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.
PeterM
Yeah. Hollywood has a way to make totally impossible situations believable for the 90 minutes or so that you are staring at the screen and hearing all the great sound effects.
Imagination is a great thing.
Max
Further my 9300, here is some work by Jan Esper that does not seem to have been popular with the IPCC and the Climategate cabal:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/3066420039_2616aefd52_o.jpg If no image click URL
TonyB, Reur 9277/p62 concerning climate history near Sydney in 1790 .
TonyN, you may also be interested in the wildlife aspects below?
These would be tree-roosting megabats, probably Grey Headed Flying Foxes that weigh up to 1 Kg and with a wingspan of over a metre, being 1 of 4 species. They are magnificent animals, and when they were roosting in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens, it was great to see them at dusk flying out in their many thousands. And before sunset, when getting more restless in camp, seeing the sun shining through their huge wings etc. They were eventually shooed out from the gardens when their numbers reached around 30,000 causing too much mechanical damage. Sorry, I digress on one of my loved animals!
Click URL IF NO IMAGE: http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/flyingfox/img/mumbaby2.jpg
BTW, mum is hanging on from a thumb (?) only about half way along her wing
The point is, that I thought that the variously reported heat-stress deaths around Melbourne and NSW were caused by AGW Climate Change! For instance, this report from Cosmos magazine:
Climate change makes bats drop dead
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1727/climate-change-makes-bats-drop-dead
These two links may be of more interest to TonyN:
http://www.viridans.com/RAREAN/rarepest.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rescuers-ready-to-save-bats/2007/02/13/1171128973980.html
Gosh ALL! From the Daily Mail on line:
Controversial climate change boss uses car AND driver to travel one mile to office… (but he says YOU should use public transport)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247376/Controversial-climate-change-boss-uses-car-AND-driver-travel-mile-office—says-YOU-use-public-transport.html
Robin, you have shown that ‘The Times’ has been leading with some ball-tearing stuff recently, but I also see at least the Daily Mail as also active it seems? (For example; thanks Brute your 9295/p62)
My visits to the UK have been relatively brief in the last 20 years or so, and I’ve lost contact with what comprises the UK MSM, and how it aligns with the various newspaper readership classes.
Any chance you could illuminate us on the scope of awareness in the MSM, and to whom it may reach in the UK?
Max,
I hope you are right about the AGW issue being just a product of someone’s imagination.
Because, if it wasn’t, and we were really in a bit of trouble, we really couldn’t find an easy way to fix the CO2 problem, and we thought we had to choose between short term economic prosperity and the longer term well being of the environment …..Well I would expect that many people might have a big problem with that.
They’d latch on to the slightest and flimsiest of any scientific evidence they could find to convince themselves it wasn’t true. They’d complain to their MPs about taxpayers money being wasted on climate research. They say it was all a hoax and a scam. They’d want to shoot the messenger of the bad news. They’d blame anyone they disliked like those lefties and American liberals. They’d set up websites…….
Bob
From the Daily Mail on line
It make the print edition, too, and featured on BBC radio this morning, in a review of the papers. Hard not to smile.. :-)
PeterM
They’d latch on to the slightest and flimsiest of any scientific evidence they could find to convince themselves it wasn’t true.
As opposed to the warmists, who have no real evidence at all! AGW remains a hypothesis – it could be right, of course, in the same way that the Himalyan glaciers “could disappear by 2035”.
In fact, anything could happen, but there’s not much point in taking evasive action unless it is properly substantiated.
Bob
I’m sure Robin will have a proper answer, but I think the ‘papers’ question was nicely summarised in Yes Minister, some time ago:
—
Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits…
Bob:
James’s reply is good enough for me – amazingly, it’s still pretty accurate.
Ice in Chinese ports “exceeding anything experienced in 30 years”
29 01 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/ice-in-chinese-ports-exceeding-anything-experienced-in-30-years/
Bob #9303
That was a great find of yours to link that modern article about dying bats caused by AGW with my piece from observations made in 1790.
It just shows there is nothing new under the sun and why warmists attempt to rewrite or ignore history.
“But even this heat was judged to be far exceeded in the latter end of the following February, when the north-west wind again set in, and blew with great violence for three days. At Sydney, it fell short by one degree of what I have just recorded: but at Rose Hill, it was allowed, by every person, to surpass all that they had before felt, either there or in any other part of the world.
Unluckily they had no thermometer to ascertain its precise height. It must, however, have been intense, from the effects it produced. An immense flight of bats driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the ‘perroquettes’, though tropical birds, bear it better. The ground was strewn with them in the same condition as the bats.”
Fascinating stuff
Tonyb
James’ list of the British press and its readership at #9308 can’t be bettered. But to understand the importance of the press in Britain, you have to know that almost everyone reads a national newspaper, and a significant proportion of the population (40% the last time I looked) read one of the serious ones (Times, Telegraph and Financial Times on the centre right, Independent and Guardian on the centre left).
This means that a large proportion of the population is getting its news from the same source as its leaders, which certainly isn’t the case in the US, France or Italy. The fact that half the editors, and all the environment / science correspondents, in the “serious” press are in thrall to a quasi-religious idea which is designed to guide our political and economic policy for generations to come is therefore that much more serious. We’re a small country, with a lot of opinionated citizens who pride themselves on being well-informed. I can ignore the climate change articles in the press in France, where I live, because I know they have a minimal influence on public opinion. Britain, for better or worse, is different.
PeterM
You wrote:
I noticed that this was all in the conditional (or subjunctive)case to be prefaced with:
The truth of the matter is, Peter, that there is no real evidence that we have to make this choice (see repeated posts by Robin and myself on this site plus recent posts on the “election guidelines” site).
The choice is between (a) seriously damaging an already limping economy in order to avert a virtual, computer-generated disaster that is completely imaginary (i.e. one of Mencken’s “hobgoblins”) or (b) simply preparing for any climate changes that may occur in the future if and when they occur (as the Dutch have been doing for centuries with their dikes).
Trying to stop any changes in our planet’s climate by destroying our global economy is no serious “choice”. This is a headlong lemming-like leap into self-destruction.
Max
Max,
You had asked whether a specific story/revelation/breakthrough would be the death knell of the global warming “movement”. I’m not certain exactly when the “movement” began; however, I’d say that 1988 and Jimmie Hanson’s speech was as good a starting point as any. That being the case, 22 years of constant indoctrination and propaganda will take time to overcome………the general public will have to be “de-programmed” (I think that’s the phraseology). As long as there are sheep to be sheered (money to be looted from the general public) the proponents of the global warming theory will continue to beat the drum of climate apocalypse. As the Realists position becomes stronger (as evidenced by the information posted below), the money will dry up and the hysteria will subside………..but it’ll take time. From my point of view, I intend to continue E-mailing stories such as this to my friends and family. I’m not waiting for “the media” to make a sudden U-turn.
There are now (it seems) many stories/comment lines going on simultaneously….I apologize if this has previously been brought to the attention of the readers.
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
Max,
I’d be quite happy to rewrite my 9305 to remove any conditionality and put it all into a more definitive tense.
The arguments used against AGW, including on this blog, are overwhelmingly economic and political. They are based on a dislike of carbon (dioxide) taxes, carbon (dioxide) trading, the United Nations , government intervention, US liberals/European socialists, and international co-operation. I could probably think of a few more if asked!You are one of the few who has ever presented any sort of original graph, most deniers don’t even try to have any scientific pretence in their posts. Potentilla talks approvingly about Excel spreadsheets. We haven’t seen one from him yet.
So, no ifs and no buts, you have all looked at the options of short term economics (both personal and corporate) vs long term environmental considerations and you’ve decided which is your priority. Furthermore, you’ve justified your choice by denying that there are any environmental considerations anyway.
None of you, or I might say us, understand climate science anywhere near enough to be be able to contradict the Royal Society, NASA, Hadley Centre, the NSIDC, CSIRO, the AAAS…. , again I could go on, so how can your decision be based on anything else but politics and economics?
PeterM: you say “The arguments used against AGW, including on this blog, are overwhelmingly economic and political”. That is, quite simply, untrue. The arguments – as I said just now on the “election guidelines” thread – are overwhelmingly based on the fact that there is no unequivocal, testable, empirical evidence that Mankind’s continued emission of GHGs will cause dangerous climate change. None.
The economic and political arguments flow from that: it’s absurd and irresponsible to undermine already damaged Western economies (in the process bringing yet more misery to some of the world’s poorest people) in an attempt to resolve a “problem” that derives wholly from an unverified hypothesis. And that absurdity is compounded by the clear fact that the “developing economies” (some of the world’s biggest CO2 emitters) have no intention of reducing their emissions.
Robin,
Not only are you not qualified to judge whether , as you put it, there is ” unequivocal, testable, empirical evidence that Mankind’s continued emission of GHGs will cause dangerous climate change”
You are also not qualified to define such a criterion for the acceptance, or otherwise, of the proposition that AGW is a serious threat.
I don’t normally like to use the “not qualifed” argument but you, more than anyone, deserve it to deployed against you. You’ve nothing of any scientific merit to contribute at all.A parrot like repetition of the phrase ‘unequivocal, testable, empirical evidence’ just doesn’t do it at all.
Of course you could try to prove me wrong by outlining the sort of experiments you’d like to see conducted. But you’ve failed to offer any suggestions before and you’ll be just as clueless now.
Robin,
Yes, we know, it isn’t your job to define experiments, it those who are climate scientists… bluster…waffle.. blah
Please don’t bother to come back with such drivel. We’ve heard it all before.
PeterM:
Once again, you demonstrate that you know you’ve lost the argument – as always when this happens you descend to invective.
The position is simple: the verification of a scientific hypothesis is done by reference to repeatable empirical evidence. The dangerous AGW hypothesis is no exception. Yes, you heard me (and others) say this before – and you’ve heard it because, despite repeated requests, you always fail to refer us to a paper that cites such evidence. You keep telling us about all those “scientific papers which are the basis of the IPCC” – so all you have to do is identify one – just one – providing the reference. But you cannot.
Peter 9315
Any objective reader of this blog would recognise that it is you -not us-obsessed by politics and economics, with your attempts to ascribe motives to us that we simply don’t pocess.
The majority of posts from ‘our’ side have a scientific basis to them, whether they try to point out the understated influence of the sun, the exaggeration of the senstivity of the climate to co2, the overwhelming effects of water vapour, the distortion of the temperature records, and those of glaciers and sea ice.
These and many other aspects have been the subject of recent papers, where even such as Susan Solomons admits that water vapour has a greater effect than realised, whilst the Head of the IPCC himself is demonstrated to have deliberately hid the truth about glaciers.
Some warning bell should be ringing in your head by now Peter that the science is not only not settled, but in parts is so flakey it needs to be supported by what appears to be fraud and over reliance on non-peer reviewed papers.
But do you listen to the bell? No. You clearly have your own political and environmental agenda, and that trumps the reality of the very thin evidence for the case you state. A case that time and time again is exposed by the lessons of history, which you simply refuse to listn to as it carries a message you don’t want to hear. That lesson? That there is nothing unique climatically about this era of climate, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.
Tonyb
Pete,
My corporate (or personal) budget and my livelihood aren’t based on continued looting of the treasury as are your aforementioned organizations. I (as does Robin) have every right to seek verification and question their motivation, methodology, (lack of) results and economic efficiencies as we are paying the freight for their expenditures.
Most (private) organizations that I’m aware of either produce verifiable, accurate results or they wither on the vine………not the case with these groups in the case of global warming.
In addition, if outright fraud (as in the case of the CRU) is suspected, further vigorous criminal prosecution follows (unless of course you’re a global warming scientist with friends in high places).
I would think, considering your political proclivities, that you’d be opposed to special interest lobbying, political collusion, and slush funds designed to further a political agenda.
Further, I would think UN politicians that benefit financially from their publicly funded position would also be repulsive to someone with your sense of ethics.
I’d compare the organizations you mentioned to stockbrokers…………if the stockbroker is correct you win, if they’re incorrect, you lose…………in either case, they always win (get paid).
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go back outside and finish shoveling 8” of global warming from my driveway.
Have you read this paper?
Tonyb or Peter Geany posted it a while ago.
Please read it and provide commentary.
Surface Temperature Records:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Pachauri a railroad engineer and not “the most powerful climate scientist” as the Telegraph states here?
Using Peter Martin’s criteria, it seems that Pachauri is unqualified to hold an opinion on global warming.
Revealed: the racy novel written by the world’s most powerful climate scientist
The chair of the UN’s panel on climate change Dr Rajendra Pachauri has taken a break from writing academic papers on global warming to pen a racey romantic novel.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
North Pole: March 17th 1954
I apologize. The above photograph was taken March 17th 1959.
Photo courtesy US Navy
Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines.