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.
Peter Martin 1520 responded to my YES or NO question posed in my 1514 with:
SO, I take it that your answer to my QUESTION posed in 1514 is NO!
That is to say, as I understand you, that YOU believe that the Polyrakov data is WRONG. (= False)
You also imply that your conviction is based on the NDIDC (sic) having contradicted the Polyrakov data in some way. I am unaware of your source, so would appreciate your help to enable my understanding of where you are coming from.
QUESTION 3:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC^, from which you draw your conclusion?
^(An imposing title what?…. but actually = University of Colorado, Boulder)!
Brute; I enjoyed your 1521, concerning the early explorations in the “North West Passage”. Of course, Pete is keen to point-out some of the difficulties encountered by those early adventurers throughout the very complicated Canadian Archipelago and what not. And, obviously, it is very much easier today with satellite mapping, radar, better radio communication, depth sounding, and accumulated experience.
Perhaps it is time to reflect again on the various adventures of surface shipping and submarines up there, that I collated temporally superimposed on a graph of the published Hadley global average temperatures. See link in following post, to avoid spammo.
My favourite is the SS Manhattan, a reinforced super-tanker that made it first in 1969, but suffered damage that took a month to repair, however she did try to cruise at 15 knots, which might have been a bit ambitious. Anyway, the decision was made to build the Alaskan pipeline, so no need to send exploratory oil tankers through there again.
And; Why did the North Pole melt in MAY 1987, when the World was significantly colder, and rather close to what it was in 1940?
Here is the link for my 1524:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2706032714_6bffa3fb96_o.png
Hi Peter,
To my comment questioning where BBC “dredged up” the poll info you cited, which supposedly shows Obama with a 4:1 lead over McCain in the US Presidential race, you wrote (1520): ‘The term “dredging up” would imply that you consider those surveyed to be lesser beings.’
Actually not, Peter.
Check the online dictionaries.
dredge up
v.
(Informal) dig up, unearth, bring to light, discover, uncover
syn. cite, mention, refer, advert, name, bring up…
Don’t see anything about “lesser beings” there, Peter; do you?
I would, however, consider the BBC report to be of “lesser” accuracy, in light of the many US polls (such as those just cited by JZSmith), which all show a tight race with McCain enjoying a slight gain in momentum recently, following his choice of Sarah Palin as VP candidate.
You and I (and Bob_FJ) can watch with interest as Brute, JZSmith (plus the rest of the US voters) select the next US President and VP.
Regards,
Max
http://www.galaxywd.com/911/
Bob_FJ
http://amap.no/acia/
Brute, your 1527. Thanks. I couldn’t watch the whole thing. What a horrible day that was.
A neighbor from my childhood was killed at the Pentagon on Sept 11th. He was quite a bit older than I, but his family is still close with mine, and they remain devastated to this day. I can’t imagine their pain, nor can I imagine it every going away.
Today is a good day to go home and hug your kids for a long time.
I’m normally a bit reluctant to use pejorative labels, but if they really don’t mind
GOOGLE {BBC, Redneck}
then is it OK to use the term Redneck?
It is interesting that the above article links Redneckism with Irish and Scottish settlers in the USA. This is a bit odd because from my travels, I’ve seen no evidence of the phenomenon in present day Ireland and Scotland.
Scottish working class culture is quite different. It does contain a lot of nationalism, quite a bit of sectarianism, but quite a lot of old fashioned socialism too. When I was last there , Mrs T was at the height of her popularity in England, mainly in the south, but her party could hardly win a seat north of the border where she was generally reviled.
Max,
I’m sure its the same in German too. Words and phrases have nuances which means than synonyms aren’t quite as interchangeable as they might appear, just by looking in the dictionary.
If your wife is ever reminiscing wistfully about your early days together, I would suggest that you might want to avoid suggesting that she is ‘dredging up’ old memories. You might find yourself, shortly afterwards, confined to your own side of the bed!
More on 9-11…
An important excerpt:
Sorry Tony, my last few posts have been WAY off topic.
I’ll get back on board tomorrow…
Hi Peter,
You used the word “redneck” to describe supporters of Sarah Palin.
From the dictionary:
Main Entry: red·neck
Pronunciation: \?red-?nek\
Function: noun
Date: 1830
1. sometimes disparaging : a white member of the Southern rural laboring class
2. often disparaging : a person whose behavior and opinions are similar to those attributed to rednecks
The origin seems to be from a white farmer, getting a sunburned neck from laboring in the hot southern sun.
Yes, redneck is usually considered to be a disparaging remark. Among certain rural or small-town Americans, particularly in the south or southwest, it is jokingly used within this group. Use by outsiders is considered in poor taste, however.
This is similar to the much-maligned “n-word”, where people of color may use the word within their group, but use by outsiders is considered racist and inappropriate (and, in some cases, even forbidden by local law).
I suppose you have similar words in Australia for describing (or “putting down”) groups of people.
The whole idea of limiting onesself to “politically correct” words may be less developed in Australia (or Switzerland, for that matter) than it is in the USA and UK. In my opinion, it can be exaggerated.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Is it true that Sarah Palin is against abortions under all conditions?
What about cases where young girls who may be barely into their teens who have been subject to sexual abuse by a family member? Maybe even their father? We have a few sickos like that in Australia, unfortunately, and I’m sure it goes on everywhere.
If she is against abortions, as the lesser of two evils, in those circumstances, would it be possible for me to dream up an even viler scenario that may change her mind?
JZ,
I watched that this morning and felt pangs all day……Then I felt enraged. I work in Washington DC and was downtown that day.
The point is that we must remain on the offensive against these animals for a long, long time….. and never forget.
Brute,
I think ‘criminals’ would be a better word than ‘animals’. It isn’t the dogs , cats and polar bears of the world that you should have any quarrel with.
‘Justice for criminals’ would have been a better slogan than ‘war on terror’ too.
Peter Martin 1528 wrote in full:
I gather that this cryptic post is in response to my 1523, in which the simple and only question was:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
[That the Arctic is recently warmer than in the early 1900’s]
Your 1528 link takes me to seven publications from a group OTHER than NSIDC, that I must say has a very impressive team of desk-top publishers and brilliant logo designers and graphic artists.
Now to some more background of my prior existence, and experience:
When I first “retired“, I became a registered house builder, (HIA), and designed and built my own projects. Then, (at a bad time in the local industry), as an escape, and further exciting change of career interest, for 18 months, I became a full-time desk-top publisher & manager for a club membership quarterly magazine of >2000, and thus from experience can visualize the resources and man-hours required for these very beautiful presentations, that so exquisitely doom the Arctic and all its flora and fauna etc.
I had an opening look at part 1 of 15 (of ~24 megabytes) of the first of the seven publications, and did a search on the word ‘warmer’ and found zilch relevant to the question.
Then, flicking visually through part 1 of 15 of 1 of 7 publications, I halted, goggle-eyed, immediately at page 3, and beheld; a very beautiful “3D” perspective presentation of the “hockey stick” that was even more beautiful than the multiple variations of it in the various 2001 IPCC reports etc. (But which THEY…. The IPCC…. did not DARE to re-publish in 2007 AR4, in any section!)
I would estimate that in response to my simple question, you invited me to explore somewhere between 100 and 200 megabytes of information, but I could not take your source seriously beyond its page 3! (Despite the great beauty of the many other images, seen by just fanning through, for the first 3 or 4 megabytes)
HOWEVER; YOU HAVE NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU IN MY 1523!
You have many times made reference to the NSIDC as the ultimate authority, but when you are asked to back-up your claims with a proven quote from THEM, you divert to some other circus, and delay there with a great volume of non specifics!
The unanswered question remains:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
[That the Arctic is recently warmer than in the early 1900’s….. if necessary, see my 1523 for full context]
Please answer the question posed in 1523. (It is repeated in bold font just two lines above; see also 1523)
Peter Martin 1528 wrote in full:
I gather that this cryptic post is in response to my 1523, in which the simple and only question was:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
[That the Arctic is recently warmer than in the early 1900’s]
Your 1528 link takes me to seven publications from a group OTHER than NSIDC, that I must say has a very impressive team of desk-top publishers and brilliant logo designers and graphic artists.
Now to some more background of my prior existence, and experience:
When I first “retired“, I became a registered house builder, (HIA), and designed and built my own projects. Then, (at a bad time in the local industry), as an escape, and further exciting change of career interest, for 18 months, I became a full-time desk-top publisher & manager for a club membership quarterly magazine of >2000, and thus from experience can visualize the resources and man-hours required for these very beautiful presentations, that so exquisitely doom the Arctic and all its flora and fauna etc.
