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. Error in last post 7250

    In my sentence about recent cooling I should have written:

    Is the recent slowdown in solar activity at the end of solar cycle 23 linked to the most recent cooling?

    (Instead of solar cycle 24, which is just getting ready to start.)

  2. Ask Brute. Maybe that is why he no longer believes in the Easter Bunny.

    Just exactly what are you inferring here Max?

    I’m shattered.

    Hah! Next you’ll write foolish things such as Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman or the terrorist attacks on Septemeber 11th 2001 actually were carried out by 19 Muslim fanatics.

  3. Pete,

    If you have a question that you’d like to ask me then please do so……Directly.

    I don’t suffer fools gladly…….but in your case I’ll make an exception.

  4. Max

    We don’t know everything about the sun

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/27/ncar-spots-the-transistor-effect-small-solar-activity-fluctuations-amplify-to-larger-climate-influences/

    That the sun is an important driver is more certain that that it is virtually irrelevant to the climate equation as some seem to think.

    Man really needs to be much more humble and admit that we really know very few of the factors that go to make up the climate equation, let alone have calculated the correct answer.

    Tonyb

  5. Tonyb,

    This is interesting………

    Aug 27, 2009
    Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SolarChangesandtheClimate.pdf

  6. All,

    I suppose we could apply a bit of science to the question of what motivates people to be sceptics.

    I do question statements such JamesP’s “most, if not all, of us started out believing the AGW party line only arrived at our current position after some research and plenty of soul-searching.”

    So we seem to have two competing theories here.

    My theory would be that nearly all sceptics, and I can’t see any exceptions on this blog, start off being sceptical, usually for political reasons, and any science they later bring into the argument is done to try to bolster their preconceived position.

    So which is more likely? Are you seriously asking us to believe that the author (which isn’t Brute) of the “puke Gore” comment has even looked at the science?

    Maybe you’ll accuse me of condescension but I’m having difficulty imagining that people who think like that, can look at any scientific paper with any sort of impartiality at all, even if they had even the foggiest idea of what it was about.

    James P,

    I am asking you to clarify who you mean by “most if not all of us” ? It is your statement not Brute’s.

    Do you mean all or do you mean most? If ‘most’ who would you exclude?

  7. Pete,

    The burden of proof rests on your side of the table.

    My point being that if Warmists contend that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a proven theory than prove it. If the proof is irrefutable than garner support for your endeavor to “combat” it.

    You, (meaning Warmists) are asking the world to sacrifice wealth, health, freedom and civil rights to resolve a imaginary pipe dream and we, (meaning skeptics) demand damn certainty that it isn’t another political boondoggle that in actuality will resolve nothing except to purchase more votes, more political largesse and more suffering of the average guy/family.

    The “proof” submitted thus far consists of computer simulations that have been proven woefully inaccurate when compared to actual, real world, real time observations.

    Forgive me for asking questions before supporting an endeavor that will likely cost multiple trillions of dollars and will expectedly cause financial suffering(resulting in stagnation of real prosperity) on a worldwide scale.

    The “consensus” today of the general public is that the Global Warming theory is a load of Bull and the “green agenda” is losing support daily. So far, the Warmist salesmanship isn’t doing the job…..people see through the hyperbole.

    The proposed “solutions” to combat this “worldwide ecological disaster” have proven worst than the “condition” itself and only succeed in creating more CO2 per kilowatt at a higher per kilowatt dollar amount (making guys like Al Gore wealthy) and unreliable supply backed up by the old standard, fossil fuels.

    The proposed solutions also include increased taxes on the very people that the Bleeding Hearts claim to hold dear…..the average “bloke” that can ill afford the steep price of “going green”.

    You, and like minded eco-elitists are asking an awful lot of the increasingly stressed economy and average family just trying to heat their homes and feed their families to support your silly fantasy of an unattainable Utopian “green” paradise to comply with your selfish enviro-religious fanaticism.

    The only reasonable thing you’ve written lately is your support of nuclear energy.

    That’s the bottom line.

    And yes, you can quote me……….

  8. Brute,

    I have tried to explain that in science there can not be ‘proof’ as such. AGW science is no different from any thing else in that respect. Demanding ‘proof’, rather than accepting the most likely explanation of what is happening to the atmosphere as CO2 concentrations increase, is just the tactic of setting the bar so high that no-one can reach it.

    I guess what you are saying is that the average person will always put their short term economic interests before longer term environmental considerations and longer term economic interests. Every individual can argue that they may as well grab what is going now , because if they don’t someone else will grab it later anyway. It is known as the ‘tragedy of the commons.’

    It happened with the fisheries of the Canadian Grand Banks. For years scientists had warned that fish stocks were heading for collapse. The fishing industry always argued that there was no need to reduce their catches. They said that there was no proof that the scientific reports were correct. Reducing catches would send them bankrupt. They couldn’t afford it.

    Fish stocks have indeed collapsed, and there hardly any fishing industry left. If the fish were there,the fishing industry would still be there too. Maybe there is some scientific proof after all, but what good is proof if you need to test the system to destruction to get it?

    You could be right. Scientific advice on the AGW issue may well be ignored. We could see a huge ‘tradegy of the commons’ . It will mean that those of us who have argued that the problem can be tackled through the democratic process will have been wrong.

  9. Peter said

    “My theory would be that nearly all sceptics, and I can’t see any exceptions on this blog, start off being sceptical, usually for political reasons, and any science they later bring into the argument is done to try to bolster their preconceived position.”

    Surely this is completely contrary to what James said? Most people start off believing the party line-that there is AGW-and only after looking at it properly do a proportion then realise all is not what it seems.

    They have looked at the facts and changed their minds, so how is that bolstering their pre conceived position?

    I think what you have failed to appreciate is that there are two main types of disbelievers.

    The first are ‘sceptics’ who have thought deeply about it, read the papers and changed their original position based on actual facts and observations. With this group you consistently hugely overestimate the political aspect.

    The second group are ‘deniers’ (lower case and non perjorative) who hate the govt, hate authority, believe they should be able to do whatever they want. AGW is just one of many things they automatically disbelieve because they think it is a govt attempt to control them. There is a political element here, but equally very many hate govt of any complexion.

    This last group hate AGW because they believe it is being used as a tool of the govt to intrude in to their life.

    The latter would go on denying until their last breath- no matter the proof. The former are perfectly rational people and would look at the evidence presented to them, but based on the past performance of some of those involved in promoting AGW-and the exaggerated claims made-would want to delve behind the headlines before accepting anything as factual.

    Your group also has similar schisms. The quote you are trotting out about ‘puke gore’ is replicated in numerous green blogs where the green believer has as much made up their mind as the ‘denier’. There was a prime example of that this morning from the latest climate group interviewed on the BBC who said they ‘just know’ that man is wrecking the planet.

    When there are so many question marks about the reliability of data-sea level rise,arctic ice variation through the centuries,global temperatures to 1850, Ocean temperatures,Co2 levels, and so many unknown facets- such as the real effect of the sun, the PDO etc, it is supremely arrogant of anyone to believe that the science is settled.

    Tonyb

  10. James P, Reur 7248, you tellingly wrote in part:

    “…One of the ironies of this debate is that most sceptics, who have a right to be annoyed if what they believe is true, are quite measured and polite in discussion (e.g. here and on Anthony Watts’s site) while a lot more rudeness is to be found on AGW sympathetic sites like RC, where I get the impression that they protest too much. All IMO, of course, but I’m not the only person to have observed this, and the termination of threads when a sceptic has made a telling point seems significant…”

    One of the threads over at RC that amused me (and I guess Max) a great deal, was this:
    Warming, interrupted: Much ado about natural variability…endorsed by raypierre! http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
    The lead article included in highlighted text:
    we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming

    Sadly, that thread was closed without explanation in a pregnant state atypically after only eight (8) days. However, not to miss an opportunity, Max and me made reference on a later thread to the great wisdom of Raymond Pierrehumbert, (a revered alarmist physicist), concerning his surprising recognition of a “warming pause” in that earlier thread.

    Oh no! proclaimed Gavin Schmidt, Ray did not write the article. Well that may be true, but the fact is that it had his endorsement, (adjacent to the title), and he used the same terminology in an early response of his on that thread.

    I’ve only recently engaged over at RC and have been surprised at what they accepted. However, just recently I had five posts containing only factual information, (no rudeness), “evaporate” in mediation, that must have touched a raw nerve. Earlier, I also had reference to Akasufo’s recent paper edited out from longer posts three times!

