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.
Brute,
You say “While I love to oblige, TonyN would most likely frown upon it”.
Maybe you can suggest another forum more suited to the topic?
Bob_FJ
Your statistics (7169) overwhelm me.
I can only now say that it is “very likely” (>90%) that you are correct that AGW really has nothing whatsoever to do with fires in Victoria, despite the statistics I quoted, which were admittedly based only on “expert opinion”, rather than “attribution studies”.
We learn something new every day (if we’re lucky).
Max
Pete,
Let it go……..I’m already in Tony’s doghouse.
By the way, we’ve just experienced one of the worst extended thunderstorms that I’ve seen in the last 20 years…….just ending now. Hell, even the cable TV is knocked out. Did you or Al Gore turn the dials on your weather machine to conjure that one up?
Pouring cold water on global warming
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/pouring-cold-water-on-global-warming-14299972.html
Pete,
Also, you’re lucky Tony snipped my post……..it was a real hum dinger and would have instantly forced you to reassess your world view. Too bad you missed it.
I was truly inspired.
Good thing Tony was around to hold me back.
Further my 7169 on Victorian bushfires;
I mentioned that the increasing risk of critical ignition of bushfires has a strong correlation with dramatic population growth since post WW2 immigration, with >67% being assessed as human caused since 1967. (the balance was from lightning and undetermined sources) See definitive links at 7169.
Another aspect of this is that the human caused fires inherently occur demographically where the assets and people wishing to immerse themselves in the bush are at ever increasing concentration with population growth. (perhaps partly consequent of the stresses of modern living?). Thus, there are more people threatened by increasing numbers of (stressed-out?) pyromaniacs and from human accidents, and consequently there are increasing numbers of people and assets exposed to being burnt. (This being the popular measure of severity of a wild-fire, not the area burnt)
In 1939, 71 humans were killed in a far more massive fire. Demographically speaking, was this less tragic than 173 killed in a modest-by-area fire in 2009? (pro rata….. Arguably no!)
BTW, there were also many tragic losses in windblown grassfires in 2009, and in earlier years.
I pause again, more to follow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Max, Reur 1177
Yes, I know you were only joking, but when you suggested in part that:
“…(>90%) that you [Bob_FJ] are correct that AGW really has nothing whatsoever to do with fires in Victoria…”
I would prefer to substitute >99%
More to follow.
Did someone above mention the foolishness of Mike the “manna” man’s recent foray into Palaeo-hurricanes? (versus e.g. Chris Landsea, a real-world hurricane expert)
Here is a question from Jacob Mack over at RC, which seems to have touched a nerve, with the surprisingly long response from M. E. Mann himself, with Mike forbidding further comment:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/resolving-technical-issues-in-science/#more-855
TonyB gave me a great tip (a book he is currently reviewing).
For those of you who have not had a chance to read “Chill – A reassessment of Global Warming Theory” by Peter Taylor, here are the “summary and conclusions” in his masterful “ending note” (pp.371-2):
· The proposition that the planet has warmed due to greenhouse gases of human origin and that humanity could in the near future destabilize the global ecosystem and the rich biodiversity of life is a virtual reality created by a small cabal of computer specialists.
· Those specialists had little real comprehension of ecology and in particular of past ecological environments. They were fundamentally mathematicians and physicists, chemist and computer technicians, and prone to all manner of ambitions to further their field of knowledge and make a play for saving the world from what they genuinely believed could be a future threat.
· Within a relatively short time, powerful global interests had allied to this cause, in particular those organizations in need of a new and truly global mission.
· The hypothetical threat from carbon dioxide was a perfect enemy. It lay at the heart of all the environmentally destructive tendencies occasioned by burgeoning economic growth; its global reach meant that no country was safe from its effects. Emissions reflected perfectly the global inequity of trade and wealth, pollution and the evils of laissez-faire capitalism.
· Thus, the war and campaign began – alliances were sought, the media were activated and the debates politicized such that almost no party could gainsay the ‘truth’ of climate change.
