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 sort of halfway included me in your message to Brute and JZSmith concerning “elitism” in US politics. Believe both have already responded to this.
But your comment below caught my attention, “There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a fish bone and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his wisdom, has brought it about. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn’t ready for? He wouldn’t. Everything happens for a reason. Why would God not let her push that nuclear strike button? He wouldn’t of course.”
This is what I would refer to as a political “rant”. Since you (as an Australian) and I (as a Swiss) are not really qualified to suggest what American voters might do for which reason, I think your comment is silly and presumptuous. The reference to a “nuclear strike button” is downright paranoid and totally irrelevant. But maybe JZSmith and Brute disagree.
Your suggestion that some Palin supporters might see her election as an “act of God” is also beside the point. There are many Americans who support both sides that believe in God and some that believe that God exerts His will in everything that happens, but a larger group on both sides probably believe that the US presidential election will be decided not by God, but by the US voters, including the 10+ million disappointed women Hillary supporters, who feel that the “good old boys” of the Democratic Party snubbed their candidate, and some of whom see Palin as an alternate. You know the old saying, “Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned”, and some of these women feel they have been scorned.
It is clear that Obama made a serious mistake in overconfidently taking these voters for granted, and that McCain made a strategically brilliant move in picking a woman as his running mate. Now you may be right in saying that there may be some people out there that believe that “God willed” Obama to make this blunder and that the same “God willed” McCain to make his brilliant move, and therefore that “God willed” many of the disgruntled Hillary supporters to switch to McCain/Palin and eventually to swing the election.
To your question, “Why would God give Sarah Palin a [VP] job she isn’t ready for?” one could just as easily ask the question, “Why would the same God give Barack Obama a [more important President] job he is not ready for?”
I think you’re better off leaving “God” or the religion of the various candidates out of the discussion, Peter, and you and I are probably better off letting US voters, like Brute and JZSmith, talk about US politics and keeping our opinions to ourselves.
Regards,
Max
Brute gave a good explanation of why here in the USA “elitism” is generally not viewed as an admirable quality—at least in politics. I’ll add that I believe the reason for this is that our Constitution explicitly prohibits any form of ‘nobility’ or class structure. We are all equals here, or at least that’s how all start out. For sure, we also speak of “middle class”, “upper class”, and “working class”, but the only thing holding someone back from climbing to the next higher class is themselves and their willingness to work hard and sacrifice. That’s not true in many parts of the world.
Here in the western USA in general, and in California in particular, it is even more striking. Back east in New England a lot of one’s success or failure can be a result of what your family name is.
Here, though, nobody cares where you’re from, or what your father did for a living, or how successful your great uncle Charles was. We only care about what you’re doing right now. We like winning, and winners, and underdogs. We respect those who make something of them self from nothing, as so many here (as elsewhee in the USA) have done.
We emphasize the individual, not the group. For sure, many American’s on the left politically would agree with you, and that is why I suspect that they think the world hates America. They think like Europeans, admire Europeans, and would like to remake the USA into something much more like Europe.
You rarely hear of conservatives referred to as “elites”; it’s almost always liberals. They are convinced that most of America—particularly in the midwest (also called “flyover country”) are useless stupid hicks who don’t know what’s best for them. The liberals, if you ask them, do know what’s best for them.
For more on liberal elitism, read this.
Hi Brute,
Enjoyed your story (1692) about “current global cooling masking the real underlying trend of man-made global warming”. How stupid do these guys think that humanity is to fall for such utter rubbish? Amazing!
On the local scene, summer is officially over, but Switzerland did not get much warm weather this year. The mountain ski resorts already saw the first snowfall during the last days of summer. On the first day of autumn, temperatures in the valleys were around 4 to 6°C in the morning, warming up to 12 to 14°C, and the morning temperature in the mountains was -8°C in Zermatt, Grindelwald and Bagnes. In the afternoon, the 0°C line was expected to rise from around 1600 meters in the morning to around 2300 meters.
