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.
Wind power is a complete disaster
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0gZq6MFtR
Brute,
It is actually Christie’s team at the Uni of Alabama who have made the claim that this January is warmest on record. You shouldn’t be surprised. It might come as a bit of a shock to some Americans who are used to their Baseball competitions being named as ‘World Series’ even though no-one else is involved, but the USA isn’t the World. It occupies 2% of the Earth’s surface!
I’m not sure how many times you’ve made the argument that such and such a place has had 3 feet of snow and therefore global warming can’t be a problem. But, try to look at the Earth as a whole instead of what’s happening outside your kitchen window. For a start, try answering the question of whether or not January can be regarded as a winter month.
In any case, one year’s figures don’t mean that much. One month’s mean even less.
Max,
I notice that you can’t bring yourself to insult my intelligence by actually denying that there is a politically ideological connection to the denial of AGW. Thanks for that at least. The connection is all too apparent. There are hundreds of websites like this:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/02/22/the-multi-billion-dollar-global-warming-fraud/
You’d be struggling to find any that take a different political line.
It hasn’t escaped Geoff Chambers notice. He specifically mentioned the Republican Party in the USA as allies of your cause. Its a bit sad when a major party in the most developed nation on Earth rate Sarah Palin’s views on AGW higher than the very many world class scientists who are paid to specialise in the topic!
The leadership of the Tory Party in the UK sound OK on paper but just quite how they’ll control their core supporters, after the election, who are more in line with UKIP denialists remains to be seen. It’s a similar story in the Australia. The Liberals (not in the US sense) have just ditched their sensible leader for someone of a more “conservative” disposition. And does “conservative” mean that he’s against sensible climate policies? Well, what do you think?
Brute, this may make you smile:
I bought the massive Saturday Age today (made from a big chunk of a tree) because it came with an interesting DVD, and this article caught my eye, my bold:
Solar complaints are hotting up.
Extract: The Victorian Energy and Water Ombudsman, Fiona McLeod, said that six months ago there were 17 complaints a month but they had now reached 141 a month.
”It is definitely an emerging issue,” Ms McLeod said. ”Some people are getting higher bills, some people are getting delayed bills, some people have lost their off-peak rate … and there are meter-reading issues.”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/solar-complaints-are-hotting-up-20100226-p979.html
Brute,
A simple question: If it could be shown that you’d pay say $20,000 for your family health care privately or $10,000 of extra tax to get the same health care through a European, (either French or Swiss) type system, which way would you choose?
I’ve no doubt that people like Danny Williams, and Berlusconi of Italy is another one, can find, and afford to pay for excellent medical treatment in the US. That’s not in dispute.
Its just an anecdotal story but what struck me on my last visit to the USA was just how bad many people’s teeth were, with gaps and badly fitting dentures. I’m not talking about the elite – I mean people you’d see in a working environment in shops and hotels. It was indicative of a third world standard of dental care.
Peter M
Stan Brock, the founder of this outfit, was on UK radio recently, explaining that his team often had to do full mouth extractions because of lack of dental care/insurance in the US.
Link
OT, I know, but a worthy cause IMO.
Pete,
I’d pay for the private system.
Firstly, it’s a matter of dignity and personal responsibility……It’s unfair to burden your family with the result of my unwise lifestyle choices.
Secondly, I’ve notice poor personal dental care across international borders. I’d suggest that these same people (with poor teeth) have premium television subscriptions, 56” flat screen TV’s and purchase a handful of lottery tickets on a daily basis.
Thirdly, the quality of Socialized medicine is deplorable.
I choose to purchase excess life insurance. I have life insurance (part of my salary) however; also choose to purchase additional coverage (out of pocket). It’s a simple matter of making certain that my personal responsibilities (to my family) are attended to.
You, on the other hand, look to others to fund your poor choices/indolence and somehow feel entitled to money that was earned by other people.
It isn’t the government’s responsibility to make certain that I spend my money wisely or solve all of my personal problems……
I’d very much like to get into this with you and I have strong opinions on the topic……but let’s try to respect Tony’s rules and steer away from this.
PeterM:
Political affiliations can have no bearing whatever on the validity or otherwise of a scientific hypothesis. Hitler’s views on smoking (link) are just as irrelevant to the science as are Osama bin Laden’s views (link) about dangerous AGW.
I suggest a return to the topic.
Pete,
One more thing…..everyone in Canada has “coverage”, but actually getting into line and waiting a month or six does not constitute care.
I can make a phone call and see my doctor this afternoon.
Well Pete, Christie or not, from my previous postings it has become obvious that the World Meteorological Organization and The MET Office have lost faith in the accuracy of their own temperature data (not to mention the information disseminated by the CRU).
The scientific community as well as the general public have caught on that these institutes and agencies are being operated (and the data is being manipulated) by people with biased personal political/philosophical agendas.
Also, the statement “on record” is somewhat misleading……actually it is the warmest January recorded in 32 years (according to Christie) which he has attributed to El Nino.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/02/report-el-nino-fueled-record-global-warmth-in-january/1
Considering the record cold temperatures and snowfall totals in the United States, Europe, Russia and China this season, I dare say that represents much more than 2% of the surface area of the Earth.
Are you attempting to say that “global” warming has somehow magically skipped over the United States?
Isn’t the United States part of the same “globe” as other nations?
Frankly, I wouldn’t care if it was the Pope or the Queen that proclaimed that it was the hottest year on record.
May I conclude from your statement that you now endorse Christie’s position on the theory of AGW?
Pete,
How will we know when mankind has resolved the “Climate Change” problem?
BobFJ,
Re: # 9730
Yes, Photovoltaic is a problem. I have used solar collectors (I made them myself) for various reasons to heat water for potable water and heating.
Of course, when involving a utility or dealing with a government entity/bureaucracy the process becomes a veritable mess.
One thing that I did do last month was renegotiate my home electrical provider from the local group. I now purchase electricity from (God knows where) at a rate of .1025 cents per kilowatt as opposed to the .1197 cents per kilowatt that I was paying…………locked in for two years with no adjustment for summer/winter rates.
I’m off to purchase some outdoor bird seed………I think the little guys are having a pretty tough time with everything being covered with almost a meter of global warming.
The submission by the Institute of Physics (the principal body for physicists in the UK) to the Parliamentary Select Committee (Science & Technology) re the leaked CRU emails – here – indicates that at last professional scientists have spoken. Here, for example, is the first paragraph:
And then there’s this (from the second paragraph):
Ouch. And it goes on in similar vein.
Doubtless Big Oil is behind it.
Brute,
With all due respect to your scientific ability, the idea that you’ve studied the evidence for seriousness of AGW and decided that the IPCC have it all wrong stretches credibility just too far.
So what is your motivation? Far from being OT the discussion on health care gets to the very heart of the matter. You say “it isn’t the government responsibility…….. etc etc”. In a democracy, what is, and is not the government’s responsibility is for the people to decide at election time.
Of course, the debate on the health care system isn’t a matter for anyone else other than Americans to decide. However, when the same attitudes of “not the governments responsibility” are carried over to environmental issues they very much are everyone’s concern.
There is simply no other explanation but that your opposition to the science of AGW is ideologically based and driven. You don’t like the implications of a problem which will require “government responsibility” and intervention, on both a national and international scale, to remedy. Therefore you’ve decided that it can’t possibly exist.
Robin Guenier,
You’re another one who is ideologically motivated. Your level of scientific understanding is nowhere near good enough either!
But its good that you are taking notice of what the Institute of Physics have to say.
You might take a look at this too:
“Climate change – research suggests it is not a swindle”
http://www.iop.org/News/Community_News_Archive/2008/news_29077.html
Pete,
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. I think that’s why you’re having difficulty understanding. What you fail to realize, is that even if the majority of the people vote for something, it does not make it valid if it’s unconstitutional……………Why is it that I’m not surprised that you fail to grasp this fact?
If the people then want to, they can vote to ammend the Constitution (which must be ratified by 3/4 of the individual states).
http://www.garymcleod.org/republic.htm
Constitutional Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Peter
“Climate change – research suggests it is not a swindle”
Er, that was written in April 2008. Even you must acknowledge that quite a lot has happened since then, most of it confirming the opposite!
PeterM (the man who has admitted that standard scientific practice sets “an impossibly high barrier” for the dangerous AGW hypothesis – see #9675):
Re your 9741, James P beat me to it. Yes, that paper (anodyne anyway) is two years old. And, as James says, “quite a lot has happened since then”. (Or perhaps you haven’t you noticed?) The IOP submission to the Select Committee, in contrast, was made this month. Here’s another extract:
Wake up, Peter.
Further to the above, the UEA’s own evidence to the Select Committee is attacked today in The Times (link). The article says the UEA is “accused of “making a misleading statement to Parliament”. Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat member of Committee, said:
No doubt Peter will grub around and find a two year old statement by Dr Evans indicating his support for AGW. (Or perhaps evidence that he too is a creature of Big Oil.)
Yet further to the above, here’s an extract from the evidence to the Committee submitted by the Royal Statistical Society:
Big Oil must be working hard.
Brute,
So you say the USA isn’t a democracy? Interesting. So instead of invading Iraq to ‘restore’ democracy there, maybe you need to invade yourself next time?
In a way I would agree that the USA is a far from perfect democracy. But there’s nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Congress and President from implementing either a universal health care system or tackling the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Robin,
I think it was me accusing you , rather than “admitting” anything myself of wanting to set an impossibly high barrier. Of course it is easy to do that, say the the evidence is inconclusive, push the climate to dangerous limits, and carry on living in a fools paradise.
You should feel quite at home there.
Let’s get the record straight, Peter.
On 18 February (here), I requested (for the umpteenth time) that you “refer us to empirical evidence that (a) man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of late 20th century warming; and (b) [assuming you can provide (a)] that further such emissions will cause dangerous climate change”. In other words, I requested that the hypothesis be subject to standard scientific practice – as determined by the Scientific Method. You chose not to answer – despite repeated reminders by Max and myself. But, within 4 days, you said I was setting “an impossibly high barrier” for the dangerous AGW hypothesis. Therefore, I can only conclude that you admit that standard scientific practice sets an impossibly high barrier for the dangerous AGW hypothesis.
Perhaps, Peter, the IOP and RSS (## 9739 and 9746) are “ideologically motivated” (#9741). By a wish for adherence to the Scientific Method?
Pete,
I see from your 9747 that you understand less about political science than you do about atmospheric science.
Robin,
The barrier that you are setting is so impossibly high that I just can’t see it and so I really don’t know what you are talking about. But its not surprising because you clearly don’t know yourself!
But if you’d like to prove me wrong you could describe the sort of experiments you’d like to see performed which would meet the criteria that you’ve set.