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.
Look, you’ll probably be pleased to know I’m getting my coat.. leave you guys to it. I didn’t go into detail about Mungo Park, my apologies but if you get a chance, worth having a look, you may see what I was getting at.
Take care
Jack and Robin
Back to Lindzen’s incisive remark.
I think it is obvious that if we “roll back” all the progress we have made since the start of the Industrial Age in some guilt-driven frenzy to go back to simpler times, etc., we are simply committing slow suicide.
The world (with all its faults) is an infinitely better place today than it was 100 or 150 years ago.
This is especially true for those billions of people who have been able to pull themselves out of abject poverty and misery because of industrialization.
To “roll back” all of that in order to destroy a virtual computer-generated hobgoblin called “anthropogenic global warming” would be self-destruction.
Our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents that gave us all the prosperity we enjoy today would roll over in their graves if they saw us throwing it all away for nothing.
Fortunately, the AGW craze, itself, is dying a slow and painful death, with many of the the politicians of this world (and others who would stand to gain from it) trying to keep it alive despite the fact that it has stopped warming.
But, if it continues to cool off for another few years, AGW is a dead duck.
Max
If you want to see what Gavin snipped from Peter Taylor’s first comment at RC you can find it here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7456#comment-362097
He has now put up a second comment, part of which has been snipped with the explanation:
Which anyone who is familiar with RC should find hilarious. This is what Gavin couldn’t risk letting his readers see:
TonyN (7803)
Josef Goebbels said “the truth is the biggest enemy”, so through his propaganda machine the truth was censored out [snipped?] and replaced with the big lie [comment?].
Max:
Some time ago I was talking to a BBC producer who had the nerve to make a couple of programmes that dealt with the sceptical side of the AGW debate sympathetically. At the end of the conversation I was horrified when he said that he was rather out-of-date with what was happening now, so he’d have to go back to reading Real Climate.
What worries me is that there are people in the media who really think that RC deals with this subject objectively, and I am sure that they would be horrified if they were aware of what is really going on.
I can see no hint of an ad hominem attack in the parts of Peter Taylor’s comments that were snipped, yet readers have been left with the impression that there was a legitimate reason for what was in fact very crude censorship. Also that Peter had behaved badly.
I went to Real Climate for the first time in ages yesterday, and for only the second time ever. It took only 2 minutes to see why I stopped the first time around. TonyN I was so desperate to post something but respect your wish that we leave Peter T to deal with it in his own way. The fact that we can read what was snipped will get back to those that frequent the site and in time if not already now Gavin will be left with just a dozen or so hardliners that will continue to massage is ego. At some point in the not too distant future Gavin will post an article and no one will reply. He will look around and suddenly realise that the world has moved on and he is caught in a time warp.
He is such a foolish person for censoring Peter T’s post. That action alone causes greater mistrust than fronting up and arguing a lost cause. I expect a load of obscure scientific argument that is hard to follow, this being part of the whole act of trying to make it sound so complicated that no one except themselves are qualified. But it is the sheer arrogance of Gavin Schmidt and the way he completely dismisses Peter T and his obvious deep knowledge and experience that I still find hard to comprehend.
The only parallel that I can recall in my lifetime were certain Politicians in the 92 UK General Election, who managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Gavin may feel a certain sense of Political protection as he is certainly not looking out for his own well being. He would do well to read the story of Bomber Harris, one of the UK’s greatest wartime generals, who did all the dirty work on behalf of his Political masters (from Churchill down) but was left alone holding the blame for the destruction wrought from the bombing. The only wartime leader not to get a peerage, and a black mark on Churchill, for trying to sidestep his responsibility. I’m not for a moment suggesting Gavin is in anyway great as was Arthur Harris, but the lesson is there when the political masters sense the public mood, and realise they are backing the wrong horse the support structure can disappear faster than a bolt of lightning no matter who you are or how great your achievement..
Peter Geany (7806)
Yes, I agree that posting on RC is a total waste of time.
There was a brief period a couple of months ago during which it looked (to my amazement) like RC was going to permit open debate.
Bob_FJ got in some good posts in debating with several of the AGW-faithful, and so did I. Gavin’s claims in his comments turned out to be incorrect upon closer examination, which was pointed out to him.
But then Gavin closed the thread for further comment.
New RC threads are no longer open to those who have embarrassed him previously; only to the AGW-faithful.
All in all, it’s a pretty sorry blogsite, run by opinionated blockheads, so hardly worth visiting, except as a lurker to see what the AGW-faithful are blathering.
But I am glad that Peter T has entered the lion’s den and is holding his own very well, despite the censoring of key comments by Gavin and the arrogant ad hom insults by the AGW-trolls on the site.
It should open the eyes of many lurkers there.
Max
Max,
You are correct when you say “The world (with all its faults) is an infinitely better place today than it was 100 or 150 years ago.” Except that I’m not sure about ‘infinitely’. That’s a pretty big number!
Then you go on:
“To “roll back” all of that in order to destroy a virtual computer-generated hobgoblin called “anthropogenic global warming” would be self-destruction.”
You are presenting a false choice of just two alternatives here.
Can’t you think of any others? What if we just suppose, for a moment, that AGW does turn out to be correct. Can’t you think of any way to still maintain a progressive path for humanity and protect the environment at the same time?
Peter Geany (7806)
Did you happen to read the posts of Patrick 027 while you were there (RC)?
Jasper
Peter Martin
Your treatise on 19th century politics was interesting (#57 on the other thread), but I failed to see mention of the “robber barons” (Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Gould, etc.) and their European counterparts.
These guys may well have been bastards, but they gave our grandparents and parents the industrial infrastructure that helped pull us out of poverty and give us the standard of living, which we enjoy today.
But the truth of the matter is that this all has very little to do with today’s situation, in particular the on-going debate on the scientific, political and economic issues surrounding AGW.
Here we have a group of scientists (the “consensus”), who get their grants from politicians (who use taxpayer money) in order to further the cause of AGW by lending scientific credibility to the premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, with the objective of implementing draconian carbon taxes (direct and/or indirect as cap ‘n trade schemes) as sort of a “guilt tax”, to be paid by the very same taxpayers whose money they are using to finance the whole show.
The same politicians carry out (taxpayer funded) propaganda campaigns on TV and in the press to sell the AGW story (and the need for the tax) to the taxpaying public.
The media have jumped on this bandwagon with imminent disaster stories, pictures of drowning polar bears, etc. The craze has even given birth to a new genre of journalism, the “environmental journalist and editor”. These individuals screen the horizon for new scientific reports, which they can turn into scare stories. Scare mongering pays off: ratings and profits are up. And those who dare question the validity of the AGW premise are openly denigrated as “flat earthers”, “deniers”, etc.
AGW has become a multi-billion dollar big business in itself. As Peter Taylor has pointed out, we also have a collusion of diverse interest groups including corporate executives, money shufflers, hedge fund operators, environmental NGOs and lobby groups, all lining up to get a piece of the (taxpayer funded) action.
There are also some fuzzy headed politicians and bureaucrats who truly believe that we should go back to the simpler life of our grandparents or give away our wealth to some international body that will redistribute it to the underdeveloped world as sort of a “guilt tax” for being successful. And there are many AGW-believers (or “groupies”) for whom AGW represents an almost religious faith.
Then we have another group of scientists (the “skeptics”), who do not believe that the scientific support for the AGW premise is valid. Some of these have published (peer-reviewed) studies showing that human CO2 plays only a very small part in our planet’s climate. Others have stated their objections to the AGW premise openly and with petitions to their governments and the UN, etc. (and are beaten over the head by the “consensus” group for doing so). Some write books (like Ian Plimer and Peter Taylor) pointing out the flaws in the AGW premise.
