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.
to TonyN at #7899
Yes, we had noticed David Whitehouse’s article. I think we’re all waiting for the promised followup.
Your link at #7888 provides more than insight into the personality of the director of the Science Museum.. It’s dynamite.
In the interview, Rapley is described as being “eye-poppingly vehement about self-proclaimed climate-change sceptics” and quotes approvingly Monbiot’s opinion that they (i.e. we) should be subject to Nuremberg-style trials.
He claims to have convened “the world’s brainiest virtual focus group” in order to decide “what were the big global questions on which the British Antarctic Survey should concentrate … Many said astronomy. It was only by a small majority – too close to chance for comfort – that the decision was made to concentrate on climate change … Once Rapley had committed the BAS research effort to climate change, anyone who was not in was out”.
He finishes in his interview with this: “I’m looking for leverage, just as Al Gore is, to make a historic impact”.
It sounds as if the fears about the names of sceptics being collected for future use were fully justified.
Geoff: I believe you’re wrong to suggest (7901) that we should be fearful about “the names of sceptics being collected for future use”. On the contrary, I suggest there is everything to be gained from speaking out under your real name. As I said on WUWT this morning, I appreciate that – say for professional reasons – some commentators may require anonymity. But I believe that most probably don’t and therefore should have the courage to stand up and use their real names. Strong, challenging and coherent comments that can be traced to their source are IMHO far more convincing that those delivered from behind a cloak of anonymity. Come on, Geoff, what is there to fear? There are a lot of us who understand the issues (see the online comments on almost any MSM climate change article) and the sooner our masters understand that, so much the better.
Pete,
Looking back, I’ve veered far off topic; however, you’re wrong about the 2nd Amendment also.
Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right
By AP|June 26, 2008
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/26/nation/na-scotus27
Robin, I agree absolutely about the need for openness. I don’t really live in fear of a knock on the door. I just thought it worth pointing out that the director of the Science Museum (described as “eye-poppingly vehement” by the interviewer), apparently approves of Nuremberg-style trials for people who disagree with him. (Imagine the fuss if Nick Griffin had expressed such an opinion!) And that I therefore find it wholly believable that the museum would keep a list of no-voters. Monbiot clearly keeps close tabs on sceptical commentators to his Guardian articles.
There is also the strange coincidence of the phrase use by the journalist back in 2007 “anyone who was not in was out” and the labelling of the voting forms on the Museum poll “count me in / count me out” – which suggest that the museum director was closely involved in the preparation of the poll.
There is an interesting contradiction between the Times article and the Times Higher Education interview. From the latter, it is clear that Rapley is a militant campaigner for AGW, yet in the former he claims that there was no plan to mount an exhibition on climate change until 2011. Would that have been to coincide with the next IPCC report? Was it brought forward because of the danger of the imminent collapse of public support when Copenhagen proves a failure? Mounting such an exhibition in two months and getting two government ministers to open it must have taken some organising. Oh for a Deep Throat to reveal how these things go on.
ps to Tony N at #7887: What did you mean: “They could have good reason to be very scared, and not just about climate change”?
Robin (7864)
I waited to hear Clive James give his (repeated) talk this morning, as I wanted to hear him deliver it, which he did with his usual style and clarity. Either the BBC didn’t see that one coming (having had David Attenborough in that slot for some time) or they are slowly beginning to realise that there really is another point of view.
Either way, it was good to hear, and if that message gets aired a few more times by serious commentators, it may lend enough courage to politicians to repeat it.
You fear Clive James may be jeopardising his position at the BBC, but I suspect he needs them less than they need him. The same goes for Sir David Attenborough – If he ever expressed similar doubts, there would be massed panic at Broadcasting House!
Perhaps it’s me, but the most arresting image left by Clive James’s talk was that of the machine that can slice golf balls like a potato. I can slice one better than most, but that is impressive!
From the Science Museum website. Clearly they want to have their cake and eat it…
The climate change we are experiencing cannot be explained by natural causes. It is only when we allow for increases in temperature caused by human greenhouse gas emissions that the current warming can be explained.
Natural effects may in fact be having a cooling effect on the Earth at the moment. Without them, warming caused by humans would be even greater.
So is it warming or cooling? I’m confused.. :-)
JamesP 7906
There are some 200 locations all around the world that have been cooling for at least the last 30 years, some from the 1930’s and a few more from the 1880’s. There are 37 of these in the USA alone.
The ‘global’temperature method of calculation hides these counter trends. I suspect that is why the words ‘climate change’ are used instead of ‘Global warming’.
It ain’t Global and it ain’t warming!
We fail to take into account cyclical variation by looking only at a snapshot from 1850 (CRU) or 1880 (GISS) This was at the low points of the LIA so temperatures have naturally climbed since.
There are at least seven such cycles back to the MWP that even Michael Mann now admits was as warm as the late 20th Century. Most researchers and studies put the MWP as being rather warmer than today.
Chuck in UHI (hugely underestimated by the IPCC and Real Climate) and most of the warming is down to this and a faulure of statistical analysis combined with the start point of temperature datasets.
Tonyb
Brute,
I’m just reading the second amendment as it is written. I can well imagine that the exact meaning has been tested several times in the US Courts. What is a “militia”? Is this any group of people or does it have to be sanctioned by the State. Can an individual not connected with militia claim the same rights under the amendment? If so why does the amendment mention a miltia? What does “well regulated” mean? Who does the regulation.
Does “bear arms” mean “own arms”? Is the right collective or individual? How do the words “free state” relate to the amendment itself? Maybe you’d like to tell us.
Notwithstanding, the 5-4 majority verdict which you quote, its quite apparent, at least to me, that what the authors of the 2nd amendment had in mind, in 1791, was quite different from the interpretation which the US extreme right wish to put on it now. Its just a pity that they didn’t think it necessary to make their meaning absolutely clear at the time.
Max,
You mention Swiss democracy. I’ve no problem with their referendum based democracy. It does give the average citizen more direct power than in most developed countries.
Maybe your American friends might consider taking a leaf out of the Swiss book on controversial issues. It would be much better to get a quick answer from the people by asking them directly what they want. Doing it and then moving on. Health care, Foreign wars, Gun control. Yes, Climate change legislation too. Make it a level playing field and set up rules for equal access to TV and other media so that the rich and powerful can’t dominate the argument by their crude financial muscle.
Is their any chance of that happening? Not in the slightest.
Peter M
Yes, the direct referendum in Switzerland does give everyone an equal chance to vote on issues.
More often than not recently, these referendum votes have resulted in another choice than the one promoted by the federal government.
This choice has usually been a bit more conservative than the proposal by the government, pointing out that the Swiss are, in general, a conservative bunch.
Recently there was no referendum taken on the government proposal to introduce a (fairly small) CO2 tax, which is supposed to get “redistributed back to the people”. The timing was right for the government; there was not enough opposition to put together a referendum initiative.
Public opinion has shifted a bit in the meantime (as it appears to have done elsewhere) and it is doubtful that it would pass referendum today.
The referendum system is far from perfect, but it seems to work here, keeping in mind that Switzerland, with under 8 million inhabitants, is small enough to have such a system.
I believe that California in the USA has a similar referendum possibility for major issues. But California is already much larger than Switzerland, and the whole USA is infinitely larger, so it would be very hard to have a direct referendum on every major issue there.
In the USA it is pretty clear (if the polls are anywhere near correct) that cap ‘n trade would fail in a general referendum, but passed in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, and may even squeak by in the Senate.
This would seem to be a case where the “little guy” on the street would vote one way, while his elected representatives vote in another way.
One of the basic problems in a non-direct system is that often there are strong lobby groups that influence the representatives. And the government is often out-of-touch with the public, with a “we know what’s best for you” mentality.
Another problem is that the government has many ways to push something through, even if the people have voted against it. A case in point is the recent “gay marriage” proposal, which was turned down by the California voters in referendum, but is now being challenged in the courts as “unconstitutional”.
No system is perfect. But democracy beats the other systems, as I’m sure Brute, as an American (from the second oldest living democracy in the world) would agree.
