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.
Tony (8199) – wow, I’ve not seen this approach before – this is carborexia in action.
to Luke #8200
This is getting like Pooh’s hunt for heffalumps. I’ve left a comment on your comment on the unfoundation site at omniclimate, where you compare this to the Hitler youth movement. Except that don’t the Nazi kids in Cabaret sing something optimistic about the future? (Over at Guardian Environment is a commenter called GreenAgeChloe who boasts how she makes the kids cry in the primary school where she works when she sings “Bye bye snow”).
I recommend everyone to look at the unfoundation site. Luke’s link looks like lalaland. 2000 comments from brainwashed kids blabbing about robins and icecaps, under the aegis of the United Nations for Gaia’s sake. I can’t take any more. I’m going off to get a life before the carbon cops catch me.
Geoff
I agree about the hunt, I was about to respond to your timeline at WuWT. I’m not as optimistic as you, this is not about fact and logic as is becoming more and more clear.
I did create a kind of empirical test of AGW v skepticism 2 years ago which essentially posited that the arguments would become less technical on the ‘wrong’ side of the debate. The massive shift in ad hominems etc and the sentiment would seem to be bearing this out (but it could be due to confirmation bias on my part and is clouded by the comments of the dumb skeptics!)
Back to a recent-ish fave book of mine “The god that failed” – Koestler’s opening quote is most apposite:
“A faith is not acquired by reasoning. One does not fall in love with a woman, or enter the womb of a church, as a result of logical persuasion. Reason may defend an act of faith – but only after the act has been committed, and the man committed to the act. Persuasion may play a part in a man’s conversion; but only the part of bringing to its full and conscious climax a process which has been maturing in reasons where no persuasion can penetrate. A faith is not acquired; it grows like a tree. Its crown points to the sky; its roots grow downward into the past and are nourished by the dark sap of the ancestral humus.”
My question used to be how do we persuade the believers. The real question should be “how do you kill a religion?” – anyone who manages to answer that one would surely earn a Nobel prize.
(Although for some light relief see South Park on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go
there is a link to view the episode at the bottom but the synopsis is enough (and there is a part 2 where the conflict between the the (year 2546) super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (Unified Atheist League) is raging. Apologies for lowering the tone.)
BTW the god that failed is about communism not religion.
For similar see:
“Why I am not a Christian” Bertrand Russell’s 1927 talk “hailed by The Independent as “devastating in its use of cold logic”” (quote from Wikip)
So cold logic is not always persuasive.
The other evidence of religiosity in this will IMHO be the development of Pythonesque splitter factions – Robert Merton’s 17th century science book points out that Protestantism led to something like 300 sub-factions within 100 years of Luther (numbers off the top of my head). We’re already seeing Mark Lynas and the sub-cult of nuclear, for example.
Remember, Durkheim’s definition of religion is
If you really want a mind-f**k, many scientists (Maurizio’s ‘peeritarians’) fit into this this definition as well.
Must do some work now.
Geoff 8202
Sic transit… …enter the Carbon Youth:
“Niel Bowerman, 22, of Chiswick, will travel to the capital of Denmark with 23 other members of the UK Youth Climate Coalition, carrying placards and wearing T-shirts saying: “How old will you be in 2050?”.”
http://www.hounslowguardian.co.uk/news/4738055.Green_warrior_off_to_climate_change_summit/
Phrase d’escalier:
“The Hitler Yoof”
Wow, the carbon rationing thing seems to have struck a chord.
Limiting freedom and Orwellian government oversight may excite a few people, but when they start screwing around with people’s money, that really gets people’s ire up!
I don’t know who Lord Knucklehead of Finsbury is, or what actual power he possesses (not being familiar with British political bureaucracy); however, this is how this sort of nonsense incrementally gets enacted nationally.
I realize that there are maniacs in the USA that propose such idiotic measures, but Britain seems to be a few steps ahead in the self destructive arena.
There are many historic parallels here……none of which turned out very well……… Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei comes to mind as the primary comparable “movement”.
I find it amazing that as a species we haven’t learned from past mistakes.
I’m just waiting for Peter Martin to comment defending Phlogiston Theory as being “revolutionary” and “essentially correct”……with scientists being basically on the accurate path……albeit measurement tools of the time were “crude” in an attempt to justify his “AGW Climate Change” myth.
As my analogy regarding manufacturer’s estimated automobile miles per gallon of fuel vs. the true range of the car per gallon, he will argue that the IPCC prophecy is right and the thermometers are wrong in the realm of global warming.
In some convoluted fashion, Warmists will cling to any shred of illogic to defend a theory that has been discredited by real world observations.
Never admit defeat, right Peter?
Netherlands to levy ‘green’ road tax by the kilometre
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.244057bd1b30448115575c2187e68681.141&show_article=1
Thanks TonyB #8191 for linking to the Air Vent airing of your article. The notes for non-British residents are a great help. Did you notice in the comments how many people weren’t aware of the TV ad? Truly, in my Net there are many holes…
Excuse Luke Brute and me for taking the discussion off into less practical realms, but I can only take so much of DEFRA DECC and the rest.
on AGW as a religion: (Luke, chap. #8203)
If it is, it lacks the style of the old-time sort. Can you imagine the Israelites standing on the shores of the Red Sea:
Aaron: What do you think, Moses, shall we make a dash for it?
Moses: Are you joking? That tide’s rising at 1.7mm a year. We’ll never make it.
Geoffchambers 8195
I would be very careful with anything that Monbiot says. He is undoubtedly very clever, but he is not a Geologist, or a scientist of any description. That’s not to say everything he says is wrong but the point that Monbiot and all the others (IPCC) miss about what Plimer says on Volcanoes is that they only measure those exhausting directly into the atmosphere and ignore 80% or more of the worlds volcanoes that are venting into the extremely high pressure water at the plate boundaries. Just because we don’t measure something or don’t know much about it doesn’t mean it can just be dismissed. This is a common tactic of Monbiot. His other tactic is to project authority by quoting the IPCC, and many people fall for this.
Luke Warmer and geoffchambers
Some notes on the phlogiston theory:
http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm
Hey folks, this is pretty logical stuff when compared with the premise that anthropogenic greenhouse warming, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potentially serious threat to our climate, our society and our planet.
Remember, Becher and Stahl did not have supercomputers to spit out storylines and scenarios at will. They had to rely on their imaginations.
Unlike Becher and Stahl, the many chemists who later disproved the phlogiston theory did so by “reaching conclusions in the laboratory”, i.e. by relying on physical observation of empirical scientific data.
This has turned out to be the Achilles heel of the “climatology science” supporting the AGW premise: not only is it not supported by empirical data and by computer model simulations alone, but it also does not stand up to the empirical data derived from actual physical observation.
Looks like we could learn from history here.
Max
Peter Geany and geoffchambers (8213/8195)
Ian Plimer has been figuratively “bashed over the head” for his claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.
This bashing has come from non-geologists, such as George Monbiot, Gavin Schmidt, etc.
It is based on the fact that there are around 1,500 active volcanoes on the surface of the Earth, with an estimated additional 10,000 active volcanoes hidden in the oceans. These are estimated to release 200 million tons of CO2 annually, compared to 30 billion tons emitted by humans from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and forest clearing.
But, wait! Plimer is a geologist, so maybe he knows something that Monbiot and Schmidt do not know.
A study has counted over 200,000 active volcanoes, over 20 times the number assumed to exist before. The same study estimates that there could be as many as 3 million submarine volcanoes. Such a high number of active volcanoes could, indeed, emit considerably more CO2 than humans do.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218-thousand-of-new-volcanoes-revealed-beneath-the-waves.html
So maybe Plimer wasn’t wrong in his statement after all.
Max
Max
IF co2 stays in the atmosphere for 1000 years then undoubtedly ALL the volcaloes have vented more co2 in that period than man has.
IF it lasts only 10 years neither man nor volcanoes are doing any particular harm.
However as a fraction of co2 lasts somewhere between the two time scales I think Plimer is incorrect unless there are more active volcanoes than we know about.
This may be possible of course if you include underwater ones plus other forms of venting such as fissures, geysers etc.
Tonyb
“Climate change” (i.e. the belief that global warming, caused by evil man, is a serious threat) as a religion (8203/8212)?
Well, it seems to have some similarities: the belief is not based on logic derived from empirical scientific evidence, but rather on prophesies for the future coming from super-computers, the modern-day oracles.
These are spread by modern-day prophets (e.g. James E. Hansen of coal “death train” fame and Al Gore, who has made a neat bundle for himself in the process).
The message: Repent (stop your sinful burning of fossil fuels) and ye shall be saved! And while you’re at it, pass the collection plate to drop in your share of the carbon tax.
Verily, verily! Now let’s sing #312 in our global warming hymn book:
Gimme dat climate change religion
Gimme dat climate change religion
Tho’ it’s only warmed a smidgen
Still it’s good enough for me
It made Al Gore lots of millions
It made Al Gore lots of millions
And it’s gonna cost us trillions
And it’s good for you and me
Gimme dat ol’ greenhouse warmin’
Gimme dat ol’ greenhouse warmin’
It’ll keep them ‘skeeters swarmin’
And it’s good enough for me
Let’s go scare dem li’l schoolchillun
Let’s go scare dem li’l schoolchillun
That’ll make ‘em weak and willin’
T’say ”it’s good enough for me”
Gimme dat ol’ greenhouse fryin’
Gimme dat ol’ greenhouse fryin’
Don’ mind dem polar bears a’dyin’
‘Cause it’s good for you and me
It’s good for every politician
It’s good for every politician
So they’re really on a mission
T’show it’s good for you and me
Gimme dat ol’ greenhouse heatin’
Gimme dat ol’ greenhouse heatin’
It’ll keep dem scientists eatin’
And it’s good for you and me
Let’s make gas cost fifteen dollars
Let’s make gas cost fifteen dollars
Until everybody hollers
“Yes, it’s good for you and me”.
Gimme dat climate change religion
Gimme dat climate change religion
Tho’ it’s only warmed a smidgen
Still it’s good enough for me
Amen.
Max
TonyB
I can’t tell from Plimer’s book on what he based his statement about volcanic CO2, as he provided no reference. A pity.
I can only assume that, as a geologist who knows something about this subject, he was referring to the many submarine volcanoes, which are not counted in the conventional statistic of 200 million tons/year of volcanic CO2.
If there really are as many as 3 million total volcanoes (rather than the 12,000 or so now counted in the conventional statistic), his statement could well be true, quite independent of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I am not defending his statement, just pointing out that before disputing it, one should check out exactly what Plimer, as a geologist who should know, was talking about.
To simply assume that Plimer is a fool who has no notion (as some of his critics have done) is a slippery slope.
Max
Tonyb,
Wouldn’t you have to? Don’t geysers and fissures expel CO2?
I’ve read that we know more about the surface of the Moon than what is under the oceans. If that’s even close to being true than the actual amount of volanic activity is much higher than we presently know.
Luke Warmer
Are the shirts brown (or just their pants)?
Max
Max
Plimer made a specific claim that ‘appears’ to be incorrect and various people have pointed out this ‘apparent’ mistake to him.
It is really up to him to demonstrate why he is right and others are wrong-perhaps he was referring to So2 and there was a proof reading mistake?
The onus is on him to back up his assertions as from the published information available volcanoes produce less less co2 than man.
Tonyb
TonyB
I agree fully with you that, unless Plimer can back up his claim with some published facts, it remains a hollow claim, which others can shoot down, based on the conventional wisdom that there are around 12,000 known or estimated volcanoes on this planet, emitting a total of around 200 million tons/year of CO2.
However, the study which I cited indicates that 200,000 submarine volcanoes have been seen and registered, and that there could be as many as 3 million submarine volcanoes.
If that were to be the case (and maybe Plimer has some evidence on this) then his claim that the volcanoes produce more CO2 annually than humans could be correct.
But, of course, it is up to him to back up his claim, not up to others to prove him incorrect. And since he has not backed his claim, it is quite likely that his claim is in error.
Had there been a debate between Plimer and Monbiot, this point would certainly have been brought up, and Plimer could have stated his case (or admitted that his statement was incorrect).
Believe we are in violent agreement here, TonyB.
Max
PS to TonyB
I e-mailed Plimer to ask him about this claim, but I received no response.
Volcanos
As someone born and raised 50 miles from the site of one the world’s three known super volcano’s and having geology as one of my school science subjects I understand and believe what Plimer is saying. The city I lived in is known for its sulphur (H2S) smell. No amount of burning fossil fuel can make a whole city smell of anything, except perhaps burning coal in every household in the centre of a major conurbation.
Plimer addressed the subject of errors in his book at the lecture, and there have been continuous corrections for each reprint. He says that he checks each and every sensible criticism with others and if it’s a valid criticism he will change or update his book. He made the point that no one has yet been able to provide any alternative science to disprove what he has put in his book, and that none of the corrections has had a bearing on the overall meaning.
He explained the difference in size between the super volcanoes and the Mount St Helens eruption that most in the audience could probably relate to. If anyone really bothered to look back in history, and see what these volcanoes have done then I think more notice would be taken of what he has to say. Personally I think very few people have even the slightest notion of the power of these things.
Now for the undersea volcanoes they are venting into water at hundreds of pounds per square inch pressure. Far more CO2 can dissolve at these pressures than at the surface, and we still have no idea about the mixing of the deepwater and the surface water. We don’t have any real notion of how many of these volcanoes are venting and how much, but it is the way that carbon is continuously recycled on the planet. Fossil fuels are just another of those recycling methods. Plimer says we need to try and study this area and he thought that that there was a strong possibility that much of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 could be due to volcanic action 10s 100s or maybe thousands of years ago. So I’m guessing the reason why he is not rushing out to provide us all with references is 1 he is probably feed up with those who don’t bother to understand the subject offering opinions, and 2 we are short on real measurements. But one thing is for sure, climatologists and environmentalists are in NO position what so ever to say he is wrong and has made silly errors. I for one think he is more right than wrong on this.
What we have to remember is that life on the planet evolved to used the resourses’ available. CO2 was one of those available in abundance. I just find it absurd that we would seek to limit it, or that minute changes in its concentration could be so fatal to the planet.
Regarding CO2……….
Models trump measurements
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e&sponsor=