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:
I disagree (very slightly) with your analysis (9467) of the DFID climate “facts and stats”:
1. (disasters climate related.) Whether true or false, it’s irrelevant: mankind has experienced climate related disasters since he walked the earth.
2. (risk of increased serious disease.) I agree re Professor Reiter.
3. (malaria from increased rainfall.) I agree.
4. (African water stress.) This key IPCC claim has been comprehensively debunked: see Africagate here.
5. (Himalayan glaciers to disappear.) I agree.
6. (Floods and drought.) I agree – this unsupported claim is scaremongering. And “could be” is the giveaway: the claim is neither fact nor stat.
7. (Malnutrition, malaria and water shortage.) Same comment as 6 above.
That this is the best they can do (although, in fairness I suppose, the absurdity of 4 and 5 was not publicly known last October) demonstrates plainly the total poverty of the Government’s position on climate change. Yet it’s a position on which they are spending huge amounts of taxpayers’ money.
Carbon prices in the European Emissions Trading Scheme have slumped, and this is being blamed on the recession, but I wonder whether it is the only possible explanation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8503000/8503496.stm
Who would want to have a position in carbon certificates post-Copenhagen?
Here’s WUWT’s current IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate.
As someone wisely observed: the IPCC report is the gift that goes on giving.
Robin
Thanks for your input (9476)
You are right in saying that “mankind has experienced climate related disasters since he walked the earth”, so this claim is irrelevant. The Goklany study simply shows that these have not increased over the 20th century when AGW is supposed to have occurred.
That any natural disaster has a greater impact on poor, underdeveloped countries (the second part of the claim) is a well-known fact, as evidenced by the current tragedy in Haiti (which has nothing to do with AGW, either).
So you are right and we agree.
On “Africagate”, I was not aware of the latest IPCC scandal when I posted, so I stand corrected.
My statement of “pure conjecture” can be re-stated now as “based on bogus data”, according to the latest revelations.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that this “demonstrates plainly the total poverty of the Government’s position on climate change”.
It also raises serious questions regarding the validity of the IPCC findings and projections on climate change (i.e. if IPCC cannot even get the observed facts right, why should we accept IPCC projections for the future?).
Max
TonyN 9477
Umm I think the price has slumped because there is no market for Carbon. Traders have been deserting the Carbon Market for some due to a lack of volume, and their inability to generate enough revenue, and from what I understand Copenhagen was the last straw.
I’m sure the recession is playing a part but given that economic activity and energy use continues then there has to be more to it. Remember recession is seen in just the same way as any other period in the economic cycle, an opportunity. If there was any likelihood that the cheap carbon credits would increase in value they would be being traded. That they are not speaks volumes.
Peter Geany and TonyN
Linking the collapse of carbon prices in the European Emissions Trading Scheme to the recession or even to a slump in crude oil prices seems to me to miss the point entirely.
The carbon offset market only has a real value if it becomes global.
Although Bruce may have a better feel for this than I do, what I read out there tells me:
a) It is unlikely that the newly constituted U.S. Senate will pass the “cap and trade” bill (requires 60 votes).
b) It is even more unlikely that it will ratify a global cap and trade treaty (requires 67 votes).
I cannot visualize how the global price of carbon offsets will ever recover from its current slump without the USA (second largest emitter of CO2) as part of the deal.
In addition, it looks as though the largest emitter of CO2, China, is also not going to join in (and India is also doubtful), so I do not believe carbon prices have any real chance of recovering.
Australia has also just rejected it.
If no one else joins up, will the Europeans abandon the scheme? Who knows?
(But I would not be surprised.)
So I would agree with you, Peter, that “Copenhagen was the last straw” for the carbon market.
I’d say a better bet is to put your gambling money into “hog bellies” instead.
Max
More about European carbon trading, this time in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/business/energy-environment/08green.html
The problems reported in the first part of the article are quite interesting, but the context provided in the last six paragraphs probably even more so.
Any politician who, as the article says, ‘has the courage’ to explain to the public that a cap and trade system will be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing about AGW, will also have to explain that energy will become very much more expensive and that the science of global warming is settled. We’re going to need some very brave politicians.
This Andrew Neil interview with Rob Watson (ex IPCC, now government adviser) is a must see. Why, oh why, does the BBC allow this dangerous man, Neil, to show such lack of respect for a senior scientist? (Seriously, Neil’s remarkably well informed.)
Max:
Until your comment on the DFID claims (9467) I hadn’t read anything by Indur Goklany. But now I have – for example, this filleting in yesterday’s WUWT of Sir David King’s op-ed in a recent Telegraph. Excellent stuff! We Brits should be ashamed that such a man, who asserts for example that evidence of warming must necessarily mean that man is responsible (adding that it’s absurd to claim otherwise), can become Chief Scientific Adviser to our Government. Incidentally, Goklany is is a science and technology policy analyst at the US Department of the Interior. Sounds encouraging.
Philly, Baltimore, D.C. projected to break all-time seasonal snow totals tomorrow…
http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blogs.asp?blog=Weathermatrix
Looks bad Brute. BTW I loved this AccuWeather forecast (gulp: I typed “gorecast” by mistake – freudian?). No, we don’t do em like that in the UK.
Robin,
Yep…………and Al Gore/Peter Martin claim that they have the ability to control the weather………if we only “believe” (and hand over all of our money and freedoms).
Washington DC is a ghost town. The entire city is closed. Mankind’s puny machines and ineffective efforts are nothing compared to the immense forces of climate/weather.
Mrs. Brute was off work yesterday, today and most likely tomorrow as another blizzard bears down on us this afternoon………she’s home baking cookies.
The Federal Government is shut down going on day three (thank God for life’s little miracles). With the Federal Government shut down they won’t be able to pass any dopey laws further infringing on our rights.
The streets of the capital of the most powerful, prosperous, industrious, nation on the face of the earth are impassable and there is nothing Al Gore, Jimmie Hanson, Phil Jones, Michael Mann or Barrack Obumbler can do about it.
Robin (9484)
[Am sending this a second time with links sent separately, since it got stuck the first time.]
Indur Goklany has authored several studies as well as books on topics related to the debate on AGW.
Here are a few:
2007 Goklany study on deaths from extreme weather events
[Link 1]
This study shows that the global deaths from extreme weather events have decreased dramatically over the 20th century, both in absolute numbers and in percentages.
An example is “annual death rates from droughts” (often cited by IPCC and others as a threat from AGW), over the period 1990-2004, as compared to the period 1900-1989:
The study shows:
1900-1980: 111,185 deaths per year
1990-2004: 126 deaths per year
Winter versus summer deaths
[Link 2]
This study shows that more people die in winter than in summer across the globe.
2005 study, “Living with Global Warming”
[Link 3]
This study uses UN data on the risks with and without human-induced climate change to compare the benefit of “adaptation” (to reduce society’s vulnerability to the consequences of global climate change) versus “mitigation” (to reduce human CO2 emissions in order to limit CO2 concentrations in the hope of stopping human-induced global climate change).
“Is Climate Change the 21st Century’s Most Urgent Environmental Problem?”
[Link 4]
Study concludes that it is not by far.
And finally, there is the recent guest editorial by Goklany on WUWT
[Link 5]
This study ranks global public health priorities and mortality risk factors, using WHO data. (Global climate change comes out at lowest priority.)
In contrast to alarmist studies (such as the Stern report), Goklany makes common-sense statistical analyses backed by hard data. As the conclusions of these studies are not frightening, they have received far less attention from the media.
But they make good reading, if you want the facts.
Max
Brute said; “The streets of the capital of the most powerful, prosperous, industrious, nation on the face of the earth are impassable..”
So Beijing had a snow storm too then? Hey Brute its just satire :)
Tonyb
Link 1
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
Link 2
http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/26712/Winter_Kills_Excess_Deaths_in_the_Winter_Months.html
Link 3
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st278
Link 4
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/17270.pdf
Link 5
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/goklany-on-copenhagen-and-climate-change-health-risks/
TonyB
Well, Beijing did have a massive snow storm (a month ago).
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/beijing-snowstorm-paralyzes-chinese-capital-travel-affected
Proves that “climate change” is “global”, right?
Max
Tonyb,
I thought of that response (I thought it would come from Peter Martin) as I wrote the comment.
Please forgive my moment of flag waving……..however, the point still stands that mankind is impotent in terms of affecting the weather/climate.
Curiously, I thought China was fairly close to the US in terms of GDP……….
World’s Top Ten Richest Countries by GDP
The Richest Country by GDP is the US with an annual GDP of $14.8 trillion.
United States of America. GDP = $14,839bn, GDP per head = $48,400, PPP = $48,400
Japan. GDP = $5,388bn, GDP per head = $42,310, PPP = $35,710
China. GDP = $4,818bn, GDP per head = $3,600, PPP = $6,830
Germany. GDP = $3,440bn, GDP per head = $41,550, PPP = $36,100
France. GDP = $2,734bn, GDP per head = $43,910, PPP = $35,750
United Kingdom. GDP = $2,442bn, GDP per head = $39,470, PPP = $36,820
Italy. GDP = $2,334bn, GDP per head = $40,150, PPP = $32,210
Russia. GDP = $1,680bn, GDP per head = $11,880, PPP = $16,300
Spain. GDP = $1,581bn, GDP per head = $34,540, PPP = $32,120
Canada. GDP = $1,468bn, GDP per head = $43,860, PPP = $40,540
Read more at Suite101: Richest Countries by GDP and the Poorest Country: GDP Provides Context for Richest Country’s Growing Debt and Deficits http://gross-national-product.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_countries_by_gdp_and_the_poorest_country#ixzz0f4a8lJmS
Here’s one originally from Bishop Hill: ‘Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 Executive Summary as having “no scientific merit”, but what does IPCC do?’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/hansen-colleague-rejected-ipcc-ar4-es-as-having-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/
Here is the comment by Dr. Andrew A. Lacis of GISS:
Ouch!
Needless to say, his comment was not accepted by the chapter authors:
Max
The Guardian has just gone critical (in one sense) on Climategate with ten (!) articles by Fred Pearce at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change
and an invitation to its readers to peer review. There’s an evident desire to appear even-handed, with much citation of McIntyre and others. However, the effect is rather spoiled by the final article, entitled “How the ‘climategate’ scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics’ lies” which cites only errors by Sarah Palin, Senator Inhofe, Patrick Michaels, and George Wills, and not the thousands of correct interpretations by thousands of sceptical bloggers (and even a few journalists). Manacker will forgive me if I break my own rule and suggest that the Guardian is playing a rather more subtle game than Herr Goebbels…
geoffchambers
Yeah. You are right.
Subtlety was not a strength of Herr Goebbels.
But is the Guardian really moving to more balanced coverage of AGW issues?
Are the editors hedging their bets for the eventuality that the AGW tide really reverses in the aftermath of Climategate and all the other “…gates”?
Will the “consensus opinion” lose its PC status?
The media have always liked a good witch hunt, so will they turn this into one?
It will be interesting to watch.
Max
Re 9497
Here is the complete text of the “AR4 WG1 Chapter 9 Executive Summary” which Dr. Andrew A. Lacis of GISS has critiqued with the opening statement:
See:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Whew!
And Dr. Salis states “there is no scientific merit to be found” in all that?
Ouch!
Max