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.
Brute Reur 33 on the other thread: CRU hack…
I‘ve been following the bizarre bloodbath in the Oz Liberal Party with even more interest than I have in international test cricket. (although the recent Oz V West Indies game #1, was no contest; all over in a mere 3 days, not 5!)
Our Liberal party is the majority in the Oz coalition opposition parties, and the leadership change although expected, was a huge surprise in the MSM when it went to Abbot, whereas they had predicted that the personable Joe Hockey was the clear favourite. However, Hockey was convincingly eliminated in the first round of voting, and in the second round, Abbot won by just one vote (42 to 41, ? I recall, or 43 to 42?). Hockey’s downfall was probably PARTLY because he supported Turnbull’s version of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) policy, but leadership change was also about other matters, and Hockey was more than vague in enunciating a clear position.
Anyhow, putting that farce aside, after Abbot scraped-in to leadership… (and BTW, one MP was absent and one spoiled their vote with the word NO; just a tad ambiguous)…. A secret ballot was then held with the following staggering result:
For ETS: 29
Against ETS: 55
So what happened where a party that was in strong support of their earlier leader Turnbull, in favour of ETS, then SUDDENLY went against it and paralleled with their coalition partners? I would like to propose that:
1) The last thing a political party wants is a picture of disarray within their party and rumour of leadership change. However, once there is finally any such change, the members are then freed to express changes in devotion to whatever cause. (= a change in party policy unity in any direction)
2) I suspect that PRIOR to Climategate, the Independent senator Fielding, (as discussed above), and others, have been quietly talking to many Liberals about AGW doubts, such as in those graphs showing the recent plateau in warming etc.
3) Climategate has added significant fuel to the fire, and for instance Andrew Bolt may have been active in that.
4) The anticipated failure of Copenhagen, is likely to embarrass the ruling labour party, and Turnbull et al.
5) Although the new Liberal policy front is (publicly) that they are not sceptical of AGW, but against the ETS bill itself, they have until after the summer break in February before fuller definitions may be elaborated in the ultimate political arenas. Oh and there may be a senate enquiry on the “science” BTW!
An interesting blog article by Newsweek science editor, Sharon Begley.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/climategate-newsweek-nasa-james-hansen-deniers-climate-science/
Now Copenhagen and “cap ‘n tax” is getting attacked from the other side, by none other than (“coal death trains”) James E. Hansen of “tipping point” fame, who is about to release a new book (he wrote on government time?).
Begley comments:
Hansen also makes the strangely out-of-touch post-Climategate remark that the “contrarians are not having much effect”.
Whistling in the dark, I’d say.
Max
Robin (8475)
Have seen the two-page introduction in the Spectator by Fraser Nelson, “Global Warming – The Truth” on line:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5592953/global-warming-the-truth.thtml.
Have you or anyone else seen the full article on-line? Or is it only available in hard copy form?
Max
Manacker #8478
No, the Spectator special is not available on-line, but Maurizio Morabito’s interesting contribution is at
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/
He tracked down a 70s CIA document on global cooling in the British Library. Just substitute “warming” for “cooling” throughout and you have the same disaster scenario.
Just to echo Geoff at #8479, this really is an interesting document that Maurizio has found – what is clear from it is that there does seem to have been a consensus in 1974 among many scientists that the world was cooling.
I watched Channel 4 news this evening – Jon Snow in Brazil, using the expression “climate change denier” without turning a hair.
Al Gore Cancels $1,200 Per Handshake Event In Copenhagen
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/03/al-gore-cancels-1-200-handshake-event-copenhagen
geoffchambers
Thanks for link to 1970s CIA report on global cooling.
Good stuff.
Max:
re the Speccie, this may help.
HOUSTON ‘EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER’…
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl//6750042.html
Here we go:
I heard this a short while ago on the ABC radio news, (Oz cousin of the BBC): the following text is the transcript:
Climate change driving polar bears to cannibalism
By Dan Karpenchuk in Toronto
Posted 2 hours 29 minutes ago
Some grim evidence of the effects of climate change are emerging in Canada’s far north.
Scientists are reporting more cases of cannibalism among Polar Bears.
Tourists often take excursions to northern Manitoba, for a first hand look at Polar bears.
But one group recently experienced a horrifying site as a male bear separated a cub from its mother, then killed and ate the cub.
Scientists say there have been at least eight cases of polar bears eating cubs this year.
They say the cubs are being killed for food.
The Hudson Bay sea ice, which the bears use to hunt for seals so they can fatten up for winter, is not appearing until weeks later than usual.
Conservationists say it means the bears have to survive on land for longer on their diminishing fat reserves and can lose up to 30 per cent of their body mass.
And this year it could be an even longer wait, as forecasters say the region will experience above average temperatures for at least another week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, amongst other things they might have to survive a shorter winter maybe?
What a load of old cobblers! I’ve been aware for a very long time that mother polar bears have amongst their devotions, the need to protect their cubs from male bears. (BTW; male lions and some male primates etc are also a severe threat to the young of their species, but perhaps not necessarily for food, but rather speculatively, for blood-line dominance)
Here is a brief extract from Wikepedia which probably pre-dates the above nonsense.
“…Adult male bears males occasionally kill and eat polar bear cubs,[68] for reasons that are unclear…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polar_bear
Oh, and polar bears have been shown to survive on land (without a diet of seals), and are omnivorous and quite fond of reducing the birdlife concentration during the warmer months.
And, for instance, foxes steal apples from orchards if they can’t get past the dogs and get at the chooks.
Further my 8485
Oh, and are not the bears biologically driven to build-up their fat reserves BEFORE their winter hibernation?
And so; if the winter is assumed to be a tad shorter than “normal”, why is that not easier for the bear’s fat reserve requirements, which they have had longer to build?
That’s just an engineering logic question from me; perque, I’m not a cryonic mammalian biologist!
Bob_FJ
These knucklehead pseudo-scientists who are postulating increased polar bear cannibalism and thereby possible future extinction as a result of global warming are delusional.
There are many studies that show that the overall polar bear population has increased over the past 20 years to a new high of around 25,000.
Reasons for this are unclear, but the multi-nation ban on sport hunting (especially from aircraft) was certainly a factor.
In summary:
– polar bear populations have not decreased, but rather increased over the past 20 years
– Arctic warming may not have anything to do with this increase, but has certainly not caused a decrease
– polar bear cannibalism is nothing new and certainly not caused by AGW
Max
More on the BBC coverage of CRU, where the Today programme had Prof. Philip Stott and Jonathan Porritt in a reasonably balanced interview yesterday, and Mark Lynas was on R2 at lunchtime. He wasn’t exactly balanced, of course, but a few callers made pertinent points. Interesting to learn that ML is now an advisor to the government of the Maldives! Shame no-one pointed out that the sea level there wasn’t rising…
Max, Reur 8487,
Also of course, polar bears survived the MWP, Roman Warm Period, and even the regional warming in the early 20th century. (that is ignored by the IPCC et al).
James, Reur 8488,
I’d like it if you can link to videos or transcripts of the two thingies you mentioned.
regards, Bob
Max,
Tamino’s ID confirmed as Grant Foster!
See this Climategate Email address block I found:
So Tamino, (and also Annan, paper extraordinary writer) are apparently part of the inner sanctum!
This led me to Google ‘Grant Foster Tamino’, and there is some interesting stuff on that search, for instance this comment on http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=341&cpage=1
MOUSING ERROR in my 8491?
The CC’s should read:
Cc: Michael Mann , Jim Salinger , j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt , James Annan , Grant Foster
TRY AGAIN; THE FINAL addressee complete:
Mousing copy fails:
Grant Foster
Typed copy copy OK I think:
Grant Foster [tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
after substituting [ bracket ILO < bracket
Bob, 8491:
I think that it would be a good idea to cross post that comment at Bishop Hill. He’s been collating interesting references in the emails.
Bob_FJ
The Warwick Hughes blog which you linked (8491) states: “The IPCC must strike out all references to Professor Jones work”.
Wow! This will be a problem for them.
Jones is “Coordinating Lead Author” of Chapter 3 of the IPCC 2007 AR4 report, “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”.
Papers by Jones (et al.) are cited a total of 22 times in all IPCC chapters, most notably 7 times in Chapter 6 (along with 9 hits for Michael Mann): “Paleoclimate”.
Ouch!
Max
Since this is an open thread, is it ok if I suggest a change of direction? (If you don’t agree, just say, and I’ll get my coat…) A month ago, I’d have been fascinated by the identity of Tamino, but a lot of melt ice has flowed under the bridge recently. It’s Copenhagen, and the serious papers in Britain are going stark raving bonkers.
It used to be – what, twenty? fifty? – of us at Guardian CommentisFree, trying to inject a little sceptical reason between the Monbiot groupies and the Sarah Palin fans. We’ve all been banned or given up, and now there are hundreds and hundreds of newboys. And the comments to Monbiot and on Greenpeace’s Hopenhagen blog are identical to those on Booker and Delingpole’s articles in the Telegraph. And the response at the Guardian, Observer, and Independent, in defiance of all scientific and marketing logic, is to insult the intelligence of their readers with more and more insane denial of obvious facts.
I happen to think this matters, since I don’t want to live in a world where only the Daily Telegraph dares print the truth, where the Guardian thinks it a matter of pride that 56 newspapers are printing exactly the same editorial on their front page, where the Observer – a newspaper with a two hundred year history of fighting slavery and defending liberty – can announce, without batting an eyelid: “the emails… prove nothing. Man-made climate change is real … The scientific case for action is irrefutable. So is the economic case. That just leaves the politics…”
I hate the term “eco-fascism”. It’s trite and eliminates all possibility of rational discussion. But how else to describe such blind obedience to the irrational?
On a less elevated, less desperate note: it’s probable that the fallout from Climategate is going to focus a lot of internet attention on Britain, its politics, its quaint legal procedures, and its even quainter media. It will be up to the active British sceptical blogosphere to explain what’s going on to the rest of the world, and, as far as I am aware, that consists of you, Climate Resistance, Omniclimate, and Bishop Hill. It’s a lot of responsibility. Fun though. Ready lads?
geoffchambers (8496)
Yes. The AGW debate has become polarized.
There is so much at stake here:
– hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in new direct or indirect carbon taxes to be levied on everyone in the industrialized world
– massive handouts to the non-developed world to pay for the past sin of industrialization and improvement of the standard of living in the industrialized world
– a new political order, where national sovereignties are subjugated to a non-elected international body
– and much more
The fact that this is all based on what is increasingly being exposed as questionable science, but yet that a great number of politicians of this world want to ram it through regardless of these revelations, only causes more outrage and polarization.
It is my observation that exaggerated reports (from both sides) make impact, while reasoned discussions of the issues taking both sides into consideration do not. Just look at all the stuff out there.
I personally prefer to stick to the scientific and technical issues (although I have also gotten sucked into the political debate, as well).
Do you have any specific suggestions for how to defuse the debate and bring at back more into a rational discussion and less of an emotion-packed argument?
Max
Bob_FJ (8491)
More on the prancing prince with the magic flute, Tamino and Grant Foster
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2897
Quite a talented guy!
Max
Bob_FJ
As Craig Loehle (who “recreated” the MWP) commented on Climate Audit (earlier link):
Reminds me of your countryman, Dundee, when threatened by a NY mugger with a pocket knife:
“That’s no knife. Now THIS is a knife…”
Max
Manacker (#8497)
I’m not arguing necessarily for a more rational discussion (let’s stay emotional, even irrational, if you like). My idea was to bring the discussion to the level where it matters in a democratic society – to average voters who read the mainstream media.
My impression from comments in the mainstream media is that climategate has captured the attention of the scientifically literate worldwide. Anyone with a maths A-level, or scientific college education, or experience of computer programming, is liable to be infected with the climategate virus, and old hands like yourself with the facts at their fingertips can render an immense service on a thousand threads by guiding them to the useful sources.
You must, like me, have read dozens of sensible, questioning comments by bloggers who have never heard of McIntyre or Watts. And they’re just as likely to be commenting on a Greenpeace site as a Daily Telegraph one.
And meanwhile, the mainstream press continues as if nothing has happened. I repeat, I don’t ask for a more rational discussion, I ask for a debate that we can win. Specifically, I suggest that TonyN, TonyB, Maurizio, the Bishop, and the guys at Climate Research push themselves forward as the British spokesmen for global warming scepticism in the maintream media, so that if and when the climategate story gets big, there are knowledgeable spokesmen other than Lord Lawson and Nick Griffin of the BNP in front of the microphones.