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.
Pete,
You cheer and applaud for, (what you believe) is the end of humanity? My God what a Sadsack/pessimist.
Being that last year was the WORST on record and this year being SECOND WORST means that the Arctic ice extent is GREATER than it was last year.
Is it the greater than/less than thing that you don’t get?
Do you also cheer for the “home” team to lose during sporting events? Sheez…….
THOSE OLD, FAMILIAR TUNES (But we really mean it this time).
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s
The Times, February 24, 1895
“Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”
Fears of a “second glacial period” brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia’s climate.
New York Times, October 7, 1912
“Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age”
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
“The possibility of another Ice Age already having started … is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak.”
Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
“Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada.”
Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
“The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.”
New York Times, September 18, 1924
“MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”
GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s
New York Times, March 27, 1933
“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise”
Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…. weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.
New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the “trump card” as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.
U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
“[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.”
GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s
Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
“Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect”
Reported that “glaciers have begun to advance”; “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter”; and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool”.
Science News, March 1, 1975
“The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the ‘very extraordinary period of warmth’ that preceded it.”
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
“The Cooling World”
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.”
International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
“But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime.”
New York Times, May 21, 1975
“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”
GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?
Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
“About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades.”
Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
“[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.”
New York Times, December 27, 2005
“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming”
The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
“Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a ‘broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,’ and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive.”
?????: 2020s?
RIA Novisty(Russian News & Information Agency), February 8, 2007
“Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060,” he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.”
Quoting Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. Full article at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
“Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years”
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
Full article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf
Brute,
What your links show is that there has always been a concern for the earth’s environment.
Of course it has been known for centuries that our existence on earth is been precarious. Harvests can fail if it’s too wet or too dry, too hot or too cold. Just like Goldilock’s porridge, we don’t want our climate to be too hot or too cold. It has to be just right.
Just because there have been concerns before which have turned out to be unfounded, does it mean that we should be totally unconcerned now? I suppose you would say yes. But, most rational people are just as concerned as our forebears. Unlike them, we have an array of modern scientific techniques to help us understand what we need, and what we need not, be concerned about.
I’ve put a new post up here dealing with one of the un-intended consequences of the crusade against climate change. And its a very unpalatable consequence too.
How many people has ‘climate change’ killed?
If you have anything to say about it, please do so on that page and not this one.
No Pete,
What it means is that people will embellish/exaggerate naturally occurring events and exploit perfectly normal weather patterns to sell a few newspapers, carbon credits, political ideology or whatever crap they are trying to peddle.
Brute, or anyone else on the other side of the Herring Pond:
Yesterday, the BBC reported that Sarah Palin is a climate change sceptic AND a creationist, but this was only on one news bullet out of several that I heard. Do you know if the same story is being reported in the States and is there any truth in it?
Tony,
Tough as nails Conservative woman……. My good friend, an Englishman by birth, says that she is reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher. Everyone here is absolutely wild for this woman and cheering on John McCain.
Skeptic: Yes.
Creationist: I don’t know.
Her mother and father are/were science teachers. I do know that she advocates drilling for oil in Alaska, including ANWR (she’s currently the Governor of that great state), and utilizing all of the available oil reserves in the United States, (Offshore/Oil Shale/Oil Sands). She pushed through a deal and is currently building a natural gas pipeline through Alaska to the Lower 48 States.
After she was elected Governor, she sold the Alaskan “State” jetliner that her predecessor had been using to take personal vacations on E-bay…..she flies commercial. She dismissed the Governor’s “Personal Chef”….too extravagant. She drives herself to work. Married for 22 years to the same man….strong, self made, independent, assertive, authentic…….5 children, highly ethical, to the point. The bitter feminists and goofy Liberals are fit to be tied……
Thanks Brute
She certainly comes across well here too, but it was the ‘creationist’ bit that caught my attention when it was linked with ‘sceptic’. It sounded a bit too good to be true, from the wamist point of view of course.
The same story said that she had been a member of an Alaska independence party, but the BBC has now corrected this, saying that her husband was a member as recently as six years ago. The other parts of the story have neither been repeated or corrected. I just wondered if someone had planted a bit of fiction about her being a creationist with the BBC which they had used without checking.
Hi Peter,
In earlier posts you advocated “mitigation” actions to reduce the anticipated impact of AGW.
Let’s talk about cost and benefit of “mitigatgion”.
Let’s define “mitigation” in terms of a carbon tax of $110 per metric ton of CO2, to be levied on every man, woman and child on Earth (let’s say 6.5 billion individuals)
The current world human emission of CO2 is 27 billion tons/year, so the total cost of the carbon tax will be $29,700 billion dollars per year or around $450 per year for every man, woman and child.
Of course the average US (or Australian) inhabitant will pay more than the average inhabitant of a poorer (and hence less-energy consuming) country, but everyone will have to pay.
What benefit will the world’s inhabitants get from this tax?
Now Hansen would like to have us believe that this tax could possibly avert “tipping points” that will make our planet a much less hospitable place for man and beast. But let’s ignore these statements of hyperbole and run some numbers.
Let’s say we can reduce CO2 emissions by 20% below today’s levels from here on out and that this will result in a direct reduction in atmospheric CO2. Over the remainder of the 21st century (92 years) this will be a reduction of 5.4 billion tons per year or 500 billion tons in total.
Compared to continuing emissions at today’s levels, this will result in a cumulative reduction of 62 ppmv over the 92 years.
Let’s assume that IPCC’s 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C is correct, despite strong evidence that the positive cloud and water vapor feedback assumptions supporting this figure are grossly overstated.
What will these 62 ppmv of CO2 do for us?
They will result in a VERY THEORETICAL reduction in warming of 0.76°C, so each human being will get 0.00000000012°C reduction in global average temperature for his/her “carbon tax investment”.
If emissions were to be reduced by 20% per year this tax would be reduced to $360 per capita per year or around $33,000 per capita over the 92-year period.
And, keeping in mind that we have no notion whether or not this will result in any temperature impact at all and, if so, how large this impact would be, this is obviously a very poor investment.
What do you think, Peter?
Please show me specifically that my numbers are incorrect, if you can.
Otherwise tell me that you believe that a $33,000 investment to achieve a 0.00000000012°C reduction in global average temperature is a good deal.
Regards,
Max
Tony,
I’m certain that just like over there, people plant stories that are unflattering or incomplete….laced with ineuendo, (I understand tabloid news is an art in the UK?).
She’s a straight shooter…..just a plain old, (not really plain…..she is attractive), no nonsense, Mom with impecible credentials; which is why the Left is so angry and desperate. Her nomination has turned the Liberal and Feminist movement on its ear. They don’t know what to do. She’s pro-life whereas most Feminists are pro-death for unborn babies.
I think I do remember that she advocated freedom of choice as far as “creationism” is concerned. That if a school district or school board decided that both creation and evolution should be taught, than there should be a place for both.
Her principles and “lifestyle” have exposed the feminists for the hypocrites that they are. They support women’s issues, LEFTIST Women.
Sorry, Peter, there’s a typo in my last post(but the calculation is correct).
The annual cost is $2,970 billion per year (not $29,700).
Regards,
Max
I thought you guys would like Sarah Palin!
I may be wrong, I haven’t done any research but she’ll probably turn out to have an poor environmental record, be a climate change sceptic, a creationist, and have a history of support for big oil. She may even think oil is of abiotic origin! All carefully chosen to bolster redneck support within the Republican party for JM, but she’ll have to tone it down shortly to avoid alienating potential Democrat voters.
I would say that she was certainly pro-death as far as the unfortunate animals who come within range of her rifle are concerned.
That should be proof enough of her lack of judgement. But if it isn’t, maybe Americans could ask themslves if they could seriously consider voting for a woman who chose “Bristol” as her daughter’s name? What on earth was she thinking about?
Max,
Nobody likes paying taxes, that’s for sure. But, the money raised in taxes does get spent again. In fact the USA spends a whole lot more than it raises in taxation, but that is another story.
I haven’t checked your numbers, but the main and obvious flaw in your agument is that you haven’t considered what the money will be spent on or what other taxes it might displace. It isn’t lost to us. It doesn’t get paid to the Martians!
It may be a personal preference, but I would like to see the Australian government raise more revenue by carbon taxation and less on direct taxation on incomes. More taxation on big gas guzzling SUVs and less taxation on economical 4 cylinder sedans.
Yep, according to your reasoning, we should “save the animals” at the expense of people…..sound logic. By the way; how many trees were “butchered” to build your house? Do you have any idea how many birds will now be homeless due to your lack of concern for the environment…..tsk, tsk…how selfish you are.
If you disapprove, then I know that she’ll be the best person for the job.
I’d better try to get back on topic before Tony bans me.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2? will have ‘little impact’ on temps”
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=339&Itemid=1
I know I shouldn’t, and you may well feel it’s all in bad taste, but I’ve been wondering if we can help out with some name suggestions for Bristol’s child.
Suggestions so far:
Abstinence, Chastity
Anyone else like to contribute?
But maybe we should leave it up to Bristol. She doesn’t seem to have had much say in the goings on recently. If I were her, I’d choose something like Hillary.
I hope that young Bristol was smart enough to give as good as she got from her All American gun-toting Super Mom. She should have told her that it wasn’t her fault, the process is all part of the creator’s intelligent design after all.
Pete Re your recent 1440, 1438, 1437 & 1428, and much more before that:
YAWN.
Your input to this debate (?) is becoming very boring.
If you want to provoke any interest, (and credibility), you need to clearly answer some long outstanding topic related questions!
Peter, I don’t know why I try to HELP you, but here are some assumptions or accusations of yours, that perhaps you should reflect more carefully on:
1) Reur 1437, in part:
I think Bristol is quite a nice sounding name, providing you do not attach the Anglo-rude connotation that you assume, and which obviously her mother was unaware of.
In fact, I will be visiting friends in the city of Bristol in England on September 29. Should I decontaminate myself when I leave? Should I go and wash my hands when an American (Male) shakes my hand and says: “Hi I’m Randy?”
