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.
potentilla
How about: “dripping with arrogance and sopping with ignorance”?
(Remember Einstein’s quote about guys like that.)
Max
A very interesting and highly signifcant study has just been published by Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo. This very comprehensively demolishes the ludicrous notion of a reliable Global temperature and details its astonishing manipulation. It also praises the work of EM Smith who I have linked to several times.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/
This can be usefully read in conjunction with my own web site where I collect Historic temperature sets. IF anyone would care to go to the historic articles section they can see for themselves the huge variability in the worlds temperatures-a fact denied by the Met office. These articles put the current warm period into its historic perspective.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
This can be usefully read together with the link I provided earlier to hundreds of stations that have shown a cooling trend for at least thirty years-in direct contradiction of the IPCC.
The IPCC Temperature data should not be relied on. They are as nonsensical as Himalaya glacier details, Amazon rain forest figures, Sea level rises and many more aspects used in the increasingly threadbare IPCC reports.
Tonyb
TonyB
Wow!
The Smith study you just posted a link for is dynamite, together with the data you have put together,
Max
Max
transform the IPCC report from its current status as a crass, one-sided sales pitch for the AGW premise to a true summary of climate science
But that would mean Pachauri foregoing most of his business interests! What a dilemma.. :-)
JamesP
Yeah. The first step would need to be to get rid of Pachauri and several others, who have lost their objectivity for personal financial or ideological reasons. AGW-activists or profiteers should ave no place on an objective panel.
Max
The alarmist position is crumbling so quickly that it’s hard to keep up – especially if you’ve a lot else to do. But, for me, perhaps the most surprising was The Times report today (here) that the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, John Beddington, is now saying that the impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and that there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change.
Here’s one of Beddington’s comments:
Here’s another:
And this is the man who advises Gordon Brown (who recently described sceptics as “flat earthers”) and Ed Miliband (who tells us the science is “settled”). Perhaps, as well as Xie Zhenhua, PeterM should write to Professor Beddington warning him that his brains might fall out.
Robin
You are correct and I have been reading through the excellent 149 page commentary of the emails leaked from CRU. Words fail me over what these scientists did, and I predict that Jones will not return as head of CRU. Also Michael Mann is toast. Some of the others will or have retired, and the younger scientists may just get away with it as having been “following orders”
As for the temperature record, well that has to be totally discredited now. Its why all these important warmists, who didn’t do any research of their own, but relied on the integrity of science are now tripping over themselves to jump ship. I don’t see they have any other choice and the only one holding out now is Pachauri
Oh no, it’s even worse than we thought. Now scientists are telling us: Mental Health to Decline with Climate Change.
Peter Geany: what’s your source for saying the temperature record is “totally discredited now”? Sounds a shade sweeping to me.
Robin #9231 is right that the U-turn by Government Chief Scientific Adviser Beddington is particularly significant. Brown obviously wasn’t following his advice to respect sceptics when he called them “Flat Earthers”. Maybe Beddington should sack him.
Seriously, isn’t it a bit odd that Beddington should be couching the debate in terms of “respect for opinions” instead of “search for the truth”? We’re not asking for religious tolerance, for Gaia’s sake. It’s not as if we’d be satisfied if we were all allowed to sail off in the Mayflower and be sceptical somewhere else.
From the Melbourne Age:
“AUSTRALIA has declared it will not go beyond a 5 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 without guaranteed action by major emitters including the US, China and India…
…Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the Government would stick to its minimalist position unless there was substantial and verifiable action internationally…”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/minimal-climate-goal-set-20100127-myxn.html
Another powerful headline in The Times this morning: Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data – link. The MSM is changing its tune.
I wonder how much influence Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA) might have in the Climategate affair, see.
http://mikehulme.org/ (Welcome page)
Robin #9231 talks about the alarmist position crumbling. I’m not so sure.
The Times has three prominent articles about Climategate today. The news item is balanced, but the analysis by the Environment editor begins: “Professor Phil Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglia have been hounded by climate sceptics for more than a decade..” and the In Depth article by Vicky Pope is a piece of blatant self-justification (“Research robust… independent data sets … communications problem..”). The comments below the articles are almost uniformly sceptical, well-informed, and angry, but of course they are not read by the readers of the print edition.
So is the battle won? One piece of bad news may be the launching of the Apple iPad, which media owners hope will allow them to charge for content.
The revelation of the AGW scandal has depended largely on information obsessives like us having free internet access to the world’s media. If newspapers charge for content, I can see us all having to transform ourselves into parody images of the typical sceptic – old men leafing through journals in the public library, muttering to ourselves – not a pretty sight.
Robin
I am optimistic that the tide has turned on the AGW-craze, but I do not believe that it will die a quick death.
Each new “scandal” that is exposed will chip away at the credibility of the AGW premise.
A lot of credit for this goes to the Internet and sites like this, which enable instant exchange of information.
I think the biggest change that has occurred to date is that AGW is no longer “protected” as the unassailable “politically correct” position.
Just 6 months ago few people would dare to speak out openly against the AGW premise, but this is changing.
The MSM is still confused as to whether or not they can risk questioning AGW (without throwing in a bunch of disclaimers to protect themselves from the howls of outrage), but some of the more daring journalists are beginning to raise embarrassing questions.