And, finally, we have the taxpaying public, that was once a lukewarm supporter of the AGW premise, but is becoming increasingly skeptical as they read new books and reports raising questions on the supporting science and as they see that it has not been warming for a decade, despite all-time record increases in atmospheric CO2.
This circus all has very little to do with the 19th century days of laissez-faire capitalism, which you mention, Peter.
The only correlation I might see is the collusion of the “mighty” (in today’s case the politicians, the media and the various industrial interest groups that stand to reap profits from the AGW movement) with the little guy left to pick up the tab. But that is simply human nature. The rich and powerful have always worked together to fleece the general public.
Only this time, Peter, you are curiously on the side of the rich and powerful.
Max
Re: Peter Martin’s comment here.
I wouldn’t argue with your assessment of the Conservative Party’s pre-election position on AGW, but it’s anyone’s guess which way they’ll jump if they win. Outright scepticism would seem most unlikely, but there can be little doubt that their priorities would lie elsewhere. They have used concern about the environment very successfully to detoxify their image, but if they are in power that need will have passed.
Peter M
You asked me (7808):
Yes. I believe in “protecting the environment” and I would support any measures taken by industries as well as individuals to achieve this.
This includes elimination of waste, real pollution abatement (CO2 is not “pollution”), improving energy efficiency of automobiles and at the industrial and individual level, developing huge new petroleum resources (oil shale, Arctic) and doing so with maximum effort to minimize any harmful impact on the environment, developing cost-effective renewable energy sources that do not involve despoiling the landscape, etc.
There have been many suggestions for “no regrets” adaptation measures, whereby we could prepare ourselves for either a long-term resumption of the late 20th century warming or for several decades of continued 21st century cooling (as Peter Taylor foresees).
Implementing a direct or indirect carbon tax will achieve nothing, so this plan should be abandoned, as should the Hansen-supported plan of stopping the construction of all new coal-fired plants in 2010 and shutting down half of the existing ones by 2050, which will be very costly but have no discernable impact on atmospheric CO2 levels or global temperature.
Yes, Peter, I am all for “maintaining a progressive path for humanity and protecting the environment” (but this has nothing to do with AGW).
Max
Peter Geany and Jasper Gee
I have also followed Patrick 027 on this and other RC blogs (and I believe Bob_FJ even had an exchange with him on another RC thread).
In contrast to most of the other RC bloggers (as well as Gavin), Patrick reasons with logic (and a lot of words) to get his point across.
There is no doubt that he understands the GCMs and how they work very well, and he also seems to understand many of the factors that influence climate (at least the known ones).
If anything, his faith in the ability of the GCMs to simulate our planet’s climate is too high, as exemplified by the exchange with Peter T (379):
Peter:
Patrick:
There is no doubt that Patrick 027 is knowledgeable and logical in his argumentation.
The key difference between his stand and that of Peter Taylor appears to be that Patrick believes we essentially know all we need to know to explain what is going on with our planet’s climate and to simulate it with our GCMs using the basic laws of physics, while Peter believes that there are still many things we do not as yet know about what makes our planet’s climate behave the way it does, and therefore that we cannot make predictions for the future based on GCM simulations.
But it is an interesting exchange to follow.
(Maybe you two have another take on this, but that is how I see it.)
Max
IPCC AR4 chapter 8, has made no mention of this study or of superparameterization, although the study was published in March 2006, before the final deadline for the AR4 report.
ClimateAudit has gone into more detail in analyzing this study and its impact on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6234
But, again, these physical observations and model studies using superparameterization actually confirm Partick’s statement, at the same time showing that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative and, thus, that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is likely to be no higher than 1°C (rather than 3.2°C as assumed by the GCMs cited by IPCC).
Max
Peter Martin
TonyN has summed up the Conservative Parties position as I see it pretty well. One of the aspects of post war Britain is the Conservatives win Power when economically the country is in distress, and generally lose it when economically we are stable. Labour has always been accused of squandering wealth as they can not get out of the habit of trying to socially engineer everyone to conform. History tells us this will always end in tears and again it has.
The conservatives I am sure want to fight the next election based totally on how Labour have squandered our wealth. They do not want to hand any ammunition to Labour or the Lib Dems over the subject of AGW because as we have seen it’s all about emotion and nothing to do with facts and figures and will distract the electorate. The number of people losing their jobs and homes is continuing to rise and is real. So do not read too much into their current utterances. They will have noted that it did not help the Lib Dems or the Greens in the Local Council elections, the European Election or the recent by-election where Labour lost the seat to the Conservatives. Across Europe there has been a decided shift to the right, possibly the only exceptions being where the incumbent government was to the right and had been in power for some time. The US fits this exception and is why I think they are now out of step with their electorate. (note; I use left and right as crude descriptors but they are not really relevant today)
AGW has been hi-jacked as a sort of Trojan horse for the latest instalment in social engineering. To avoid being caught out or held to account democracy has been side stepped, and this is where we see all the “the science is settled” comments coming in and any dissent being associated with the 20th centuries worst crimes, and being labelled as right wing reactionaries.
This label does not describe me, but nor would I label myself as near to where Peter Taylor sits. However we do have much common ground and probably agree on many matters but may disagree on possibly how to fix/change them. This is normal and what makes the world go around.
This is not a political Blog but I think that the breakdown in Democracy over the last 10 years has been extraordinary. AGW could not have gained the traction it has without this breakdown. The speed of this breakdown was helped in part by the terrorist attacks on the US, UK and Spain amongst other nations, and by the loosening of banking regulation started by Clinton, aided and abetted by Blair and Brown, with Bush the distracted non participant (I’m not absolving him of responsibility, just pointing out he did nothing)
To make the needed changes as Clinton and Blair wanted they needed us to feel wealthy and not to look too closely at what they were doing. Here is where the banks came in. By allowing them to make greater profits, the banks agreed to lead more money. Simple, and with the terrorist attacks as well they could speed up some of the changes that locks us into Social change with out the due democratic process.
Now as all this unravels we see more and more desperation in Government quarters as they try to avoid all their careful work coming undone. I won’t list it all but everyone would have seen Gordon Browns foolish “50 days to save the world” speech, and the advertising campaign. We have also had much publicity on how our “reckless banks” almost destroyed the financial system. As in all walks of life there are those who push the limits and banking is no exception, and there was much stupid lending, but in the past the banks were able to weather the storms. But this time the rules on capital ratios had been changed and they were actively being encouraged to do what they did. This is why so much blame is heaped on the Banks to distract the electorate, who in the main have no idea how the Banks work or the means to find out so that the truth doesn’t come out.
The one facet of current UK politics that nearly all the electorate does understand, and is currently unique to the UK is the row over expenses. Anyone who thinks this is just about expenses is not taking enough notice. This has been the touch paper for fundamental change, and a return to accountability and democracy. Along with the economy this is going to define the next Government.
So in conclusion I don’t think that AGW will even be mentioned in the press this time next year. We may have a few lines about activists being dealt with by the police as they see their power base disappear and the protests ramp up in one final push. So I hope this helps you understand the political dynamics as I see it applying to the UK and how it relates to AGW. Anyone disagree?
Hi All
I assume everyone here saw the PR stunt of the underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldieves on the MSM somewhere.
So far the MSM seem to be ignoring this
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OpenLetter.doc.pdf
This is the sort of thing that infuriates me so much about the AGW bandwagon. The president of the country apparently knows his sea levels aren’t rising but (i assume) jumps on the bandwagon anyway looking for a handout from a guilt ridden (or just plain stupid) western governments. And the media no longer give a monkies, as it slips off the narrative and would make them look like idiots for not having researched the story properly (or at all) in the first place.
rant over
Re. Peter G’s long comment, which just managed to stay OT, I would be grateful for some feedback if anyone can provide it.
Just before I went on holiday I put up a post posing the question, “Will the party conferences season tell us anything about climate policy? “ As I was then out of the country when the conferences were taking place, and didn’t see any media coverage, I would be interested to know whether any of the main parties made ‘a big thing’ out of AGW.
James P 72
I think Lomberg’is a believer but is convinced we are dealing the wrong way with the problem of AGW. We can all readily see his point of view and it makes a lot of sense. However I don’t think he has bothered taking a critical look at the root cause of AGW and just accepts the whole hypothesis.
TonyN the quick answer to your question above is there was very little banging on about AGW. I suspect its not seen as a vote catcher any more but this will not stop it being used by the stupid for political gain. I think they all avoided the subject as they may have come under close scrutiny and that is something to avoided.
The lib Dem’s got tired up when they announced a tax change that had seemingly not been fully discussed. Labour was tripped up by The Sun changing allegiance. So AGW got very little press.
Sorry if the above post was a bit verbose, but I was trying to ensure Peter M got some flavour of UK politics with ref to AGW where not all is as it seems from the outside. All my own opinion of course and I too would like a critique or feedback
Peter Geany and James P
Lomborg is not a “climate scientist”, but an economist.
It would not be wise for him to enter the debate concerning the “science” supporting the AGW premise, as Peter Taylor has done, for example.
This is not Lomborg’s battlefield, so a priori he accepts the premise (a) that it is warming and (b) that human CO2 emissions are at least partly responsible as correct.
He is, however, well qualified to have an opinion on the economic alternates to the AGW “mitigation” proposals from the global economic cost/benefit standpoint, as compared to other spending proposals.
His conclusion is that even if AGW were real, which he does not dispute, there are other problems that have a higher cost/benefit ratio.
Others (like Peter Taylor or Ian Plimer) can fight the battle of questioning the “science” behind the AGW premise, but this is not Lomborg’s battlefield.
Makes sense to me.
Max
I’m interested in just how scientific the new field of ‘climate studies’ really is.
This is from a current BBC blog (Richard Black):
Good analogy with astrology. I have been thinking of a theology metaphor – where non-believers don’t even turn up and the believers just recycle each others work and produce all kind of circular arguments while slapping each other on the back.
Richard Feynman was very scathing about what he called cargo-cult science. The metaphor needs a quick explanation: Pacific Island natives watched USAF planes land with rich cargoes. So they built their own runways with bamboo control towers and wooden radios and waited and waited for the planes to come. They did not understand how the planes worked or how there need to be some electronics inside a radio. They just saw the superficial shapes of objects and the actions of airmen.
The cargo-cult scientist wears a white coat and works with instruments in a lab. But his work is pointless because he does not understand the scientific method.
A recent example is the IPCC report with its “90% certainty”. This 90% is not the result of a statistical test – no its just a made up number to sound scientific. This is giving a scientific facade to a pile of opinions. Its cargo-cult science.
Jasper Gee and Peter Geany
Here is why blogging on RC is a total waste of time.
I sent Gavin the following response to his comments on my post to Patrick 027:
After censorship by Gavin, here is what got posted
[End of discussion]
It is truly a waste of time to try to enter a discussion on AGW on this site.
Max
The comment was by “bowmanthebard”. Not Richard Black.
Jack Hughes
Thanks for your post 77 comparing AGW “science” with astrology (“bowmanthebard”) and “cargo-cult” science (your analogy).
The premise that AGW is a potentially serious threat, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is based on a plausible but untested hypothesis.
Instead of following the scientific principle that the hypothesis must be tested by empirical data, we have the situation where the data are “massaged” (or ignored) in order to fit the hypothesis.
The “Moon is indeed in the seventh house”.
Max
PS This discussion may belong on the other thread according to TonyN, but it is pertinent in any case.
Jack Hughes
You wrote:
Check the RC blogsite. That’s exactly what it’s all about.
Max