A few ski resorts have opened for the season over the past week, and many are expecting another excellent year. This follows a good (i.e. cold and snowy) season 2007/08, a poor (warm and dry or slushy) season 2006/07 and a good season with heavy snowfall 2005/06.
But whether it gets colder or milder, whether we have more or less snow, no matter what happens, we know that the root cause of it all is human CO2, because a “consensus of 2,500 scientists” told us so.
Ouch!
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
You wrote, “You rarely hear of conservatives referred to as “elites”; it’s almost always liberals.”
In Switzerland they have a name for these “elitist leftists”: They call them the “Salon-Sozis”, to differentiate from the old blue-collar working-class trade-union socialists, which used to be the backbone of the Swiss socialist party. In Switzerland, a lot of these “elitists” have joined the green party lately. Sure, there are the “old influential families” (who are usually conservative or neo-liberal, in the British sense), like you have in the East, and one could call them “elitists” as well.
It is much the same in Germany. One big difference is that most government employees there are in some kind of a nationalized labor union and are protected from ever being fired, which leans them toward the social democratic party, which supports this whole structure. Many of these are not blue-collar workers, but hold white-collar bureaucratic jobs and are part of the “elitist” category. Angela Merkel has learned to live with the SDP in sort of a “tight-rope balancing act”, without giving in to all the union demands. Then you’ve got the greens there who are more extreme than those in Switzerland, who also have their share of “elitist leftists”.
In France there was a shining example of an “elitist leftist” in Marie Ségolène Royal, who lost out last year to another conservative reformer, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is now trying to get his country back on its feet after mismanagement from both sides, starting with socialist François Mitterrand back in the 1980s. France does not have much of a “green” movement and most of the debate is “left/right” in nature.
But I’ve got to admit that in recent USA politics it is a strange combination of Hollywood “nouveau-elitists” and media darlings that have jumped on the Obama bandwagon because it’s “in” and “sexy”, and, of course, Obama has to please these folks. Unfortunately for him, this does not help him much with the rust-belt blue collar types that he needs to win the November election.
But it’s more fun to watch than Swiss (or German or even French) politics.
Even Peter seems to enjoy it in his own rather peculiar way, and chime in from time to time.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Yes. Here we refer to these types as “Limousine Liberals” or “Mercedes Marxists”. These are the holier than thou Harvard types that pontificate about the “oppression” of the common man from their 25 room mansions.
I suppose that a person must be immersed in a culture to appreciate the nuances.
JZ understands completely what I’m referring to……you seem to have a pretty accurate assessment also which I attribute to your demonstrated common sense approach to various topics.
You’re correct that particularly this Presidential campaign season has turned into a reality television show such as the one where the contestants must eat lives insects or stand in raw sewage to get prizes.
I’m not sure if there is the same term in Australia.
I would say that the vast majority of public sector workers, teachers , civil servants and so on, plus a good many other professionals, in Australia would vote Labor and have left-of-centre opinions. So its quite normal to find quite prosperous city suburbs with Labor MPs at both at State and Federal level. In the country, or bush, its quite normal to find less prosperous towns with National party, right wing, representation. So, here we do see a strong link between education and progressive opinions.
I would say that it’s not quite the same everywhere, though. Not in the UK for example. Australian politics are quite boring by comparison. Nothing like the miners strike which was going on in the UK when I last worked there or the Poll tax riots that happened afterwards. It may have changed a bit since under the influence of ‘New Labour’ but in the mid eighties the Labour or Socialist areas were the poorer and working class areas of the inner-cities with a strong North/ South divide. Labour in the North of England , Scotland and Wales. The Tories in the SE of England. There was no question of who considered themselves to be the ‘elite’ there! And it wasn’t the ‘liberals’ or socialists.
It wasn’t just a question of money,although that was significant, it was about accent, and having gone to the right Public school ( which in the UK are the private schools), and having the ‘right background’. If you weren’t ‘one of us’ as Mrs T used to say, you were the ‘enemy within’. So, although I did find many well educated people who generally agreed with me and voted Labor, and the Labor Party too had well educated people in Parliament, it was quite different to the USA. Politics was much more based on social and economic class, and mistrust of the self considered ‘elites’ was indeed directed at the Conservatives.
I would still say there is a difference between those who consider themselves to be an ‘elite’ and those are are the genuine article though.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “So, here we do see a strong link between education and progressive opinions.” As I read this, it was supposed to say that the “better educated” urban Australians tended to vote more liberal and the less-educated “country bumpkins” vote more conservative. I find this strange, since I know a few well-educated Australians (engineers) from both Melbourne and Sydney who were pro-Howard.
I have a hard time believing that well-educated Australians tend to vote more liberal than less-educated ones, but, hey, that may be the case. Lots of things may be different down there than in the rest of the world.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
The above quote would be a prime example of an “elitist” attitude/opinion.
Good article.
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm
One additional observation:
Elitists rarely think of themselves as being elitists……their arrogance will not allow it.
Brute,
I do certainly not agree that it is an ‘elitist’ opinion, but, yes, there is indeed a strong link between education and having a progressive world view.
Compare different areas of the world for the effects of high and low levels of general education in different populations. Generally speaking it is the more reactionary of the world’s regimes which oppose the concept of free and universal education. Women have a hard time getting any education at all in many countries even in the 21st century.
It has been suggested that the introduction of the printing press was the most revolutionary invention of all. Before people could read and had access to books, they were totally reliant on what they were told by their masters or heard in the pulpit of their church. The introduction of universal education in the industrialising countries in nineteenth century was a serious concern to the ‘establishment’. They were caught in a bind. On the one hand they needed educated workers for their developing economies, but on the other hand they did not want them studying what they would have regarded to be subversive literature.
This attitude persisted into the 20th century. You know who the most enthusiastic book burners were seventy years ago. Even now one of the ‘litmus’ tests which would separate conservative from progressive opinion is the role of education itself. On the one hand you have those who consider it to be training for the job market, and on the other hand there are those who support education in its own right as the basis for personal development and understanding.
I must admit that I have long been puzzled why young Australians, unlike young Americans, are generally keen to go off to work for a couple of years overseas, and indeed many young people from overseas, but generally not America, come to work in Australia too. Many stay on and many choose to return. I would say it is good all round and that, on the whole, everyone benefits.
Apparently George Bush had never had a passport before becoming president and it’s only recently that Sarah Palin has made her first brief overseas trip.
I’ve just discovered a reference to so-called ‘double taxing’ by the US government on its citizens who work abroad, which would explain a lot. Is this really true? Double taxation must raise a negligible amount of revenue. It would be quite impossible for a young American to survive by working in Europe, for example, if they had to pay double amounts of income tax and so I can only surmise that the purpose of the US tax rule is to prevent its young people becoming ‘contaminated’ by experiences in the outside world!
Please refer to post # 1710
The most classis example of book burning that I can recall in recent memory is The National Socialist Party, (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). This Leftist group commited extensive atrocities and is directly responsible for the deaths of 65 Million people.
I’ve always found it curious that “elite” Leftists refer to their counterparts on the right as fascists, storm troopers and goose steppers; when the origin of these practices is more descriptive of Leftist, (Socialist) regimes of the past…..so much for higher education.
The National Socialist Party was also big on propaganda and crushing dissent of the “consensus” view. Ridicule, intimidation, extortion, scapegoating, blacklisting and strong arm tactics were also methods practices by these lovely people. One can’t help but draw parallels to the recent media coverage of the imminent “climate catastrophe”/ “global warming” doctrine.
I have returned from two weeks away from my computer to see that there have been nearly 250 posts since my last contribution. Unfortunately (in my view) rather too many are OT. Here’s something that’s not. It’s a paper by Richard Lindzen showing how recent developments in scientific practice – especially re climate science – may be inhibiting the proper development of science. An essential read IMHO.
