Mar 172008

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.”

  1. Hi Peter,

    Yeah, you’re right. Switzerland (i.e. Zurich and Geneva) is expensive. It also has the highest “earners”. Guess this must be due to an overpriced Swiss Franc. The currency has recently dropped against the dollar, so the listing below might have to be revised.

    From the latest listing I’ve seen, it appears that Moscow is the most expensive city in the world today, followed by Tokyo, London, Oslo, Seoul, Copenhagen, Dublin, New York, Zurich, Geneva, Helsinki, Paris, Luxembourg, Stockholm and Vienna.

    Switzerland also has the highest “carbon efficiency” (GDP per ton of CO2 emission) of any country. [Thought I’d mention that, just to get back on topic.]

    Regards,

    Max

  2. A full list? This is childish

    These are just the ‘A’s

    AchutaRao, K.M. et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling
    observations and models, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019, doi:10.1029/
    2005JC003136.
    Andersson, H.C., 2002: Influence of long-term regional and large-scale
    atmospheric circulation on the Baltic sea level. Tellus, A54, 76–88.
    Andreev, A., and S. Watanabe, 2002: Temporal changes in dissolved oxygen
    of the intermediate water in the subarctic North Pacific. Geophys. Res.
    Lett., 29(14), 1680, doi:10.1029/2002GL015021.
    Andrie, C., et al., 2003: Variability of AABW properties in the equatorial
    channel at 35 degrees W. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(5), 8007, doi:10.1029/
    2002GL015766.
    Antonov, J.I., S. Levitus, and T.P. Boyer, 2002: Steric sea level variations
    during 1957-1994: Importance of salinity. J. Geophys. Res., 107(C12),
    8013, doi:10.1029/2001JC000964.
    Antonov, J.I., S. Levitus, and T.P. Boyer, 2005: Steric variability of
    the world ocean, 1955-2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(12), L12602,
    doi:10.1029/2005GL023112.
    Aoki, S., M. Yoritaka, and A. Masuyama, 2003: Multidecadal warming of
    subsurface temperature in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean. J.
    Geophys. Res., 108(C4), 8081, doi:10.1029/JC000307.
    Aoki, S., N.L. Bindoff, and J.A. Church, 2005a: Interdecadal water mass
    changes in the Southern Ocean between 30E and 160E. Geophys. Res.
    Lett., 32, L07607, doi:10.1029/2004GL022220.
    Aoki, S., S.R. Rintoul, S. Ushio, and S. Watanabe, 2005b: Freshening of
    the Ade?lie Land Bottom water near 140°E. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
    L23601, doi:10.1029/2005GL024246.
    31(8), 2307–2320.

  3. Peter, since you will take no interest in some stuff I’ve posted, and you display a lot of elitism, I thought you might be more interested in some comments from John Nichol of Queensland fame. He ain’t no dummy. If you would be interested in some of his work, and the interest that it has provoked on a more academic web site than this, I could advise.

    Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured
    By John Nicol Wednesday, September 10, 2008

    There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate. In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.

    The results of accurate measurements of global temperatures continue to be analysed by the international laboratories, now with 30 years experience in this process while a large number of scientists continue to perform high quality research. The results of these activities clearly demonstrate a wide range of errors in the IPCC projections.

    Among the more obvious of these errors was the prediction of global warming expected by modelling of climate for the last three years. The actual measurements of global cooling in 2007/2008, flew directly in the face of these IPCC models. It would be difficult to find a more definitive illustration of an experimental error.

    However, the claim of a consensus continues to be used in efforts to attract attention away from the lack of verifiable evidence, in a final desperate attempt to support the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming.

    In the past, verifiable and reproducible evidence was required before acknowledgement of a scientific truth. In regard to global warming, this principle has been replaced by a process involving a majority vote.

    The fundamental requirement of reproducible evidence, has been lost in the process of promulgating the messages regarding the output from the experimental computer models providing suggestions of global warming for the IPCC reports. No two of these 23 models provide the same values of temperature – the results are not reproducible.

    That human-caused global climate change is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural changes, has not been accepted. Rather our governments are being subjected to calls to provide policies based on unsubstantiated assertions of largely non-scientific executives of the IPCC, who ignore the uncertainties expressed in the main scientific reports of the International Panel. Evidence that no changes have been observed in Monsoonal activity, snow in the Himalayas, the rate of glacial retreat and the rise of sea level is conveniently ignored or presented as perceived evidence of “change”. Alarming reports are presented of the many natural processes of glacial cracking, ponding of water in the Arctic Ice and the common and repetitive droughts in the drier continents of Australia, America and Africa while insufficient attention is given to the many benefits of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which forms the basis for plant growth through photosynthesis.

    In summary, the future global and local climate is as uncertain as it has always been. Multi-decadal warming, cooling trends and abrupt changes, will continue to occur. Appropriate climate related policies are needed that, first, closely monitor change; and, secondly, respond and adapt to deleterious climatic events in the same way that we already approach hazardous natural events such as droughts, storms and earthquakes. Measures include appropriate mitigation of undesirable socio-economic effects and other economic stresses resulting from changes of the world’s climate.

    The best scientific advice available at present is to “Follow the Sun”.

    Adaptation to climate change will not be aided by imprudent restructuring of the world’s energy economy in pursuit of the mitigation of an alleged “dangerous human-caused warming” that can neither be demonstrated nor measured.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    John Nicol, BSc (University of Queensland), PhD (James Cook University);
    Chairman, Australia Climate Science Coalition, former Senior Lecturer of
    Physics at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; now residing in Brisbane, Australia

  4. Bob_FJ,

    John Nicol says “There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate.”

    Maybe Max would like to email the learned Dr Nicol his well practiced Stefan-Boltzmann caculations which show a climate sensitivity of 0.7 deg C for CO2.

    You just need to apply the feedbacks to get the correct figure of between 1.5 deg C and 4.5deg C according to the IPCC.

    I think Max’s calculations are fine as far as they go, but maybe Dr Nicol can advise if and how he thinks they are in error which he clearly must do if your quotation is correct.

  5. Peter Martin,1679:
    A quickie before I retire to slumberland:
    So you are saying that, despite that Nicol is a Queenslander, and that you are clearly an elitist, that:

    John Nicol, BSc (University of Queensland), PhD (James Cook University); Chairman, Australia Climate Science Coalition, former Senior Lecturer of Physics at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; now residing in Brisbane, Australia; is a fuckwit. (According to you!)

    So did you check-out Nicol’s work?

    So did you check-out Nicol’s work?

    SO DID YOU CHECK-OUT NICOL’S WORK?

  6. Yes, Switzerland is beautiful. But take plenty of money with you when you go there. It isn’t the cheapest place in the world.

    God, must you be so negative all of the time? I thought it would be nice to visit Switzerland and you begin writing how expensive it is there. It’s a vacation…… and I’ll set aside enough money to enjoy myself, the same as if I visited anywhere else.

    And, it isn’t that we haven’t been paying enough taxes….the problem is that the Socialist within our government have been spending money on dopey Liberal handouts and “entitlement”, (I despise that word) programs.

    Did it ever occur to you that the United States has fostered a Democratically elected government in a nation that was previously ruled by a fascist dictator that was influential in promoting terrorism throughout the world and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people as well as millions of Iranians and other people of ethnic origin other than his own? That Saddam and his sons’ regime threatened the stability of the entire region and economic stability of the world? Would you have objected to removing Hitler or Mussolini from power? Does doing what’s right only apply to white people in your view? Brown people don’t rate freedom and liberty in Peter Martins view?

    I guess the Chinese oil deal blows the entire Leftist argument regarding Bush….that the US invaded Iraq to steal their oil to benefit his oil rich buddies and enrich himself?

    You probably don’t see things this way……such is your tunnel vision.

  7. Hi Peter,

    Thanks for your list of “scientists” that support the AGW hypothesis as promulgated by IPCC. You gave me the “A”s. There were a total of 6. Working through the alphabet, that would mean there are about 156 “scientists” all told.

    I can give you a list of around the same number that do not support the IPCC take on AGW, putting your so-called “overwhelming consensus of all, or almost all, scientists” at around 50%.

    When you keep in mind that the billions of dollars in grants from public funding are largely coming from the pro-AGW faction or lobby, this is a truly underwhelming percentage.

    Sorry, Peter. It wold be wiser for you to not bring up the “overwhelming majority” claim. It only backfires on you.

    Regards,

    Max

  8. Hi Peter,

    In your message to Bob_FJ you seem to imply that I am in disagreement with John Nicol when he writes, “There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate. In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.”

    In fact, I find that a very concise statement of fact.

    We have already discussed the bogus claim of a “consensus among climate scientists”, so there is no point rehashing this again.

    Yes, I agree that there is a greenhouse hypothesis, which says that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could result in a temperature increase of around 0.8°C, all other things being equal. Unfortunately, all other things are obviously not equal and the hypothesis has not been proven by physical observations, so the statement is correct that “There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate”.

    What I have also said many times is that even if one accepts the greenhouse hypothesis as correct, there are no physical observations that confirm the feedback assumptions programmed in by the climate models, which result in a 2xCO2 temperature impact of 3.2°C, as assumed by IPCC. In fact, the physical observations that have been made demonstrate exactly the opposite of a positive feedback from clouds and a much lower impact from water vapor, bringing the THEORETICAL (but as yet unproven) 2xCO2 impact to around 0.8°C.

    Does this clear it up for you, Peter? It’s actually quite simple.

    Regards,

    Max

  9. Max,

    If you want the authors of the primary research papers referenced in the IPCC reports, it should be obvious that you should actually read the IPCC reports. As with standard practice in the scientific literature, the referenced scientific papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The list of these papers is quite long; for instance, Chapter Five’s reference list runs to six pages and about 350 papers. And of course each paper usually consists of multiple authors. There would be over a thousand names, and these are just the from the papers which are referenced by the IPCC in a single chapter.

    Bob_FJ,

    I think the term “fuckwit” is a little harsh on your part. But, if you are accurate in your description, he wouldn’t be the first to acquire a PHD. I’m not really familiar with any of John Nicol’s publications, but if you’d like to send me any references, for what he’s written, I’ll take a look.

  10. Max,

    So, You whereas you are saying that “theoretically” there could be a 0.8deg C warming, without the feedbacks, the good Dr Nicol is saying that “theoretically” there isn’t any evidence to support any warming at all.

    Ah yes, it is simple isn’t it? You are in total agreement! How silly of me to not see that!

  11. Hi Peter,

    You wrote, “So, You whereas you are saying that “theoretically” there could be a 0.8deg C warming, without the feedbacks, the good Dr Nicol is saying that “theoretically” there isn’t any evidence to support any warming at all.
    Ah yes, it is simple isn’t it? You are in total agreement! How silly of me to not see that!”

    Yes, Peter, it is rather silly.

    Dr. Nicol is saying that “there isn’t any evidence to support any warming at all”, and I fully agree that “there isn’t any evidence to support any warming at all”.

    I agree that the greenhouse hypothesis is reasonable but as yet unproven (i.e. “there isn’t any evidence to support any warming” from anthropogenic greenhouse gases “at all”).

    And I maintain that even if the hypothesis were correct, it ignores too many other natural climate forcing factors to be able to come up with any kind of a forecast for the future.

    In support of this I refer you to earlier periods of pre-human CO2 warming (late 19th century, early 20th century), AGW cooling despite increased human CO2 (mid-century) and current cooling despite all-time record human CO2 (since at least 2001).

    I also maintain that the assumed positive feedbacks from clouds has been shown based on physical observations to be false, and that the net feedback from clouds based on these observations is likely to be strongly negative, rather than positive, as assumed in all the climate models cited by IPCC.

    I also maintain that the physical observations on water vapor increase with higher temperature show that the assumptions made by the IPCC models exaggerate the amount of water vapor feedback by at least a factor of two.

    And, finally, in light of the above physical observations on cloud and water vapor feedbacks, I maintain that the THEORETICAL temperature increase from 2xCO2 should be around 0.8°C (including all positive and negative feedbacks), rather than 3.2°C, as assumed by IPCC.

    I hope this is clear enough that you can understand it.

    If not, please advise if there is any part that you believe requires further clarification.

    Regards,

    Max

  12. Peter Martin 1684, you wrote to me in part:

    I’m not really familiar with any of John Nicol’s publications, but if you’d like to send me any references, for what he’s written, I’ll take a look.

