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.
TonyN,
SH*T !!!! I did put the line “WIDTH =540” in there but its not worked.
Any chance of having a preview in future?
I’ve noted it before, Peter: you revert to insult when you know you’ve lost the argument. Pity.
Peter and Brute
Thanks for posting charts on Arctic sea ice recovery (even your “king size” one, Peter).
These provide truly encouraging news for polar bear lovers!
In just two short years we have seen a recovery equal of 900,000 square kilometers or almost 40% of the entire loss we have seen since the 1979-2000 baseline!
Wow!
If this keeps up for three more years, we will be back to the baseline level and these magnificent beasts will have nothing to worry about (bad news if you are a baby seal lover, though).
Thanks to you both for posting this delightful information.
I can truly sleep better now.
Max
Peter Martin
If you check Wiki, you will find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
Hope this clears it up for you.
Max
PS Believe Robin has tried to explain this to you earlier, in conjunction with a basic weakness of the premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions.
Peter Martin
You opined to James P:
Let’s analyze the sentence above.
It is quite clear that the key word (used twice) is the very big word “IF”.
A 3°C warming over 21st century requires a 0.3°C per decade warming.
The first decade of the 21st century is showing cooling of 0.1°C per decade so far.
IPCC computer models and climatologists are telling us the warming will [probably] restart (but maybe only in 10 to 20 years).
Solar scientists are telling us that we are [probably] headed for a prolonged cooling period, as the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity has been replaced by a solar minimum.
Whom to believe? What kind of “insurance” to take out? Global warming? Global cooling?
As you can see, Peter, the basic question on the type of insurance is not even answered clearly.
Now to your estimate of a 1% cost. 1% of what? Certainly the direct carbon tax (or indirect cap ‘n trade tax) will represent more than 1% of the average cost to a household.
US House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated estimated the additional “cap ‘n tax” bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family in the USA (the Obama administration puts this at $1,760 per year, but administrations have always understated the costs of new taxes to the taxpayers). This is the direct cost only, and does not include the higher costs of all goods and services purchased, which contain an energy component.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=117509
The median U.S. household income is around $48,200, so this is 6.4% of income.
If we include the “indirect” portion of this cost, it would represent an estimated 10% of income.
And, of course, 10% of total income would be a much higher percentage of “discretionary cost” (once fixed costs for daily survival have been taken out).
Now to the benefit.
What benefit would every household have from this substantial new cost?
Salvation?
Let’s get a bit more specific.
What will happen to us all if we (a) spend our hard-earned money to purchase this very costly insurance, or (b) simply make much less expensive emergency adaptation plans, which could be implemented if we see that it is really warming or cooling at an unusual rate at some date in the future?
Unless you can come up with some very specific benefits, I think you will have to agree that the wiser choice above is (b).
So your postulation that “it would make sense to take out some insurance” might fit for alternate (b), but does not apply to alternate (a).
My suggestion:
Do not force this insurance down the throats of people who do not rationally feel it is justified and who do not want it.
Let those (who are more pessimistic and fearful in nature) take it out, if they want to.
How do you like this proposed solution, Peter?
Max
I haven’t seen anyone here discussing the latest hockey stick furore.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/#comment-194392
The link above needs to be read in conjunction with knowledge of the global temperatures to 1850,(which is when the hockey stick starts its uptick) as devised by Phil Jones at CRU and which forms the basis for IPCC material (data which he has refused to release and now appears to have been ‘lost’) .
I often describe here how they are constructed (a few dozen unreliable stations worldwide that continually change in number and location). On this -and James Hansens equally flawed version from 1880- the IPCC and Michael Mann have built a spurious data set which is tacked onto the equally manufactured data of historic temperature record.
The hockey stick ’smooths’ out past temperature variations to make it consistent with the story concerning a stable co2 record which man has recently broken. That temperatures were both substantially higher and lower than today, despite co2 being (allegedly) at a constant 280ppm, makes it difficult to claim that our input to rising co2 levels are the overwhelming cause of rising temperatures.
The hockey stick is starting to take on some of the aspects concerning the fabricated material for ‘Piltdown man.’
tonyb
I haven’t seen anyone here discussing the latest hockey stick furore.
Too busy reading it! :-)
I meant to add, it will be interesting to see the response on Wiki – it was unavailable when I looked yesterday, but seems unaltered today..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
James P and TonyB
What is it?
It is created by theoreticians, using dicey data and a goofy statistical approach, with the specific goal of rewiting established history.
It was eagerly embraced by the world authority on (anthropogenic) climate change as proof for its statement that the current (anthropogenic) warming is “unprecedented in the whole millenium”
It enjoyed star status and was prominently displayed in the 2001 IPCC SPM report, along with some marvelous chartmanship, grafting the IPCC model projections for the future onto the hockey stick itself, with temperatures shooting in an uncontrolled fashion to the ceiling!
It was later found to be an artifact.
It was comprehensively discredited.
The methods used (and conclusions reached) were shown to be invalid.
Despite much howling by its friends, it died and was buried.
But not totally.
It no longer had the star status in the latest IPCC SPM report
But lo and behold!
In Chapter 6 of the backup AR4 WG1 report, there it is, resurrected in all its glory (even identified as such)
Proving that you can bury a discredited work of bad science, but you cannot really kill it (if it conveys the desired message).
But when you dig it back up out of its tomb, it has an even stronger smell than it had when it was buried.
Max
Max
I think I laid out my position in my 7681.
The HS is vital-despite what others might say-as an icon that;
a) ‘demonstrates’ temperatures shot up in the last 150 years
b) That temperatures were relatively constant from the MWP until 1850
c)That Co2 shot up since 1850
Therefore co2 caused the rise in temperature.
Never mind the 1850 temperatures commence in the LIA (and it would be worrying if they hadn’t increased) , nor that they are fabricated (and now ‘lost’) or that ‘global’ is in any case meaningless, or that the MWP suddenly became an ‘outdated concept’, as did the LIA as was proven by the judicious use of cherry picked proxies.
The violent oscillations of temperature throughout our history -with co2 at a constant 280ppm- either means co2 is not a primary driver and has nothing to do with temperature oscillations, OR that co2 levels have also fluctuated but have not been properly recorded since 1957.
I am happy with either hypotheses, but am inclined towards the second.
tonyb
Good summary of the HS revelations here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
Nice to see in it something approaching MSM!
Looks like the AGW cause is in trouble and Copenhagen might well be another setback.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/09/29/peter-foster-climate-policy-bust.aspx
Max and Brute,
You’ve both over repeated posts made suggestions along the lines of ‘you pay for it [AGW mitigation] if you like’.
I’d be prepared to explore this possibility – that every taxpayer could direct their tax money in their chosen direction. It would have to apply to everyone and everything though. I’d very likely make quite different choices to you guys.
Max
WRT Copenhagen, the Guardian is appealing for help in drafting it (a mite presumptuous – I don’t suppose anyone asked them):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/28/un-draft-climate-change-agreement?
I posted the following suggestion for a preface, although I suspect it’s not quite what they were after…
This document has necessarily been dictated by a political agenda, and what little science it contains is based on computer models. The truth, that climate change is almost entirely the result of natural variability, is too inconvenient to mention. Those wishing to capitalise on the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon should not be alarmed at the loud rattling noises, which are simply the wheels preparing to fall off.
Max
Thanks for the Peter Foster link. I’ve just spent a happy (if that’s the word) time browsing the FP’s Rubber Duck award nominations. Scary!
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/tags/Rubber+Duck+Award/default.aspx
Peter
In #7688 you wrote (to me and Brute)
This is a good idea, Peter. I just think it needs a minor revision: Those timid and rather pessimistic souls that want to pay for AGW mitigation (or adaptation) measures should be allowed to volunteer to pay an income tax surcharge to cover the cost of these measures.
The tax schedule (applied to an individual’s normal income tax rate without these measures) could be structured as follows:
(a) For those who are not afraid of global warming: 100% (no surcharge)
(b) For those who are a little bit afraid, but not really terrified: 125% (a 25% surcharge to cover financing for long-term adaptation planning)
(c) For those who are really terrified that we will all die from AGW: 300% (a 200% surcharge to cover the costs of draconian mitigation measures to reduce human CO2 to pre-WWII levels)
In that fashion we could let everyone pay for what he believes is reasonable in a democratic fashion.
I would opt for option (a), since I am not afraid at all(based on all the data I have been able to gather on the topic).
Let’s see which option Brute would choose.
I’m also curious whether you would go for option (b) or option (c).
What do you think of this modification to your proposal?
Max
PS In order to avoid anarchy at the various government levels, this option would not be applicable for any other government expenditures, just for those directly related to the controversial AGW issue, where the population appears to be split on the reality of the projected dangers.
Max,
Using your options, I’d choose “A”.
I have a better idea:
Those who believe that AGW is an issue and think that “something” should be done about it can VOLUNTARILY donate to whatever PRIVATE institution that they deem worthy. It’d be interested to see how much money is collected…….
Every government run institution is ineffective, wasteful and corrupt (on varying scales), which is why I cannot understand why the eco-condriacs push so hard for a government run “program”. Having government involved in any endeavor instantly reduces the effectiveness of the program as a large portion of the proceeds are squandered. Having a “middleman” to distribute funds unnecessarily adds costs to any effort. Any government run program will simply collect taxpayer funds (which incurs costs) and “reallocate” it to (for lack of a better word) industries that will get the job done, (and divert funds to unrelated expenditures). Why not have the taxpayers directly donate to the companies that actually produce the goods and/or services and cut the government out of it?
I retract the above statement; I do understand……this isn’t about addressing “global warming”……it’s about forcing people that “don’t believe” to pay……to force them to become “believers”. It also allows fat cat politicians to garner votes from special interests to keep their jobs and use proceeds to fund “pet projects” unrelated to the initially defined goal.
It’s about controlling industry, lifestyle and independent thought, i.e. CONTROLLING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
It’s not about addressing “climate change” it’s about denying citizens freedom of choice/free will. Same with the healhcare thing……it’s not about providing healthcare to those that currently don’t have it, it’s about denying those that currently have it a choice.
Whether you believe that global warming is an issue or not, you’ll be forced to finance whatever the government feels is “necessary” to keep them fed.
Global warming is a shakedown.
Max,
An alteration……..I’d include both public and private entities in the voluntary contribution aspect.
Again it would be interesting how “deeply” the proponents of AGW believe in this cause.
Wow. Very strong stuff on the Briffa tree ring data.
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1
All the elements he describes of messy and incomplete data completely chimes with my experience whether it is Global temperatures to 1850 based on 20 stations, or so called global sea level rises based on only three Northern hemisphere tide gauges.
tonyb
Michigan: Record low temps — breaks 1935 cold…
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20091001/NEWS05/91001005/Morning-temp-sets-new-record
Record low tied at Daytona Beach…
http://www.wesh.com/weather/21169384/detail.html
Cold snap fills up homeless shelters in Idaho…
http://www.ktvb.com/news/nearyou/boise/ktvbn-oct0109-shelters.1d3eca5ab.html
This may at first seem O/T but, as I’m now in Los Angeles, this Guardian piece – Will California become America’s first failed state? – got my attention. It’s depressing stuff. California is the eighth largest economy in the world but now “From its politics to its economy to its environment and way of life, California is like a patient on life support”. For example, at the start of summer the state government was so deeply in debt that it began to issue IOUs instead of wages.
But Anthony “Van” Jones, “a man now in the vanguard of the movement to build a future green economy, creating millions of jobs, solving environmental problems and reducing climate change at a stroke” has the solution. Called to advise Obama (but mysteriously “ousted from his role”), he believes California “will once more change itself, and then change the nation”. The article says it’s “already happening. California … leads the way in environmental issues. Arnold Schwarzenegger was seen as a leading light, taking the state far ahead of the federal government on eco-issues.”
Hmm … I wonder.
This is interesting.
Maybe I’m banned… added a nice long post yesterday but it failed to appear.
JZ Smith and Max
JZ-I have had problems posting anything more than two or three links at the same time.
Max
Can you do me a little favour? I am writing an article on pre 1850 temperature data sets and came across this. I know of most of them but some are new.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/klima/index.html
The trouble is that many of the records stop in 1993. It could that the web site is quite old and that was the latest information available at the time, or the stations simply stoped operating.
As you can see it is in German. Can you have a look round the site and see if there is any way of getting up to date information?
Thanks for your help
tonyb
Brute
Thanks for your choice to my 7691.
Agree with your point that abatement projects should be expanded to include private companies and not just governments.
I’m still waiting for an answer from Peter Martin.
Would he put his own money on the line for mitigation actions to save the planet, or would he insist that all others do the same, even if they do not think that this is a worthwhile cause?
Let’s see how high the “level of commitment” really is with Peter.
Max