    My last three posts that “evaporated” at RC were however allowed (slightly abbreviated) at Chris Colose’s website as follows, if you are interested:

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-1066
    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-1071

  11. Peter Martin

    You wrote (7256):

    “My theory would be that nearly all sceptics, and I can’t see any exceptions on this blog, start off being sceptical, usually for political reasons, and any science they later bring into the argument is done to try to bolster their preconceived position.”

    TonyB has already responded with a very clear description of the two types of skeptics.

    Most of those who are active on this site (myself included) fit into TonyB’s first category, i.e. they have started out basically believing that AGW was real and that it could represent a future danger. I would agree with James P that this includes “most if not all” of the skeptics blogging regularly on this site. [For a definition of “most if not all” , let me suggest “a large majority”, to avoid any confusion or “nit-pick” on your part.]

    In my case I decided to check out the supporting science for this premise initially out of scientific curiosity. I believed that there must be a potential problem, but wanted to see just how serious a threat this really represented.

    The more I dug into it, Peter, the weaker I found was the scientific case for the premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions.

    The empirical scientific data to support this premise were just not there. All that existed was a plausible greenhouse theory and a series of climate model outputs, which provide no empirical support whatsoever.

    So I became a “rational skeptic” in the classical sense, based on the “science” (or lack thereof) supporting the AGW premise.

    During all this time, several things were happening.

    First, it stopped warming at the same time as the sun slowed down at the end of solar cycle 23 to a sustained level of low activity that has not been seen for a very long time and the unusually active El Niño cycle of the 1990s (which produced the record year 1998 and a significant statistical portion of the 1990s warming) started to reverse to more La Niñas despite all-time record CO2 levels.

    Second, IPCC published its SPM 2007 report (several months before publishing the more scientific backup AR4 WG1 report). A closer check of this report found several errors and exaggerations and a few outright lies. In addition there were some notable omissions of relevant data and the report was generally written in an arrogant style as a “sales pitch” for the AGW premise to non-scientific “policy makers”.

    Third, the voices of hysteria (Hansen et al.) became increasingly shrill with prophesies of “tipping points” if CO2 levels were to increase to the “dangerous level of 450 ppm”, comparisons of coal trains with the “death trains” of Nazi Germany and other such drivel.

    Fourth, the political interests also began an initiative of acceleration: i.e. the “science is settled” and “we must act now to prevent disaster”, where “act now” meant impose a direct carbon tax or indirect cap ‘n tax on every man, woman and child on this planet (presumably before the masses realize that (a) it is no longer warming despite all-time high CO2 emissions and (b) the entire AGW premise is based on flawed science.

    These events only reinforced my belief, which was originally based purely on the flawed science of AGW, that the whole movement was largely a hoax.

    Whether all the other AGW skeptics on this site had a similar transition from “believer” (in the AGW premise) to “questioner” to “rational skeptic” I cannot tell.

    A few have already expressed on this thread a similar personal transition and I could well imaging that it would also have applied for many more, so your “theory” is dead wrong that the politics came first and the science followed. It was the other way round, Peter.

    Max

  12. I couldn’t put it better myself, Max, so I won’t try.

    Peter – I said ‘most if not all’ simply because I can’t speak for everybody. However, everyone I know who discusses this with me has made much the same journey – we started out believing that CO2 might be dangerously warming the planet, and now we don’t.

  13. Peter #7233

    The thread moved on before I had a chance to comment on something you said to Max, which really needs clarification for the lurkers here. You said;

    “If there is a hoax, it must go back a long way to Arrhenius at the turn of the last century. From empirical measurements made with CO2 in tubes, he made various estimates of the CO2 sensitivity of between 1.6 degC and 6 deg C which is pretty close to the range of values predicted now by the IPCC.”

    Arrhenius proposed a theory in which he initially (and mistakenly) put the co2 effect as up to 6C. Over 100 years ago however he saw the error of his ways and substantially backpedalled;

    “Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 – 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C[4]. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

    So he did not make the wide range of estimates suggested, he made initial calculations, realised they were wrong and made some new ones,which were far lower.

    The interesting thing about your mentioning Arrhenius however is that you believe so implicitly in his theory. Now Arrhenius was a direct contemporary (1859-1927) of the hundreds of scientists that made tens of thousands of calculations of co2 concentrations from Saussure onwards in 1830.

    This culimiated in the 1950’s when Keeling-who had no training whatsoever in climate science or co2 measurements-took over.

    So how come you believe Arrhenius was capable of creating a highly accurate (in your eyes) theory, but that his brilliant contemporaries weren’t capable of measuring what he proposed?

    For the lurkers here, these thousands of other measurements through the 19th Century showed co2 concentrations at much the same levels as todays.

    Just curious as to how you reconcile this apparent contradiction in capabilities Peter

    tonyb

  14. PeterMrtin

    Peter, I think you have a dilemma.

    You have stated that you are convinced that most of the skeptics active on this thread are acting primarily for political reasons:

    My theory would be that nearly all sceptics, and I can’t see any exceptions on this blog, start off being sceptical, usually for political reasons, and any science they later bring into the argument is done to try to bolster their preconceived position.

    We have shown, from statements of some of the “skeptics” active on this site, that your “theory” is incorrect., and that the missing or flawed “science” was the root cause for the skepticism for these individuals.

    Be a man, Peter, and admit for once that you were wrong on this point. It’s not that hard to do. Otherwise you have to postulate that these skeptics are all liars. Is that what you suggest?

    Take a stand, Peter, and don’t allow yourself to be “impaled on the horns of a dilemma”.

    Max

  15. Max,

    In my case I sort of stood back and listened to the rhetoric. I didn’t really have a strong opinion on the topic.

    As the shrill cries from the Warmists became louder I began to casually look at the data. I pretty much felt that if someone wanted to drive a “green” car, or buy green light bulbs, or purchase carbon credits, or buy more expensive “green” energy they had that right and I didn’t care either way.

    When I became aware that the agenda was beginning to move in a compulsory direction and politicians were speaking of confiscating my property (my money) to pay for their scheme, as well as infringe on my rights as an American, that’s when I seriously began study the subject. When it looked like my Ox was to be Gored (pun intended) I began paying attention.

    What I’ve found is alarming (another intended pun). The entire agenda is a script out of any Socialist playbook disguised as a “humanitarian” endeavor. (Did you know that the recent Cap & Tax Bill requires Federal agents to inspect your home and certify that it complies with their “green standards” before you would be able to sell it?)

    At some point prior to the New Statesman article I became even more curious and studied further. It wasn’t until I began to realize that the “cause” of global warming would effect me, my family and my fellow citizens severely that I became involved here (and socially).

    Again, if the “science is settled” and no one need be convinced further, why is the initiative failing? Sure, there are lunatics on either side that will never accept the premise on any terms; however, I believe the majority of people are level headed and will accept common sense solutions to a problem that they believe exists.

    So far, the general public is far from convinced that the global warming/sky is falling rhetoric is anywhere close to what the Doomsdayers exclaim and the more evidence that comes to light concerning the topic the fewer adherents to the agenda there are , which, in my opinion, is why the agenda is failing. the political class are too arrogant and self serving to listen.

    The political class operate using many tactics………two of the most prevalent are getting your law passed in the dark of night, behind closed doors when no one is looking.

    The second is to create a “boogeyman”, publicize it, raise hysteria and frighten people into supporting a law and then passing it quickly before anyone has a chance to look at the fine print.

    Both tactics are being employed regarding a couple of recent bills/agendas here in the US….. global warming being one. Both ploys are devious and dishonest………but we are talking about politicians, remember?

    Money and political favors also weigh heavily in this arena, (Federal Grants to Universities studying “climate”, windmill shysters/green energy charlatans, big business (General Electric with their $50.00 light bulbs, taxation, the auto industry), the list goes on and on.

    Everyone has their handout for a big payday on the backs of the taxpayers using “global warming” as their war cry.

  16. James P,

    You are now saying that “I said ‘most if not all’ simply because I can’t speak for everybody.”

    Besides yourself, can you speak for anybody? If so, who?

    All,

    Can any of you provide any evidence at all that they started off believing the scientific consensus and then changed their minds? Any old blog postings for example?

    Max started off on the AGW issue by saying “Use your commonsense. Its all a scam”. Does this sound like a person who has ever entertained the notion that AGW was a serious problem? If some new scientific information came to light, naturally my opinion on AGW could change. But I wouldn’t start saying that it was all poppycock or a hoax or whatever. No-one would. They would explain why their original opinion was valid at the time and why it had subsequently changed.

    People like Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson were all for the idea that coal was contributing to global warming when they wanted to close down the UK coal mines in the 1980’s but have changed their tune since. So I’m not saying that opinions can’t change!

    The link between politics and environmental science is a study are in its own right. In This paper:

    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a793291693

    “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism”

    finds “that over 92 per cent of these [climate sceptic] books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks”

    Ian Plimer’s recent poor excuse for a book is an obvious example of this. It was financed by the so-called “Institute of Public Affairs”. It is a wealthy think tank almost entirely financed by Australian mining industries.

  17. Further to post # 7266……….Facts such as these shake my confidence in the “global warming” theory……….

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Some_Facts_about_Global_Climate_Change.pdf

    Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise.
    CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food.

    Reconstruction of paleo-climatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway
    greenhouse effect.”

    Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool.

    Indeed, greenhouse models show the warming should be greatest at mid to high atmosphere levels in the tropics. But balloon and satellite observations show cooling there. The greenhouse signature or DNA does not match reality, and the greenhouse models thus must greatly overstate the warming – and in a court of law would have to be acquitted of any role in global warming.

    The sun has both direct and indirect effects on our climate. Solar activity changes on cycles of 11 years and longer. When the sun is more active it is brighter and a little hotter. More important though are the indirect effects. Ultraviolet radiation increases much more than the brightness and causes increased ozone production, which generates heat in the high atmosphere that works its way down, affecting the weather. Also, an active sun diffuses cosmic rays, which play an important role in nucleation of low clouds, resulting in fewer clouds. In all these ways the sun warms the planet more when it is active. An active sun in the 1930s and again near the end of the last century helped produce the observed warming periods. The current solar cycle is the longest in over 100 years, an unmistakable sign of a cooling sun that historical patterns suggest will stay so for decades.

    The multidecadal cycles in the ocean correlate extremely well with the solar cycles and global temperatures. These are 60 to 70 year cycles that relate to natural variations in the large-scale circulations. Warm oceans correlate with warm global temperatures. The Pacific started cooling in the late 1990s and it accelerated in the last year, and the Atlantic has cooled from its peak in 2004. This supports the observed global land temperature cooling, which is strongly correlated with ocean heat content. Newly deployed NOAA buoys confirm global ocean cooling.

    Warmer ocean cycles are periods with diminished Arctic ice cover. When the oceans were warm in the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic ice diminished and Greenland warmed. The recent ocean warming, especially in the 1980s to the early 2000s, is similar to what took place 70 years ago and the Arctic ice has reacted much the same way, with diminished summer ice extent.

    Antarctic ice has been increasing and the extent in 2007 was the greatest in the satellite monitoring era. It has continued above the 3 year average……….

  18. Ian Plimer’s recent poor excuse for a book is an obvious example of this. It was financed by the so-called “Institute of Public Affairs”. It is a wealthy think tank almost entirely financed by Australian mining industries.

    Pete,

    I detest playing this tit for tat game, but who or what do you think is promoting the “global warming” theory and becoming extremely wealthy from perpetuating the “climate change” hysteria/frenzy?

    I think we’ve all tried to debate the scientific facts, but we gloss over the human element which is greed and power. Everyone has some sort of motivation…..you can’t remove that from the equation in either camp.

    Seriously, you cannot be that naive………..

  19. Brute,

    This argument that CO2 is not a pollutant because it is a naturally occurring gas, and is a plant food, is just not sound. You can say the same thing about nitrates and phosphates. In the right quantities, they are a necessary part of of the ecosystem. However, put too much of them into rivers or the sea, as happens with badly overloaded or badly designed sewage works for example, and damage results. Oxygen is depleted from the water. Poisonous algae can grow. Fish will die.

    I do often hear the story that people are getting rich off AGW concerns. I know that one of the richest guys in China made his fortune with solar panels. But, isn’t that fair enough if he’s doing something useful? Or do you mean trading in carbon permits? You can trade in all sorts of things: Currencies, Shares, Dirivitives, even Dirivitives of dirivitives I believe (but don’t ask me how they work). If you are a lot smarter than me you could give up your job as a heating engineer and make some easy money. You’ve just got to risk losing some hard earned money too.

    But I can’t see that trading carbon permits is going to make much difference in the overall scheme of things. Its going to be no easier to make money on them than it is on the price of copper or oil.

  20. PS to Brute,

    How do your “rights as an American” have any bearing one way or the other on whether the science is correct?

    Look, I’ve nothing against Americans but it the use of these phrases which do, rightly or wrongly, get people’s backs up. The implication is that you’ve got more rights than anyone else. How do phrases like “my rights as an Englishman” or “my rights as an Australian” sound to you?

    What you should be saying, as the citizen of a country which is responsible for more excess atmospheric CO2 than any other, is “my responsibility as an American”.

  21. I guess my sense of humour might be considered perverted by some, but I nevertheless copy-paste this comment from ‘WUWT Tips and Notes’, because I imagine that the majority here will be entertained by it. (and I’ll next alert its author of what I‘ve done)

    Just The Facts (18:19:15) [he wrote]:
    I think we are due for a solar update from the luminaries at NASA. I went back through their archives for the last 6 years and put together a reasonably comprehensive summary of the observations and predictions that they’ve bestowed upon us over the last six years:

    Nov 12, 2003: “The Sun Goes Haywire – Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12nov_haywire.htm
    Oct 18, 2004: “Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
    May 5, 2005: “Solar Myth – With solar minimum near, the sun continues to be surprisingly active.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05may_solarmyth.htm
    Sept 15, 2005: “Solar Minimum Explodes – Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_solarminexplodes.htm
    Aug 15th, 2006: ” A strange little sunspot may herald the coming of one of the stormiest solar cycles in decades. ”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
    Dec 21, 2006 “Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
    Dec 14, 2007 “Is a New Solar Cycle Beginning? – The solar physics community is abuzz this week. ”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm
    Jan 10, 2008: “Solar Cycle 24 – Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
    March 28, 2008: Old Solar Cycle Returns – Barely three months after forecasters announced the beginning of new Solar Cycle 24, old Solar Cycle 23 has returned.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm
    July 11, 2008: “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) – Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
    Sept. 30, 2008: “Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
    – Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low – We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
    Nov. 7, 2008: The Sun Shows Signs of Life – I think solar minimum is behind us”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008
    /07nov_signsoflife.htm
    April 1, 2009: Deep Solar Minimum – We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum – This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
    May 29, 2009: “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
    June 17, 2009: “Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved? The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
    What a joke. I [Just The Facts] can’t believe that I’m paying for this crap
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    What do they call that ethereal perception? Deja vu?

  22. Hi Bob_FJ

    Your chronological sequence of NASA press releases regarding the unusually low level of solar activity over the past 18 months is hilarious.

    Even funnier are the NASA “forecasts” (ex. “one of the stormiest solar cycles in decades”).

    It’s almost as if these guys were wishing for a high level of solar activity as a backup, just in case the record CO2 levels don’t really cause the warming trend to continue with greenhouse warming.

    But the last press release is the funniest of all:

    “The current solar minimum has been so long and deep, it prompted some scientists to speculate that the sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all, akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century. This new result dispels those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating, and the sunspot cycle is not broken.”

    Duh! We haven’t seen any real sunspots for 18 months and it is cooling, after over a decade of warming, but cheer up folks, “the sunspot cycle is not broken” and “global warming” is not dead yet (you just have to believe in it hard enough and it won’t go away).

    Yawn!

    Regards,

    Max

  23. Peter,

    You are beginning to become annoying, insolent and ill-mannered when you post such drivel as in your 7267 to James P:

    “Max started off on the AGW issue by saying “Use your commonsense. Its all a scam”. Does this sound like a person who has ever entertained the notion that AGW was a serious problem?”

    I did not “start off on the AGW issue by saying” anything. I started off over several years by informing myself and gathering data, as I have pointed out to you.

    It wasn’t until I had seen that the science supporting the AGW premise was weak and flawed that I began to form an opinion. And it wasn’t until quite a bit later that I started blogging on this topic.

    Your remarks about how I “started off on the AGW issue” are silly and purely fabricated.

    You just cannot accept that many of the bloggers here (including myself, as I have openly told you) started off believing that AGW might become a problem, based on all the stories out there at the time, and only after checking out the science did it become clear that there were no empirical scientific data supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions.

    Get it through your thick skull, Peter. It’s the “science”, stupid!

    Max

  24. Max,

    You say “I did not start off on the AGW issue by saying anything.” But, Isn’t this you? The first posting in:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444340/Climate-change-envoys-carbon-footprint-30-times-British-average.html

    “Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar “climate research scam”. etc etc etc

    Look, these are just not the words of someone who originally agreed with the scientific consensus, looked at the details of the science, and then decided that the case probably wasn’t quite as strong as he might originally have supposed. You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself by continuing to claim otherwise.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha