Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Brute

    My #8048

    You may find the following link on co2 more helpful as it gives actual readings and the infamous curve

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

    Bearing in mind that mans contribution to overall c02 is tiny, and that as a percentage of the total carbon cycle it is said to be about 0.02%, the steady rise seems astonishing.

    The overwhelming impact of nature should be what shows up with regards to the considerable intake and outgassing from oceans, soil, forests etc, which would create considerable variabilty in the figures.

    In comparison to this the input by man should not be possible to discern.

    The modern method of analysing co2 through a continous process is different to the ‘spot’ checks made by scientists in the past, so presumably we are not comparing like for like.

    The co2 ppm actually measured in real places where people live and work is very different to that measured at ML. These variances were recorded in a 19th century book I have cited here before. I daresay the measurements in it-for cities, parks etc- would not be that different to the ones you could take today in your home town.

    In my opinion the tens of thousands of co2 readings from 1830 onwards should not be discounted. Mind you we ignore the climatic variances recorded at great length from 4000BC to the present day so I guess we can turn a blind eye when it suits us.

    For example, why do we discount such items as this reference to melting arctic ice in Nov 1922 (a melting first noted when the Titanic hit an ice berg from the melting jaskobshavn glacier in 1912)which lasted until 1940.

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    I wrote an article about the 1815-1860 arctic ice melt, which was spotted at the time by much the same sort of people-whalers/fishermen etc-as the 1922 account and brought much the same headlines.

    Warmists ignore what History is telling us which is why Peter Martin never engages on this subject.

    Tonyb

  2. There’s an extraordinary piece by Monbiot in today’s Guardian. After noting that “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease“, he continues

    What is going on?

    It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.

    And, having made the absurd claim that “the evidence for man-made global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer“, he observes

    Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans, or that it’s a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s.

    Why might that be? Well, says Monbiot,

    There are some obvious answers: they won’t be around to see the results; they were brought up in a period of technological optimism; they feel entitled, having worked all their lives, to fly or cruise to wherever they wish. psychology.

    So part of the problem, you understand, is that old people are greedy and selfish. But there’s much more to it than that:

    But there might also be a less intuitive reason, which shines a light into a fascinating corner of human psychology. … [research shows that] We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. … [and as] constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death … is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death?

    Speaking as an “old” man, I think these slurs are disgraceful: a major part of my motivation in criticising the dangerous AGW hypothesis is a wish to stop economic and environmental policies that will damage the world for my much-loved five grandchildren. But that’s yet another example of selfishness, I suppose.

  3. What planet is George Monbiot on? Clearly not one that is currently cooling and experiencing the same natural climate variability that it has enjoyed for aeons (and which even the Met Office now owns up to). Scepticism of AGW has nothing to do with age (or cod psychology) and everything to do with suspicion of those whose jobs depend on a particular interpretation of events that could be relied on to scare us all witless as long as temperatures and sea levels carried on rising. Now the government is telling children that their pets will drown if they switch on the light, we know it’s propaganda.

    [I wrote this for CIF, but I imagine its life expectancy will be short!]

  4. Agreed 100% Robin. My motivations are the same. Get over to CiF and say it, where dozens, maybe hundreds will read it. My three premoderated comments appeared eventually. It’s frustrating, like arguing with a heavy stutter, but may do some good. The moderating today is light to variable, with occasional thunderstorms.

  5. Thanks, Geoff. I took your advice. Here’s my CIF post (still there and attracting modest support):

    I think these ageist slurs are disgraceful. I am an “old” man and a major part of my motivation in criticising the dangerous AGW hypothesis is a wish to stop unnecessary economic and environmental policies that would damage the world for my much-loved five grandchildren. Moreover, I am especially concerned about policies that, by inflicting yet further damage on our already shattered Western economies, will make it even more difficult to deal with real problems such as industrial wastelands, toxic chemical pollution, particulate emissions, ruined water supplies, destroyed rainforests – all causing misery to, in particular, to some of the world’s poorest people, people who would be especially affected the fact that more expensive energy (an inevitable consequence of CO2 restriction) would mean even less hope of accessing clean water, fresh food, better health care, better education, etc, etc … Almost everything they need would cost more.

