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.
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.
Brute, Reur 9322, concerning the novel by the IPCC’s chairman.
[Snip — Sorry Bob, I know this was meant as a joke but it could be misunderstood]
PeterM
You wrote (9315):
Just looking at the various posts I have seen on this blog, I have not observed that these are “overwhelmingly economic and political”. There are just as many, if not more, regarding the flawed “science” or scientific data behind AGW.
In fact, Peter, I have noticed that you are often the first to throw in a “political” comment.
I can only tell you for certain that the arguments I have made against the premise that AGW is a serious threat are first and foremost scientific. The science behind this premise is flawed and based solely on computer models using questionable assumptions.
The actually observed warming to date has been anything but alarming. In fact, it has been reassuring, in that it has demonstrated that we are emerging from a period of harsher weather, shorter crop seasons and yields, etc. than today. From the climate standpoint, we are truly blessed to live in the age we do, rather than 150 years earlier.
The observed natural oscillations in the global temperature record are also reassuring. They tell me that we are experiencing normal, repetitive, natural cycles of warming and slight cooling, with an underlying slight warming trend of around 0.04°C per decade. This gives me absolutely nothing to worry about.
The greenhouse theory itself is also reassuring, as it tells me that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would only result in a theoretical increase in global temperature of around 1°C, which is really nothing to be concerned about.
When I look at the recent IPCC report critically, I find many examples of bad science, erroneous claims, unsubstantiated assumptions and exaggerated projections based on purely theoretical considerations. And I see that there are no empirical data, based on actual physical observations, which support these exaggerated projections.
So I conclude that the supporting science for the AGW premise is weak, and that the premise is therefore false.
Peter, this is exactly the same reaction I would have to a “creationist’s” poorly substantiated claims. If the claims cannot be substantiated by empirical data from physical observations, then they are invalid.
The recent revelations of data manipulation and erroneous claims only confirm my conclusion more firmly.
The secondary objection to the AGW-craze is economic and political.
Once I have established that the AGW premise is unsound scientifically (and only then), I begin to look at the “mitigation” actions being proposed.
Carbon taxes (direct or indirect) will have zero effect on our planet’s climate. I challenge you to tell me how they should.
Other than these taxes, I have seen absolutely no actionable proposals to modify our planet’s climate. Putting in windmills or solar panels here and there will have no impact whatsoever. Even the drastic USA proposal to stop building new coal-fired stations after 2010 and to shut down half of the existing coal-fired plants by 2050 would have no measurable effect on our climate and cost roughly $1 trillion, as I showed you in earlier posts here. (No bang for a lot of bucks.)
You write
Which specific “long term environmental considerations” (that I am “denying”) are you talking about? Please be specific here, Peter. It is hard for me to “deny” anything that is not “specific”.
How in the world do you think humanity can change these “long term environmental considerations” and at what cost? Again, please list specific actionable proposals.
Then you wrote:
Peter, it is not a matter of understanding the
details of “climate science”. It is a matter of being aware when one is being bamboozled by bad science or by people who, themselves, do not really understand what drives our planet’s climate, but instead have a myopic fixation on one small aspect, while ignoring everything else.
The many organizations you mention may have taken a political stand on AGW without really knowing what causes our planet’s climate to behave the way it does.
Unfortunately they are, to a great extent, filled with AGW-activists rather than objective scientists, as has always been suspected and as recent revelations have confirmed.
You mention NASA specifically. Do you seriously believe that James E. Hansen is an objective scientist when it comes to AGW? How about Gavin Schmidt? How about Marc Serreze of NSIDC? What about Phil Jones of the Met Office? While we are at it, how about Michael Mann? Would you trust these guys to give an objective, un-biased opinion on AGW?
Just look around you, Peter. It does not take a “climatologist” to see that the whole AGW process is rotten and the science is flawed.
This is the primary objection I have to the AGW craze. Just for the record, I can confirm to you that the economic and political objections are secondary, and are a direct result of the scientific objection, which is primary.
The positive side to this whole story is that the tide is turning as people become aware of the rotten process and the flawed science supporting the AGW premise. All I can say is, “it was high time!”.
Max
Brute
There was an article by the USS Skate’s captain in National Geographic at the time, describing the surfacing at the pole at the end of winter 1959.
Pro-AGW critics (who don’t understand anything about Arctic twilight) have claimed the photo could not possibly have been taken on March 17, because this is before the Arctic sunrise at the North Pole.
But it is an archived photo, and the surfacing was well-documented at the time and archived, as well.
Max
Brute, Reur 9325 & 9326, there was no image on my screen, but by right clicking the substitute ‘red cross’ and then ‘properties’ the URL’s found were:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858411.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/tn/0858411.gif
They appear to be identical apart from size.
Here is the larger jpg version (hopefully!):
Have you seen the rendevouz in 1987 of 3 subs?
PeterM
In your 9317 and 9318 exchange with Robin, you have fallen into a very parochial trap, namely that of claiming that your debate partner is not qualified to discuss a topic because he lacks formal education or training in the specific scientific discipline surrounding that topic.
This is a slippery slope, Peter.
Let me just give you an example from my past.
In a “previous life” I had a small group of scientists who reported to me. They were responsible for new product R+D efforts. I was impressed with the detailed scientific knowledge of these scientists. They certainly knew a lot more about their scientific disciplines that I did.
Yet when these same scientists made estimates of how long a development project would take or how much it would cost to complete I saw very soon that these experts were no more knowledgeable than I was. I found out that they could get “stuck in a paradigm” concerning the probability of success of a particular project. It seems as though they so much wanted something to happen that they actually began to believe that it would, long after it became apparent to me that it had very little chance of success.
So the expert, who is “up to his eyeballs” in the details of a particular scientific study, may actually have a harder time coming up with a realistic prediction of the outcome than someone who looks at the problem from a greater distance. The French refer to this phenomenon as “deformation professionelle”.
There is also the problem, which experts have in making predictions, that they know very well “what they know”, but they are totally unaware of “what they do not know”. And it is exactly “what they do not know” that causes the prediction to fail.
Theoretical scientists (as we see in climatology) are probably even more susceptible to falling into this trap than applied scientists or engineers, who are always reminded of the realities on the ground (I believe potentilla has posted on this).
But I believe that the above real-life example shows that one does not have to “be an expert” to have a viable opinion – in fact, it might actually help if one “is not an expert”.
So don’t put down Robin (or anyone else) as “not qualified to have a viable opinion”. It is a silly elitist argument that is invalid.
Max
Max – one for you:
According to this, in order to prove the accuracy of a claim (about glaciers), the IPCC cited a student dissertation which, in turn, cites an IPCC claim. Would I be correct in thinking that this is a good example of positive feedback?
“So don’t put down Robin (or anyone else) as “not qualified to have a viable opinion”. It is a silly elitist argument that is invalid.”
Of course it isn’t. He really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I have asked him several times to give me an example, even if it is hypothetical, of the sort of data or experiment that he is asking for. Of course it could produce a result either way.
If he can’t, he’s just a total f***wit!
PeterM:
“a total f***wit” eh? That’s nice. You really are rattled: as well you might be in view of the CRU disclosures, the Copenhagen debacle and now the absurdities being discovered in the IPCC report. Remember the good old days when you answered my request for empirical evidence (in case you really don’t understand, Peter, that’s the sort of real-world evidence that supports the theory of evolution, the smoking/cancer link and the Aids/HIV link) by referring me to the IPCC report?
Robin (9322)
the IPCC cited a student dissertation
Just like Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’! All we need now are Alistair Campbell’s fingerprints…
Robin,
I hope this language isn’t to elitist for you – but you’re just an annoying g*t. Its like listening to a broken record.
Its not about winning or losing – its about knowing whether or not there is an anthropgenic influence on the climate. But you are interested in that. You’ve alighted on a form of words which you seem to think is unanswerable – none of the worlds scientists have come close to meeting the Robin Guenier standards!
When asked to suggest something that might come close you say it isn’t your job. Well if it isn’t FO out of the discussion and find something else to do with your sad retirement!
PeterM (9336):
Wow – it seems you are seriously rattled. I ask you to refer me to actual physically observed data that supports your view that the climate is dangerously threatened by AGW. Your response? Abuse.
“None of the worlds scientists”? Er … Darwin?
Leaving aside Darwin, who died before you born, what you are really saying is that it is just not possible for any scientific determination of the AGW question. Which is just a silly argument. But you aren’t really interested in knowing any answers are you?
Bob,
Curious thing here when researching this photograph. I went to the USS Skate “main” page on Wikipedia and they’ve displayed the photograph with a caption underneath reading “date and location unknown”. (This is the photograph of the boat at the North Pole on March 17th, 1959).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)
Clicking on the photograph itself brings up the particulars of the photograph. File history comment section reads: ({{Information |Description=USS ”Skate” (SSN-578)surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959 |Source=[http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857806.jpg Navsource.org] |Date=28 July 208 |Author=US Navy photo courtesy of tr)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_at_North_Pole_-_0857806.jpg
I’m wondering why the “main page” caption reads “date and location unknown” when the photograph file history page (slightly deeper in the page) reads USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole on March 17th 1959.
Obviously Wikipedia knows that the photograph was taken at the North Pole in March 1959……why do they caption the same photograph on the main page as date and location unknown?
Obviously an innocent oversight………
Max,
What is the Warmists excuse for this photograph showing two Navy Subs surface at the North Pole in August 1962? Seems to be a lot of open water back them……must have been a “regional anomoly”.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858411.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm
Let’s see if this one sticks…..
Well the caption didn’t make it…….but it’s there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skate_(SSN-578)
PeterM, 9336:
Time for a deep breath I think – more light and less heat would be appreciated.
TonyN,
I can’t make out this “g*t” reference…….Is this some form of Anglican code that I’m unaware of?
I’m certain that Mr. Martin has some keen insight into the English language that I’m obviously too obtuse to grasp……please help me out here. Please provide the letter that would supplant the asterisks in the sentence.
(Inquiring minds and all that…..)
Is Mr. Martin simply stomping his feet here?
Picking up his marbles and going home?
Is he metaphorically upsetting the gameboard?
Brute
The word is one in common slang parlance 30 or 40 years ago. The first letter is a g.
Peter is coming over as increasingly rattled, with good cause. If he is reading this perhaps he would care to comment on some of the science papers cited here recently, on co2 sensitivity, the water vapour effect at a level that surprised Susan Solomons, or a thorough appraisal of the real temperature record.
Tonyb
Sorry Brute-I was so surprised at seeing this word after so many years that I supplied the wrong letter-the missing one is ‘i’
It is certainly not an elitist word nor one used much these days.
Tonyb
And the second letter is ‘i’. It’s not exactly a compliment, but it’s slightly less derogatory than f***wit!
Tonyb/James,
I’m just twisting the blade with poor Peter…..he does seems to be somewhat flummoxed.
I’m told (by Mrs. Brute) that I have an unusual ability to frustrate and provoke people.
Tonyb,
The temperature record paper that you forwarded was quite good. I’ve been looking for a surface station paper to circulate and was anticipating Watts writing such as paper after all of the research that he’s done cataloging/exposing all of deficiencies with the network(s).
I understand now……….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(British_slang)
Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/global_warming_science_implode.html