· And when the UN’s assembled scientists debated, disagreed and worked their caveats, a whole cadre of politicized drones reworked their wordings into something that ‘policy makers’ could act on – a series of ‘targets’ that related to emissions and percentages of renewable energy supply.
So successful has this operation become that the UK Parliament – on the day that I write this – just passed into law a target of 80% reduction of carbon emissions (or their equivalent in other gases) by the year 2050, thus effectively committing the nation to a decarbonized economy that no one but the deluded propagandist believes is achievable.
This is about as succinct a recapitulation of what is happening as I have ever read.
Max
TonyN and any other aficionados of the only intelligent sport on earth:
Although AGW may have badly affected the wicket, the current state of play at lunch, as I head towards retiring, (Oz E.S. time) is jolly interesting, what!
FORGET GLOBAL WARMING: OBAMA ADMINISTATION APPROVES CANADIAN OIL SAND PIPELINE
http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCATRE57J65X20090820
Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling In Brazil
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Peter
You often like to remind us that many of the world’s scientific organizations have embraced the IPCC position as the “consensus view” on AGW.
Here is a brief excerpt from a booklet titled “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research” published by the National Academy of Science in 1995, which provides us with a well-presented set of criteria to guide the conduct of scientists as they navigate their way through the difficult choices they have to make in the way they conduct themselves ethically:
Do you think these venerable societies still abide by this philosophy, or have they abandoned their scientific skepticism in order to embrace the more politically correct (and lucrative) mainstream “consensus view”, thereby abandoning their earlier position that “organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results”?
I believe that this has sadly been the case for many of these scientific institutions.
What do you think, Peter?
Max
Bob fj and Peter.
As Bob says cricket is the only intelligent sport on earth. As I write this England have just won. Sorry Aussies (not)
tonyb
Two things:
1. Max: congratulations on your excellent recent posts both here and on the Delingpole/Plimer thread. Where do you get the time to do all that research?
2. Bob: re “the only intelligent sport on earth” – yes (TonyB) England won and regained the Ashes! Yee hah! And the turning point was Flintoff’s superb throw to run out Ponting. A fine way to end his Test career.
PS to Brute: you can relax now – it’s all over.
Whew! Thanks RG!
That was a real nail biter…….
I haven’t slept a wink since the Ashes outpitched the Crickets in the third inning of the bowler…..
Brute,
There is a common misperception in the non cricketing countries that Cricket is a sort of ‘gentle’ game. Having played a bit myself I can tell you it isn’t!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-NNkbFS6FE&feature=related
The most amusing, for everyone else at least, is when it gets you where it really hurts!
Relax Pete, I’m just teasing.
Seriously, I’ll have to tune in sometime and give it a look.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for comment.
Just finished reading both Plimer’s book and that of Peter Taylor (recommended by TonyB). Both are excellent reads.
Unfortunately, Plimer has made a few silly (unreferenced) errors, which open his book up to critique (and howls of feigned outrage from the AGW “true believers”); it would be good if he published a short “errata” (on the Internet, for example) to clear these up. I have not found any errors in Taylor’s book.
Actually, other than reading these books and checking out a few of the cited references, there really isn’t that much new to check out, other than updating the records on temperature and sea ice, etc. once a month and looking out for anything new on the Internet. This takes an hour or two per day on average.
Gavin Schmidt at RC kept me busy recently with a bunch of references to studies, which he cited that allegedly provided empirical evidence for the climate model assumption that water vapor increases with warming to maintain constant relative humidity; after checking these out in detail, I saw that this was not the case, despite his claim: two of the studies concluded that the observed (weather balloon and satellite) data must be wrong (since they did not agree with the theory), two showed no correlation at all, and one claimed a correlation (based on analysis of the post Pinatubo cooling). This took some time to sort out, but Gavin shut down the thread shortly thereafter.
Being recently retired, it’s an interesting “hobby” that keeps the brain cells working.
Max
Max:
Could you be very kind and contact me at tonyn (the usual symbol) harmlesssky (the usual punctuation mark) org. Sorry about the cryptic address but this is one that the spam merchants haven’t found yet.
Hi Max
I can’t comment on Plimers book-other than those mistakes I have been made aware of- but I must say I haven’t found any in Taylors book yet.
I have been participating in a couple of threads on sea temperatures and sea level rise-in both cases trying to put a historic perspective to the very limited time scales being used to try to show an upward trend.
I don’t know if you saw this report from our old friend Douglass who has written a number of sensible papers on oceans.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3420
Did I ever provide a link to that astonishing reconstruction back to 1700 of sea level rises using just three North European tide gauges?
It gives a new meaning to the word ‘interpolation’ as there is more interpolation used than there is actual factual data. Unfortunately the IPCC swallowed it, and that is what the assessmemts are based on.
*Made up global sea level rises based on three tide gauges.
*Sea temperatures based on twenty year old data that comprises a tiny fraction of one percent of the earths oceans.
*Global temperatures based on only twenty global stations in 1850.
I have to pinch myself sometimes to make sure it’s not ME who is living in a virtual reality world.
Tonyb
Tony,
I just wondered if you had any more thoughts on the leeway I was asking for?
It is fair enough to stick to the science, and leave out politics, but when those disputing the mainstream scientific position are motivated by their political beliefs, rather than any particular points of concern about the science, how can this be possible? How can it be the science itself, when most contributors to this blog clearly don’t understand it?
Only Max makes any pretence of having a reasonable understanding of climate science but a quick Google of his previous comments on the net shows he had made up his mind on the issue long before he decided to delve into Stefan Boltzmann’s law.
What is the point of yet another discussion on the UHI or the hockey stick?
Peter:
This blog was not set up to discuss politics, in the broad sense, or the details of scientific controversy. The latter takes place on this thread only because it was part and parcel of the discussion that originated at the New Statesman.
It’s a pretty big assumption that disagreement with your interpretation of scientific evidence indicates lack of understanding. It is perfectly possible for there to be two perfectly valid, yet opposing, views on almost any topic.
The ‘About’ page linked to in the LHS sidebar describes the thinking behind this blog at the time when I set it up. Looking at this again this morning it seems somewhat dated. Blogs evolve.
If you look at the last twenty or so posts that I have put up, most of them could be described as political in the broad sense. And remember that this thread is only one among (I think)around a hundred on this blog. It may look like the kernel of Harmless Sky to those who post on it regularly, but this is not the case. As I’ve made clear before, this tread is, so far as I am concerned, a semi-detached part of Harmless Sky that I am happy to host so long as it doesn’t cause me problems or take up too much of my time. And reading it helps keep me in touch with breaking news.
So far as giving you ‘leeway’ is concerned, the only post that has ever gone up here that blatantly reflects partisan political views is one that you very kindly authored.
I am well aware that it is possible to make a fiscal, if not political, connection between the US Energy Security Bill and plans for health-care reform. I also know that if this becomes a topic here then the discussion will quickly degenerate into partisan wrangling over the pro’s and cons of health care reform. It’s not going to happen.
I’ve left a reply to another comment that you made here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=124#comment-26131
TonyN,
You say “the only post that has ever gone up here that blatantly reflects partisan political views is one that you very kindly authored.”
And your continued hostility to the BBC is of course evidence of your total impartiality? Pull the other one as they say.
I’ve never known you take any exception at all to anything from the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Times, or even the Sun!
Peter
You wrote TonyN (among other things not directly involving me):
Let me correct your false assumption here, Peter.
I have been interested in the climate change debate from both the scientific, as well as the political and economic standpoint for some years. At first I believed pretty much what I saw in the media and in press releases, and then I became more curious about the “science” behind all the stories.
I saw that there was compelling evidence that, since around the mid 1970s, when satellite records started, (a) it was warming, albeit a bit more rapidly at the surface than in the troposphere, (b) Arctic sea ice appeared to be shrinking while that in the Antarctic was growing, (c) sea levels were continuing their rise, however with no real late 20th century acceleration.
I read reports that this warming had accelerated since the mid 1970s and claims that this was all due to anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW), primarily caused by CO2 and that this warming could become a serious threat in the future, but I could find no empirical data to support these claims, only model study outputs.
I took the time to become familiar with the GH theory behind the AGW premise, and found it to be plausible, even if unsubstantiated by empirical data.
In the meantime, AGW had become a multi-billion dollar industry in itself. A very poor environment for scientific objectivity and impartiality. The media, with its proclivity for bestseller headlines predicting “imminent disaster” had gotten involved, as had (even more ominously) the politicians and others, who saw a personal profit to be gained from the whole circus.
The prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars of carbon tax or cap and trade money to be shuffled around is a potential bonanza for politicians seeking enhanced power and all sorts of profit-seeking individuals, from corporate executives to venture capitalists, to money-shufflers, to hedge fund operators, etc. (Follow the money trail.) I could detect no formal “conspiracy” (as some have alluded), but a definite collusion of interests between the different groups.
The AGW “debate” was no longer a purely scientific one. Even a large number of scientists and venerable scientific organizations had given up the normal scientific approach of exercising rational skepticism and insisting on empirical data to support a hypothesis, but instead had “jumped on the AGW bandwagon”. It was even seriously suggested that the time for scientific debate was over; the “science was settled”, and it was time for “action”.
The search was no longer for the “truth” about the causes for climate change, but instead for the “proof” that AGW is the principal cause of climate change. The difference may appear to be subtle, but it is fundamental.
In view of all this, I became more and more skeptical of the “mainstream view”.
The hype preceding and immediately following publication of IPCC SPM 2007 was a “watershed” for me.
I saw that the politicians, media and profit-seekers had hijacked the AGW movement, which in turn had hijacked climate science.
When the political IPCC SPM 2007 came out (several months before the scientific backup report), I detected several errors, exaggerations and notable omissions, in addition to an underlying arrogance throughout the report.
So my “making up my mind” on the issue was a gradual process, during which I did learn quite a bit about the “science” (which I am, hopefully, continuing to do). If I learn something new that provides evidence that I may be wrong on a point, I am open to change, because I do not have a “religious belief” about AGW and its “absolute truth”, as some may have. I prefer to play the role of the rational skeptic.
But my “making up my mind” certainly did not precede my learning the basics of the greenhouse theory, as you have suggested (without any substantiation), Peter.
Thought I would straighten you out, since you are obviously confused on this point.
Max
PS It’s not Stefan Boltzmann’s Law, Peter (there were two guys): it’s the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Hi All
In the interests of not getting sidetracked by Peter again.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
Do you realize how arrogantly elitist this statement is? This is exactly the problem with Warmists and politicians advocating Cap and Tax and promoting the global warming theory.
These “Statesmen” view the general public as “the great unwashed”…..”the peasant class” that, in their view, have no idea what’s in their own best interests and must be subservient to the state and its political classes and wealthy special interest groups which one would think would be nauseating to someone such as yourself.
Can’t you see that?
I would think that someone as “well educated” as yourself would be able to discern the tone that you’ve employed. This statement encapsulates your condescending political philosophy and drives your advocacy of support for the dictatorial policies of the Anthropogenic Global Warming “movement”. You fanatically “believe” in the tenets of global warming hysteria and you would insist that everyone else be subject to your beliefs. Your political ideology which you wear on your sleeve, (whether you realize it or not) also would dictate your advocacy for the “little guy” but you abandon that in favor of placing the welfare of millions of people in the hands of a select group of members of the political class and self serving insiders because you support their environmental religious beliefs.
You vehemently reject the policies of people and politicians that you perceive as antithetical to your base philosophy calling them liars, “uninformed” and frauds, then embrace the very same organizations as the “cure” when they champion some lunatic scheme that you think is pretty? Did it ever occur to you that this clique of politicians and “experts” could be wrong and are motivated by something other than the “welfare” of the environment?
One last thing…..“Educated” is a subjective term Peter…..I know PhD accredited scientists that have absolutely zero common sense or any notion of when they are being hoodwinked…..