    The real impact of much of this would be felt after I am dead.

  6. The moderating today is light to variable, with occasional thunderstorms

    :-)

    It does seem to be restrained today. Perhaps they’re away having their scalpels resharpened after all the recent heavy use.

    I expect to see normal service resumed shortly, when all the supporters’ comments will look suitably daft on their own.

  7. JamesP #8056 I spoke too soon about moderate moderation. At least three good’uns on page 10 fell under the chopper (Antiterrorist, orwellwasright, and Noisms). I saved pages 1-9 to check on who gets chopped. I’ve managed to slip four comments through. Here’s one they wouldn’t allow

    DrMaybe (03 Nov 09, 10:05am) is wrong to state that Exxon do not support global warming theory. When I pointed out on a Monbiot thread that Exxon were financing the MIT Center for Global Change Science, a member of the Guardian Environment Network, Monbiot went critical, intervening twice in a matter of minutes and accusing another blogger of being an astroturfer. The MIT group has not been mentioned here since.
    So yes, Monbiot does read comments

    Can’t think why.

  8. Hi all I have just posted this at the Guardian Seemed to go up instantly unlike some others I have posted.

    Gracious me George. Blaming increasing scepticism on age is a bit like blaming Global warming on CO2. Is it just possible that more and more of the population are becoming informed? I certainly think you should reconsider your suggestion as it does look a little desperate and dare I say silly in the face of a collapse in support for global warming and climate change. Perhaps now at long last we can redirect all the money back into real environmental projects towards developing a resilient economy and environment that can cater for diminishing fossil fuel, warming and cooling and catering for the damage we have already done with our misguided development of bio fuels,

    160 of Americas top physicists have written to the Senate to state there is no consensus in science over climate change and to point out that the letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe does NOT represent their views.

    In their letter is a telling quote that you would do well to recall each time you extol the notion the science is settled. “You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.” And nowhere is this notion more relevant that the so called green house effect, where any comparison of the atmosphere with a greenhouse is like comparing a supernova to a firecracker.

    George can I ask you a simple question? When it comes to science, and inparticular physics, who do I believe, the American Physics Society, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer? Or is it yourself, Ed milliband, or perhaps David King who thought we may all be living in Anartica by 2100. I’ll leave your readers to chose.

  9. Robin (and peter geany)

    Thanks for Guardian link.

    Have also joined in to the fun.

    Max

  10. Looks like George Monbiot has closed down comments, after being beat over the head pretty soundly for his rather foolish op-ed on why there is an anti-AGW backlash.

    Max

  11. manacker #8060. The thread may open up again tomorrow morning. This is CiF back on form with a dingdong ad hominem free-for-all. The absence of many sceptical old hands suggests that they may, like me, have been premoderated (or banned altogether). This means that most of the sceptics are new and there’s an awful lot of tiresome repetition of old points, much of it banal and naive. Not so much a pub brawl as an argument in a hotel foyer, with people coming and going at random.
    There’s a rhythm to these things which can be very satisfying. A pithy comment at the beginning of the thread can get 100+ recommends, which means someone is paying attention, at least for a minute or two. Time your comment to appear just after the comment counter gets to the 50 or the hundred, and youll be at the top of the page and attract more reactions. There’s a large random factor as well, of course, but a tremendous satisfaction when a comment hits home. It’s a bit like a jazz jam-session, where just occasionally an eight bar solo soars above the random noise…
    I have wasted entire days on CiF, while trying to hold down a fulltime job. I hate public meetings, but on CiF I feel I’ve learned something about the psychology of discussion. It’s very frustrating, of course, particularly when you place a killer punch which goes unnoticed. When Monbiot came back from Copenhagen last year lamenting that the whispers he’d heard were Worse Than He’d Thought, I managed to slip this past the moderators, too late to be appreciated, alas:

    On the night-train that left Copenhagen
    George announced to the sleeping Schlafwagen
    (to tremendous applause)
    “I’ve just wet my drawers
    and bullsh*tted myself, into the bargain”.

    We all have the successes we merit, I suppose.

  12. I wrote to my MP (David Drew Labour Stroud) to complain about the advertising campaign. His first reply to me contained this quotation

    “I only see the lunatic fringe peddling their usual misinformation and denial so that they can carry on their own unsustainable lifestyle”.

    and

    What is needed is a much more rapid move away from our dependence on carbon and other elements and gases that cause global catastrophe. The fact is that our children have already got that message – it is my age group that sadly continue to peddle to myths and the denials of what has really been going on.

    and to finish

    Sorry to disagree so strongly with you but this is too important not to state the facts.

    Needless to say there were precious few facts in his hurried reply, and a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding. My dilemma is do I engage with him and using conciliatory language and try and educate him or do I hit him with both barrels.

  13. Peter Geany

    You pondered regarding your MP:

    My dilemma is do I engage with him and using conciliatory language and try and educate him or do I hit him with both barrels.

    My advice: vote him out of office.

    Max

  14. geoffchambers

    Liked your Copenhagen Limerick.

    This one’s not a Limerick, but can be read horizontally and vertically:

    An Ode to the IPCC and James E. Hansen

    Behind the tipping point prediction
    Unswerved by those who question it
    Lies the greenhouse warming fiction
    Loved by those who benefit.

    Straightforward are the ones who preach it
    High and true are their ideals
    Inciting panic as they teach it
    To one and all their creed appeals.

    Max

  15. Yuk puke yuk yuk puke

    Algore and George Monbiot on News Night at the same time.

  16. Will try and see Newsnight when it appears on iPlayer. I did see Channel 4 News this evening, which featured Tim Nicholson, the man who can now sue his employers for discrimination, as he claims he was dismissed because of his beliefs about climate change. The BBC have the story here.

    Tim’s solicitor: “Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations.”

    This is interesting – does the reverse apply? After all, I don’t have to pay tithes to my local church or mosque, as I don’t subscribe to their creeds. Can I claim that my AGW scepticism is also a religion, with its own moral imperatives which automatically exempt me from green taxes or having to be concerned about my “carbon footprint”?

  17. Peter G:

    Please will you copy your comment #8062 to the latest government adverts thread as I think visitors there will be interested. I used to be able to move mis-placed comments but the NS thread is now so vast that the software falls down in a heap.

    Incidentally that thread is now getting links from other sites including JunkScience, so there are a lot of people looking at it.

  18. Re: Alex, #8066

    I really, really like that idea!

  19. TonyN

    Surely if scepticism is classed as a religion, by the rules of this blog we wouldn’t be allowed to discuss it any more :)

    tonyb

  20. Tony B:

    As I read the rule, it could certainly be used to moderate all Perer Martin’s comments out of existence :)

    Religion:
    ….. Disparaging remarks about other faiths, comments that are based on religious intolerance, or even attempts to proselytise for your own particular persuasion, will not be welcome. Any comment that is likely to offend sincerely held religious beliefs will be deleted.

  21. For what it’s worth (not much or nothing), the “ins” are making real progress at the SM poll: now 1638 “in” to 6344 “out”. So the ratio, recently 7:1, is now 4:1.

  22. Hi all,
    I am new to adding to these sort of blogs but I have been introduced to this site by my father and I have a question that I believe will at least interest you even if you can’t answer it.

    I have read the IPCC’s report on ‘climate change’ and if you look at the Synthesis Report Link here and look at page 39 of the full report linked you will see a lovely graph on their predicted ‘Radiative Forcing’ caused by our CO2 in the atmosphere. Naturally enough they won’t allow me to look at the method and data that lead to this graph but I don’t need to look at that to see an error. The most odd error that appears is that if you add their numbers up you don’t get their result. They add it up to be 1.6 W/m2 when it actually adds up to1.84 W/m2. I have taken this to 5 university lecturers at the University of Southampton (namely Dr C. Saunders, Dr DA. Howlett, Dr G Smith, all in the politics section, a Dr M. Edwards of the Geography department and finally Dr B. Lanchester of Physics and Astronomy) with the intention of finding out what is going on. The end conclusion, using the Green political classes favourite method of ‘consensus’ was that the IPCC couldn’t do basic maths.

    Now I would dearly like to have someone explain what this graph is supposed to say, and if I’m right just what is someone, who can’t add, doing telling us how the insanely complex system that is our cliamte works.

    I hope that this isn’t too long a post nor too off topic

    Leo Moloney-Geany

  23. Does this make Peter Martin a religious zealot?

    Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

  24. LeoM-Geany

    Glad to hear from you. I am not a “climate scientist”, but, like you, I can add and subtract, and agree that the IPCC radiative forcing numbers do not “add up”.

    I believe I can explain the rationale (but not the figures).

    Some of the forcings are listed as “Global”, others as “Continental” or “Local”, so there might be a “weighting factor” involved (which is not transparent).

    Closer examination (which you have probably done, as well) shows that this explanation does not hold water, however, since the non-“Global” forcings (net negative) appear to be given a higher weighting than the global ones (in order to end up with 1.6 total net anthropogenic forcing).

    But I believe that the biggest error in this chart lies elsewhere.

    Several solar studies have shown that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years) has contributed at least half of the observed warming over this period. These studies were based on empirical data observed starting prior to the Industrial Revolution and human CO2 emissions.

    In addition, the current cooling is being attributed by the UK Met Office to “natural factors” (which are strong enough to more than offset record increases in atmospheric CO2).

    Yet IPCC has limited “natural” forcing (from pre-industrial year 1750 to 2005) to the measurable changes in direct solar irradiation alone, giving it a forcing of 0.1 W/m^2 (compared to 1.6 W/m^2 for the anthropogenic forcing factors).

    This obviously does not make sense. If natural factors are strong enough since January 2001 to more than offset record increases in CO2, and if half of the 20th century warming can be attributed to natural factors, there is no way that natural factors had a radiative forcing (from pre-industrial 1750 to 2005) of only 0.12 W/m^2, as IPCC postulates.

    So your question has opened a “can of worms”.

    You are on the right track. Keep questioning what you hear and read and insist on empirical evidence before you accept what anyone says (even me).

    Max

  25. Leo, Reur 8072;
    Welcome aboard to the debate.
    I don’t think you, (or your five sages), should attach too much significance to the single arithmetical point that you raise. It could be simply a transcription error or some other form of mistake which is sometimes found in the literature on both sides of the debate.

    However, there is a whopping plethora of obfuscation, omissions, wildly suspect assumptions, declared unknowns, and dodgy modelling, and more, which can be well demonstrated in the AR4 IPCC reports to be collectively, uhm erh…. I search for the best collective noun: Crap?!

    For instance, in chapter 4.6 (WG1): Changes and Stability of Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves; there is extensive discussion about the alleged recent catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice-sheet. However, there is zero mention of the well documented record of high air temperatures etc in that region early in the 19th century. (which was before the “consensus” historical baseline satellite observations initiated about 30 years ago). Furthermore, Jason Box, a prominent alarmist in this area, was a contributing author to this IPCC chapter, despite that he was aware of Chylek and other’s work etc that was contradictory but omitted from the IPCC reports.

    Max (manacker) has collated a huge list of errors and omissions by the IPCC over on a thread on that topic at CA, a while back that perhaps he could link you to. (He is another retired engineer like myself, and many other scientific “coalface” sceptics)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha