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.
TonyB, James P, re conveying mixed messages to the next generation, the recent banning of Valentine cards at a school in Weston Super Mare comes to mind. Shielded from the “emotional trauma” of being rejected on Valentine’s Day, yet probably exposed to scare stories of “strange weather” and their town disappearing under the rising waters, due to global warming (via the media if not indoctrinated directly during schooltime) – poor kids!
JamesP
The striking thing to me was their total belief in what they were being told and their complete lack of knowledge of the actual composition of the atmosphere. The last time I looked the atmosphere didn’t comprise of 90% CO2 nor was 90% of that gas man made.
It would be very interesting to find out what the average Adult’s pereception would be
Tonyb
Tonyb
I’ve often wished that broadcast interviewers would ask the simple question: “do you know what percentage of the atmosphere comprises CO2?”
Those that don’t know (the majority, I surmise) will instantly look stupid, but those that guess wrong will look even worse!
Alex
their town disappearing under the rising waters
Not to mention their dogs! I was trying to recall the Valentine Card story – thanks for filling that in. The nanny state has a lot to answer for…
Max #9592 Robin #9596
Much as I like the idea of a “Decline and Fall of AGW” à la Gibbon, or Shirer, it should be pointed out that the Roman Empire took centuries to fall, and the Third Reich didn’t just fall apart when critics pointed out its inherent contradictions.
Max has a good list of chapter headings for Book 1, covering the revelation of what’s wrong, and he asks the right question for the following volumes “Will AGW die a quiet death?”
My guess is that the story is only just beginning. To continue with the Shirer comparison, there are murmurs of discontent in the ranks, which may or may not spread to the High Command, which may or may not lead to a bomb plot, which may or may not succeed … The argument that “the public won’t stand for it” is inoperative if the vast majority of the public is unaware, or unconcerned about what is happening.
A straw in the wind; The Times’ Eureka column named Wattsupwitththat as one of the top science blogs, causing an outcry of protest from Eureka readers, who are presumably representative of scientifically literate Times readers. Despite the wave of new sceptics provoked by Climategate, the average science-minded reader is clearly remaining faithful to Official Science. And the reporting of sceptical opinion here and there in the media will probably take a long time to reverse this trend.
Well, well – the “Independent Climate Change email Review” (a name which gets increasingly inappropriate by the day) has announced that Geoffrey Boulton (the ex-UEA man who (a) has spoken out strongly in the past in favour of the global warming position and whose membership of the enquiry team has therefore been questioned and (b) has recently spoken publicly criticising Sir Muir Russell’s judgement on the background appropriate to panel membership) is to stay.
In support of the decision Russell said, “it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change“. What an absurd assertion: good scientific practice applies to all scientific disciplines. There are many honest, objective people out there with sound scientific qualifications and experience, any of whom would be a far better team member than someone so close to the UEA and its work.
In any case, as the review website says that panel members “were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science“, this is a most unsatisfactory decision. It means that the standing of the review is undermined from the outset – surely that is in no-one’s interest?
PS: and, ludicrously, the announcement doesn’t even get Boulton’s name right, spelling it “Bolton”.
Max:
When I was responding (my 9596) to your 9592 I nearly added that, in the UK, the nascent change in attitude to AGW would be reinforced if the Conservative Party were to change its stance on the issue. But, as I saw not the slightest sign of that, I decided not to mention it. Maybe I was wrong. Today the Party has published a list of the “ten reasons to vote Tory if you’ve never voted Tory before”. Climate change is not on the list.
TonyN: is this comment on the right thread?
Robin, geoffchambers, Brute
Thanks for all your comments.
The “fall of AGW” may not occur that rapidly, because of all the vested interests and the hundreds of billions of dollars involved. These interests have “not yet come to terms with what’s happening”, as you write, Robin. The ambiguous position of the MSM is evidence of this.
I personally believe that a concerted cover-up or “white wash” attempt will actually accelerate the ultimate demise of the AGW movement.
This is because people really do not like being lied to or even less being taken for stupid. (Watergate is a good example. The cover-up killed the Nixon administration.)
It is unimaginable to me that senior IPCC officials will resign with the open concession that, under their leadership, IPCC willfully cherry-picked the data it needed to create and sell its exaggerated message of impending man-made climate disaster, without exercising sufficient due diligence to verify the scientific merit or accuracy of the studies providing these data.
It is just as unimaginable that IPCC will be officially dissolved in shame, as a result of these scandals.
It is even more unimaginable that the Nobel committee will take back the Peace Prizes awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC.
But these are the steps that, in my opinion, would be required for the AGW premise to regain any credibility with the public and the AGW cause to have any chance of survival.
With the IPCC gone, we might end up with an “AGW-light”, which is no longer based on emotional fear mongering, but rather on a rational evaluation of fossil fuel alternates, reducing dependence on imported oil, developing economically viable alternate energy sources, energy conservation and efficiency improvement.
But this is all wishful thinking.
I think AGW will choose the path of self-destruction, resisting and struggling all the way.
And it may not happen quickly; but it is inevitable.
Max
There’s been a wonderful development to my 9606. Go to Climate Audit (here) and follow the link to the “Issues Paper”. Then right click and look at “Document Properties”. As McIntyre says, “You can’t make this stuff up“..
Max, you say #9608 that you “believe that a concerted cover-up or “white wash” attempt will actually accelerate the ultimate demise of the AGW movement .. because people really do not like being lied to or even less being taken for stupid. (Watergate is a good example. The cover-up killed the Nixon administration.)”
I agree. But the big difference is that the whole America electorate was deeply concerned by Watergate, since it involved an imminent election. People are not concerned by Climate change. Until recently, we sceptics were celebrating the fact that climate change came last in polls of citizens’ concerns. But the corollary is that people are not concerned by the demise of climate change either. My fear is that politicians will continue to build windmills, ban lightbulbs, tax technological progress, with very little reaction from the public, and frighten us with lies for avery long time. The truth about the CRU emails or the IPCC report is never going to be a big vote-changer.
The demise of AGW may, as you say be inevitable, but slow. In the meantime, truth, and democracy, will suffer.
Brute
In my list of “…gates” (9592) I overlooked:
Africagate – crop yields in Africa reduced by 50% by 2020 (IPCC claim based on an activist report with no scientific substantiation)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/06/ipccs-latest-blunder-africagate-as-told-by-dr-richard-north/
There are so many, it’s hard to keep up.
Max
After years of disgraceful abuse from the alarmists, AGW sceptics are just beginning to be heard – but still only just. Yet Roger Harrabin, while noting that many are suggesting “that the volume of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere will overwhelm natural systems and may bring catastrophic warming and ocean acidification” and assuring us that “the international politics of climate change were unlikely to shift substantially this year anyway“, is already calling for an Armistice.
Not yet, Roger.
geoffchambers
You are certainly right when you write (9610) that the concern in the USA during Watergate was greater than today’s public concern about Climategate and global warming.
Will there be an evolving groundswell of interest in view of (a) the “cap ‘n tax” legislation that the Obama administration is trying to push through the US Senate, (b) a gradual awareness on the part of the US public what this would cost (estimates are around $1,000 to $2,000/year per household) and (c) the many IPCC scandals, which are beginning to get MSM attention and which point to a bogus scientific support for “cap ‘n tax” in the first place.
One commentator has said that the prospect of a gasoline price of $4+ per US gallon would be enough to cause the US public to become very aroused, as would the thought of having a $100 per month increase in the household electrical power bill.
It is true that surveys show that AGW was at the bottom of the average US respondent’s concerns.
But these polls were surveying individuals about their concern for the impact of AGW on our planet (ho-hum), not about suddenly having to pay for CO2 emissions in the form of significantly higher gasoline prices or electrical power bills (ouch!).
You wrote:
As long as there is no “reaction from the public”, you are right.
However, if there is a “reaction from the public”, the astute politicians will take note and change course (or eventually get elected out of office).
When the general public becomes aware of what it will be asked to pay directly in the name of “saving the planet from AGW”, I predict it will move from being apathetic to becoming extremely wary of the AGW premise. This should hold for the UK as well as the USA.
How quickly will this increased awareness occur and, when it does, will it accelerate the death spiral of AGW?
I may be more optimistic than you are, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
Max
Robin
Harrabin is a leopard.
Leopards have spots.
These do not change.
A “call for an armistice” may simply be a tactical move to regain his breath after the recent rapid barrage of “…gates”.
But I doubt if it is a “change of spots”.
Max
What to say to a global warming advocate
Feb. 12, 2010
It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We’re on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.
At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.
ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain’s East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics’ views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the “science is settled?”
FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff’s so solid, why the secrecy?
ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
PachauriGate– Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced “voodoo science.” After the melting-scam perpetrator ‘fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.
PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn’t know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who “decided to overlook it.” Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was “preoccupied.” Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri’s India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming’s melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri’s resignation.
SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.’s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication “some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified.” Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?
SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of “going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence.” We’re shocked.
AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC’s climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.
Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.
U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
ResearchGate– The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find “further investigation is warranted” to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that “seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.
ReefGate– Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.
AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.html
Brute
You wrote:
Yeah. Or a food fight.
Max
Max,
The guy that wrote the article made that remark (follow the link).
I posted the entire op-ed because It was (reasonably) short and because the deceptions/errors/omissions/etc attributed to the salesmen of the anthropogenic global warming theory were laid out so well.
I still believe that someone (hint: TonyN) should write a medium length “paper” summarizing (what I consider) the recent death of global warming hysterian movement.
One other thing Max;
Yesterday, (I think it was yesterday) Phil Jones, while being interviewed by (I think) the BBC said:
(I’m paraphrasing).
This quote is being splashed across the US media.
Let’s think about that for a minute…………The patriarch of the anthropogenic global warming movement stated, publicly, that there has not been an increase in worldwide temperatures for 15 years!
I haven’t been following the Harmless Sky site closely, (been slugging it out with some Eco-evangelists on a Marxist web site), but doesn’t the gravity of this statement merit deep, deep discussion?
I mean, Phil Jones was the poster boy for global warming theory and all of the taxation, regulation and infringement of personal liberties that it entails………I think it’s monumental.
Am I too late with this one? Have you guys already covered this?
Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned
15th February 2010
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
Brute:
Re your 9615, I believe the collective noun if FloodGate.
TonyN,
I found this interesting………seems that this turbine farm was relegated to operate from mid November through March 31 due to environmentalist pressure groups, essentially, curtailing generation by 2/3rds.
These wacko environmentalists are working at crossed purposes…….I suppose the return on investment for this project has to be extended slightly.
From the Charleston Gazette
1/27/10
Developer downsizes Greenbrier wind farm
By The Associated Press
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — A Maryland developer has agreed not to build 24 turbines and will abandon 31 proposed sites at a West Virginia wind farm, settling a lawsuit by environmental groups worried about potential harm to the endangered Indiana bat.
Under the deal announced Wednesday, Beech Ridge Energy of Rockville will seek incidental take permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as ordered last month by U.S. District Judge Roger Titus. He had temporarily halted construction of the Greenbrier County project, which now will have no more than 100 turbines.
Beech Ridge Energy also agreed to operate turbines during the bats’ annual hibernation period, from mid-November to March 31, and only during daylight hours in the months of the year when they are not hibernating.
D.J. Schubert, a biologist with the Animal Welfare Institute of Washington, D.C., said the settlement was a reasonable compromise that protects the bat population but also lets the builder proceed with an alternative energy project.
“It’s a victory for all parties … A standard has been set now, and we certainly hope the renewable energy industry takes heed.”
To UK contributors:
This is most interesting: a debate this Sunday on the motion “The prophets of global warming are guilty of scaremongering“. I see the pieman (Mark Lynas) is one of those opposing the motion. Should be interesting – I’ll try to be there.
Further to above – ticket booked. Anyone else?
Robin
I see the Wellington debate has been picked up by Bishop Hill and has already garnered a few comments.
I hope you make it, and look forward to your report!
BTW, why is Mark Lynas the pieman? Nothing to do with his diet, I take it…
“why is Mark Lynas the pieman?”
On September 5, 2001, at a The Skeptical Environmentalist book reading in England, British environmentalist author Mark Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg’s face. In a September 9, 2001, article, “Why I pied Lomborg”, Lynas stated:
“Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices – such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world, thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with. Why not take the $60 billion from George Bush’s stupid Son of Star Wars program and use that cash to save lives in Ethiopia? Because in a world where political choices are not made democratically at a global level, but by a small number of rich countries and corporations, the poor and the environment are never going to be a priority.”
It was terribly infantile behaviour. And we all condemn pie throwing in the strongest possible terms :-) TeeHee!!!