Tony touches on some of the points made by Lindzen in his article here. I was entertained, impressed and convinced by it.
Hi Robin,
Welcome back! We missed your thoughtful contributions, and, yes, we did tend to drift from the main topic into purely political discussions, etc.
Thanks for the links to both Richard Lindzen’s excellent paper demonstrating how big money and politics (there it is again!) has corrupted the scientific process in “climate science”, as well as Tony’s incisive “If I were a politician, I’d believe in global warming too!”
Regards,
Max
Welcome back, Robin! Yes, we did driff off topic, but still much of the conversation was at least tangentially related. The discussion on petrodollars, debt, etc., was based on Peter’s position that we need to get off oil in order to a)stop AGW, and b)reduce our trade deficit via oil imports.
This bit of news today came out last night after the US new cycle ended, and has seen little coverage in the MSM.
The sooner we start drilling the better.
Hi JZSmith,
Looks like the US Congress is finally beginning to listen to the majority of US citizens that say, “Drill, baby, drill!”
I think Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will eventually get John McCain to change his mind about drilling in ANWR. This apparently would affect 2,000 acres out of a total surface area of 19.5 million acres, so is truly irrelevant to the Arctic fauna and flora there, despite the hype and hysteria from environmental lobbying groups.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed031402c.cfm
BTW, I was up at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in summer 2007. It is truly amazing what they do to protect the environment up there.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
You commented on the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) repression of free expression, drawing a parallel to the ‘recent media coverage of the imminent “climate catastrophe”/ “global warming” doctrine’. Some (like Peter) may find that comparison a bit strong, but there is no doubt that the principle of squashing views dissenting from the “party line” is there. Main difference is that in Nazi Germany (as well as the Soviet Union) dissenters were simply eliminated by execution, which is handled a bit more humanely today, as the Lindzen paper cited by Robin points out.
There are a lot of similarities between the extreme nationalist socialism (called “Nazi-ism”) in Germany and the extremist nationalist socialism (called “Communism”) in the Soviet Union.
A 1992 book by British author, Alan Bullock, “Hitler and Stalin – Parallel Lives”, points out the many similarities not only of the two revolutions and regimes, but also of the two men. Both men started out at the bottom, with no natural or inherited advantages (neither was an “elitist”!). Both started out at the fringes of the empires they would eventually rule, Stalin in Georgia, and Hitler in Austria. But most striking is the similarity in the political philosophies of the two. Both empires eventually self-destructed: the Nazis in a suicidal war and the Communists in a slow, self-inflicted decline caused by internal corruption and the inherent inability of pure top-down socialism to compete in this world.
But back to our topic, it is fortunate that despite all the obstacles and false accusations of being a “big oil stooge”, there are still knowledgeable people like Richard Lindzen who have the courage to speak out against all the hype and hysteria being promulgated by the multi-billion dollar, political “AGW money machine”.
Regards,
Max
Hi JZSmith,
Don’t know if you saw this interview with Sarah Palin regarding the role of Alaska in US energy policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYPxIJSDg0
She seems to know what she is talking about.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Funny how the Democrats and their ‘willing accomplices in the media’ have put the lid on this story, releasing it late at night and then ignoring it all day. Were it the Rep’s capitulating like this and the media would be all over it!
Here’s something on ANWR…
In an interview, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that Alaska oil represents 20% of the US total. How correct was this statement?
Alaska produced 21.1 million barrels of oil in July 2008. Out of a total US production of 5.0 million barrels/day, this represents around 14% of US oil production.
Only a small amount of natural gas is being produced in Alaska today; this will increase when the gas pipeline is in operation.
Including Prudhoe Bay, other existing fields plus future ANWR fields, there are some 16 billion barrels of oil in Alaska, compared to around 15 billion barrels in the rest of the USA (onshore + offshore), so Alaska represents around 50% of the total reserves.
Natural gas reserves in Alaska are around 390 trillion cubic feet out of the USA total of 1,350 trillion cubic feet, or around 30% of the total.
The above US oil reserve estimate does not include the huge oil shale reserves in CO, UT and WY, which are estimated to represent 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
So Governor Palin’s claim was either a slight overstatement or a big understatement of Alaska’s importance as a US supplier of oil, depending how one looks at it.
Max
September 24, 2008
Solar Winds Cooling Warmist Doomsaying
Timothy Birdnow
Global warming alarmists face yet another challenge to their predictions of an inferno of doom. The solar wind is losing power, and is at a fifty year low, according to NASA.
The Ulysses solar probe reports a 13% drop in temperature, a 20% drop in density, and a 30% drop-off in the sun`s magnetic field, marking this as the weakest period of solar wind on record (records go back to the 1960`s).
What does this mean? The Heliosphere is thinning, and thus will block fewer cosmic rays. Heinrick Svensmark theorizes that an increase in cosmic rays reaching the Earth will drive cloud formation, increase the planet`s albedo, thus cooling it.
Is this the cause of the Earth`s unusually cool year? According to Anthony Watts, the Earth`s albedo reached a nadir in 1997, and has risen sharply since. Is this related to the weakening of solar activity? We`ve seen few sunspots in Solar Cycle 24, the solar conveyor belt has slowed to a crawl, and now the solar wind is bottoming out.
This will allow us to see if we are really in the throes of Anthropogenic Global Warming; if temperatures rise (and they haven`t since 1998) then factors other than solar activity are driving climate trends, if not then the greenhouse gas theory is falsified.
If a cooling trend continues, the climate alarmists will have to throw in the towel. Never fear; they`ll come up with a new cause to keep their adrenaline flowing! Probably ocean acidification, or the loss of bees…
This seems interesting.
http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html
Hi Brute,
Your 1723 is very interesting.
This is the kind of constructive approach to the energy problem (and renewable fuels) that is required, not the gloomy doomsday approach of James E.Hansen, which offers no constructive solutions to the world’s energy problems.
This is definitely where the future lies, not with the negative hysteria and crippling taxation non-solutions of Hansen/Gore.
Great stuff!
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Did some checking with US friends living in Switzerland and elsewhere.
You asked, “I’ve just discovered a reference to so-called ‘double taxing’ by the US government on its citizens who work abroad, which would explain a lot. Is this really true?”
“Double taxation” per se for US citizens living abroad is not true.
Most countries in this world tax people based on their country of residence.
The USA (plus, I believe, the Philippines and maybe one or two other small nations) tax their citizens no matter where they live (and work). They also tax non-US citizens who live and work in the USA.
However, the US tax authorities allow their citizens to deduct foreign income taxes paid on foreign-earned income from their US tax liability.
In Switzerland, where taxes are generally about the same as in the USA, this means that a US citizen living and working in Switzerland will pay no more in total than his Swiss income tax.
In Germany, where personal income taxes are higher than in the USA, a US citizen will pay the German tax and no US tax. His net tax bill, however, will be higher than it would have been had he lived in the USA, since he cannot get “credit” for the full German tax.
In a place like Hong Kong, where income tax rates are considerably lower than in the USA, a US citizen will pay the low HK tax to the HK tax authorities plus the difference between the tax rates to the USA authorities.
In a place like Saudi Arabia, Monaco or Andorra, which have essentially no local income tax, the US citizen will have to pay the full US tax to the US tax authorities.
So it’s not really a “double taxation”, but it means that a US citizen will always be expected to pay at least the amount equivalent to the US tax.
Whether or not this influences US citizens to stay at home rather than moving abroad is a moot point. There are an awful lot of US “ex-patriates” working all over the world, so I do not believe that it is a major demotivating factor. And most corporations have some sort of “tax equalization” schemes for their US employees working abroad.
Regards,
Max
PS To bring “climate change” into the discussion (for Tony), I believe we have an equivalent number of US ex-pats moving to “warmer” locations as we have moving to “cooler” locations, so I do not believe we can conclude that there is a climate-related mass emigration.