    Well I suppose you could try his recent paper (revised) at www (dot) ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc
    (Just properly construct the URL and paste it into you browser)
    But let me warn you that it is a complicated paper that was too difficult for me in parts

    I strongly recommend that you visit an academic site (Modified URL below) which discusses it in terms by people more knowledgeable than me and I suspect you, for some 222 posts. (in stream #2, on the revised version)
    The major participants are two fundies, just like you; apsmith (physicist, Arthur) and pliny (mathematician but very knowledgeable in physics). There are at least two opposing physicists with very impressive knowledge and maths: JANP, (Jan Pompe, retired, Sydney), and Tom Vonk (awesome, I think Dutch, but anon). There is also the very active JAE (Anon, Americano), whom is a retired chemist but with whom I’m very impressed with some of his questioning and analysis of the physics of AGW on many other threads. There is also CBA, with his own AGW computer models, and he writes some good stuff and some other stuff that I can’t agree with. Sam Urbinto, another physicist is a bit of a clown, and provides not only humour but some very penetrating stuff, beyond the jokes and stirring. I also participated with a dozen or so posts, the first on page 2, but it became more entertaining towards the end

    WWW (dot) climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=338&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This may well be my last post for a week or four as I holiday mainly in England and Italy.
    Maybe tomorrow evening but probably not, maybe Wednesday late avo, but unlikely.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Peter, I strongly urge you to read all of the 222 comments I mentioned.
    Perhaps when I get back, I can introduce you to some other papers that are somewhat parallel to Nicol.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I’m rather pleased that on page #19, that as a consequence of my comments, the fundamentalist pliny, ultimately apologised for misrepresenting Steve McIntyre. (Steve is not all that interested in the sceptic literature…. And I share that position…. He and I prefer to study the junk that is used by the IPCC to pursue its dogma)

  13. Peter Martin 1684, you also wrote to me in part:

    But, if you are accurate in your description, [of John Nicol being a fuckwit] he wouldn’t be the first to acquire a PHD.

    Well, putting aside that I DID NOT SAY THAT, of this professor:
    Did you perchance watch the Denton interview with professor Tim Flannery^, “Australian alarmist of the Year 2007”, this evening? (^ Also known affectionately by some rationalists as Greenie Flannelly)

    YES, I agree, certainly:
    Some PHD’s are fuckwits, and there are far too many such bending in the breeze of “the AGW consensus“, such as Flannelly!

    Rather magnificently, a la continuum, the second half of Andrew Denton’s interview programme was with a trio comprising a circus-type clown “Fritz”, complete with a magnificent big red nose and bright green hair and much more divertenti, also a convincingly classic (female) fairy in full regalia named Twinkle-Toes, together with a magician with really funny looking turned-up shoes and stuff.

    It’s good to have a chuckle once in a while, rather than see gloom in everything such as the price of things to aliens in Switzerland or wherever because of currency exchange rates and whatnot doom!

    Ah to bed shortly. I enjoy Denton , but I don’t think he will ever replace Parkinson

  14. Peter, regarding your post 1674:

    “The war in Iraq has effectively been financed by the Chinese, and everyone else who you’ve been borrowing from. They’ve lent your Government back the money that you’ve all been busily spending at Walmart and elsewhere. The Chinese alone hold , at a conservative estimate, over a trillion dollars worth of US treasury bonds. Now I would imagine that the last thing the US government would need right now is these traded in for Euros or whatever. The Chinese are in a pretty good position to call the shots right now. Well out of the way from the danger of the reals shots!”

    You need to get your facts straight, Peter. As of June of this year, the largest foreign holders of US public debt (which stood at $5.435 trillion in June) is Japan, holding about $584 billion, followed by China at about $504 billion. Less than half of the US public debt (the “national debt”) is held by foreigners or foreign governments.

    Moreover, US public debt as a percent of GDP is ranked 26th out of 126, with Japan, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Norway, France, Canada, Portugal, and Germany showing higher public debt (as a % of GDP) than the USA.

    Japan and China are very large trading partners with the USA, and investing their cash in the US is a smart financial move on their part. They hardly have any leverage over the USA that Japan doesn’t have as well. I have no fear of China or Japan, as I work with Chinese and Japanese companies all the time. They want the same things we all do: success, security, and a better life.

    One last thing about your ridiculous comment that the USA has been paying “too little in taxes for too long.” I have studied federal revenue levels based on the copious data that the US federal government publishes right here on the internet. For decades, regardless of tax rates, revenues to the federal government runs around 18%-20% of GDP. When taxes are raised, economic activity subsides, and instead of increasing revenues to the government, the economy is retarded to a point where the ~18% GDP figure is maintained. Coincidentally, when taxes are cut, economic activity increases, and revenues to the feds climbs back to the ~18% GDP level.

    Clearly the problem with the US deficit and rising national debt is spending, not revenues. Revenues have been UP every year for decades. The problem is that government can’t stop raising spending levels even higher than revenues rise.

  15. JZ Smith,

    I’ll just give you my sources as:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    “Currently, China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes). In comparison, $1.4 trillion represents M1 or the “tight money supply” of U.S. Dollars which suggests that the value of the U.S. Dollar could change dramatically should China ever choose to divest itself of a large portion of those reserves.”

    “As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion

    If you are interested in this sort of stuff you might like to look at http://www.michael-hudson.com He’s been saying for years that the way the US has been running its economy is crazy, and that it will all end in tears.

  16. JZ Smith,

    I’ll just give you my sources as:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

    {Put http:// in front of this }

    “Currently, China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes). In comparison, $1.4 trillion represents M1 or the “tight money supply” of U.S. Dollars which suggests that the value of the U.S. Dollar could change dramatically should China ever choose to divest itself of a large portion of those reserves.”

    “As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion

    If you are interested in this sort of stuff you might like to look at:

    {http://} http://www.michael-hudson.com

    He’s been saying for years that the way the US has been running its economy is crazy, and that it will all end in tears.

  17. http://www.snowboardclub.co.uk/news-7317.html

    Sep 22, 2008
    Get Ready For The Global Warming Propaganda
    Jeepindesert on New World Liberty
    Now that government scientists recognize that the sun’s lack of sun spot activity is going to significantly cool the solar system, get ready for the storm of propaganda. You’ll hear something to this effect on every major news show and every major newspaper.
    “Global warming is still real. These colder temperatures just mean it could be a lot colder without global warming. We still must fight global warming because these colder temperatures will not last. We must still significantly reduce our carbon footprint.”
    Get ready to vomit. The real scientists know CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas with neglible effect on global temperatures and usually follow global warming rather than cause it. The sun and water in the atmosphere are the leading determination of global temperatures.
    Increases in CO2 are usually balanced with increased plant life, especially in the oceans, which consume the CO2 and release O2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases crop yield, which in times of food shortages, is actually very desired.
    Be weary of scientists on government payroll and scientists and organizations who are paid by the trillionaire international bankers, the Rothschild family with an estimated worth of 100 trillion and Rockefeller family with an estimated net worth 10 trillion. These net worths are conservative estimates and growing exponentially as debts around the globe increase exponentially. They want global carbon tax to consolidate wealth and power globally.

  18. Bob_FJ,

    “Perhaps when I get back, I can introduce you to some other papers that are somewhat parallel to Nicol.”

    I’m sure that there are plenty out there on the net. The point, which I have made many times before, about science and the way it works is that progress is made by the process of peer reviewed papers. If John Nicol or anyone else, wants to gain acceptance of his work, outside of his tight circle of internet contrarians, he’s got to find someone who’ll peer review it and he’s got to find a scientific journal to publish it. Its no good just posting it up on the net.

    I’m not retired (like his band of merry men)and I haven’t got time to work through it all right now. However I would say that opening sentence of his paper is clearly wrong so it doesn’t get off to a good start. “There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions ete etc”

    JN may think the evidence is far from conclusive, but “No evidence” ? Come on. There is certainly some. That’s not how real scientists write. They use much more circumspect phrases than that which often come across a little slightly woolly to the uninitiated.

    They would say “at the present time, sufficient conclusive evidence cannot be found to validate the proposition…….”

  19. Brute, JZ (Max?)

    A question for you Americans. Why is ‘elite’ used as a term of abuse in the USA. When I pay to watch sports I like to see ‘elite’ sportsmen. Of if I have to be operated on I’d like the surgeon to be pretty good. Elite even.

    All of us have our own talents and things we are good at. So it should be a compliment to call someone an elite. I would say that the great Presidents of the USA were elites. FDR. JFK. Nothing wrong with that.

    But there seems a mood in America now that you’d be happier having a president who was quite ordinary. Pres. Bush for example. But you’ve got to ask yourself if you’d voted in someone with the competency of a JFK or an FDR if he would have allowed things to go awry in quite the way they have.

    I’m not sure if you could rule out either Barack Obama or John McCain in terms of ‘elitism’. We’ll have to wait and see. But I think we can safely rule out Sarah Palin. 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.

  20. Peter, re your post #1690:

    “Currently, China holds over $1 trillion in dollar denominated assets (of which $330 billion are U.S. Treasury notes). In comparison, $1.4 trillion represents M1 or the “tight money supply” of U.S. Dollars which suggests that the value of the U.S. Dollar could change dramatically should China ever choose to divest itself of a large portion of those reserves.”

    The passage you quote is without a source. Please find a supporting source for the figure. Assuming it’s true, however, ‘only’ $330B is in US Treasury notes. That is the only form of debt foreigners can purchase. The remaining $670bB must be private assets (buildings, companies, etc.) The $330B in T notes, by the way, comports with the ~$503B in US public debt owned by China.

    Second, a lesson in government debt: “Public” debt is debt owed by the government to private entities or individuals through the sale of government securities, T-Notes, bonds, etc.

    Total government debt (the $9.7T figure) is the combination of public debt (~$5.3T) and debt owed to other governmental departments (social security, etc.). So just to be clear, the total debt owed to non-US governmental organizations is ~$5.3 trillion.

    Obviously, that’s a lot of money, and I’d love to see it paid down considerably, but debt has been a part of the US government since its inception. See the “history” section of your own Wikipedia link.

  21. JZ Smith,

    You could be right. It is probably a mixture of bonds and other assets. Although, this article in the Washington Times would seem to support my initial statement but I must admit I’m having trouble to find another reference to prove it.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/chinas-economic-bargaining-chip/

    “economists believe China probably holds nearly $1.2 trillion in U.S. securities today, mostly Treasuries and corporate bonds. And that doesn’t include the roughly $140 billion in U.S. securities held by Hong Kong.”

    Whatever the exact figure, I do believe that the huge debt that the USA has built up has historically been linked to the recycling of petrodollars, and the status of the US$ as the world’s reserve currency. Also that there is something in this theory too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

    And that the stated reason for various wars and hostilities may not be the real reason.

    Brute is probably thinking that the size of the US debt should not be a concern of mine! And, if the economic and other fallout from the current financial crisis didn’t affect anyone else I would agree with him.

  22. JZ Smith,

    You could be right. It is probably a mixture of bonds and other assets. Although, this article in the Washington Times would seem to support my initial statement but I must admit I’m having trouble to find another reference to prove it.

    {http://}www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/chinas-economic-bargaining-chip/

    “economists believe China probably holds nearly $1.2 trillion in U.S. securities today, mostly Treasuries and corporate bonds. And that doesn’t include the roughly $140 billion in U.S. securities held by Hong Kong.”

    Whatever the exact figure, I do believe that the huge debt that the USA has built up has historically been linked to the recycling of petrodollars, and the status of the US$ as the world’s reserve currency. Also that there is something in this theory too:

    {http://}en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

    And that the stated reason for various wars and hostilities may not be the real reason.

    Brute is probably thinking that the size of the US debt should not be a concern of mine! And, if the economic and other fallout from the current financial crisis didn’t affect anyone else I would agree with him.

    Note: Remove {} from links.

  23. Re: 1643, Peter

    Which spam filter are you using? I’ve tried Bad Behaviour, which I know works well on some blogs, but for me it was less effective than Akismet and more erratic.

    You may be right about using email addresses as a way of bypassing the filter and I’ll have a look at the help files, but this is open source software and these are pretty intimidating.

    Many thanks for the suggestions anyway.

  24. Peter,

    Your link, as you point out, refers to Chinese ownership of “US securities”, mostly “Treasuries and corporate bonds”. Assuming that the $1.2T figure is correct, and based on the data I linked to, about $500B of that $1.2T are invested in US treasuries. The remainder their holdings are in corporate bonds, not us government securities.

    I’m not sure why you are so concerned about the “huge US debt”, since I showed previously that despite its large dollar figure, as a percent of GDP it is lower than many European countries. Are you concerned about their debt as well?

    On the CIA list of countries ranked by national debt as a percent of GDP, New Zealand (I think you reside there?) didn’t appear, but I did find that the NZ minister of finance shows it to be 86%, or between Belgium and Greece at the 10th or 11th highest in the world. As a comparison, the USA is about 61% of GDP.

  25. Pete,

    The word that is most widely used to describe Obama is ELITIST. He’s the type of guy that believes that he has been chosen for public office because of his “superior intellect” and that everyone else’s opinion/views are uninformed and inconsequential. Similar to Aristocrats……..That his view is the only one that matters and that he “knows what’s best” for “the little people”.

    Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha