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.
geoffchambers
It’s not only in the history books (plus media and political parties), but also in monuments and, yes, even underground stations where “history lives on”.
Waterloo Station (London underground), Austerlitz Station (Paris métro), etc.
Interestingly, I once had a secretary who was French. She had an excellent lycée education plus a university degree in economics, so was “well educated”. We once had to drive from Paris to Brussels for a meeting and passed by the town of Waterloo. When I remarked to her that we were passing Waterloo, she asked, “what is that?”
Max
Peter Geany #9243 quotes the SPPI paper as proof that “the temperature record is totally discredited” and says: “Once others have read through this and digested it … there is no other conclusion any open minded person can come to”.
Agreed. But what guarantee is there that the people who count will read it? Politicians don’t even read newspapers; they have minions who do it for them. Can anyone imagine the President of the Royal Society saying: “I wonder what this McIntyre chap is on about?” and spending an afternoon surfing ClimateAudit?
It seems Peter, Max and I all agree that the AGW story will linger on; am I the only one who has a deeply pessimistic view of how this will play out? I hate the “eco-fascist” tag as much as I detest the “watermelon” gibe, but I have sudden flashes of Brecht and Tucholsky (of all people) demonstrating a truth visible to all, and yet totally incapable of influencing events; an idea has take root in our politics which won’t be eradicated by reason.
Our comments are crossing at an alarming rate. (It’s the Ems telegram all over again).
(That’s enough history – Ed)
(I just wanted to make the point ably made by TonyB and Brute in past comments, that a liberal education is a handy weapon against the nerds with their Excel spreads)
potentilla
Was the “child” that first noticed that the “Emperor had no clothes on” a highly educated scholar or a renowned expert in fine fabrics?
Or was it just a simple child with two good eyes and an honest mind?
Max
Max:
Actually I think it was a nerd with an Excel spreadsheet.
If it hadn’t been for McIntyre in dogged pursuit of data, Climategate which was the trigger for the collapse, may not have happened. Many of the informed sceptics are engineers and other applied scientists who have been around long enough in the real world to know what the Emperor’s clothes should look like.
I agree with Geoff that the AGW idea will not be easily eradicated. It has been ingrained in the education system and our grandchildren have been indoctrinated. As the old nerds die off with our spreadsheets clutched to our hearts, the new generation will have to work through it all over again.
potentillla #9255
My remark about nerds with Excel spreadsheets wasn’t aimed at the numerate 0.035% of the population. I know it’s the geeks who understand programming and how to use a mobile phone and other stuff beyond arts graduates like me who have propelled the sceptic story out of the blogosphere. Many thanks.
By the way, for those who haven’t seen potentilla’s excellent comment on Monbiot’s latest ravings at Guardian Environment (27 Jan 2010, 5:52PM) here it is:
Geoff:
I actually liked your comment about nerds with Excel spreads as it provided me with an easy way of responding to Max. It also triggered in me a thought about the difference between applied scientists and research scientists and their often different take on AGW.
Excel spreadsheets are the applied scientists’ tool of choice for almost everything we do. Models we develop in that environment are easily checked and verified. Research scientists like to work with super computers with programs so complex that errors and biases can easily creep in.
Another obvious difference is that applied scientists generally have to produce results to earn a living. To stay in business, research scientists have to promote the relevance of their work to funding agencies. Promotion of the importance of their work is a primary driver of the notion of climate catastrophe with AGW.
“Excel spreadsheets”? Yes there is nothing wrong with them. But, they aren’t any different to any super computer. If you put crap in that’s what you get out too.
So lets see all you plot a few graphs or charts. Lets see how you can scientifically substantiate what you claim to be true.
So, we have the global temperature data sets unravelling as people begin to recognise the extraordinary manner in which they are compiled.
Now the reality of the the hugely overstated positive feedback loop is being recognised
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/#more-15791
No wonder the guys at CRU DELIBERATELY refused to comply with the FOI request.They would have been found out.
Tonyb
PeterM
You have missed the point again in your post to Potentilla.
It is not up to potentilla or anyone else to “scientifically substantiate” that the premise is false that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a potential threat.
It is up to the proponents of the AGW premise to “scientifically substantiate” this premise with empirical data based on actual physical observations, rather than simply model simulations (which are no “scientific evidence”).
You have been unable to do this so far.
Cheer up, Peter. Neither has IPCC, despite its latest 1,000+ page report.
Max
Potentilla,
“Irony and Metaphor”? You guys are usually somewhat irony deficient, so its good to see someone have a stab at it. Its curious that you trot out the phrase ‘liberal arts’. Its usually used by those who don’t really like the so-called ‘arts’. And ‘liberal arts’? What good are they? You’d have to be a bloody pooftah to get too involved in them!
‘Arts’ aren’t just paintings BTW. Its the study of History, English, Languages etc. How can learning how to speak Japanese be described as ‘liberal’?
Max,
CO2 levels are 40% up from pre-industrial levels.
If you want to double or triple them, that’s your opinion and preference. But its up to you to show the desirability of this. Maybe you are right that tomatoes will grow a bit quicker. But you’ll have to do a bit better than that to convince everyone that its going to be worth the risk !
tempterrain
So your premise is that I “don’t like the so-called arts”?
Like Max says, it is up to the proponents of a premise to substantiate the premise with empirical data based on actual physical observations, rather than simply parsing casual phrases. Or maybe you had some model simulations in mind?
I could send you some audioclips of me playing the viola. Would that help?
PeterM
You wrote:
The first part of your statement is right. And there have been NO alarming or negative effects from this increase.
But there have been many very positive effects on the world economy, average per capita GDP and standard of living resulting from this “carbon based” economy.
So you now want to convince me to stop this economic growth and improvement in standard of living across the globe by throttling back the carbon upon which this growth was largely based?
You’d better come with some convincing arguments backed by sound scientific observations, not just some computer model projections, which may simply be GIGO.
The burden of proof is on those who want to effect drastic changes in our economy, not on those who want continued growth and improvement in the standard of living across the globe.
Get it? It’s up to YOU (and others who believe in the AGW premise) to (a) convince others that this premise is valid and (b) show good reasons backed by sound scientific evidence that we should make drastic changes.
Max
potentilla
Looks like our latest posts to PeterM crossed.
(So he is hearing essentially the same message twice. Let’s see if he gets it.)
Max
Heading for the exits
27 01 2010
Climate agency going up in flames
Exit of Canada’s expert a sure sign IPCC in trouble
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/heading-for-the-exits/
This Times article sounds refreshing at first glance
Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
Here we read all the good words about the need for transparency and honesty, in particular concerning “the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change”.
Beddington argues that “climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.”
But after a good start, Beddington falls back into the old scare mongering trap:
10 percent chance of landing? 90% chance of death? Ouch!
It doesn’t sound like Beddington has gotten the real message. Such gross exaggerations to frighten people are a key part of the problem.
We then read:
Looks to me like the move is to say a few good words about honesty and openness, hang Pachauri out to dry as a politically justified example and then go on as before, rather than fundamentally change the way climate science is reported to remove exaggerated scare predictions.
Max
Max:
It’s unrealistic to expect Beddington to announce a change of mind on AGW: he’s much too committed to the “cause”. But his pronouncements about transparency and uncertainty are remarkable nonetheless: for the Establishment to understand that recent events have made it no longer tenable to demonise critics is a significant change. But the key point is that his words cannot be unsaid.
Therefore it’s no longer possible to make a few adjustments (e.g. firing Pachauri) and going on as before. That may be the intention of the old guard: what Vicky Pope refers to as the “climate community”. But the old Euro-centric gang who have been in charge so far are losing their grip – see my 9188. I suspect the future is exemplified by China’s chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, calling – on behalf of the BASIC countries that ruled the roost at Copenhagen – for the IPCC’s 5th assessment report to “incorporate all views” (including “contrarian” views). How can the West disagree after Beddington’s (and others’) comments? No, the world had changed and Vicky’s cosy little “climate community” is a thing of the past.
A small footnote to my post above. This story suggests that, when his personal profit is threatened, Professor Beddington may not be on the side of our wildlife.
Having been involved in the fishing industry in an area which was facing designation as a marine nature reserve, my sympathies would be with Beddington in this case.
Fishing is not necessarily detrimental if it is well managed and it can in fact have benefits. Fishermen tend to understand the ecosystem they work in very well indeed and have a bigger stake in its well-being than anyone else. The problem is getting scientists, and particularly those associated with the eNGOs, to listen to them.
I notice that this story has all the hallmarks of a Greenpeace PR operation. Interesting nonetheless.
PeterM
‘Arts’ aren’t just paintings BTW
And ‘liberal’ isn’t just a political stance!
Max, #9264
Would you (or Beddington) fly in a plane if you knew that the crew only had a 90% understanding of what they were doing or where they were going?
Another game changer? But this time it’s the alarmists who are fighting back. And they have a powerful new champion: Osama bin Laden. See this via Al-Jazeera.
Looks like even if Phil ducks FOI prosecution, he is in no “out of the woods” This is an interesting article by a Lawyer.
PeterM 9262
Whilst your assertion is correct if we accept the rather crude but accepted authoritative figures from Mauna Loa, I would put it to you that we know even less about atmospheric CO2 levels, and the general behaviour of CO2 as it moves through the Biosphere, than we do about the earth’s temperature, as has be demonstrated comprehensively over the last few weeks. I would contend that once money and research into the climate, settles back down into some sort of balance, unbiased, and agenda free research may show that the CO2 concentration has not changed all that much from the burning of fossil fuel as compared to pre industrial times.
Just because there is currently a lack of “accepted” and in some instances adequate research and corroborating evidence for my contention, does not prove that the Mauna Loa figures are correct. They do tend to fly in the face of other research that has measured CO2 across the globe, and they do not appear to agree at all with the initial readings from the satellite that was sent aloft to measure atmospheric CO2 that showed equatorial Africa as the highest CO2 emitter.
So I would say your entire question is irrelevant, and is why no one is able to find any negative effect of increasing CO2 levels because there may in fact have been no significant increase.
Let’s hope that we have taken the first steps back into an enlightened world of open and honest discovery.
Potentilla (9255)
the AGW idea will not be easily eradicated. It has been ingrained in the education system
And elsewhere:
I’ve just been looking at the ‘energy performance certificate’ produced for a home information pack (HIP), under the Energy Performance of Buildings Regulations 2007. This directly relates energy use to CO2 emissions, which is fair enough, but it then identifies CO2 as “one of the biggest contributors to global warming”, thus enshrining an unproven relationship from a hypothetical model into English law!
Since we already have vehicle taxation, and doubtless plenty of other ‘inducements’, linked to CO2 on the statute book, I suspect this is going to take some unravelling…