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.
Max,
May I retract my statement regarding the dismantling of the global warming theory taking a long time?
NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/02/breaking-news-niwa-reveals-nz-original-climate-data-missing.html
Brute, Reur 9339:
See about the climate change Wiki gatekeeper: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/William+M.+Connolley
There are some amazing statistics for wikipedia edits alleged under the user name William Connelly, he being an RC/cabal member, for example:
Unique articles edited: 5,551
Users blocked: 2029
Pages deleted: 510
He has apparently since had the boot from Wiki as administrator; See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/
Peter Martin,
It upsets me to see so much angst and frustration erupting from you lately, so I thought I’d relent and bless you with a little thought that is intended to brighten your day.
Further my 9377, and knowing your love for cricket; do you agree that a quite good description for William Connolly is “wikitkeeper retired”?
Bob_FJ
The statistics on William Connolley cited in the link you posted are truly astounding. This guy has singlehandedly decided what gets published in Wiki on global warming and what does not. Sort of a Josef Goebbels of climate change propaganda for Wiki.
Good riddance!
Max
Bob_FJ and Brute
Although I never met him personally, I have had contact through an old friend with a long retired naval officer who was serving on board the USS Skate when she surfaced at the North Pole on March 17, 1959.
This gentleman, who prefers to remain anonymous, is now in his eighties, but still has a good memory.
The surfacing was real; the photo is real; the US Navy archives on this event are correct.
I have not been able to retrieve the article on the incident several months later in National Geographic, but this article does exist (it was co-authored by the captain of Skate when she surfaced).
Of course, AGW-faithful now write this off as (non-peer-reviewed) “anectdotal evidence”.
Max
TonyB, Reur 9311:
This is rather astonishing! I’m not sure what “perroquettes“ are, but with a quick Google it appears to be French for small parrots, (parakeets), but not budgerigars (tiny parrots) which BTW are well adapted to the hot interior where they mostly reside.
Here are three of the commonest small parrots that I see locally, and for which I have personal photos, to which I should probably add three others, but they are less tame to enable easy photography.
Click URL IF NO IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4324695074_68000c2f32_o.jpg
I’ve never heard of these guys succumbing to the heat, and BTW although Sydney is warmer on average, Melbourne and Adelaide are frequently much hotter when there is a prolonged north wind!
TonyB, further my 9381,
And what’s more European thrushes such as blackbirds and mistle-thrushes OR song-thrushes, (I’m not sure how to identify the latter now), common mostly in the Melbourne garden parks, probably in much more recent times than 1790, have survived the so-called record high temperatures recently.
Brute and Bob_FJ
More on USS Skate
The National Geographic article on the USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole on March 17,1959:
Calvert, J.F., 1959. Up through the ice of the North Pole, The National Geographic Magazine, Vol. CXVI, No. 1, July 1959, pp. 1-41
From Navsource:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/pdf/08046001.pdf
The US Navy has archived these pictures of the Skate at the North Pole
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
In addition to the article in National Geographic, the Skate’s captain, James F. Calvert, wrote “Surface at the Pole: The Extraordinary Voyages of the U.S.S. Skate” (McGraw-Hill, 1960). Calvert went on to become a vice admiral in the Navy and superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy. He died in 2009 at the age of 88.
Max
Max, Reur 9379
Yes, I agree it is astounding that one person could do all that, despite that it is all logged under his user name! However, Anthony Watts has stated, that there is some uncertainty as to whether Connelly did it all on his own. Thus, although any such assistants he may have had, may have used his authority as administrator, it would seem that they could still yet perform future edits with lesser authority….. I think; maybe? It will also take a long time for rational editors to correct the corruptions I would think? (facing competition)
In the good old days of the controversy about the smoking/cancer link the good guys had a genuine villain: the tobacco industry. Now their (misguided) successors think they have an equivalent: the oil industry – the dreaded Big Oil. But the reality is wholly different – see this article. The closing paragraph is worth quoting in full:
PeterM: are you happy that true believers like you are being cynically exploited so that big corporations can raid the taxpayer?
More scientists behaving badly..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8490291.stm
Déjà vu?
Bob_FJ (9394)
Regarding Connolley.
Josef also had some help, but (like Connolley) he was the Reichsoberpropagandaminister.
Max
It is truly remarkable how the Guardian has suddenly seen the light with a series of articles critical of CRU. Somewhat irritating though as they are claiming Guardian exclusives for information in the Climategate emails that have been discussed on blogs for months.
Never mind, it is a major turnaround and a significant collapse of a major holdout. Fred Pearce wrote an article on Monday How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies.
On the same day he contradicted himself. And then proceeded with Monbiot’s help to take a very sceptical view of the activities of CRU.
What are we to make of this? Perhaps word came down from Guardian Towers that the Guardian was losing critical readers to the blogs and it was time to take a different course. Many on the other side will be very disappointed but it is nice to see the Guardian coming back to real journalism. Even if they are a bit late!
PeterM
Our exchange has primarily covered the scientific aspects of the AGW debate, but let’s take a quick look at a UN policy brief describing how the industrially developed world would be coerced to compensate the non-developed world for its sin of having improved the standard of living of its inhabitants by developing industrially based on a carbon-based economy.
Before the whole AGW craze started imploding, this is where we were heading.
It is so frightening it makes George Orwell’s “1984” sound like a stroll in the park.
UN policy brief on “climate financing”
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/policybriefs/policybrief21.pdf
PeterM, could you endorse this policy?
What impact on our planet’s climate do you think implementing this plan would have?
What impact would it have on the normal citizens of the industrially developed world?
Max
Sorry, Peter, the title of the UN policy brief is “climate justice: sharing the burden” (not “climate financing”, although that’s what it is about, of course).
Not being British, I’m uncertain of the “political leanings” of The Guardian.
In the United States newspapers and other media outlet definitely have political/ideological biases.
My sense is that The Guardian leans slightly Left (possibly an understatement).
If my assessment of The Guardian’s philosophy is correct, then I find this series of articles quite refreshing as they open the floodgates exposing the dirty little secrets of the global warming ploy in a politically “Left” publication.
The bridge may have finally been gapped…….this may pave the way for additional media sources that have, until now, been reticent to join the chorus pointing out the condition of the Emperor’s undress.
Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers
Brute
The Guardian would be your Presidents newspaper of choice and has many similarities to him. It’s some way to the left and in serious financial trouble.
Tonyb
I agree with Potentilla (#9388) it’s nice to see the Guardian coming to its senses, but the way its happening raises many questions. It’s all the work of Fred Pearce, the man whose Chinese whisper about glaciers in the New Scientist started the IPCC scandal, and not one of the Graun’s numerous regular environment / science correspondents. He’s being helped along by Monbiot, in the curious role of Tonto to Pearce’s Lone Ranger.
A clue lies in today’s article on Pachauri where it says “the second day of the Guardian’s investigation”. That’s right, they’ve been on the story for two whole days.
I’m particularly irritated by their claim of a scoop on the story on the Wang, Jones paper based on missing Chinese temperature data. They give no credit to Douglas Keenan, who revealed this scandal years ago. I believe I was the first to mention this story in the Guardian, in a comment last June. Since I’ve been banned from commenting for life, and my comments file has been wiped, we shall never know.
It looks to me as if Monbiot has decided that Pachauri and Jones must go for the greater good of the cause. A bit like Stalin shooting half his generals in order to encourage the rest. It worked at Stalingrad…
Well, Geoff, the Guardian may be “coming to its senses” but it still finds room for this article that, on the basis of a BBC Newsnight programme yesterday that that had the temerity to allow mild sceptical views to be heard, asserts that the BBC,
I suppose that, in view of the Fred Pearce article (#9388), Sunny Hundal sees the Guardian as the next most pernicious such outlet.
.
Robin
Blast, you beat me to the punch on that one. I’m used to seeing the BBC described as bias, but right wing bias is definately a first on me.
Was briefly worried that i’d dropped through a wormhole into a parallel universe.
Yes, Barelysane, it seems the warmists are getting seriously worried. And the Newsnight piece shouldn’t be overlooked (link at 9394) – in particular, the Roger Pielke Jn v. Chris Field (head of IPCC WG2) discussion was illuminating: Pierce calm and convincing and Field rattled and blustering. AGW is all over the UK’s MSM: times are certainly a-changin’.
It is definately encouraging. We’ve had the decades of blind acceptance now it finally looks as though the science will have to be done in the open and subject to scrutiny. What more could a sceptic ask for.
Robin, #9394,
I hadn’t realised that The Guardian has its very own James Delingpole equivalent.
It will be interesting to see if Newsnight, having ticked the impartiality box, now reverts to type.
Although that Newsnight “pernicious climate-change-denying” piece touched only superficially on the IPCC scandal, it was a start. And I did like the splendid graphic with the “IPCC” ice letters crumbling and melting away. But I wonder how it was that the satellite link to Chris Field was conveniently cut just as he was coming under more pressure?
PeterM
We have discussed the scientific bases of AGW and, to a lesser extent, the policy issues, but I would like to engage you on the psychological aspects.
There is a rather sad aspect of the current meltdown of the AGW movement, as I am sure you will agree.
Many people truly believed that they were doing something good for humanity by supporting the premise that human CO2 emissions were “bad” and should be curtailed to avoid an alarming greenhouse warming of our climate. The very sensible actions to reduce waste and improve energy efficiency in daily life for economic reasons took on an almost religious significance of “doing something good for our planet”. A majority of the “climate scientists” supported this premise, as did many politicians and policymakers.
It now turns out that the “science” behind this fear was seriously flawed (even manipulated) and, moreover, that the warming has stopped, due in all likelihood to the same natural factors that caused the warming in the first place. Efforts to hide this fact by re-branding “anthropogenic greenhouse warming” to “anthropogenic climate change” have not fooled too many people.
While this should cause relief among those who were worried about our planet’s future, it has actually caused disappointment and even frustration.
Instead of rejoicing, they strangely seem to cling even more strongly to their belief that mankind is pushing our climate to irreversible tipping points, which will result in such strong global warming that it will cause serious damage to the world as we know it today.
Peter, I know it must be a major emotional jolt to become aware that you have lived in fear of an imaginary hobgoblin. But I do not understand why this realization does not cause relief, but instead causes frustration and even despair in many people.
Maybe you can explain why you think this is so. Or maybe you believe my observation is incorrect, and would like to explain this to me.
Peter, I mean this honestly – this is not a “gotcha” question.
Max