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.
ADMIN
Concerning the comment overload problem that is slowing down this page, I have now found an excellent plugin which will split it into pages automatically while still allowing all pages to be searched simultaneously. Unfortunately there are problems getting it to work with the particular theme and version of WordPress that I use and I am in touch with the author about workarounds for this.
Bob,
The article isn’t very long so I posted it for you.
450,000 Unsold Earth Day Issues Of Time Trucked To Landfill
STATEN ISLAND, NY–An estimated 450,000 unsold copies of Time’s special April 22 Earth Day issue were trucked Monday from the magazine’s New Jersey distribution center to the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island.
A dumptruck unloads copies of Time’s recent Earth Day issue (below) at a Staten Island landfill.
The discarded copies of the issue–which features articles about conservation, biodiversity, and recycling, as well as guest editorials by President Clinton and Leonardo DiCaprio–are expected to decompose slowly over the next 175 years.
“Unfortunately, ‘Earth Day 2000’ wasn’t as successful as we had hoped,” Time managing editor Walter Isaacson said. “After selling out of such special issues as ‘The Future Of Medicine,’ ‘Baseball At 100,’ ‘The Kennedys: An American Dynasty,’ and ‘Celebrating The American Automobile,’ we thought we had another winner with this one. But of a press run of 485,000, only 35,000 sold. I guess we overestimated the demand for a full-color, 98-page Earth Day issue printed on glossy, high-pulp paper.”
The enormous number of unsold copies created major headaches for both Time’s distribution department and subcontractor Interstate Periodical Distributors. Some 1,300 semi trucks, many less than a third full due to isolated pick-up points, were needed to transport the 450,000 magazines from newsstands and bookstores across the U.S. to Time’s main warehouse in Elizabeth, NJ. From there, the magazines were loaded onto 85 idling dumptrucks by gasoline-powered forklifts. Upon arriving at Fresh Kills, the world’s largest landfill, the unsold issues were transformed into a 75-ton mountain of waste paper by a fleet of diesel bulldozers.
“Originally, our intent was to recycle any unsold copies of the issue after the subscription cards were taken out, the cover separated from the contents, the polystyrene-based glue baked off the binding, and the color photo sections separated from the print pages,” Time director of operations Christine Alarie said. “But unfortunately, with the unexpectedly large number of issues we were dealing with, it just wasn’t feasible.”
A discarded copy of the Earth Day issue sits in an office garbage can in St. Joseph, MO.
The three-acre section of Fresh Kills now made up entirely of Earth Day issues will slowly leak pollutants from the magazine’s bleach, inks, and color-photo dye-sublimation chemicals into the soil. Isaacson stressed, however, that the threat of such contaminants pales in comparison to the dangers posed by disposable diapers, fast-food cartons, six-pack holders and, discarded batteries–environmentally hazardous consumer goods the Earth Day issue spoke out against and will eventually be covered by in the landfill.
“The American consumer had a choice to make: buy Time’s Earth Day issue and dispose of it in an eco-friendly manner, or ignore its message by leaving it on the shelf,” Isaacson said. “They made the choice to waste not only Time Warner’s non-renewable resources, but the Earth’s, as well.”
“As we said in the issue,” Isaacson said, “people have no one to blame but themselves.”
Bob,
By the way; “the Onion” is satire. The other links are actual news stories.
I’d forgotten when I posted it that this is an international audience that may not “get” that the Onion’s appeal is sarcasm and wit,(fake)…..sort of like a comedy news television show.
There’s an interesting interview In The Japan Times (July 22) with Professor Kunihiko Takeda, Vice-Chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University. One quotation caught my eye:
The dangerous AGW agenda may be misguided but I don’t believe for a moment that it is a conspiracy of developed nations to keep developing nations down. However, I do believe that countries such as China and India may suspect that something of the sort is afoot (and don’t forget Russia – see my post 609) which may be one of the reasons they are pushing rapidly ahead with their investments in fossil fuel technology. And, of course, that’s a major reason why those who believe mankind will reduce its CO2 emissions are living in dreamland.
Here is the final bullet point from an address given by Christopher Monckton to the Local Government Association, Bournemouth on 3 July:
I strongly recommend that you read the preceding 20 bullet points that lead relentlessly to this conclusion.
Kyoto Treaty: Pointless Promises
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/EdFeulner/2008/07/29/kyoto_treaty_pointless_promises?comments=true#postComments
Robin #804,
But does there need to be a conspiracy when similar policies are attractive to so many first world politicians who face the same domestic problems? Yet the effect on the third world is the same and the dividing line between cockup and conspiracy must becomes ever more difficult to detect from their perspective.
If I can give you sceptics a bit of a tip, I’d would suggest that you forget about Christopher Monckton, who, rightly or wrongly, is going to to find it hard to shake off his “upper class twit” image and be taken seriously.
Instead I would suggest that you read up on what Bjorn Lomborg is arguing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Whilst I don’t particularly agree with what he is saying, nevertheless I would have to admit that he is a very bright guy, who does make some very serious interesting points which are well worthy of discussion.
If I can give you sceptics a bit of a tip, I’d would suggest that you forget about Christopher Monckton, who, rightly or wrongly, is going to to find it hard to shake off his “upper class twit” image and be taken seriously.
Instead I would suggest that you read up on what Bjorn Lomborg is arguing:
LINK TO BL’s Wiki page
Whilst I don’t particularly agree with what he is saying, nevertheless I would have to admit that he is a very bright guy who does make some very serious and interesting points which are well worthy of discussion.
PS I’m posting this without the exact link this time. I’m sure you can find it with Google. When I tried to post with the link included the posting did not appear as normal.
Just to follow on with the posting about Bjorn Lomborg, I should say that he popped up on Australian TV last night.
It’s interesting that he hasn’t made the same mistakes that many of you sceptics have made. For instance he hasn’t opposed the scientific consensus on AGW but instead he has looked at the problem in a different way. He has suggested that the environmental damage be ‘priced’ at $N per ton. I think the figure he mentioned was $2. That has been widely attacked as being too low. But it is probably more complex than that.
Probably the first 30% of human CO2 emissions are cost free because the earth can cope with them naturally. But generally speaking, this is the way economists think and it is probably a good approach.
He also argues that the solution to the problem lies in the introduction to new technologies rather than seeking to restrict the old ones. He’s saying that the restriction of the old ‘fossil fuel’ technologies is going to be too difficult and too expensive in the short term on a cost benefit analysis. I’d argue that it will probably turn out to be just an interim measure . When the new technologies do come along, they will be cheaper and so there will be no real need to have Kyoto type international agreements.
Hi Peter,
You mentioned Bjorn Lomborg. He just had an interesting op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal, July 28,2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121720170185288445.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Some quotes: “Spending $800 billion (in total present-day terms) over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit [0.22C] by the end of this century.
When you add up the benefits of that spending — from the slightly lower temperatures — the returns are only $685 billion. For each extra dollar spent, we would get 90 cents of benefits — and this is even when things like environmental damage are taken into account.
A continued narrow focus on mitigation alone will clearly not solve the climate problem. One problem right now: Although politicians base their decisions on the assumption that low-carbon energy technology is being rapidly developed, that is not the case. These technologies just do not exist. Wind and solar power are available — at a high expense — but suffer from intermittency. Researchers need to develop better ways to store electricity when those renewable sources are offline.
If we took that $800 billion and spent it on research and development into clean energy, the results would be remarkably better. In comparison with the 90-cent return from investing solely in mitigation, each dollar spent on research and development would generate $11 of benefits.”
It is true that Lomborg has not denied that the world is warming (at least it has until quite recently) or that humans are partly to blame. He does not address this question. He simply addresses the question (as WSJ put it): “How to Get the Biggest Bang for 10 Billion Bucks”.
And there he shows that “carbon taxes” or “cap and trade schemes” are not the answer, even if one assumes that the IPCC assumptions on CO2 climate sensitivity are correct. It’s an easy calculation to go through (as he has done).
Interestingly, he has not mentioned the obvious “green power” to replace fossil fuel generation plants, i.e. nuclear power.
I went through Lomborg’s question in a slightly different way, asking how much reduction in CO2 would be required to reduce the anticipated warming by the year 2100 by 1C? If we assume the “climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 is 3C (as IPCC has assumed in its latest report) “no mitigation” would result in 1.6C warming from today to 2100, so what would have to be done to reduce this to 0.6C instead?
This would require a reduction in future CO2 emissions by two-thirds the “no mitigation” amount. And the cost would be many times “$800 billion”. Will this happen? Not likely.
Regards,
Max
Lomborg just says there are many more pressing problems where we can get a “better bang for the buck” than “mitigating” CO2 emissions by tax or cap and trade schemes.
Regards,
Max
The problem that I have with Bjorn Lomborg is that he thinks he can make precise calculations for the next hundred years to three significant figures! That’s being pretty crazy.
If you look at an extract from his book:
(LINK in separate posting), where he discusses the long term oil price, you can see how recent changes in the oil price have made a nonsense of his original figures and his assumption of a “steady oil price for the next 20 years at about $22 a barrel” looks pretty foolish now. If that can happen in just eight years what are his chances of being right about the next eighty years?
What I do like about BL is his general attitude that progress has been made to the condition of humanity in the last 60 years, and that progress can continue to be made in the next 60 years too. He rightly condemns the Malthusian arguments of many in the environmental movement. It may be harder in the next 60 years , there won’t be the cheap supplies of energy available, but the development of alternative technology can overcome that.
Incidently BL, or anyone else for that matter, is incapable of ‘showing’ that carbon taxes are not the answer. There are too many uncertainties, for the problem to be analagous to a mathematical puzzle. He may argue for or against them but that’s not quite the same.
Link from previous posting
http://assets.cambridge.org/052180/4477/sample/0521804477ws.pdf
Peter M; 809, you wrote in part:
“If I can give you sceptics a bit of a tip, I’d would suggest that you forget about Christopher Monckton, who, rightly or wrongly, is going to to find it hard to shake off his “upper class twit” image and be taken seriously…”
Peter, If I can give you aseptic disciple a bit of a tip, I suggest that you don’t forget that Monckton is a person of immense talent, and that this affair that you dismiss, is not over yet. As I suggested earlier; Watch this space!
It seems you already know that Joseph Romm has a photo of file name: twit; alluding to Monckton, within his usual arrogant garbage. I made a post over at Gristmill to him, (I don’t go to his own website), which applies equally to you, Peter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mockery if all else fails:
I wonder why it is necessary to make the inference that Monckton is some kind of a buffoon, with that silly photo above etc? He is undoubtedly a very intelligent and diversely skilled man, ex Harrow, Cambridge, and Cardiff.
I wonder how many of you writers above are smart enough to publish his nine intellectual books of diversity? There was also his million pound challenge “eternity puzzle“, that was eventually cracked by two mathematicians with a computer programme. He’s a clever guy, with lots of other works too! Can you do better?
I wonder if you are even smart enough to have read the science in his paper, let alone understand or critique it?
I wonder if any of YOU have made valuable CONTRIBUTIONS to this world, as he has?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ILO link, to avoid spam risk, Google: Irony-gate Viscount Monckton
For Romm’s article and blog (At Gristmill)
BTW Max, JoSullivan makes her usual “valued” contribution, but there have only been two responses before me! (I hesitated, as did others I guess)
Brute; 802 & 803
Thanks for that Brute! Somewhat droll I must say!
No need to get my calculator out then!
And, by coincidence, last night, Brute, but spelt with a c instead of a t, spoke on many things:
Bruce Shapiro an American journalist, (The Nation ? and few other things, some university ?), does a 15 minute report here on the ABC radio programme; “Late Night Live” every Tuesday, via phone on the hot news from America. (Interviewed by the loved or hated very knowledgeable Philip Adams). Bruce is very popular here, over ten years, although I suspect you (Brute) may not like some of his views on the current “administration”. Last night he was here in Oz for the whole hour, and amongst a host of other stuff, he opined:
The new catch-cry in USA is beginning to become: “It’s the ecology stupid”
Reportedly, “Late Night Live“, is popular in the States as on-line any-time audio, or programmable downloadable MP3. If anyone interested I can get you the URL’s including that particular Shapiro programme, or programme schedule or record. (It runs 5/7 on diverse World topics, including calm interviews with people strongly different to Adams’ views be they political, religious, ethnic conflict or what. For small example, Adams is a declared atheist, Shapiro is a jew)
Robin 805, you wrote in part:
“… from an address given by Christopher Monckton to the Local Government Association, Bournemouth on 3 July…”:
Would you happen to know if anyone there yelled out: “Upper Class Twit”?
(This was in England, where Monty Python, inventor of the term, reigns supreme, I suggest)
Why would they invite a twit to make an address there?
Bod_FJ
Well I did say ‘rightly or wrongly’. I’d be a little more sympathetic to Christopher Monckton if he didn’t insist on maintaining his title of the ‘The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’.
These sort of Pommie hereditary titles don’t go down too well in Australia, as you’ll well know.
