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.
Hi Peter,
You wrote (1167):
“The simplest underhand tactic that can be adopted by those who wish to delay and stall on the climate change issue, for their own financial or other reasons, is to spread disinformation about a “scientific disagreement”. I can well understand James Hansen when he compared them to criminals against humanity!”
Let me paraphrase your statement:
The simplest underhand tactic that can be adopted by those who wish to rush through draconian carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes, for their own financial or other reasons, is to spread disinformation about a “scientific consensus”. I can well understand Christopher Monckton when he compared them to fraudulent charlatans engaged in a conspiracy against humanity!
James Hansen is one of these fraudulent charlatans, as is Al Gore.
Just another viewpoint, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
A further word by Monckton re Gore:
Here’s a Monckton quote on Gore’s blatant use of exaggerated or outright false climate disaster predictions for his own personal gain:
“It is surely only a matter of time before a complaint is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that, through the numerous, extreme and scientifically-unwarranted exaggerations which Gore has relentlessly continued to peddle notwithstanding the warning in the UK judge’s verdict, he is in effect fraudulently promoting a false prospectors to potential investors [in his personal cap and trade venture]. Indeed, his exaggerations are on such a scale, and have commanded such attention, and have done so much damage, that he may even have committed an offence under the Federal racketeering statute.”
Regards,
Max
The inconvenient lies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511
Hi Peter,
Another month rolls by without any global warming.
While the latter part of the 20th century played along pretty well with the climate model projections (at least until 1998), the 21st century is not being so accommodating.
The tropospheric record (where AGW should be occurring more rapidly than at the surface) is showing a cooling trend of -0.12°C per decade.
The surface record (even all those thermometers next to AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots) is showing a cooling trend of around -0.04°C per decade.
For ease of visualization, I have plotted the 21st century trend, incorporating the latest month.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2775863758_a33624c05d_b.jpg
But wait! This cannot be so.
IPCC assures us that it should be warming by +0.2°C per decade.
The “gurus” at Hadley even project warming of +0.3°C per decade.
Yet, as the months roll by, it becomes more apparent that the models cannot project climate and that the Hadley “gurus” do not have a clue. How could they? Their models exclude all climate forcing factors except CO2, which they grossly exaggerate.
How many more months or years will it take before everyone realizes this? Why is the media so subdued about all this?
What do you think, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Let’s see if I can guess the “standard AGW-believer’s response” to the question, “Why has it stopped warming since 2001 despite record CO2 emissions?
1. 7 ½ years is too short to define a trend, you have to look at time periods of decades, not years
2. The 22-year period of warming (1976-1998) is more representative of what is really going on than the 10-year period (1998-2008)
3. The argument that global warming stopped in 1998 (or 2001) is mistakenly conflating the large degree of annual variability (the temperature “noise”) with the long-term trend
4. Three of the seven years since 2001 are among the ten warmest since measurements started
5. Natural forcings tend to dominate year-to-year variability but the long-term warming trend is primarily driven by human emissions
6. Global warming has stopped repeatedly for short periods over the last 150 years
7. There must be some cooling from all the aerosols (sulfates) from all those new coal-fired power plants in China and India
8. Unexpected ENSO events are “masking” the underlying global warming from CO2 that is really going on
9. The relationship between temperature and human greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions is considerably more complicated than we often assume
10. Be glad some natural factors are temporarily slowing down the warming; it will come back “with a vengeance”, so we’d better start “mitigating” now, while we still have time
Which of the above do you like best, Peter? Do you have any favorites or do you like them all equally well?
Just curious.
Regards,
Max
Great stuff again, Max. But don’t you think it’s a bit hard on Peter (who is, I confess, extraordinarily resilient) to expect him to deal adequately with all the issues raised today by Brute, you and me? He badly needs some support.
BTW I became interested in AGW last December (when my natural scepticism tended towards accepting the hypothesis) so missed this article by Climate Skeptic. I read it yesterday & thought it most illuminating.
Hi Brute,
Your “case history” anecdotes underscore a problem, which I witness increasingly when I visit the USA.
It is the “victim mentality”. The tort laws in the USA have set up a legal system whereby everyone sees himself/herself as a potential victim of some unfair, negligent or downright unscrupulous behavior of a medical doctor, a corporation or some other institution (preferably with deep pockets).
Tort lawyers blare out ads on TV “ Have you or a loved one suffered from ……(…osis or …itis)? Are you aware that this condition could be caused by the ……(product) sold under the name …… by the …… (corporation)? If so, call the following telephone number now to find out what compensation you may legally be entitled to……
This whole craze started in the 1950s. One of the first cases I read about involved a person who had left his automobile parked in the gravel driveway. A neighbor’s 4-year old thought it might be fun to toss some of the pebbles into the tank and managed to open the lid (these were not “child-proof” at the time). One of the gravels accidentally caused a spark and there was a loud “poof!” and the child was injured (but not fatally). The parents of the child sued their neighbor for having an “attractive nuisance” (the car in the driveway) and won a few hundred thousand dollars.
Tort law cases started really picking up 30 + years ago with celebrated tort lawyers, such as Melvin Belli (the “King of Torts”), winning million-dollar settlements.
John Edwards made his millions driving obstetricians out of business by suing them for conditions that developed in the child later and almost invariably had nothing to do with the birth itself.
The McDonalds “hot coffee” and Dow-Corning “silicone breast enhancement” circuses were just two of many celebrated cases. (BTW Dow-Corning outsmarted Belli, who had advanced $5 million to doctors and expert witnesses to testify on the behalf of his clients, by filing for bankruptcy and putting Belli’s law firm in serious financial trouble. The ding-bat who spilled her coffee ended up with an out-of-court settlement of a few hundred thousand dollars, rather than the $2+ million the jury wanted to give her.)
Smokers, who are stupid enough to ignore the warning signs on the cigarette packages, are really “victims” – not of their own stupidity, but of the evil tobacco companies, who should be “forced to pay for their evil behavior” (thereby passing on the cost to the smokers).
Fuzzy-headed environmental activists (on the US taxpayer payroll) want to sue (or even imprison?) oil company executives for “withholding the truth on climate change” from the US public.
The “class action suit” is the epitome of absurdity. The individual plaintiffs usually receive peanuts while the lawyers walk away with millions.
These are not allowed in Switzerland on the three-fold grounds that they allow somebody to act on the behalf of a large number of people who do not participate as parties in the legal action, they are based on the lawyer receiving a fee based upon a percentage of the settlement (which is not allowed under Swiss Law) and they usually result in excessive settlements, so that in order to avoid major financial loss the defendant may be forced to agree to an “out of court” settlement, which amounts to no more than legal blackmail.
It seems to me there was some talk in the USA of reforming the whole tort law system to get rid of these excesses. Did anything ever happen?
Regards,
Max
PS Robin, how does “tort law” work in the UK? Do you have these excesses there, as well?
Max,
Liberals are great at creating victims where none exist. In their world everyone is a “victim” of something or someone. Global Warming falls into this vein as Pete explained, (or let the cat out of the bag) a few months ago. Lawsuits will be filed akin to the tobacco lawsuits settled a few years ago…….Another shakedown. Everyone is “affected” by “climate change” from farmers to stockbrokers to housewives. Everyone is a “victim”. What a bonanza! The Supreme Court says that plant food is poison and the people that create the substance that creates the “poison” must pay! What a confidence racket……….
My favorite television commercial by the slip and fall lawyers is how to get out of paying back taxes. The “evil” Internal Revenue Service is “out to get me”. These ambulance chasers will try to get you out of paying your back taxes. In other words, you broke the law by not paying taxes on the income you made and these guys will “settle”, (get you out of it) with the IRS (for a cut of the action).
Believe me, no one detests writing that check to the IRS more than I do, (considering the dopey things that my government does with MY money), but I write it dutifully every year……(sometimes Mrs. Brute has to help me hold the pen as I’m quivering due to the anger).
Did you know that my government spends $3,000,000 per year of MY money studying bear DNA?
I had a discussion with a woman yesterday that represents firefighters. It seems that one fireman, (woman) came upon a pedestrian/automobile accident scene and was so traumatized and scarred for life that she can no longer perform her job. Imagine that, a first responder/emergency paramedic who had “no idea” that she would be exposed to blood and gore as a matter of routine……She is expecting, (another shakedown), 80% of her salary for the rest of her life due to “post traumatic stress disorder” after being on the force for FOUR years.
Remember, almost all politicians are lawyers. They won’t cut their own throats. Nothing will ever happen with “tort reform”.
I thought that in the UK the loser pays all of the court fees? That would put a stop to a lot of this nonsense.
Max,
My point above being that global warming has NOTHING to do with ecology, the “environment” or “saving the planet”. This is about stealing money from people/corporations that have earned it and “giving” it to someone else, (primarily Liberal/Socialist voters/interests), hence, the imperative to create the illusion of “victim hood” and greedy, exploitative, Robber Barons.
Robin,
RE: # 1172
Wow, Monkton wiped up the floor with that Alarmist Kook. I almost felt sorry for the guy.
Must read this………………
The Northwest Spotted Owl Monumental Screw Up
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4444
Hi Robin,
Today I heard an expression, which (I feel) captivates very accurately the way you conduct yourself in these discussions on AGW.
You are able to “disagree without being disagreeable”.
For the most part, Peter M and I try to do the same in a non-emotional fashion (occasionally slipping into “ad hom” behavior), as do all the other posters on this site. But among all of us here, you are the one who has gotten this down to a “science”.
Congratulations. This debate needs more individuals like you.
Regards,
Max
Note to Brute and Robin
Have to agree with Brute (1185) that Mockton was more convincing in the debate than Richard Littlemore (1172). But that was an unfair line-up, since Littlemore is a bit limited in his knowledge, and Monckton has done his homework and knows his facts very well.
I’d love to hear a Monckton-Gore (or even a Monckton-Hansen) debate on this issue.
Unfortunately, neither Gore nor Hansen would be foolish enough to try to take on Monckton.
Max
Hi Brute,
You wrote: “My point above being that global warming has NOTHING to do with ecology, the ‘environment’ or ‘saving the planet’.”
Of course it doesn’t.
As can be seen from the past 8 (or 10) years, it doesn’t even have anything to do with warming.
It’s a well-financed “power grab”, plain and simple.
Regards,
Max
Max,
There’s not much that’s plain and simple in this world! Except that it might be an unkind description for a person of low IQ and is also short in the looks department.
If you want something that is easy to understand, I would suggest that you look elsewhere. The behaviour of the earth’s climate isn’t for you!
May I remind you about our bet? Are you going to change your opinion when temperatures start to rise again?
PS It’s nice to see that you and Robin have formed the nucleus of a ‘mutual admiration society’. You’ve just got to get Brutus and Bob_FJ to say something good about each other, and you two, and you can double your membership!
Max,
I notice that you’ve elected to not take me on with my doctor-patient analogy, except to say that we don’t know for sure what is going to happen.
And that’s true, we don’t know for sure. I’m equally sure that every doctor who has given health warnings to his patients has been reminded of exactly that. He’ll have also been told about some ‘Uncle Frank’, who’s smoked 20 cigarettes a day since he was fourteen and is still alive and a regular client at the local brothels 70 years later.
Ok It’s possible, but is it likely? When the world as a whole gets good scientific advice, shouldn’t we listen?
I’m also concerned at a potential “legal” feeding frenzy in the USA on AGW, and that Australian “legal” peers may be catching-up with the Americans. I hope and hope, pessimistically, that good government might save the day here, but in the USA??????…..
I think it was in 1982, that I got off a plane around 9 pm in Detroit, and later picked up a nice shiny compact car from “Head Office”, and I noted OOH! it had only 10 miles on the odometer, and it smelt nice. However, about 5 miles later, going into work the next morning, it became a write-off. I remember I stopped at red lights at a very major intersection, and must have blacked-out, and came-to finding myself flat on my back looking at the headlining, from a totally collapsed seat. The remarkable thing was that I had been propelled across 2 x three lanes of traffic by a ~7 ton truck that had failed to stop at a normal separation distance, and my potential coffin had coasted a surprising distance. Traffic chaos ensued, but the cops shortly arrived and first made me comfortable in their car, and then casually and brutally rammed my wreck sideways off the road using their front bumper like a bulldozer ram. How cute I thought; don’t these guys ask questions, look for witnesses, take photos and measurements etc? The wrecked truck was a bigger problem, and that was left to other cops, whatever, whilst the first kindly taxi’d me on to work, and interviewed me on the way. I was actually OK with no apparent whiplash effect, although some nausea, and some seat-belt bruising on my shoulder. (fortunately)
Would the guys at work leave me alone? NO! LOL! (paraphrasing:-)
“You’ve got to go and see a lawyer. How about we take you to hospital for some check-ups; wink wink! Hey look if you don’t want us to take you to a lawyer, we’ll get one to come and see you!”
No, please I said; no one got hurt, (I saw the truck driver was walking around), I’m OK, just let me fill-in the company accident forms, and get on with my work!
When this story got around, various top exec’s came running to try and persuade me to “see sense”
My opinion is that the lack of government control of this SICKNESS is APPALLING. I hope it does not result in an escalation of further big feed-on costs to the community beyond those already visible in various carbon nonsense schemes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pete,
Is it possible you could grace me with some answers to various clearly defined questions placed by me above?
BTW, you hardly give credibility to yourself with that nonsense to Max in your 1190 ETC.
Do you ever have feelings of embarrassment?
Was it a fault of an impulse on too much Merlot supping?
Bob,
Gee, you’re a swell guy!
Does that suffice Pete? By the way; I think you’re swell also……..
We’re doomed………
Via: Ice Cap.
Aug 19, 2008
New Zealand Ski Resorts See ‘Largest Snow Base Ever’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10527882
New Zealand Herald
Mt Ruapehu is claiming the biggest snow base ever recorded for a New Zealand skifield with over 4.5m of snow on the ground. Ruapehu Alpine Lifts, operator of Mt Ruapehu ski area, was celebrating what it called a major milestone today. The snow measuring stake at Turoa previously only stood at 380cm so had to be extended to measure today’s 455cm snow base.
The Whakapapa side of the mountain also had 350cm of snow, the biggest since 1995. Mt Ruapehu marketing manager Mike Smith said the record-breaking snow base would be paradise for skiers and boarders, and with such large bases the season could potentially keep going into November. Staff at Ruapehu’s ski fields have been kept busy looking out for avalanche risks and working to dig many of their lifts and buildings out, straining under the weight of huge snowfalls.
But while the North Island field was claiming the record, southern skifield Cardrona, near Queenstown, was proclaiming the quality, not quantity, of its snow. Geoff Wayatt, who runs the snow safety and ski patrol for Cardrona, said the snow measured 78cm at the base and about 110cm at the top station. The weather patterns meant that the more northern fields could receive bigger snow falls, he said. “They have got great terrain, we have got better snow. The further south you go the colder it gets and the better the snow quality.” Mt Hutt reported a 267cm snow base.
Dunedin and Christchurch residents woke to snow this morning as sleety showers moved north. Meanwhile in Canterbury, a further 3 to 5cm was expected to hit the Port Hills and the Banks Peninsula where the Christchurch City Council has reported roads closed. Read more here and here.
See larger graph here. Go to ski area here.
Hi Peter,
Re ur 1190. First let’s talk about our “bet”.
On April 22 02:29 you wrote on the New Statesman blog site:
”Incidentally I have offered a bet to the resident contrarians on this forum that the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years but they are all too timid to back their judgement. Are you a bit braver?”
On April 23 05:34 I replied
”Hey Peter Martin,
To your bet that the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years, count me in.
Let’s use Hadley, OK?
How much?”
On 24 April 04:59 I sent you
”Back to your bet that ‘the 1998 temperature record will be broken in the next four years’.
Basis:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual
Are you betting that one of the following years will have a temperature anomaly that is higher than 0.526 degrees C according to the Hadley record of globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (compared to the baseline average of the years 1961-1990): 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012?
Note: If Hadley changes the “baseline” during this period, the numbers are adjusted accordingly.
How much do you want to bet and how do you want to set this up?”
On 24 April 09:30 I sent you
”So let’s move on and get back to our bet
You say that the 1998 temperature anomaly will be exceeded on an annual basis by the year 2012 at the latest.”
After some back and forth, we settled on US$100.- and on the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (we excluded the current year 2008, which looked cooler that “normal” then and has continued to be so).
We exchanged addresses and phone numbers.
So we have a $100.- bet.
No need for your question, “May I remind you about our bet? Are you going to change your opinion when temperatures start to rise again?”
Will come back to your other points separately.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Back to your message. You wrote, “There’s not much that’s plain and simple in this world! Except that it might be an unkind description for a person of low IQ and is also short in the looks department. If you want something that is easy to understand, I would suggest that you look elsewhere. The behaviour of the earth’s climate isn’t for you!”
Absolutely, Peter, I agree with you on that point. Trying to hang it principally on CO2 is silly. It creates the need for a lot of waffling when CO2 emissions go up at record-breaking rates and temperature comes down, as has been the case for the past 8 years.
I am personally convinced that there is significantly more that we (i.e. “science”) does NOT know about the “behaviour of the earth’s climate” than there is that we DO know.
This makes it very hard for me to accept at face value the oversimplified projections for the distant future expressed in IPCC reports, despite all the self-congratulatory phrases sprinkled throughout, such as: “increasing level of confidence”, “major advance of this assessment of climate change”, “advances in climate change modeling”, “there is an improving understanding”, “larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism”. These phrases remind me of a child whistling in the dark.
And it makes it downright ludicrous to consider “mitigation” steps addressing one suspected cause for warming when we have no notion what all the other factors at play may be.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
I’m sure that I haven’t borrowed anything, so I don’t I ‘owe’ you any answers. It’s not me that you need to convince on abiotic oil anyway. If you’ve got some new revolutionary theory to expound, do what needs to be done, get stuck in, and build up a good scientific case in a methodical manner.
Incidentally, I do agree with you and Max on the question of fraudulent insurance claims, which are more a question of law and criminality rather than a political issue. Like most drivers I’ve been involved in a couple of minor collisions over the years, and it’s never occurred to me to claim whiplash injuries, or whatever, when there weren’t any. It’s only a minority who do. Some years ago, when I was more involved in running children’s sporting teams, there was a sharp increase in public liability insurance of the order of 300% over a period of a couple of years. I’m not sure exactly what caused it, and inevitably it was children from less affluent families who ended up missing out, and you wouldn’t expect me to support that, would you?
Max,
‘Contempt’ seems to too strong a word for your tastes when describing the very many men and women climate scientists, who are so obviously wrong according to your own homespun lights. But, haven’t you said these people are just a bunch of ‘fraudulent charlatans’ who are engaged in a ‘scam’ and a ‘hoax’? And you feel these terms are acceptable but the word ‘contempt’ isn’t?
Brute,
What cat? What bag?
I am personally convinced that there is significantly more that we (i.e. “science”) does NOT know about the “behaviour of the earth’s climate” than there is that we DO know.
You are probably right. The same was true of studies into the linkage between smoking and lung cancer. Of course, the tobacco companies used the same argument as you, viz: nothing needs to be done until the science is better known.
You make a valid point, that CO2 gets all the attention but other GHGs such as methane tend to get overlooked in the popular media. Reduction of methane emissions from coal workings and oil fields is certainly much easier politically, and I believe that James Hansen has suggested that this should be given a higher priority.
That was me.