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.
Hah, made me laugh….Thanks, its been a rough day here at work.
I’ve been waiting for these devastating hurricanes like Al Gore and the Warmists have predicted……..better luck next year I suppose.
North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity remains near 30-year historical lows — three years in a row now of considerably below-average activity globally.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Geoff
Has anyone else noticed what has happened on CommentisFree/Guardian Environment?
Yes – I had a relatively mild comment moderated away recently, which suggests that some paranoia is setting in.
I see the government is now sacking advisors that give it unwelcome advice – never mind the science!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100015335/will-the-sacking-of-professor-david-nutt-deter-other-scientists-from-advising-government/
James:
I’ve had one ‘removed by a moderator’ at The Guardian too, the only time that it has ever happened to me. That was on the government adverts thread and was perfectly inoffensive. My only crime seems to have been to include a link to HS saying that more information about how the complaints were being handled could be found here. The comment was there for about a week before it disappeared and it had attracted a particularly high score in the approval column.
it had attracted a particularly high score in the approval column
That’s what did it then. Can’t have denialist comments attracting too much attention!
As with the SM poll and the drowning dog advertisements, I simply don’t think it’s occurred to their protagonists that their POV might be debatable. Like Monbiot, they are simply clerics preaching enlightenment to the ignorant and sinful.
The current policy at Guardian Environment seems to be to let a small number of sceptics through, as long as they stick to the well-trodden paths.
When Steve McIntyre broke the story of how the Mannian Hockey stick hinged (literally) on the rings of just one magic tree on the Yamal Peninsula, used (and reused) by Keith Briffa and others in a half a dozen palaeo-temperature reconstructions, there were dozens of commenters writing in saying “what about Briffa’s Yamal data?” They were all erased when some moderator realised their import. Then just last week, the Guardian had three reports from the Yamal peninsula, reporting how the reindeer up in this godforsaken corner of Siberia are dying from sunstroke or something (temperatures up from -50°C to -30°C, according to the journalist, while Lucy Skywalker at WUWT reports no change in 50 years). It sounds as if some Evelyn Waugh character at Guardian Environment must have said: “Bad news from the Yamal Peninsula, send an ace reporter!”
The other thing they don’t like is commenters being disrespectful to guest contributors. The comments page on Lord Stern’s latest looks like the Somme, with a simple plaque “this comment has been removed..” marking the last resting place of dozens of fallen heroes.
I got censored (pre-moderated) when I commented on a particularly crass catastrophic AGW editorial from the British Medical Journal reproduced in CommentisFree. All I said was: “Fetch the men in white coats. Oh, they are the men in white coats. The doctors have taken over the asylum”.
Robin, Geoff, TonyN
Have the questions to the SM poll been printed anywhere? Are they available on-line?
Max
Have been lurking over at RC.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-interest/comment-page-10/#comments
Peter Taylor is holding his own there, despite sarcastic comments from Gavin and open attacks by the AGW-faithful and trolls.
Thought I’d liven up the discussion by referring to the recent Lindzen paper that confirmed a net observed increase in total outgoing radiative flux (and thus a negative feedback) with warming (my post below).
Needless to say, it got censored out (maybe it will show up again later with a nice comment from Gavin).
Max
Manacker #2008,9
There is no question. We’re being to agree or disagree with the statement:
“I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.”
It’s a plebiscite for fanatical bloggers like ourselves, and we’ve won, by stating that we don’t want the government to prove they’re serious, and by implication, we don’t want carbon taxes, windmills, or self-flagellating guilt trips for every drought or avoidable plague to hit the unjustly impoverished third world. When the Science Museum publishes our accompanying comments, we’ll have a better idea who “we” are.
Isn’t “Prove it!” the most spectacular PR own goal? It was designed by VentureThree “a world-class firm of global brand consultants”. Their website proudly displays 7 photos, five of the “Prove It” logo on walls, floor and t-shirts, and two of the Miliband brothers.
Could you provide a version of your RealClimate post for dummies? Do I understand that ALL climate models assume a negative flux of minus 2.5 Watts per square metre for a 2°C temperature rise, and that the real flux is firmly established at +4.5? How come the climate models don’t allow for a varying or poorly understood temperature flux? Is it firmly established that temperature flux is a reliable method of calculating eventual temperature change in the narrow band of the biosphere, a mere smear of grease on the doorknob of our planet?