I was quite surprised by Robin’s comment that the UK and USA could be considered the same country. That’s just a nonsense. Besides the obvious, and superficial, differences of such things as sporting cultures being very different, the politics are quite different too. The writers of the USA constitution had the very good sense to abolish all notions of aristocracy and monarchy from their political system. It always amuses me that the Republicans are considered to be right wing in America, whereas to be a rupublican in the UK almost defines you to be on the very left of the political spectrum regardless of whatever other views you may hold.
Anyway, good on the writers of that well known Monty Python sketch. They would have had a more seditious effect in 10 mins than the Morning Star {UK Communist newspaper} would have had in decades of editorials.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with Monty Python:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
Peter M,817
You wrote in part:
Well I did say ‘rightly or wrongly’. I’d be a little more sympathetic to Christopher Monckton if he didn’t insist on maintaining his title of the ‘The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’.
These sort of Pommie hereditary titles don’t go down too well in Australia, as you’ll well know.
The fact that Monckton had a privileged birthright and arguably the best education, and opportunities that you and I could only dream of, does not mean that he is a twit, or that he is incapable of writing a reasoned scientific paper.
If for instance you might be homophobic, and it was proved that Einstein was “gay”, would that mean that his theories are no longer valid in your eyes?
The fact is Peter, that you implied a connection with the insult “upper class twit”, almost straight from Romm or maybe his cohorts such as RealClimate ad nausiating. WE are also aware that you are a disciple of that cult, and you have simply displayed your devotion and ignorance in blindly following everything that that cult dreams up.
Peter,
I agree, it’s crazy to prophesize 100 years into the future…..too many variables. What did the IPCC state that the world global temperature would be in 2100?
PeterM,
I notice you’ve introduced a whole bucket of new hard-to-nail-down diversions with Bjorn Lomborg, without responding to earlier stuff, presumably because you don’t like what the seemingly unavoidable “painful” answers are. (That it is to say; not according to RealClimate or the like)
For instance, may I remind you of something you wrote in your 767:
Re my 794 and 795, do you now agree that this is not true.
Do you now agree, that ice-shelf calving or break-up is non-thermal-mechanical, and in fact is logically more likely to occur during WINTER storm activity?
I would think that Robin is also wondering why you seem to prefer to change the subject, rather than respond to some of his issues.
I would appreciate any comments as to why this is happening. Robin?
Oil prices fall below $122
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5izIvL6sWjP0pMbKuNuhLLTmQK_OA
Brute,
You can predict the climate 100 years into the future, but not to 3 significant figures, for sure.
Bjorn Lomborg is more an economist than a climate scientist, and he is attempting a difficult cross disciplinary study between the two. The price of oil is a key parameter in the strength, or otherwise, of the western economies. BL’s assumption of $22 {that’s two significant figures BTW} isn’t even right to one significant figure just eight years later.
The recent fall in the oil price is no mystery. $122 {3 sig figurea}is still a lot higher than it was this time last year. It was just that the speculators had pushed it even higher temporarily. Its nice to think that at least a few will have had their fingers burned.
……………..
When Robin asks a clear question, rather than a reference back to three previous postings and an external link, I’ll do my best to answer it.
……………..
Bob_FJ
If the Wilkins ice shelf breaks up either this winter or next summer, it won’t be the first in recent years. see for example:
http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/science/Larsen/larsen2002.html
Of course, the loss of ice shelves which have lasted at least several hundred years won’t worry you guys but the scientists working in Antarctica aren’t quite so sanguine.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “The problem that I have with Bjorn Lomborg is that he thinks he can make precise calculations for the next hundred years to three significant figures! That’s being pretty crazy.”
Forgetting the “three significant figures” that is exactly the problem I have with IPCC whose predictions (oops! “projections”) I also find “pretty crazy”!
Regards,
Max
APS versus Monckton (July 31)
Here is some background with an extract from the initial issue of July 2008 APS newsletter, Physics & Society:
However, later, and clearly against the spirit of this, the on-line newsletter had the following red flag added SOLELY against Monckton’s article on the index page, and WITHIN his article. (without consultation with the author)
Monckton protested to APS, and as of July 19 the index was revised to delete the flag, and some time later, it was also removed from his article:
As of July 31 (am EST Oz), BOTH articles now contain at their head, a more “carefully worded” disclaimer in normal black font; thus:
Quite apart from the fact that existing APS disclaimers and policy WRT to authors views, make the insertion of such flags unnecessary, the APS semantics, (Monckton claims that his article WAS peer reviewed), and the APS internal political conflicts, the APS does not appear to have responded adequately to Monckton’s complaints!
Watch this space!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh BTW, Monckton’s article includes: