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.
Max/Brute
I think we all look at far too big a picture and like to create highly complex theories to explain the ‘catastrophic changes’ man is making, when the devil is in the detail.
It is the station measuring system that is the problem, and that is because they no longer measure the same micro climate they started off recording perhaps decades before.
I believe that micro climates are exactly what they say. They represent a very small area that can be totally different to another area close by.
I know that our micro climate and that of another micro climate some 8 miles away are going in different directions.
If you have thousands of thermometers in a single country you can perhaps track this. Multiply that by each country and you might have a good stab at the changing global climate if ALL the thermometers and methodology remain constant. But they don’t.
Its where and how we record the information that is not constant, and consequently data no longer represents the local climate they started off in, because the measurement point has moved and ends up recording another micro climate hundreds of miles away that will be completely different!
Looking at the fine detail shows us that HUNDREDS of individual locations around the world have been cooling-not warming-for decades.
If the figures are correct we can take the snooty IPCC TAR 2001 comment on the MWP and LIA
“ Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”
by replying.
“It would appear that the current evidence does not support synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe and the term global warming appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes between 1850 and 2009.”
Tonyb
Peter Taylor has now (18 October) blogged at RC (#356 Why the continued interest?).
You may be interested in Peter Taylor’s (18 October) posting at RC (#356 Why the continued interest?).
Please excuse my impertinence. I was confusing inconsequential things such as dropping temperatures and frozen precipitation with virtual reality and computer modeling.
Also, as evidenced, global warming seems to be occurring everywhere on the globe with the exception of the United States (and the Alps).
Why not just do away with all of the pesky “weather” stations? The computer models tell the real story of what is and what will occur. Seems to me, we could save the money and invest in toxic/mercury filled light bulbs instead.
TonyB, Reur 7776:
There is a simpler consideration that ridicules this argument by the IPCC et al. As I understand it, the evidence that they refer to is proxy data that is even more regionally restrictive than historical and other proxy data that supports the MWP & LIA.
The most laughable to me is the use of tree-rings in that generally these are from high latitudes and/or altitudes in the NH where it is assumed that snowfall etc is not a significant variable over millennia. Also, how can these trees indicate night-time and winter growth, or temperatures where people live, or in the SH? (Oh, and BTW, their “current evidence” included awareness of the serious “divergence problem” of which they make no mention either in 3AR or AR4…. And….And)
Whilst ice-cores do take-in the SH, they are maybe regional indicators rather than global?
The use of regionally (and temporally) limited data to infer a global condition, and to argue that the much broader MWP & LIA data was of lesser value is plain silly.
Congratulations on your research…. looking forward to seeing it!
Hey Bob, where’ve you been?
All,
I’ll reiterate my conclusion here that the “science” either supporting or refuting the global warming theory is irrelevant to the political characters that possess the legislative power to enact law and policy.
With the political players presently involved, the desire to attach confiscatory laws to global warming hysteria is too appealing.
In this country, with this President and this Congress, either a cap and trade bill (of some sort) will be passed or an Executive Order from “Dear Leader” Obama will be enacted.
The scientific debate will not enter the discussion as compared to the amount of money and control over industry that can be arrested from the private sector is enticement enough to disregard any evidence refuting the theory, no matter how convincing.
The present leadership of the United States ideologically believes that economic success and prosperity should be stifled and financial restitution must be paid from successful/wealthy nations to unsuccessful /indolent nations through the United Nations and a “World Tax”.
“Climate Change” is the excuse to implement their ideological goal……incrementally.
Monkton highlights this language and the term “climate debt”………a phrase contained in the treaty being developed at Copenhagen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Jasper Gee
Checked the RC blog and Peter Taylor’s post.
He hit the nail on the head hard enough to elicit 5 responses from Gavin!
Max
Brute
I like your link to the “climate debt” concept (that will be discussed at Copenhagen).
If you ask the average Swiss:
He /she will say “NO” (possibly adding an expletive or two for effect).
From posts by TonyN, TonyB, Robin and others here, I believe the answer would be the same in the UK (maybe without expletive, since the British are known to be more polite than most).
Latest polls tell me that the same is true in Australia (with Peter M maybe being a “YES” vote).
What would the average U.S. citizen say?
Max
I alerted Peter Taylor yesterday that there was a critical comment and link at Real Climate to the discussion here. His long comment, with Gavin’s interjections, was the result.
Can I ask his supporters here not to pile in in defence at the moment as I suspect that Peter may want to deal with this in his own way.