2) Reur 1440 in part:
Yes, you should not have commented in that way on this tragic occurrence. You have no idea of how and why Bristol ended up this way, and how it will work-out. There are many possible drivers; for instance having such a powerful religious Mum, (Mom), and wanting to rebel as some teenagers do, even in Brisbane. OR, maybe, Bristol was overwhelmingly in love with her boyfriend, and had too much vino on one occasion. Who knows? Whatever, the human condition is complicated, and I would say CONFIDENTLY that mum would not have wanted this to happen. You should not blame mum for this tragic event, unless you wish to be known as a bigot.
That’s all I have time for now!
I don’t see the birth of a baby as “tragic”.
I have a pretty good idea how it happened….
I also see that Peter has chosen to engage in a fistfight with a pregnant teenage girl. My money is on the girl. Seems like a fair fight.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I haven’t checked your numbers, but the main and obvious flaw in your argument is that you haven’t considered what the money will be spent on or what other taxes it might displace. It isn’t lost to us. It doesn’t get paid to the Martians!
It may be a personal preference, but I would like to see the Australian government raise more revenue by carbon taxation and less on direct taxation on incomes. More taxation on big gas guzzling SUVs and less taxation on economical 4 cylinder sedans.”
Peter, check the numbers before you start citing “flaws”. You will see that a very large amount of carbon taxes will not result in any significant reduction in global warming.
This part is a clear hoax.
You must be very starry-eyed to think that carbon taxes will just be used to offset income taxes (as you “would like to see”), so there will be no added burden on every man, woman and child. This is a naïve and utopian statement.
Prove to me that my numbers are basically wrong on the cost of a S110/ton carbon tax on humanity and the negligible effect that a 20% overall reduction in CO2 emissions below today’s value will have on the world’s climate.
Once you have done this, we can talk about your claim that a major carbon tax “isn’t lost to us”.
It’s wasted money, Peter.
If you want to make it voluntary, I would agree. You can pay it (and feel good in the process since you have atoned for your “carbon sins”), but count me out.
I don’t think that a 0.00000000012°C reduction in global average temperature is worth $450/year over the next decades to me.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just like you I am not voting in the USA, so really can only base my opinions on what I have seen in the US media reports recently.
Sarah Palin is a sympathetic rising star. She is threatening to replace Barack Obama in that “celebrity” role. This is why the Democrats and that part of the media which leans to the left have howled in outrage so loudly. How could McCain have picked such an inexperienced candidate “just a heartbeat away” from the presidency?
Her limited experience (to be a US vice predident) is only exceeded by Obama’s limited inexperience (to be a US president).
The US voters are not going to vote for or against her because of her pro or anti views on AGW, since this is really not an issue of major interest to them (as Brute has pointed out, based on poll data).
And that’s how it ought to be, Peter. There are many more important factors, and the US voters appear to be able to see this a bit more clearly than some others.
I remember a cartoon in the International Herald Tribune in 2001 or 2002, when the first “Kyoto report” came out. It showed two “rednecks” sitting in a typical American country store with a wood-burning pot-bellied stove. One was walking toward the stove with a big fat book in his hand and the other was saying to him, “Toss another one of them Kyoto reports on the fire, Luke, it’s gettin’ cold in here.”
Don’t believe much has changed since then despite the multi-million dollar global warmming ad campaigns sponsored by Al Gore.
Folks are just too smart to get fooled by all this hype.
Regards,
Max
“Bristol” has another, Aglo-based, vulgar meaning? As an American who’s been exposed to a lot of anglo slang have never heard of such a double meaning for “Bristol”. I doubt Gov Palin had either.
JZ: go here and look under “Cockney”.
Oh. I ‘Adam and Eve” it now…
For once I have to agree with Brute. If young Bristol had stepped in front of a moving truck, that would be tragic. Falling pregnant, for a woman, is just a part of life. In Australia, and Europe too, there is no longer any social stigma in having children outside of a conventional marriage. Nor should there be.
I’ve certainly no quarrel with young Bristol. Good luck to her. With a mother like hers she’ll need it. I do take issue with the attitude of many of the Republican Party delegates though. Their comments seemed to indicate a general view that, because Bristol was keeping the baby, and marrying the father, the issue was something that would be readily forgiven. But , what is there to forgive? Whichever decisions are taken regarding both a pregnancy and a marriage, should be hers and hers alone. She’s not the one standing for VP and probably isn’t even a member of their party.
If a similar situation had arisen on the eve of a European or Australian election I very much doubt if the matter would have been considered newsworthy.
……..
Climate sceptics have recently raised the plight of the world’s poor and starving. Instead of concentrating on reducing GHG’s wouldn’t it be better, they say, to re-direct our efforts towards helping them? How touching!
But worry not, climate sceptics. We can do both. Each country can choose to do what it likes with revenue raised in so called ‘carbon taxes’. One possibility for America would be to impose a carbon tax on petrol/gasoline of say $1 per gallon. It would still be much cheaper than European petrol.
They could then donate the billions of dollars, that would be raised, towards fixing world poverty. Within a very short time there wouldn’t be any.
This is pretty cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLiHWRaJU4