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.
“So the observed empirical facts are really not very supportive of the AGW premise.”
You may think that, or rather, you like to think that, but, its not the consensus of scientific opinion on the issue.
Another example that Jeffrey Sachs could have used was the behaviour of the asbestos industry when the health issues of that product were exposed. Public Health versus Corporate Profits? Its just no contest as far as companies like James Hardie are concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hardie
It looks like you guys aren’t totally convinced of the way people like Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute have used underhand methods to try to discredit scientific findings which have threatened to upset corporate interests.
But you’ll be able to read more about it soon!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266581877&sr=8-1
Ummm, now I suppose global warming equates too LESS hurricane activity, colder temperatures and record snowfalls……
WMO: “. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/wmo-we-cannot-at-this-time-conclusively-identify-anthropogenic-signals-in-past-tropical-cyclone-data/#more-16686
The Goracle Forecast: AGW=More snow
23 02 2010
Sure looks like a heat wave, doesn’t it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/23/the-goracle-forecast-agwmore-snow/
Would that be “job creation” or “job saving”?
Last night California Governor Schwarzenegger changed the term to “kept or gained” when refering to jobs.
Very creative for a muscle head actor.
“Green Jobs” in Germany
http://www.atr.org/green-jobs-germany-a4062#
Proponents of Cap & Tax legislation have promised their plan would create “green jobs”, and as such help the economy. Of course, such claims are without logic or merit, and have been disproven in every instance in which they have been tried.
We previously reported on a study in Spain’s King Juan Carlos University which demonstrated that in Spain, up till that point a model for President Obama, for every “green job” created, 2.2 regular jobs were lost, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job (President Obama stopped mentioning Spain after this…)
Now, the German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung has published the first independent report into Green Jobs in Germany, entitled Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience
The result?
“In the end, Germany’s PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000)….Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies…It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.”
Let’s be clear here – In Germany the government subsidy required to produce just one green job can be as high as €175,000, or $US240,000. Far more than the average income, and no doubt causing massive harm on the economy.
The study authors conclude: “Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world”, we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.”
All the data says that this is NOT the way forward. The only question is if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are going to follow the science and data, or if they are going to impose their radical, ideological, job-killing agenda on the American people.
Peter
You have reintroduced asbestos and tried to conflate it with smoking, Ozone Hole, AGW and creationism.
They are all quite different things.
Knowing how you like Christopher Booker I thought you would be interested in this piece from yesterdays Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1253022/The-Great-Asbestos-Hysteria-How-man-claims-BBC-profiteering-firms-politicians-grossly-exaggerated-dangers.html
I do not claim to have any especial knowledge of the subject. I learn that white asbestos is not dangerous. Do I believe it? Well I will have to look at sources far beyond Chris Booker to see if my preconceptions that ‘any’ asbestos is harmful are incorrect. Perhaps you have some thoughts on white asbestos that are contrary to Bookers and can point us to sources that confirm Booker is incorrect? Its not a trap-frankly I don’t know.
As for Heartland, I don’t know why you think we automatically endorse everything they do or say. That organisations makes me rather nervous-but then again so do many on the pro AGW side.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Jeffrey Sachs didn’t use creationism in his list of examples. That’s slightly different in that there are no economic vested interests involved. Having just written that, it has just occurred to me that religion, especially in America, could be described as big business so maybe that is a debatable point. However, what strikes me as most significant, on the creationism vs evolution issue, is that faced with overwhelming scientific that the Earth is several billion years old a large percentage of the population in the USA continue to believe in a literal Biblical explanation of the “Creation”.
I’m not saying that people like Christopher Booker, a free-market ideologue opposed to any government controls, are necessarily creationist themselves, but rather that they are exhibiting the same psychological tendency to reject rational evidence when it clashes with their own prejudiced position.
Oh, yes, you asked for some reference on the health issues relating to White Asbestos:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2002/e02010.htm
Peter
Did you know that a prominent climatologist -and one of the top in his field of ice core samples- is a creationist? He believes the ice cores/co2 link implictly for 5000 years then believes they become suddenly misleading. (in order for it to fit in with his religious beliefs)
I will read your link on white asbestos-I have no opinion on whether it is lethal or not at this stage.
Tonyb
Hi Peter
Your reference on White asbestos was from the HSE advice of Feb 2002.
That was last updated by the HSE on Oct 2009
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asbfaq.htm#references
This is the paper they all refer to as being definitive;
Hodgson, JT & Darnton, A (2000). The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure. Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 44, No. 8, pp. 565-601
This is it in pdf form.
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/44/8/565
Reading this and reading Bookers piece it appears he is perfectly correct. White asbestos poses only a very tiny threat (statistically non existent) to those who will come into contact with it on a one off basis (which was the core of his article).
The concerns centre round regular exposure to the other forms of asbestos from an early age-i.e. continued exposure to lethal forms over a number of years.
I would be interested in your take on this as it would appear both our prejudices are confounded by the actual science.
Tonyb
TonyB,
Where do the authors of the paper you have referenced use the terms “tiny threat” or “statistically non existent” ?
You’ve just made that up!
What they do say is: “The risk differential between chrysotile (white asbestos) and the two amphibole fibres for lung cancer is thus between 1:10 and 1:50.
Which is not quite the same thing.
Raising the topic wasn’t so much to get into another long discussion on the rights and wrongs of a ban on asbestos, but to highlight the point that Jeffrey Sachs has made, that consistently people like Christopher Booker and Fred Singer try to downplay any scientific report which threatens the economic interests of their friends in the corporate world.
In other words, they may well be right in that white asbestos could with the right controls be safely used. I hope so, because I’ve had a small exposure to it myself. However, their opinion counts for nothing. Whenever there is any scientific controversy which threatens to upset vested economic interests we all know in advance which side of the argument they will advocate.
Peter
It is you that has put those comments in speech marks-I didn’t because I never claimed the authors said it. Those were my words used after actually reading the referenced report and that of the HSE and other documents.
Exposure specific risk is 1 in 500 that for risk differential is 1;50.
By any criteria that is a tiny threat especially when the crieria is as described-one off exposure to cement encased white asbestos.
Not sure where your train of thought is going with your comments about economic interests-Booker regularly castigates big business big govt big science.
In this case the asbestos reports appear alarmist unless you can demonstrate otherwise?
Tonyb
TonyB,
I notice you’ve said that the risk differential is right at the end of the range claimed by the authors. In any case you are quoting from the scientific reports and considering them to be authoritative. So, if anyone is being alarmist it isn’t the scientists. You’ve got to have a good understanding of just how dangerous blue and brown asbestos is to be able to dismiss even a figure of 1:500 as “tiny”. I must admit I don’t know, but given the choice I’d just prefer not to use it all. And I would guess that might have been the thinking of the HSE.
You say that Booker castigates big business and big government. The latter is certainly true but big business? Do you have any examples?
Its very rare for anyone of Booker’s political views ever to say anything against big corporate interests. They can do no wrong! I would admit that governments aren’t ideal but, unlike the big corporations, at least they are ultimately democratically accountable, as Gordon Brown will no doubt be currently very concerned about!
PeterM
Your example of “Creationism” is actually not bad.
Like the “dangerous AGW” premise, the “Creationism” premise is supported by “vested interests” (as you point out, it is a “business” although a much smaller total amount of money is involved than in the AGW “business”).
Also like “Creationism”, the “dangerous AGW” premise is not supported by empirical data from physical observations.
And, like “Creationism”, “AGW” is challenged by rational skeptics.
So the similarities are real.
Max
All: I probably should not do this, but I’m going to quote an Email that I sent to Roger Harrabin, and firstly, above the ~line, his response, which was in total just two words; in a format that I can’t emulate here:
Oh dear
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More at: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2829301.htm
3) Why don’t you ask for retired scientists, or will you; later on?
Regards, [My full ID herewith snipped by me; Bob_FJ]
PS can provide links to examples. Oh, and I really liked your article
Harrabin’s Notes: Raising the error bar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8491154.stm
I see that elsewhere, Roger has also been rather brief in his responses to Emails from others to him.
Peter (9713)
You ask: “Do you have any examples?” (of Booker criticising businesses)
This is from the article:
The new army of specialist asbestos removal contractors, the only professionals now allowed to handle asbestos, certainly have a vested interest in exaggerating the dangers of products which are, in effect, harmless. As does the ‘compensation’ industry, which makes a fortune from claims.
His main point, that government had regarded everything that could be called asbestos as equally deadly, seems well made. Unscrupulous businesses were only too happy to capitalise on the fact, as CB has noted.
Peter said
“In any case you are quoting from the scientific reports and considering them to be authoritative.”
Good grief Peter so you are complaining about my citing Scientific reports!
Seriously, asbestos danger is so well ingrained in my pysche that I would still be nervous of ANY type of asbestos. As For Booker against corporations, the next time I read one of his articles on the subject I will let you know although James seems to have quoted an example above.
Now, what about the non disapperarance of the Ozone hole-how do you read the accuracy of the science behind that? I have looked at it thoroughly-what is your take?
tonyb
Max,
Be careful! You don’t want to go upsetting Brute and possibly just about half of his fellow countrymen with your attack on Creationism.
We all need something to believe in. We can’t be sceptical about everything. So, I must admit you’ve got me there, I do believe in the power of rational thought and mainstream science. I must admit that I don’t know from my own experience that, for example DNA is a double helical molecule. Yet I still believe it. I’d have no idea how to prove it, so no doubt the Creationists might have something of a point in saying that I had a belief system just like them.
So what’s your belief system? What aren’t you sceptical about? It would have to be an acceptance of ultra free market, minimum government ideology and all that, wouldn’t it? You can’t believe in AGW and the totally unfettered free market, can you?
Believers in this ideology also come to strange conclusions about other, easier to understand issues. Like, the desirability of government run health care on the European model. They are of course totally against it. And they don’t change their minds when it is pointed out that Americans spend more, per capita, than twice the amount on health care, as the French or British , yet still have worse health and don’t live as long! You can quote all kinds of child mortality, dental health statistics etc but still nothing changes their minds.
Its a big puzzle to me. Can anyone offer a rational explanation?
PeterM
Don’t know about “relative health” of average US, UK and French citizens. I doubt if there are any meaningful statistics on this. But it’s true that life expectancy at birth is higher in France and UK than in USA. And both France and UK have government run health care systems, while the USA does not.
Life expectancy is even higher in Switzerland, which also does not have a government run health care system.
But I don’t suppose the two things have very much to do with one another.
From what I can read, 85% of US citizens have a private health care plan, often paid for by their employers. Hospitals are among the world’s best, with many people coming to the USA from all over the world (even from countries like Canada, that do have a government plan) for specialized health care.
Senior citizens are covered by a government run plan, which appears to work well, and the poorest citizens are also covered by a government run plan.
But roughly 10% are apparently not covered by any plan. A very few of these may be very wealthy people, who do not need insurance, but the rest are not covered.
Brute may know more about all this.
But it has little to do with our topic here.
Max
PeterM
You asked if one could “believe in AGW and the totally unfettered free market” at the same time.
If by “AGW” you mean “the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, is a serious potential threat”, I would guess it may not necessarily be compatible with believing in a “totally unfettered free market”.
I believe in neither.
Max
PeterM
We have gotten OT, but just one more comment.
The French pay quite a bit for health care, as do the British, in the form of high taxes.
Is the total higher than in the USA?
Who knows?
In Switzerland, we do not pay taxes for medical care, so our taxes are lower than those in France or the UK.
Our medical costs may be higher on average, but I don’t know if the TOTAL cost (in USA or Switzerland) is higher or lower than in the UK or France.
Max
Max,
You asked if the total (health spend) was higher in the USA. Well yes it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita
There is compulsory health insurance in Switzerland based on a % of income. Ok you can argue that its not a tax but the net effect is the same. Furthermore no one , regardless of their state of health can be denied insurance. It sounds a pretty good system , on the face of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
Its by no means an off topic discussion. The people in the USA, and elsewhere too who are most vociferous in their opposition to the need to accept AGW as a serious problem are the very same froup as are most vociferous in their opposition to Obamas health care reforms. That is not just a co-incidence.
PeterM
These AGW skeptics may also have blue eyes, but this is all irrelevant to our discussion here.
Those who are rationally skeptical of the science supporting the dangeous AGW premise have one thing in common: they are rationally skeptical of the science supporting the dangerous AGW premise. Some are UK citizens, some from the USA or Australia. I happen to be Swiss.
But the key topic here is not our nationalities or our political leanings or party affiliations, it is our rational skepticism of the science supporting the dangerous AGW premise (and this is the main topic of this thread).
Drifting off topic onto a sidetrack (politics, cigarette smoking and cancer, etc.) is simply a ruse to distract from the fact that you have been unable to provide the empirical data to support the AGW premise.
Max
DON’T LAUGH: CLIMATE EXPERTS SAY JANUARY WAS ‘HOTTEST’ EVER…
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556
CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the ¬hottest January the world has ever seen.
The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
SNOWSTORM BLAST NORTHEAST…
http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&date=2010-02-26_11:00
NYC: 21 Inches; Biggest in 4 years…
In New York City at Central Park, there was 20.9 inches reported with this amazing storm. This was the 4th largest snowstorm in their long history that goes all the way back to 1869.
In the month of February New York City has had 36.9 inches of snow, setting the all-time snowiest month on record.
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/stormwatch/
Snowicane – Major Storm #4 for 2009/10
New York City’s Central Park has had 20.9 inches as of 1 pm Friday, the fifth greatest for any storm in New York City since 1869. it is a new record monthly snow FOR ANY MONTH with 36.9 inches breaking the old record of 30.5 in March 1896.
But up in the Catskills they hit the jackpot with 60 inches and another 4-8 inches possible. Here is this morning’s newsletter email from Hunter Mountain.
Good morning from Hunter Mountain!!
We wanted to let you know that we’ve received 60” of snow in the last 3 days… and we wanted to invite you to come up and shoot some photos, film, or just to see this crazy snow for yourself!
We watched the weather report this morning, and they reported a mere 30” total in Greene County—it made us laugh. There’s more than 5 feet of snow in Hunter, with roadside snowbanks 10-12 feet high.
It’s still snowing here, albeit lightly… but we’re expected to get another 4-8” today as the storm winds its way back and hits us again!
If you’d like to come up, or if you’d like more info on the “Snowicane” of 2010, hit me up! We can certainly make arrangements for you. This is epic snow that has not been present in the area since the 30’s and 50’s—come up and take a bit ol’ bite of snowstorm history here, folks! We’ve had hundreds of die-hard skiers and riders here to ski and ride through this storm!
We hope you’ll consider taking a ride up here… the snow has calmed a bit, the roads are in good shape. For up-to-date info on our operations, visit the Hunterblog. Check our Photo Gallery for some photos from the past few days… our webcams are running as well (we’re working on digging out the summit cam…). As we’ve been telling our fans & followers… come get some!!