that ‘puny man’ is incapable of changing the Earth’s climate and that it is ‘arrogant’ to think otherwise. This kind of belief can’t be rational. It must therefore be delusional, and needs to be treated as such.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-round-up/comment-page-16/#comment-133573

    I guess after a mauling over there earlier as Tempterrain, he has decided to change his ID.
    I think he is best ignored, like I do with Mark, (AKA Yeah Whatever?), Hank Roberts and a few lessers over at RC, but I find his change of ID there to be rather amusing.
23. Brute says:

    12/08/2009 at 2:07 pm

    UN CLIMATE WARNING: ‘WE HAVE 4 MONTHS TO SECURE FUTURE OF PLANET’…

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=557
24. manacker says:

    12/08/2009 at 9:01 pm

    Another victim of anthropogenic climate change!

    Swiss authorities have just reported that winter deaths of ibex and chamois in the Swiss Alps were more than 100 times greater than normal, due to the extreme cold 2008/09 winter weather.

    We urgently need a “climatologist” to explain to these poor mountain denizens that the recent cooling period is simply an “interruption” of the anthropogenic warming signal, due to noise caused by natural variability, and that the inexorable warming will soon resume.

    Max
25. James P says:

    12/08/2009 at 9:13 pm

    WE HAVE 4 MONTHS TO SECURE FUTURE OF PLANET

    What – again?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.