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.
Alex Cull
You refer to Mr. Brown in “Flash Gordon” mode.
I’d say he is in “flash in the pan” mode.
Max
Alex #8648
You’re far too young to know about Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless. And why can’t I comment on your site, without strange impossible requests for passwords etc? (I have the same problem at Deloingpole’s. Are you connected in some way?)
Max, agreed, and also that he is “flash” with our (taxpayers’) cash!
Geoff, I’m actually a child of the 70s though, when the old serials such as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers were always on the telly in the mornings over the Xmas hols – also enjoyed the excellent (if extremely camp) 1980 film.. (Re the website, it should be okay to leave a comment, and WordPress will just say it’s waiting for moderation, etc.. Not sure why the site is asking for a password (!) and no particular connection with James Delingpole.. )
I’m just looking at the weather forecasts for tomorrow – in Copenhagen it looks like they’re in for more snow showers and it won’t go above minus 3. London will be slightly warmer (allegedly) at about 2 degrees, and we’ve already had a dusting of snow. (BBC story here, also earlier Met Office forecast for Winter 2009/10 here.)
Peter Geany,
Yes you are right there is a lot of loose talk about carbon sequestration when the correct term should be CO2 sequestration.
You are also right about CO2 being 27% by weight carbon atoms and 73% by weight oxygen atoms but its somewhat disingenusous of you to imply that its properties, including molecular absorption of radiation in the IR bands, are defined either by the elemental properties of carbon or oxygen.
Carbon on its own, as in coal deposits which are 99% carbon, is harmless and has no effect on the climate. Neither does oxygen which makes up about 21% of the atmosphere by volume.
Incidentally, both carbon nor oxygen are benign substances, but use equal numbers of atoms of each to make the same number of carbon monoxide molecules, and you have created a deadly poison. It does pay to know the difference between the properties of atoms and molecules!
There seems to be a few comments about the relatively cold weather in Copenhagen with the simplistic suggestion that this somehow disproves AGW. The old “its cold here today so what’s the problem?” argument.
Its worth just looking at the World map to see that cities like Copenhagen and London do lie at similar longitudes to places like Newfoundland in Canada. New York, which has pretty cold winters, lines up with Southern Spain on the map.
Of course, the climate of Europe is heavily influenced by ocean currents in the North Atlantic – particularly the so-called ‘Gulf Steam’. Consequently it is quite possible that the MWP wasn’t a result of higher world temperatures but more a result of changing ocean conditions at the time.
It is also quite possible, that Northern Europe would suffer the irony of a colder climate, even though the Earth itself warmed overall, if changed conditions at the Arctic adversely affected the Gulf Stream.
Just thought I’d let you Poms know!
PS That should have been “…at similar latitudes to places like Newfoundland…”
the simplistic suggestion that this somehow disproves AGW
I don’t think anyone here believes that, but it makes for innocent amusement at the expense of self-important people who wouldn’t dream of taking the medicine they recommend for everyone else.
I seem to recall that the recent floods in Cumbria were immediately seized upon by the faithful (and BBC) as evidence of AGW, so the boot is really on the other foot…
the so-called ‘Gulf Steam’
No wonder it’s so effective.. :-)
Yes, well spotted James P. I’m benefiting by have squiggly red marks underneath my bad spelling now – or most of it. That feature seemed to just start up on its own some months ago on my PC but unfortunately its not quite as smart as I’d like it to be.
James P: “I don’t think anyone here believes that, but it makes for innocent amusement at the expense of self-important people who wouldn’t dream of taking the medicine they recommend for everyone else.”
Exactly, plus the irony embodied in queues of climate activists standing for 9 hours in the freezing cold and chanting “I want cocoa”. Bali wasn’t like this! There’s a serious point behind that, though, as it highlights the fact that for many of us, cold weather is a far worse enemy than hot weather.
Quick question for anyone, is there a specific time this is supposed to end? It’s now about 1:35 PM in Copenhagen, could they prolong the agony until midnight? Planning to have a stiff drink to mark the end of COP15, it will be good to find out whether my mood will be one of celebration or resignation.
JamesP,
I’m somewhat concerned by your “so the boot is really on the other foot…” comment.
Its a pity that the argument has become so partisan and that its generally along political lines too. Max, and others, try to pretend otherwise but there is really no other explanation for this other than that those on the right wing of the political spectrum don’t like the implications of what a recognition of the problem might bring and therefore they’ve decided that it can’t possibly exist. The only other explanation is that those many people, who don’t know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide, somehow have educated themselves to a sufficient scientifically high standard to decide that the IPCC have it all wrong!
Of course, there are those on the extreme left who like the idea of using the CO2 issue as a big stick to beat the capitalist system. That’s to be expected. They may not know the difference between carbon and CO2 either, but they have the advantage of not being in dispute with mainstream science so they don’t have to.
And in the middle there is whole range of sensible political opinion, the even more sensible individuals know the difference between carbon and CO2, and that would include people like Malcolm Turnbull and David Cameron who do realise that wishfull thinking isn’t going to make the problem go away.
Pete,
No, I don’t think that snow/record cold temperatures prove or disprove “Global Warming”. As pointed out by others, the irony of political fat cats traveling thousands of miles in private jets, dining on caviar wedges and cruising around in chauffer driven limousines to discuss curtailing CO2 is amusing.
The weather, or (using the politically correct “climate”) is perfectly normal……..(however the eco-chondriacs define that these days).
This coupled with the speech delivered by Hugo Chavez at Copenhagen the other day on the one hand demonizing capitalism while holding his hand out begging for money from capitalist societies with the other. If his economic system were so successful, why does he need the “dirty” Capitalist’s money to combat “climate change”? Another transparent extortion attempt…..
I would expect, from his rhetoric, that his highly productive Socialist Utopian State would have all of the resources it needs to fund any projects to mitigate the “scourge” of global warming………his Socialist Utopia can’t even feed it’s own people.
I’ve always been tickled by the Alarmists trumpeting a summer heat wave as irrefutable “proof” of global warning while poo-pooing blizzards and stinging cold conditions as “normal” winter weather or even more comically, attributing record cold temperatures/blizzards being a result or side effects of global warming. I offer no apology for pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of the farce that is global warming and the Copenhagen “summit” (which has resulted in absolutely NOTHING).
What would the “carbon footprint” of this Copenhagen summit be?
By the way, we’re expecting 12″ of global warming here in Washington DC this weekend.
Which brings me to the idiotic subject of “carbon offsets”.
Are these people indicating that it’s alright to “pollute” and endanger the “fragile” environment as long as you’re rich enough to afford to? Is that the public relations message that the environmentalists want to convey?
Copenhagen Carbon Footprint: 40,500 Tons
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/16/world/main5985006.shtml
Brute, on the subject of carbon trading, here‘s a recent and rather interesting article on the Europol website. Basically, carbon trading appears to be a corrupt mess.
Re COP15, looks like they’re still more or less deadlocked. Not sure whether they’re going to overrun into Saturday, or whether they’ll have to finish today. Here‘s a link to the Guardian’s live blog, which is being updated every few minutes, it seems.
Peter
squiggly red marks
But they only appear under non-existent words!
Grammar/context checking seems to be a much tougher nut to crack (I know Word claims to check grammar, but I don’t know anyone who uses it}.
Peter
Its a pity that the argument has become so partisan and that its generally along political lines too
Er, you were the one accusing us of simplistic suggestions! As for political lines, you do seem to be obsessed with this. I’m sure the main contributors here represent a very broad political spectrum, and have indicated as much – I hesitate to reopen an old debate, but why should you think otherwise?
James P,
You write “I’m a great fan of the Bishop {Hill -although that isn’t his real name}”. Mind if I disagree?
His slogan is “a dissentient afflicted with malady of thought”. Malady of thought sounds like a polite Victorian euphemism for some kind of mental illness. What’s he dissentienting himself against anyway? Anyone know? Just global warming theory or has he a whole shopping list of gripes?
He’s not really a Bishop either. So why does he call himself one? Except that maybe his problem is that he’s forever moving around in diagonal lines, not getting anywhere, and not able to land on the right square, especially when there is an obstacle in his path. He’d be better off giving himself an honorary knighthood to give himself the option of jumping all over the opposition. If he really wanted to be a power player he’d have to come out of the closet and declare himself to be a Queen. Maybe I should suggest that to him?
But really he’s just a pawn in the grip of vested commercial interests. If his slogan were translated into words that typical Australians would understand it would be “a Pommy twit who is up himself”.
JamesP,
Whatever gives me the strange idea that AGW denial is primarily a right wing delusion? Is that what you want to know?
Who are the furthest right party in the UK? The BNP? I think we know what they think on the subject.
Who’s next along in the political spectrum? Would you say UKIP? They are a bit more respectable and I would say represent the prejudices of Tory core voters better than their own party. Anyone disagree? Lets look at what they have to say on the subject.
Oh dear!
“Now is the time to declare our total disbelief in Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW)”
http://www.ukip.org/content/climate-change/867-stand-up-for-the-truth-about-global-warming
I’ve checked all the other parties websites. Lab. Lib Dem. Conservative and they all seem quite sensible on the subject.
Does that go some way to answering your question?
Then they’re wrong.
Peter M
David Cameron the Tory leader is deeply out of step with most of his support on the subject of climate-change. I think he has already had the grandies place the hand on the shoulder on this subject, especially after the reaction to his blog on Conservatives.com.
Climate change is a vote looser here, its just that Cameron and his cronies have not woken up yet and this possibly is why they are inexplicably falling off a bit in the polls.
Peter M
You opined (8655)
Please refer to my post 8534 with links to over 20 independent studies from all over the world showing higher temperatures than today during the MWP.
These cover locations in South America, China, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and USA that are not influenced by the Gulf Stream at all, so your suggestion that “that the MWP wasn’t a result of higher world temperatures but more a result of changing ocean conditions [i.e. the Gulf Stream] has been disproven by all these studies.
Face it, Peter, these studies confirm that it was warmer all over the globe during the MWP than today.
Max
Russian Accuse CRU of Cherry-picking Station Data
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/russians-accuse-cru-of-cherry-picking-station-data.html
Just look at the global temperature maps. They all show a very high rate of warming over Russia (especially Siberia), compared to other locations. Since Russia covers one-seventh of global land mass, a distortion of the Russian temperature record can go a long way to distorting the global record.
Max
Guardian Headline – Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure
18 12 2009
When the Guardian, that champion of everything “green” says it, you know it was a failure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal
I’m very busy at present (partly developing a “green” community garden project) so haven’t had time to post here – it’s been difficult enough keeping up with Copenhagen and Climategate. But I couldn’t let today pass without noting that it is the second anniversary of the first post on this thread (by JZ Smith). In all, there have been nearly 12,000 comments since then. Remarkable – and interesting that it coincides with the failure of the Copenhagen Conference. A failure, that is, from a green perspective – the international money men seem to be the only winners.
Peter #8667
If you’d taken a look at the Bishop Hill blog before you commented then you would know that:
a) It is run by Andrew Montfort.
b) He has a book on the Hockey Stick controversy coming out next month.
c) Bishop Hill is a geographical feature in Scotland.
I’m sure that he’d be delighted if you could identify some commercial interests who might be prepared to invest in him. In the meantime he runs one of the most successful sceptical bogs on the net and I suppose that is enough to attract mindless abuse from people who haven’t even looked at his site.