To your suggestion:
I would agree, and would include the government politicians, the environmental lobby groups and all the many industries hoping to profit from climate change legislation under the “rich and powerful”.
Max
Pete,
RE: 7908
I’m not attempting to be rude, (any more than usual), but I don’t think we should discuss that here.
In any event, what do you care? You live on the other side of the planet.
Max,
One technical addendum to your post # 7910.
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy, (mob rule).
I would urge participants to watch this video.
It’s long (10 minutes) but worth it to understand how American government is supposed to work.
What is America’s true form of government?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
Speaking of rising sea levels……I’m certain that Tonyb is already aware of this facet of ancient history. Evidence such as this debunks the theory that sea levels have been stable throughout the historical record.
http://www.medievalhistory.net/page004b.htm
And this……”archeological evidence suggests that Roman Wharves and docks were 4 meters below present day high tide”. Very interesting.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hBNr765THaIC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=saxons+coastal+flooding&source=bl&ots=y8A54LEDya&sig=W5iu2uthDIxqRqCtKTQcFJLJEIA&hl=en&ei=CN_kSq-vJoqUlAekqtHoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=saxons%20coastal%20flooding&f=false
This link illustrates weather pattern changes thousands of years ago in (what is now) the Western Sahara Desert……(much wetter than now)………and my gasoline hog sports car was just a pile of dust then.
Ancient Life in the Western Sahara Desert
http://archaeology.about.com/od/africa/ss/gobero.htm
Interesting link from Stanford………
Climate, Culture, and Catastrophe in the Ancient World
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary.html
Pete,
I‘m afraid that the modern day “changes” in weather……I mean, “climate” pales in comparison to the archeological/geological record.
In the past 2 weeks, three minor skirmishes in the British sector of the climate wars have changed the nature of the game. The drowning dog ad has elicited 500+ complaints to the ASA; a petition to Downing Street to stop frightening children has received 700+ signatures; and The Science Museum Climate Change Exhibition has evoked 3000+ no votes. Two of these stories have been picked up by the mainstream media, and there is the possibility that government ministers will face some embarrassing questions.
This thread is the only British site I know where these subjects can be discussed in a general fashion. It attracts maybe a dozen faithful commenters. The American site Wattsupwiththat discusses these subjects and attracts hundreds of commenters, and probably thousands of readers. One commenter, AlexJ, recently suggested that he might stand against Gordon Brown as a Climate Sense candidate. I was the only reader to say “hear hear!”
Does anyone here think this would be a good idea? What are the practical problems? (size of deposit, criteria for reimbursment of expenses, threshold for free publicity in the media, etc) This will be a unique election with a lot of extremely nervous incumbents. It’s not a matter of winning, so much as frightening candidates into reconsidering their positions (and saving deposits, of course). Any thoughts?
You ask “In any event, what do you care? You live on the other side of the planet.”
Do you really need me to point out that US policies on climate change have effects which don’t end and begin at the country’s borders?
Generally speaking I’ve no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of the USA. Except that it is a bit galling, for the rest of us in the world, to be continually lectured on the benefits of democracy by the leaders of a country whose own ‘democracy’ is so much based on the financial power of the participants.
GeoffChambers,
Yes I think you should! The problem, from your point of view, is that you can either choose to stand in safe seats (Gordon Bown’s is very safe I would imagine) in which case you’ll not frighten the candidates in the least.
Or you could choose to stand in the marginals, the ones the Conservatives will need to win government. In which case, you’ll split the right wing vote and risk letting in either the Lib Dem or Labor candidates.
Brute
Thanks for interesting video clip on US government.
In that sense, I suppose tiny Switzerland is also a constitutional republic rather than a democracy as described in the video, whereas the old (East) German Democratic Republic was neither democratic nor a republic despite its name.
Max
Are we discussing constitutional rights pertaining to the citizens of the United States or are we discussing US foreign policy?
Worry about your own country…….and who exactly is “the rest of us”. As far as I can tell, the majority of the people on this page detest the “climate” policies (whatever the hell that is) that the UK, the EU and Australia have adopted. Deal with your own internal domestic politics.
You constantly bemoan “Amerocentrism” and yet are obsessed with every facet of “Americanism” to the point of accusing Max of being a “closet” American……..using the term as some type of pejorative.
Sheez, get a life and focus on your hemisphere (that currently contains a pole that has achieved the highest ice mass ever recorded in it’s history).
I think that you’re jealous that you are not an American and you secetly desire to be an American. What do you think about that?
By the way, it appears that the “initiative 350” or whatever it was called was only successful in that it attracted 350 malcontents with too much time on their hands.
Maybe you should personally shake the trees “Down Under” and gets some more “Fruits” to fall out of the trees to boost attendance at these rallies.
The apathy for your “cause” is quite evident.
tempterrain #7916
I’m British, but live in Europe, so I won’t be standing. Where are you? You’re not American, apparently, but you talk of “Labor”.
The identity of the candidates would matter little, since they won’t win. The idea would be to create a party, ie a group of people willing to put up the deposits, and the minimum number of candidates necessary for tv exposure.
It is not at all certain that a Climate Sense candidate would split the right wing vote. Working class Labour voters have the most to lose from high fuel taxes.
Ideal constituencies would be those with MPs with high profile Green opinions, or whose credibility has been dented by the expenses scandal. A 5-10% vote would suffice to save deposits and gain publicity, without changing the overall result. The point is to say to all parties that they cannot ignore the sceptic vote, and that their mindless espousal of a corrupt “scientific” “consensus” will be punished at the ballot box. That’s democracy.
Gee Max, you post at 1:47 AM GMT……that means it’s what…… 2 – 3:47 in Switzerland?
Are you certain that you aren’t secretly located in a bunker somewhere in the US?
Maybe posing as a Swiss national to throw Peter off the scent?
You must be a secret “evil” American posing as a European to foil Pete’s attempts to have it known that all Europeans and the “rest of the world” hate America and its policies.
The time stamp gave you away……
For what it’s worth (zilch – see my 7898), the “Science” Museum’s poll has changed dramatically overnight. From around 500 “in” to 4000 “out”, there has been a massive surge in the “ins” and it now stands at 3881 to 4587. So in the middle of the night it seems that over 3,000 people decided suddenly decided that they the supported the Government’s programme. More realistically, as someone monitoring this said (see WUWT), “someone has obviously got a script going. The “in” votes are going up at the rate of about 1 every 10-15 seconds. Either that or they have some trained monkeys”.
It’s completely ridiculous. If it’s stopped (as it should be), no doubt the Museum will blame “deniers” for widespread cheating.
Brute and Peter
Brute, Of course you are right with your historical references. We have thousands of records from all round the world demonstrating that todays climate is by no means unprecedented.
It is why climate scientits do not like History and Peter never engages on this.
Together with Max we have demonstrated- using the IPCC’s own fiigures- that the historic tide gauges do not represent the recent history of sea levels, and the true rate of sea level rise. So let us turn to the Urban Heat Island effect.
This is the official take;
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm
2001 report but not essentially changed since
“Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.”
This is the RC view:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Instrumental_Record_is_Not_Reliable
This is a direct question to Peter (although anyone else is invited to join in) Do you believe that this official version of the virtually zero effect that UHI has on our temperature record represents reality?
Tonyb
Brute,
You write ‘Maybe posing as a Swiss national to throw Peter off the scent?’
and
“The time stamp gave you away…”
I’ve often thought the same myself. You on my side now?
But maybe Max is a night shift worker and there is no boss around to check on what he gets up to?
I once did get offered a job in the USA but I’ve never felt very much at home there and working visits have been quite enough. I’ve also worked in England and Scotland and that was good. The Scots and I seem to share a healthy dislike of the English Tories and I felt very much at home there. Americans have always been very nice to me personally but, at least the ones I’ve met, wouldn’t have liked what my Scottish friends and I had to say about Mrs T.
GeoffC,
Australian spellings are pretty much the same as English ones but there are a few exceptions, like ‘Labor’ and sometimes ‘color’. We can’t make up our minds on that one. I try to adjust my spellings to suit but I sometimes forget. Sorry about that.
There’s an excellent overview (by Bob Carter) of the Scientific Method (as it applies to AGW) here.