I had an opening look at part 1 of 15 (of ~24 megabytes) of the first of the seven publications, and did a search on the word ‘warmer’ and found zilch relevant to the question.
Then, flicking visually through part 1 of 15 of 1 of 7 publications, I halted, goggle-eyed, immediately at page 3, and beheld; a very beautiful “3D” perspective presentation of the “hockey stick” that was even more beautiful than the multiple variations of it in the various 2001 IPCC reports etc. (But which THEY…. The IPCC…. did not DARE to re-publish in 2007 AR4, in any section!)
I would estimate that in response to my simple question, you invited me to explore somewhere between 100 and 200 megabytes of information, but I could not take your source seriously beyond its page 3! (Despite the great beauty of the many other images, seen by just fanning through, for the first 3 or 4 megabytes)
HOWEVER; YOU HAVE NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU IN MY 1523!
You have many times made reference to the NSIDC as the ultimate authority, but when you are asked to back-up your claims with a proven quote from THEM, you divert to some other circus, and delay there with a great volume of non specifics!
The unanswered question remains:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
[That the Arctic is recently warmer than in the early 1900’s….. if necessary, see my 1523 for full context]
Please answer the question posed in 1523. (It is repeated in bold font just two lines above; see also 1523)
Hi Peter,
You asked me: “Is it true that Sarah Palin is against abortions under all conditions?”
Sorry, Peter. I don’t really know and I don’t really care. I can’t see how this is of any importance whatsoever. Can you?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Looking back on history, you wrote of Margaret Thatcher: “Mrs T was at the height of her popularity in England, mainly in the south, but her party could hardly win a seat north of the [Scottish] border where she was generally reviled.”
At the time I spent quite a bit of time in the UK, and much of that in Scotland.
The 1984/85 national miners’ strike left bitter feelings, mostly in northern England. Arthur Scargill’s unsuccessful attempt to topple the Thatcher government ended up with the miners’ union essentially destroyed and the trade union movement in Britain seriously wounded.
This was the time when Europeans went on weekend shopping sprees to London, because the Pound was so ridiculously weak and everything could be bought for a pittance (if you had hard DM, FF Dfl or CHF). Newspapers on the Continent were still clucking about the “British malaise”.
But, in addition to the influence of Thatcher, there was another new wind blowing. Following a decade of oil and gas exploration and development in the North Sea, the UK had become self-sufficient in oil and Aberdeen had become a boomtown. The coalmines had become redundant, not only because of Scargill’s misguided actions, but also because of the North Sea. As I recall, there was very little anti-Thatcher sentiment in Aberdeen at the time. I did not see at all that she was “reviled” there.
Europeans no longer flock to London for inexpensive shopping and no one speaks of the “British malaise” these days.
Who knows what will happen after 2010, when the UK again becomes a net importer of oil and gas? No matter what happens, I doubt that the UK will have to re-live the dark days of the 1970s and early 1980s again. And maybe a small part of that was due to Margaret Thatcher.
Just some thoughts, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Note to Bob_FJ
Hi Bob,
Your chart (1524/1525) tells a pretty effective story about Arctic sea ice, which goes back quite a bit further than the NSIDC stuff that Peter is so fond of.
But even the NSIDC data themselves tell a different story than the NSIDC press release headlines that Peter likes to quote, namely a 4% per decade long term reduction in Arctic sea ice since 1979, with a reversal over the past year, a 2% per decade long term increase in Antarctic sea ice with a large increase over the past year.
As I pointed out to Peter, the combined 2008/2007 increase in sea ice represents a surface area of 260,000 square kilometers, around 10% larger than that of Victoria (Australia), or slightly larger than the US State of Oregon.
At the same time, the extent of Northern Hemisphere snow cover (Rutgers data) shows no decrease since 1988 (i.e. for the past 20 years), but there is not much ballyhoo about this.
Just goes to show that you can always pick some set of data to prove almost anything, if you try hard enough.
But I like your chart.
Regards,
Max
Message to Bob_FJ
Hi Bob,
Thanks for link to Polyakov et al. study on Arctic temperatures. If you go back to the raw data they show some very interesting trends.
Trying to find some sort of correlation between Arctic temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration is pretty difficult; this correlation simply isn’t there.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3175/2851297269_77757a7cd4_b.jpg
First, once can see that since the record started in 1875, there have been multi-decadal cycles of rapid warming and rapid cooling, with an underlying overall slight warming trend.
The most rapid warming took place from 1917 to 1944 (1.4°C) with a very small increase in CO2 (12 ppmv).
This was followed by a period of cooling from 1944 to 1980 (-0.9°C), while CO2 increased dramatically by 31 ppmv.
Finally we have the “IPCC poster period” from 1980 to 2000, where there is rapid warming accompanied by an increase in CO2 of 30 ppmv.
A picture is always worth a thousand words, and it looks like you’ve got to have real religious “faith” in AGW to conjure up any kind of correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and Arctic temperature, let alone any evidence of causation.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
The link that I gave you was to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report of 2004.
If you haven’t got time to read the whole thing just download the file highlights.pdf.
If you can’t be bothered to do that here are a couple of graphs showing changes in temperature and ice cover over the 20th century.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/2851333023_3be7eaa20b_o.png
Max,
It isn’t the first time we have discussed Sarah Palin or the abortion issue. If you are not interested then fair enough. Sarah Palin is a dangerous character in that she seems to possesses a simple minded certainty on a whole range of issues.
Her views tend to support my theory that climate change sceptics don’t just have the one single irrational view, they have a whole range of odd-ball views. The latest one of hers seemed to indicate a willingness to contemplate the prospect of nuclear war with Russia.
I wouldn’t be too worried if John McCain himself became president, but I would be scared stiff if his health began to falter!
Max again,
I’m not sure where you get your information about Scottish opinion on Mrs Thatcher and the political changes which she brought about in the UK. Before Mrs Thatcher became UK PM her party held 27 seats, out of about 70, in Scotland. By the end of her ‘reign’ these had dropped to 3. At present the figure is 2. Neither are in Aberdeen.
If the UK Conservative Party win the next UK general election, and they only manage to secure one or two seats in Scotland, it is quite likely that Scotland will declare independence and the UK will therefore cease to exist. That will be Mrs T’s legacy to her country.
We do have some reasons to be grateful to her though. In 1988, she made a major speech accepting the problems of global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. In 1990, her government opened the Hadley Centre for climate prediction and research!
Hi Peter,
Speaking of Sarah Palin you wrote, “Her views tend to support my theory that climate change sceptics don’t just have the one single irrational view, they have a whole range of odd-ball views. The latest one of hers seemed to indicate a willingness to contemplate the prospect of nuclear war with Russia.”
I have seen nothing in Palin’s remarks advocating a “nuclear war with Russia”. Are you making this stuff up, Peter? For shame!
I’d say that your “theory that climate change sceptics don’t just have the one single irrational view, they have a whole range of odd-ball views” is, in itself an unsubstantiated “odd-ball view”. What basis do you have for this rather startling “theory”? Please bring some specifics, Peter, not just another load of BS.
I would say that my rationally skeptical view on this whole issue is much more balanced than your one-sided opinion.
As to “climate change”, the AGW hypothesis is coming unraveled today, as temperatures cool off despite all-time record CO2 emissions. Face it, Peter, the beautiful hypothesis is not being validated by the observed facts. A pity!
Time will show that the “climate change skeptics” were right, after all, and that the “odd-ball view” was that of AGW hysteria, which you are espousing.
Stick around, Peter, and watch what is really going on out there. It’s not working in the favor of AGW-enthusiasts. The facts are catching up with you, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You seem to love to throw out Arctic sea ice extent and temperature numbers. I’d say this is a good sidetrack, since the global temperature data do not support your AGW theory anymore.
But do the data from the Arctic support your hypothesis?
I’d suggest you check the raw data cited by Bob_FJ (from Polyakov and the International Arctic Research Center).
It’s quite clear. Temperature increase was more rapid and absolute temperature was higher in the 1917-1944 period than in the period 1980-2000, despite the fact that there was hardly any increase in CO2 back then. More damaging for your AGW hypothesis is the fact that Arctic temperatures cooled off during the 1944-1980 period of rapid CO2 increase.
A beautiful theory, Peter, but unfortunately the observed facts do not support it.
Regards,
Max
Max,
You ask “But do the data from the Arctic support your hypothesis?”
My hypothesis? I’ll come back to that point later , but, well yes it does actually. See Fig A2 of:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
Although I’m flattered that you feel I have some influence, you really should worry less about what I think. The AGW issue hasn’t been invented by me or even people who necessarily think along similar lines as me politically. Scientifically , of course, is different and I’m sure we do think along similar lines. I’m sure that many of the scientists at NASA,NOAA, NSIDC, the UK’s Hadley centre and elsewhere actually vote for parties of the right, and who , you might have already picked up on, I wouldn’t be likely to support personally.
They are the guys whose hypothesis it is. Not mine.
Peter Martin, in your latest 1542, in our exchange on Arctic TEMPERATURE’s, (which BTW, are not the same as sea-ice coverage), I see that you are still not responding to the question asked in my 1523, the context of which I repeat in full:
~~~~~~Re my 1523~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Martin 1520 responded to my YES or NO question posed in my 1514 with:
SO, I take it that your answer to my QUESTION posed in 1514 is NO!That is to say, as I understand you, that YOU believe that the Polyrakov data is WRONG. (= False)
You also imply that your conviction is based on the NDIDC [sic] having contradicted the Polyrakov data in some way. I am unaware of your source, so would appreciate your help to enable my understanding of where you are coming from.
QUESTION 3:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC^, from which you draw your conclusion?
^(An imposing title what?…. but actually = University of Colorado, Boulder)!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Martin in his 1528, responded with a cryptic reference to a whole library of stuff, not of the NSIDC as asked, but to something centred on Cambridge U.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My response to his 1528 in my 1537was:
I gather [Peter] that this cryptic post [of yours 1528] is in response to my 1523, in which the simple and only question was:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
[That the Arctic is recently warmer than in the early 1900’s]
Your 1528 link takes me to seven publications from a group OTHER than NSIDC, that I must say has a very impressive team of desk-top publishers and brilliant logo designers and graphic artists.
Now to some more background of my prior existence, and experience:
When I first “retired“, I became a registered house builder, (HIA), and designed and built my own projects. Then, (at a bad time in the local industry), as an escape, and further exciting change of career interest, for 18 months, I became a full-time desk-top publisher & manager for a club membership quarterly magazine of >2000, and thus from experience can visualize the resources and man-hours required for these very beautiful presentations, that so exquisitely doom the Arctic and all its flora and fauna etc.
I had an opening look at part 1 of 15 (of ~24 megabytes) of the first of the seven publications, and did a search on the word ‘warmer’ and found zilch relevant to the question.
Then, flicking visually through part 1 of 15 of 1 of 7 publications, I halted, goggle-eyed, immediately at page 3, and beheld; a very beautiful “3D” perspective presentation of the “hockey stick” that was even more beautiful than the multiple variations of it in the various 2001 IPCC reports etc. (But which THEY…. The IPCC…. did not DARE to re-publish in 2007 AR4, in any section!)
I would estimate that in response to my simple question, you invited me to explore somewhere between 100 and 200 megabytes of information, but I could not take your source seriously beyond its page 3! (Despite the great beauty of the many other images, seen by just fanning through, for the first 3 or 4 megabytes)
HOWEVER; YOU HAVE NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU IN MY 1523!
You have many times made reference to the NSIDC as the ultimate authority, but when you are asked to back-up your claims with a proven quote from THEM, you divert to some other circus, and delay there with a great volume of non specifics!
The unanswered question remains:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion?
[That the Arctic is recently warmer than in the early 1900’s….. if necessary, see my 1523 for full context]
Please answer the question posed in 1523. (It is repeated in bold font just two lines above; see also 1523)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t think I could explain the question and its context more definitively, concisely, and repetitively. However, Pete still does not respond to the simple very clearly defined question. Below the line is his latest response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Martin 1542 wrote
Bob_FJ,
The link that I gave you was to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report of 2004.
If you haven’t got time to read the whole thing just download the file highlights.pdf.
If you can’t be bothered to do that here are a couple of graphs showing changes in temperature and ice cover over the 20th century.
[Link deleted to avoid spammo]
##########################################################################################
Pete:
I want to AGAIN repeat the basis of the question that several of us here would like you to answer. You wrote in part in your 1520:
Would you please identify a reference from the NSIDC, from which you draw your conclusion? ##########################################################################################
Finally let me repeat that I can hold no interest in that other circus which you now seem to prefer over the NSIDC since it uses thoroughly discredited information on page three, is too “glossy” to be true, and is rather obsolete at 2004. (they did have some clever graphic artists and stuff though, back in 2004!)