The dreadful journalist Louise Gray, Environmental Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, has another article today. She tells us,
So, despite being fed Government propaganda, British kids are taking no notice. No surprise there, I suppose – that’s how children usually respond to adult lectures.
Robin 7785
Let’s do a straw poll of my 4 children.
#1 daughter 24 Doctor, climate sceptic but environmentally aware; she is discovering very fast that the real working world leaves very little time to ponder climate change.
#2 son 21 at Southampton University. Arch climate sceptic and this year his chosen dissertation topic is the “Politics of Climate Change”. As I have posted before he is getting support where once he was ignored. And to top it all you will love this, he has been sounded out about doing a University sponsored PhD on the subject, “Translating scientific language to everyday Language” or something like that. As I have said the world is a turning and the press and our Politicians need to catch up because they are out of touch.
#3 son, 17 doing A levels and wants to be a doctor. Climate sceptic and now actively challenges his teachers when they make bizarre climate comments, although he tells me that many of them are now openly sceptical, at least at his level.
#4 daughter 13. Still at the cuddly stage but is aware enough to think about what she is being told. Had to do a climate change test at the end of the last academic year, would not let me help her as she wanted to get 100% and knew she would get 0% if she asked me for help. I have no doubt she will work it all out in time, but the propaganda at this age is scandalous, and not just on this subject.
My lot are by no means representative being as they are well travelled and academic in nature. The secret is to fix our education, as it is broken and politicised and my 4 span a certain 12 years of appalling decline in the curriculum. We can take nothing away from the students, it’s not easier for them, its just they are not taught to understand or think for themselves, only to pass the exam.
This report says that Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has warned that we have only “50 days to save the world from global warming”. Still, as he’s the man who saved the world from the catastrophe that might otherwise have been the result of the banking crisis, there’s hope for us yet.
Hey Max,
Sadly, it doesn’t seem that what the people (taxpayers/voters) think matters to Obama, Brown and the United Nations. As I wrote, the “science” doesn’t matter. People such as Brown, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc believe that “wealthy” countries should be responsible for funding the world. They philosophically believe that prosperous nations have “stolen” wealth from the rest of the world and should be made to pay restitution for their “climate transgressions”.
Of course, countries such as China, India and Russia will be more than happy to watch Britain, America, Australia and Western Europe cut their own throats in an act of economic suicide based on guilt ridden self loathing promoted by Leftist politicians in the name of global warming.
Climate Change legislation is a means to an end…….to institute policies that hamstring and nationalize private industry (steal it) under the guise of environmentalism.
“Science” is not a factor in the political debate.
Brown warns of climate ‘catastrophe’; ’50 days to save world’…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm
Peter Geany,
I am greatly encouraged by your post # 7786.
It sounds as if you’ve done a wonderful job raising your children and gives me hope for the future.
I read Peter T’s contribution at RC with some relish. I leave Gavin and others to wrestle with a sensible reply (not doing very well so far, with the usual suspects reverting to ad homs already), but I was struck by the pettiness of removing Peter’s web address, which is rather an own-goal, as googling for it produces any number of links to his work, not to mention videos of interviews, etc!
Also, for a blog that disavows the influence of solar activity on our climate, it is surprising to see a big photo of the sun on its masthead. Perhaps they don’t do irony, either.
Robin
50 days to save the world from global warming
His reference to continued GW (which he mentioned more than once) suggests that he or his speech-writer isn’t entirely up to speed.
If senators are prepared to turn off the air conditioning to help make their point, perhaps someone will turn off the heating in Copenhagen to make theirs…
Just listened to UK PM Gordon Browns’s “50 days to save the world” blurb.
Talk about hysterical hyperbole, Brown is a master! According to Brown:
Where does he get his figures?
Max
James P
You indicated that the RC blog site does not “do irony”.
RC does not handle “dissent” or “deviation from the party line” very well, either.
I don’t think Gavin Schmidt will be foolish enough to simply ban Peter Taylor from RC, as he has done with many who disagree with his personal views, so it should be fun to follow the dialogue, ignoring the “AGW-trolls”, who have nothing to add but personal insult.
Gavin has not been able to find any flaws in Taylor’s logic so far but he has already tried to put Taylor down as someone who does not understand climate change science and doesn’t know what he is talking about (of course, this approach just makes G. look silly, because it puts him down at the same level as the trolls).
If G. read Taylor’s book, he might find himself on pp. 351/2:
Max
Thank you for responses.. I realize I’m probably a bit off topic, thanks for patience.
#7755
#7750
And therefore I don’t think Lindzen’s point stands up particularly well. And I don’t think the severe toll is so much about the future (surprise surprise), I think it’s right now, for some decades indeed.
7762
Well, that’s very generous and encouraging I think – you’re probably more generous about the first two books than myself.
I think his book Ecological Intelligence is very good, and vital even.
7765
Someone mentioned Monbiot, it’s a while since I read it but thought he had some good points here http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/07/hypocrites-unite/
The wonderful thing about the market, or market mechanisms supposedly (and I feel I need to be optimistic about something) is that if you address information asymetry – I don’t know if I like the term radical transparency so much – you’re just trying to bring the most information (then condense it in easy to understand coding) to the products. If you still decide to buy what is apparently the more damaging product, then that’s your choice, be it on your conscience.
I say ‘apparently’, humans have extraordinary capacity for corrupting (getting around) such processes. The hope is, as I understand it, that a wikipedia model will come into being. A core group will try to keep the complex information as true as possible – the hope is that a reputation (which has already been demonstrated – as with Reebok, for example) will develop.
Companies can contest till they’re blue in the face, of course they will. Initially though, it would appear that corporations resist change for fairly mundane obvious reasons (change is hassle), but when a critical mass of consumers (Mothers concerned about welfare of children, say) are responding in the negative to a product – the corporation can make relatively painless changes that make all the difference.
I say initially… ultimately, I think further down the road changes will be rather more difficult but people pay a lot of money to climb Mount Everest – if they see that the pain is having a positive impact, then hopefully they’ll do the honourable thing.
I do pontificate – I don’t expect people to live like myself relative to their social context – that is obviously much too much to ask. But lots of incremental change can add up dramatically… I wish.
I actually feel I’m more like Thucydides observing as most people run their Lemming like course.
7768
I have just re read Monbiot’s article (you’ll be most pleased to know)
and
Oh dear… what fun it is.
Jack: maybe I’m dim but I find it hard to follow your point(s). Re Lindzen, for example, are you trying to say that, even if he’s otherwise right, we are going to have to “contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age” anyway because of resource depletion?
Geany #7786
Sounds like your children have their heads screwed on.
That must be frustrating… or at least it would be for me. I didn’t toe the line at school… I went far too far in the opposite direction. I don’t think I’d have ever EVER given such repect to the prescribed standards of school – to a fault I admit, but in retrospect I think I was largely right.
Exam results meant virutally nothing to me. So whilst I don’t recommend my approach entirely, it is amazing how much can be salvaged (even if you do think I waffle).
Jack
Back to Goleman’s new book.
You apparently like it.
Great!
I personally think he moved out of an area he understands very well (human behavior) to one he does not (causes of changes in climate) and has written a rather silly book, possibly wanting to save the world or maybe just cashing in on the AGW hysteria before it dies a natural death.
His first two books were interesting (because he knew his subject matter). The third is not, because he does not have a clue.
Max
7796
Guenier: Firstly, I think it will be only too apparent that humans are very good at messing things up, these days on a massive scale. I don’t think future generations will be surprised that people thought human activities were adversly effect the climate (the jury is still out for me).
I don’t know about a roll-back of the industrial age, but some major re adjustments.
As a bit of an aside (bit more of one :)) Richard Holmes’ book The Age Of Wonder, he writes about Mungo Park in Africa, his two expeditions. The contrast between the two, and the apparent reasons for this are very interesting.
The reason I mention this is, because, that whilst I’m critical of much of British history (and not just British) I’m by no means entirely critical of the progress that has been made. I just think we need to be wary, I think some very problematic characters/habits came to the fore during the Industrial Revolution – the legacy of which carries through to the present.
James Clerk Maxwell (according to Sagan, Demon Haunted World) is another case in point. Extraorinary person (got ridiculed at school), just seems a shame that probably many of the sort of people who were inclined to ridicule people like Maxwell were probably only too willing to exploit the benefits of his work with cynical intent, and very questionable results.
Also, and this is getting perhaps hopelessly abstract… could it be that Maxwell’s work has defined too much the character of, say, education, let alone how the technological world is more generally. Maybe, inspite of the benefits (from email to grand theft auto) it’s just not a good match for the majority of people; perhaps too far along the aspergian (sp?) spectrum thingy.
For what it’s worth Geany, I realize you didn’t accuse me of waffling.. you will now :/
Jack
You wrote a bit about “environmentalists”, their strengths and shortcomings.
Have you read Peter Taylor’s new book, “Chill”? It’s an excellent read for an “environmentalist”.
Taylor is a real 100% “environmentalist”, himself, as “green” as they come, but he does not buy into the official IPCC line on AGW, because he sees the flaws in the “science” behind it.
Max