Max: what do you mean by “the questions to the SM poll”?
PS to Max: here’s the SM link.
Brute,
Did you see this response from Robert E. Phelan to Geoff Chambers, over at WUWT?
Any comments Brute?
Max, Reur 8008:
Congratulations on a very telling attempted post over at RC. (what Gavin snipped from your 443/p9?).
However, I would be surprised if such an inconvenient observation will be reinstated for response, such that you mused. Even Gavin may find it too difficult to obfuscate or ridicule it!
What fun!
As of a moment ago, the Science Museum poll count was:
“In” 911 “out” 5984.
Bob
the World Series results
Which competition tells you all you need to know about their world view…
(Apologies to the more enlightened inhabitants, such as Mr and Mrs Brute, of course.)
Bob,
Re: # 8012
Unfortunately, I’d have to agree with the comment that you have inserted in the block quote. Not only is the “news” superficial and sensationalist, in the past year and a half it has morphed further into a propaganda machine for the Liberal/Democrat party. The (what we call mainstream media here) has always been trumpeting the Socialist Party line, the difference is that now they do it unabashedly and without any attempt in the slightest to appear objective. Cheerleading for Obama and his Marxist agenda is the norm in print and cable news despite the facts, (which are suppressed). Fox News and talk radio are the only exceptions, (ironically, the most popular venues). Pound for pound, Fox News and Conservative talk radio are more popular in every demographic…….however, they’re outnumbered on the dial by Leftist venues.
From grammar school to their senior year in college students are indoctrinated in Leftist philosophy. This has accelerated in recent times as the government acquires more and more control over the school system through the teachers unions, National Education Association, and the Department of Education and more colleges are dependent upon federal government aid (a form of extortion). The rise in popularity of parents removing children from the public school system and choosing to “home school”/private schools has skyrocketed. Leftist politicians are alarmed by this and have thwarted every attempt to pass legislation to compensate. Many Conservative politicians have proposed bills that offer tax breaks to parents to offset the expense of private education (in the form of school vouchers)…….Leftist politicians object vehemently as they prefer to force children into an environment that fosters Leftist ideology without parental input.
Many government agencies have become mouthpieces promoting the Leftist party line……the most recent being the National Endowment for the Arts which has now crossed over to blatantly promoting the policies of the current administration. The agencies/organizations are supposed to be non-partisan……they accept public funds and, by law, are forbidden from advocating political ideology……the pretense of impartiality has now been completely and openly ignored.
In recent years, Mrs. Brute has returned to college to finish her degree and tie up some loose ends and was appalled by what is now being taught in the colleges. No attempt is made to highlight the historical underpinning of this country. History is whitewashed and twisted into an indictment of the original form of American government. Pupils are taught that the American system of government (as well as Great Britain and western society in general) are oppressive, unfair, racist, “homophobic”, misogynistic, exclusionary systems that are “outdated” and in need of “reform”. Students are taught that the Capitalist system is inequitable and the Free Market system unjust.
I’ve read through my niece’s school books and was astonished. Page after page extolling the virtues of Mao (with no mention of the millions that he murdered) and the glorification of Cha Guevara, Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh. Even figures such as Karl Marx are glorified as paragons of “progressive thought” in public school textbooks. The founding fathers of this country are ridiculed (at the worst) and marginalized at the least.
The following 8 stages of a Democracy have been attributed Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough). There seems to be a dispute regarding whether or not Mr. Tyler ever said or wrote this. Regardless, it seems to describe the evolution of American society rather well.
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.
The abundance/complacency/apathy “stage” seems to be appropriate for the modern American mindset which allows radical ideals to become mainstream, (see Nazi Germany/Stalinist Russia/Mao’s China), allowing widespread societal guilt where “silly” conditions such as prosperity are frowned upon as being harmful to “the collective”. Dependence seems to be the political flavor of the day masked in phraseology such as “community organizer” “volunteerism” and “civil service” (which are encouraged). I’m not writing that civil service and volunteerism have negative societal impacts……simply that state forced civil service and government mandated “volunteerism” (I know the words are a contradiction) are, in reality, how this administration are achieving their politically ideological goals.
Yes, the “dumbing down” of society is occurring despite the information that is widely available…(particularly on the Internet)…which is why Obama’s “communication Czar” has stated publicly that the Internet must be “regulated”. Information that refutes Leftist doctrine (such as Anthropogenic Global Warming) must be “managed” (suppressed). Most college educated students cannot correctly identify passages from our founding documents (and don’t care).
I’ve lots more to say regarding the insidiousness of this campaign…..but fear I’ve said too much already.
TonyN,
I thought long and hard before submitting this comment fearful that it would violate the spirit of the conversation; however, I believe that the entire argument surrounding global warning/climate change is a small piece of the puzzle……reformatting western society to advance the cause of socialism is laced throughout with initiatives that marginalize the capitalist/free market system with environmentalism as one excuse to forfeit personal liberties and freedom to the further advance the “collective” mindset…marginalizing traditional philosophy is a keystone to this agenda. Changing people’s minds incrementally to accept this “new” way of thinking takes generations of slow, methodical, systematic conditioning. In this vein, the AWG agenda serves several purposes as the end result will be a Socialist/Marxists/Statist society………Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda/policies are but one vehicle to achieve this goal.
Obama said recently that his goal is to “transform” American society. I believe most people dismissed this comment and didn’t feel he was being literal. Looking back through history, reading what maniacal dictators had written well before the events occured, it became apparent to me that these men explained, in detail, the plans and goals they wished to achieve. Obama is no different.
Please “snip away” if you feel so inclined.
Bob_FJ
You asked what Gavin “snipped” out of my post #443 over at RC.
See #7822 on this thread for my message before and after Gavin censored it.
Every time you point out where Gavin’s comments are incorrect (or obfuscation or outright lies) he applies the Josef Goebbels approach to truth – i.e. squash it.
Max
Max
Re Guardian Commentisfree (JamesP #8003, TonyN #8004, Geoff Chambers #8005), I would certainly agree that the debate there has become somewhat sparse, overmoderated and less interesting now (it was always a bit too rough for my liking but boy was it fun to read!) Could be that the editors are realising that the dissent is simply not going to melt away before December, and that the wilder and more hyperbolic the statements become (“We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe!”) the less people are taking them seriously.
I don’t think the articles on Guardian Environment are being read particularly closely (maybe in general people are losing interest, having been bombarded for so long by climate catastrophism?) Here’s one written by Graciela Chichilnisky, carbon marketeer, author and PhD in Maths and Economics, where she states: “50 million climate refugees are expected in 2010, and 200 million by 2012…”
200 million climate refugees by 2012 is clearly nonsense. I think this may be an honest mistake, and she meant to write 2050 (have left a comment to that effect.) But the article has been up since Thursday and if someone as generally unobservant as myself was the first to spot it, not many could have actually read the piece properly.
I looked into it and found that the 200 million refugees by 2050 figure was quoted in a policy paper from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) (report here) and derives from a 2005 estimate by Professor Norman Myers.
Here’s some text from pages 5 and 6 of an UNEP report (“Climate Change and Forced Migration, Human Develpopment Report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a dvided world.”)
“A few analysts, of which Norman Myers of Oxford University is perhaps the best known, have tried to estimate the numbers of people who will be forced to move over the long term as a direct result of climate change. “When global warming takes hold”, Professor Myers argues, “there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding.”
“Professor Myers’ estimate of 200 million climate migrants by 2050 has become the accepted figure – cited in respected publications from the IPCC to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
This is a daunting figure; representing a ten-fold increase over today’s documented refugee and internally displaced populations. To put the number in perspective it would mean that by 2050 one in every forty-five people in the world will have been displaced by climate change. It would also exceed the current global migrant population: according to the International Organization for Migration about 192 million people, or 3 percent of the world’s population, now live outside their place of birth.
But this prediction is very tentative. Professor Myers himself admits that his estimate, although calculated from the best available data, required some ‘heroic extrapolations‘ [emphasis mine]. Not that any criticism is implied; the simple fact is that nobody really knows with any certainty what climate change will mean for human population distribution.”
If I was going to be particularly unkind, I would say that this was a ballpark figure from half a decade ago, which has become enshrined in the literature, has now become subject to Chinese-whisper style distortion in the media and raises hardly a blip on anyone’s radar when misquoted in an online national newspaper. Far from being shocked and awed, people generally appear to be switching off from all the overblown doomsaying, and who can blame them?
Brute, re your #8016 I’d agree with you broadly that the West shows signs of “decadence”, in that there appears to be a general malaise and lack of direction, even as we enjoy what still has to be record (or near-record) prosperity and cutting-edge technological prowess. Is it the loss of a frontier, I wonder? Could our leaders’ desire to cut back, and narrow our horizons in the name of climate change, be partly due to the fact that there’s nowhere left to expand to? (There is space, of course, but the Chinese and Indians may be about to take the lead here.)
Two astonishing developments in the UK.
This article From Christopher Booker today demonstrates that we have all completely mnisunderstood Gavins involvement with James Hansen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6475667/Gavin-Schmidt-a-correction.html
Sunday Telegraph 1 November 2009
Gavin Schmidt: a correction
Dr Schmidt wants it known he has no connection with
the GISS temperature record, writes Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:07PM GMT 31 Oct 2009
Comment on this article
After I WROTE last Sunday about my new book on the global warming scare, The Sunday Telegraph received a request for a correction from Gavin Schmidt, Dr James Hansen’ s right-hand man at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. Dr Hansen has been one of the great cheerleaders for the global warming scare ever since his carefully staged shock-horror appearance before a Senate committee in 1988, and is now the man who talks of the “death trains” which carry coal to power stations and wants the chief executives of energy companies put on trial for “high crimes” against humanity.
Dr Schmidt wishes us to point out that he is not “involved” in Dr Hansen’ s GISS temperature record, which is one of the four official sources of global temperature data relied on by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by governments all over the world. I am of course happy to publish the correction he asked for, but I am intrigued that Dr Schmidt should want to dissociate himself from this increasingly controversial source of temperature figures.
Like others, it seems I was misled by the fact that twice in the past two years, when GISS has come under fire for publishing seriously inaccurate data, it was Dr Schmidt who acted as its public spokesman. The first was in 2007, when Dr Hansen’s data was revealed to have been systematically “adjusted” to show recent temperatures as higher than those reported by the other three official sources. This embarrassing business, which resulted in GISS having to revise its figures, was exposed by two science blogs, Watts Up With That, run by Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.
The second intervention came this time last year, when GISS had startlingly shown the previous month as the hottest October on record. The same two expert blogs revealed, as the reason for this improbable spike, that GISS had reproduced many of its September figures for two months running. Dr Schmidt may have had no responsibility for this error, but it was he who was wheeled on to explain this hilarious blunder to the world – with the somewhat curious plea that one of the four official sources relied on by the IPCC did not have sufficient resources to maintain proper quality control on its data.
This second item I can’t vouch for:
This is the (alleged) text of an email doing the rounds in the UK re: the Labour Government advert on ‘climate change’. Being sent to known AGW supporters, not necessarily Labour Party members or activists
From Ed Milliband [Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change]
I know you care about climate change, but as we’ve seen in recent weeks, not everyone does. Indeed there are many people who still believe it’s not happening, or if it is, the activities of human beings have nothing to do with it.
As part of an effort to raise peoples’ awareness of man-made climate change and what we can all do about it, the government had this advert made.
Now, whipped up by the sceptics, nearly six hundred people have complained about it in a bid to get it banned.
Don’t let the sceptics silence us
Please show your support for this advert, and our wider efforts to make people more aware of climate change.
Please send the advert on to a friend and ask them to show their support too
We need to show that the climate change sceptics are a tiny, if vocal, minority and that action to make the public aware of climate change has real public support.
Don’t let the sceptics silence us
Thank you for your time, your voice makes all the difference.
Ed
To unsubscribe, please click here. Privacy: we won’t pass on your email address to anyone else. See http://www.labour.org.uk/privacy Reproduced from an email sent by the Labour Party, promoted by Ray Collins, General Secretary, the Labour Party, on behalf of the Labour Party, all at 39 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0HA
Anyone able to throw any light on the provenance of this piece?
Tonyb
My post #8020 concerning Ed Miliband and the email-Its true!!! This from his blog. We are obviously ruffling a few feathers at the highest level.
TonyN If you want to repost this at the other thread please do so, it was just that it was initially combined with the Booker Story.
http://www.edspledge.com/advert-tell-a-friend?utm_source=taomail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100146+Ed's+Pledge+-+the+advert+they+are+trying+to+ban&tmtid=732-100146-2-442-195575
tonyb
TonyN, there’s this at Ed Miliband’s website (http://www.edspledge.com) so would appear genuine – as you say, astonishing. Something rather desperate about this.
Sorry, TonyB not TonyN, getting my Tonys mixed up, in all the excitement.
geoffchambers (8009)
Here is how I understand the paper by Lindzen and Choi (not being a “climate scientist” myself).
The abstract of the paper starts out:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
So the study compares the actually observed change in outgoing radiation flow in watts per square meter per degree K or C (W/m^2°K) in the tropics with the change in sea surface temperature (SST) in degrees K or C from ERBE with that simulated by 11 representative climate models (GCMs) cited by IPCC, and from this calculates the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (the amount of warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration once the climate system has reached equilibrium).
The IPCC AR4 WG1 report (Chapter 8, Table 2) list the estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity (= temperature increase from 2xCO2) from a total of 23 GCMs, including those 11 cited by Lindzen and Choi. The stated equilibrium climate sensitivity (CS) from these model simulations ranges from 2.1°C to 4.4°C, which means that we should expect a total warming of this amount with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 once the climate system has reached equilibrium [Note that the 2xCO2.CS for CO2 alone without any feedbacks is around 1°C, so that the IPCC GCMs are estimating a 2- to 4-fold increase from strong “positive feedbacks”.]
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
The Lindzen and Choi study shows that these model simulations are not supported by the physically observed data.
Here is a simplified explanation of how this work, as I understand it. Incoming (short wave) energy comes from the sun and is assumed to be relatively constant. However, a portion of this SW energy is reflected back into space by low altitude (water droplet) clouds and the Earth’s surface albedo. The rest warms the Earth’s surface. A portion of this is radiated back from the Earth’s surface as long wave (LW) energy. This is the portion that is partially “trapped” and re-radiated by greenhouse gases and high altitude (ice crystal) clouds, according to the greenhouse theory [I think Bob_FJ has posted a “picture” of how this works on this thread.]
The basis for the model simulations is that as the surface temperature (SST) increases, the net outgoing flow of SW + LW energy decreases (i.e. more is trapped by the greenhouse effect of assumed added water vapor and clouds resulting from the warmer temperature), providing a “positive feedback”.
If you look at Figure 3 of the Lindzen/Choi study (at the bottom, third panel from top, with 12 boxes), you will see that all the cited models show a decrease in net outgoing SW + LW radiation with increased SST, while the ERBE physical observations show just the opposite, i.e. an increase in net outgoing SW + LW radiation with increased SST, i.e. the warmer Earth’s surface gets the more energy is radiated out to space, acting as a “negative feedback”.
The bottom panel of Figure 3 shows the impact of these changes of radiative flux on the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity graphically. The curve crosses the observed ERBE range of flux (center of range = +4.5 W/m^2°K) at a CS of 0.4° to 0.5°C (the amount of warming resulting from 2xCO2).
The IPCC model range (center of range = -2.5 W/m^2°K) crosses at a CS of 1.4° to an upper value of well over 5°C (the IPCC report put this range at 2.1°C to 4.4°C).
To your questions:
This is the average of the 11 representative models selected by Lindzen/Choi, but it is the change in flux per 1°C temperature rise. The 23 models cited by IPCC have the same range (all positive).
The physically observed flux is that measured by ERBE. I have not been able to find any details on this value, but assume that Lindzen/Choi are quoting a correct figure.
To the second part of your question, I cannot vouch for the reliability or accuracy of ERBE (or the newer CERES), but it is certainly right that the change in total outgoing radiative flux with surface warming should give an indication of the energy balance with increased surface temperature. This tells us whether or not the “feedback” to greenhouse warming from CO2 is “positive” (i.e. more warming) or “negative” (i.e. cooling). The climate model simulations say “positive” while the observed data say “negative”.
Hope this helps (but remember, I am no expert, this is just how I understand it).
Max
Alex,
Re: 8019
It isn’t about frontiers; it’s about controlling the means of production and consolidating power………denying the people freedom and liberty and transferring control of the government to an elitist oligarchy……incrementally.
The only bright spot that I see is the particular greed and impatience of this administration….they are moving so quickly that the public may become shocked and realize what is going on.
Anthropogenic Global Warming hysteria is simply a another tool/method to achieve control.