There is an enormous amount of money involved, which will also slow down the demise of the AGW craze.
And there have been Nobel Peace Prizes, which is a bit of an embarrassment.
But I personally believe that the AGW craze will die a slow and very painful death as one scandal after another is discovered and publicized and the general public becomes aware of what has been going on.
When it has become “no longer sexy” the politicians, media and the celebrities will drop it like a hot rock and move on to a new fad.
And we won’t have anything to talk to Peter about anymore. Sad.
Max
Manacker at #9240 says: “When it has become “no longer sexy” the politicians, media and the celebrities will drop it [AGW] like a hot rock and move on to a new fad”.
Like they’ve (more or less) dropped the terrorist threat, while leaving in place the massive security network created from an over-hyped menace? Might not the same thing happen with AGW? (The warming’s ended, but the carbon trading / taxing lingers on…)
AGW will become, like other failed religions, a useful belief system with no rational basis, but which it is considered impolite to question.
like other failed religions, a useful belief system with no rational basis
Only failed religions?
Robin
Look here Its the link that TonyB pointed out previously and Its my interpretation but once others have read through this and digested it, and there is a lot to digest, there is no other conclusion any open minded person can come to.
I don’t believe that any serious scientist is going to support the temperature record now in the face of all the deliberate manipulation. They may still bleat on about warming but being able to call on the temperature record as proof is gone, and now everyone can see that this is so, and not just those interested enough to become informed.
Going back to the emails, I don’t believe any inquiry that ignores the content can be relevant. Now that people have had time to digest the full meaning of what they contain I can see why the Freedom information commissioner is seeking to have the law reviewed. What Jones and Mann have done defies words.
If it is all about money then watch the traders in carbon. They are already moving on as there are currently not enough trades at any sort of value to make any real money, so they are off to greener pastures.
Geoff:
My reference to “the alarmist position crumbling” was specifically made in relation to the remarkable statement made by the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Beddington. Add that to Climategate, the Copenhagen failure, Glaciergate, Amazongate, Pachigate, etc. and crumbling is clearly under way.
But it’s got a lot of crumbling to do. And, as Max has said (and I agree), it’s unlikely to die a quick death. And (re your 9239) the fact of its crumbling doesn’t mean the MSM is yet prepared to contribute overtly to the process. The tone of today’s Times articles demonstrates that. Although, when Vicky Pope trots out the untruth that IPCC “dealt swiftly with” the glacier story and starts talking about the “robustness” of the record and, above all, about “a communications problem”, you know she’s worried. And what on earth is the “climate community”? But the big (seismic?) change is that The Times has this as its sole front-page story – shouting at you from every newsstand. Can you image that happening even a few months ago?
PeterG:
I guessed you meant that – and it would certainly seem to support your contention. But my view is that it’s usually best to avoid making a claim too far. I suggest “totally discredited” goes too far. After all, the warmists will doubtless find reasons to rubbish it, not least because it’s not been “peer-reviewed” or published in a recognised scientific journal (although I accept that that’s a line ill suited to them after Glaciergate, Amazongate etc.). Incidentally, I disagree that “what Jones and Mann have done defies words”. I can think of a few.
The IPCC has been a fortress. As the ignorant, sceptical peasants attacked over the past decade they were beaten back by being told that the fortress was unassailable though they always suspected that the fortress was really made of sand. That the IPCC maintained the illusion of an impregnable fortress for so long is quite remakable. It was the only way they could defend against critics because addressing specific concerns would have exposed the real weakness of the edifice.
But as is common with impregnable fortresses, it was an insider that gave the game away. Now as the towers are starting to crumble one by one, the peasants are pouring in, looking under the rocks and probing the contents of the cellars.
The occupants are fighting back, quite desperately it seems, as any would do when they see the end is nigh. Though some such as Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada are running for cover. Commentators on CIF are regrouping in tag teams to trash deniers with abuse before they can even comment.
It will take some time for the last remnants of the defenders of the faith to be rooted out. Some towers may never crumble as they may be found to have solid foundations. But the ruin will always remain as a monument to the folly of man.
Potentilla,
I had hoped that you were going to be more a man of science than an ‘ignorant sceptical peasant’. But it looks like I was wrong.
It looks like you, and you’ve said it, are just that!
tempterrain,
Men of science can also do irony and metaphor. We even had to take some liberal arts courses when I was at university!
I like Potentilla’s image of the IPCC as a fortress invaded by us peasants (that’s right, tempt. – ignorant, un-peer-reviewed peasants). But I had another military image in mind. Suppose Napoleon lost at Waterloo, Wellington and Blücher took their troops home, and no-one thought to tell the French that they’d lost? It’s not much use winning the battle, if you don’t occupy the terrain after, and in this case, the terrain means the media and the political parties. Tell a politician that the global warming argument is lost, and he will naturally reply: “And how many votes are there in it for me?” (to be continued on the Election Fever thread).
geoffchambers
You remarked that even if AGW is dead, the carbon tax lingers on.
Taxes have a way of far outliving their (real or imagined) justification.
I predict that the “carbon” tax (possibly with a new “sexier” name) will still be around long after the AGW-craze has been buried in the annals of history.
Max