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.
Let’s see if we can get back on topic. First, here’s a comprehensive paper by Australia’s Bob Carter. (Click on the first item listed.) I suspect Peter won’t like it much. For example, it’s introduced by this quotation from Nigel Lawson’s recent book “An appeal to Reason”:
Peter may prefer this article. It’s by his new hero Bjorn Lomborg who argues that the UK’s plans to reduce emissions will be hugely expensive and damaging and do “amazingly little good”.
I’ve moved a comment by TonyB (no relation) to this thread as it has some interesting links in it. You will find it as #1798 on the previous page.
Peter: I’m afraid that one of your comments fell victim to the spam filter this morning. Sorry about that, and I hope that you had a copy. Same problem as last time and entirely my fault, but Akismet has been behaving remarkably well recently and an early morning ‘Delete All’ has become rather automatic automatic.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “Lenin’s, or Trotsky’s, or Mao’s or Stalin’s interpretation of Marx isn’t necessarily the correct interpretation.”
There is no “correct interpretation”, but these are the “interpretations” of the 19th century academic writings of Marx that became a brutal political reality in the 20th century, and are still continuing in North Korea and Cuba and (in a watered down, more humane version) in Vietnam and China.
But we are digressing. Robin is right. We should get back on topic, i.e. global warming (or lack thereof).
Regards,
Max
Tony Brown,
Interesting contribution. Welcome to the forum. Are you posting from the UK?
Pete,
Rereading your comments regarding Collectivism\Marxism\Communism\Socialism; have you given any thought to relocating your home and business to any of these countries that have applied this form of government to their societies?
I’m not trying to be flip…..I’m truly curious why you do not live in a society that you obviously prefer to your own.
Also, with regard to your concern for “the environment”….would you please provide examples of Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese and or Cuban initiatives on mitigating the deleterious effects of carbon dioxide emissions?
Why haven’t the previously mentioned countries plunged headlong into carbon emission reduction if the “consensus” among the world’s scientists is overwhelming and irrefutable?
Are the scientists of these countries less “enlightened” than western scientists?
Do the leaders of these countries care less about the welfare of their citizens or the welfare of the planet?
Hi Robin,
Thanks for getting us back on topic.
The Bob Carter paper you cited does a good job of summarizing the weaknesses of the AGW argument as presented by IPCC.
Don’t know if Peter wants to take a stand on the views of his fellow-Australian.
Regards,
Max
After the credit crunch comes the energy crunch. This speech sets out a hard reality we are facing in the UK. Most unfortunately, hardly any politician (left or right) seems to have grasped the implications for our economic well-being.
Has Bob Carter ever published a scientific paper on Climate or climate change? I don’t think so. He should stick to Geology.
He’s funded and supported by the so called “Institute of Public Affairs”. They are one of these right wing ‘think tanks’, which have been campaigning for years to deregulate everything. TonyN has confessed an ignorance of the terms left and right. But, one of the political right’s main dogmas, in recent years, is the importance of letting ‘free markets’ work without government control. Just remove all the regulation and all will be well. Many complex pieces of machinery are designed with regulators for very good reason. True, if you remove them, the machinery may go faster temporarily. Then it either explodes or breaks down.
No-one has answered my point that politics is not at all off topic. Every climate sceptic that I have come across seems to share this rather discredited belief of minimum government and deregulation.
Some of you even feel that Sarah Palin is an intelligent woman who is qualified to be Vice President of the USA. Maybe even President should the situation arise. I mention that Marx was more interested in Capitalism than Communism and so you suggest I should move to North Korea! I’ve no Korean connections at all.
I just despair.
Hi Peter,
Tony Brown’s post 1798 gets us back on topic with a link to a very interesting study. Unlike the hypotheses supporting AGW, this is based on physical observations (rather than model studies). Dr. van Andel takes the recent observations of Spencer et al. on clouds plus longer-term radiosonde and satellite observations to demonstrate that these support a new theory of Dr. Miskolczi, which differs radically from the standard theory supporting AGW.
This theory supports a temperature effect of around 0.5°C for a doubling of CO2, as compared to 3.2°C, as assumed by the climate models cited by IPCC.
As stated in the conclusions, the measurements show an “Infrared Radiation equilibrium between surface and atmosphere”, indicating “that the atmosphere chooses an optical thickness, by water vapor take-up or release, that ensures the maximum Outgoing Long wave Radiation globally for a cloudy atmosphere”. The measurements show that “the climate controls itself, by changes in the water content of the air, and so by changing cloud cover and cloud height.”
This study carries the “infrared iris” theory of Lindzen plus the recent observations on net negative feedback from clouds as reported by Spencer one step further by linking the physical observations with a new theory.
The interesting conclusion refutes the Hansen model-based suggestion of “predominantly positive” climate feedbacks leading to a “remarkably sensitive” climate with “tipping points” causing “dramatic effects”. Hansen’s models assume a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 4.2°C. For comparison, Lindzen has estimated this to be 0.65°C.
By showing that the 2xCO2 sensitivity is only around 0.5°C the study represents really “good news” for our planet. Unfortunately, “good news” does not get as much media attention as “impending disaster stories”.
Any comment on this new study, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Here we are again, back on (US) politics.
You wrote, “Some of you even feel that Sarah Palin is an intelligent woman who is qualified to be Vice President of the USA.”
I have shown you that she comes into the VP candidacy with about the same age and amount of experience (and a similar track record) as Theodore Roosevelt in 1900.
With the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, TR would become the youngest US president. He is also listed as one of the “top 5” US Presidents in history.
Do you have any evidence to show that Sarah Palin is not an intelligent woman who is not qualified to be Vice President of the USA? If so, please explain in more detail.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Your “left versus right” political discussions are interesting but a bit off topic.
Your claim that all “climate skeptics” are right-wing, anti-government, deregulation “crackpots” is rather shallow and uninformed. One well-known French “skeptic” is also a member of the “left wing” of the Socialist Party there. One of the IPCC Vice Chairmen, also a “skeptic”, is a top scientific advisor to Putin and was a communist during the days of the Soviet Union. Others (like myself) have no strong “left or right” political viewpoint, but are more centrist in philosophy (as your on-line test confirmed).
It is a silly (and rather immature) generalization to label all those who have not swallowed the IPCC (or Hansen) slant on AGW hook, line and sinker as “climate skeptics” (who is “skeptical of climate”?), and even sillier to categorize them all as “right wingers”.
We should all get back on subject rather than rambling on about “left versus right” politics.
The “politics” behind the AGW hysteria movement are very much on topic, as Robin and others have pointed out, but repetitive general “left/right” ideological discussions seem to me to be off topic here.
Regards,
Max
As I feared, Peter, your response (1808) re the Carter article was the usual tedious ad hominem attack. Here’s a suggestion: read the paper and identify some aspects with which you disagree. Then we can discuss them.
Or, if you cannot bring yourself to do that, let’s have your view on the following extract:
That’s the point that Max and I have made regarding the 1860/79 and 1906/40 warmings: until the natural causes of these are identified and eliminated as main causes of the 1976/2000 warming, the AGW hypothesis is unproven. And, of course, it’s the point made by Dr Akasofu arising from recent Arctic temperature records. Carter, a marine geologist with a specialist interest in palaeoclimatology, can go back much further. He demonstrates comprehensively that, for millions of years, global climate has been in a state of constant change – for natural reasons. Natural change is the established norm. Therefore current change should not be assumed to be human-caused unless natural causation is first eliminated.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
Peter: It would be interesting to compile a list of contributors to the climate debate who have not published research papers on the subject. One could start with King, Monbiot, Lynas, Pachauri and Yvo de Boer, who I understand has a technical degree in sociology. I think that it would be a very, very long list.
Max: there is something interesting in Tony Brown’s other link too. See the abstract of Dr Emma Tompkins’ presentation which says, among other things:
A human behaviour model: I wonder if any of these people have a sense of humour?
I would like to comment on the “appropriateness” discussion of the political nature of some of our posts. Robin, I appreciate your view that we too often stray ‘off topic’, but I must also agree with Max that ““politics” behind the AGW hysteria movement are very much on topic”. To also support Peter, his views of the politics of skeptics is also ON topic, just as my contrarian views of the Alarmist’s politics are ON topic.
As you have often stated, Robin, the politics of the debate over GW are inextricably intertwined. At one time, in the distant past I’m sure, the field of economics was a quiet little field of study wherein pointy-headed mathematicians with thick glasses worked in solitude developing their esoteric theories and formulas. Once politicians understood what a powerful tool these theories could be in the achievement of their political objectives, economists became both sought after and revered (or hated, depending on the slant of their work).
Climate science and climate scientists have become the new economists.
While I enjoy the more scientific posts, and they remain the majority of the posts, we ignore the political aspects of the GW debate at our peril. I agree with Peter that it seems like most skeptics tend to be more right-leaning in their politics, while the alarmists seem more comfortable with left-leaning politics. There are of course exceptions, and varying degrees of passion for a given ideology, but the biases are there nonetheless.
I think one debate of Brute’s and Peter’s sums it up quite well when they discussed the more “collectivist” approach of the alarmists to want to first identify a crisis, shout it out from the mountaintops to convince those people not so passionate nor interested in the urgency, then offer up classic collectivist solutions.
Peter, your observation that those of us here in the States tend to want to be more individualist in our thinking might be part of the problem illustrates perfectly what I see as one of the fundamental differences between the prevailing mindset of the European vs an American: Europeans, in my view, tend to think about the group, and about the many first. The rights of the individual are protected, but not at the expense of the many. Here in the States, however, we have codified the protection of the rights of the individual over that of the many, or of the state in our Constitution.
I view the left in our country as wanting to make the USA more like Europe, and the right wanting to keep us more like Americans. My questions some months ago asking about how the rest of the world feels about the USA in light of the Bush presidency drove home this point to me: The left here are so enamored over the European ‘collectivist’ way of thinking that they think you all hate us for invading Iraq. They desperately want your approval, and want more than anything to be like you.
However, the bulk of the American people don’t want to be European. The news media here hate Sarah Palin because she’s so ordinary. She worked her way through college, she goes grocery shopping, and lives a life very much like everyday, average Americans. I doubt you in Europe or elsewhere can possibly understand the connection that she and so many Americans have: She is the hope that everyday Americans, through hard work and sacrifice, and some good luck, can rise to highest levels of power on Earth.
I see the GW debate and these debates over politics as crucial to our future. I see the skeptics asking simple questions supported by facts, looking for simple answers also fact-supported. I don’t see the alarmist viewpoint as willing to accept what they consider politically unacceptable. That GW might not be a real threat is the real threat to them and their agenda. They seem to fear the possibility that GW might not be a problem of human origins, more than than they fear AGW. In other words, the AGW lobby, to maintain their position in power, MUST squelch debate so that they can continue to justify their collectivist and wealth redistributive aspirations.
Hats off to JZSmith!
You have done an excellent job explaining why Americans in general reject the “herd mentality” often prevalent in Europeans.
Obviously, there are exceptions in Europe as well as in the USA, and it is dangerous to generalize, but the general trend is apparent. The Swiss (non-EU members) may be an exception to the general European viewpoint on “collectivism” versus “individualism”.
It is apparent why the new (ex-Comecon) EU members have elected European “collectivism”. It puts them inside a group of higher per capita GDP countries, and they feel they can only benefit economically from this new association. How they stand on AGW “mitigation” is still very much an open issue.
Switzerland is already at a per capita GDP level higher than the EU members, so does not feel this need. In addition, Switzerland has a long tradition of fighting for its independence and neutrality while being surrounded by larger, more powerful neighbors.
From history, I can see a similarity with the USA. At the time of its founding the USA was hardly more powerful than tiny Switzerland. It had been ruled (as a colony) by a foreign power. Its people wanted, more than anything else, the freedom to decide their destiny for themselves, rather than have it dictated from the outside. Taxation was a key part of this. I believe that this is a key reason why there is no support for a multi-national “solution” (i.e. draconian taxation) to a hypothetical AGW problem (which no one even notices in his/her daily life).
It also explains why the USA is generally hesitant to “buy into” UN solutions, and why Switzerland refused to even join the UN until just a few years ago.
Peter may not agree, but you Americans (as well as the tiny Swiss) are just too logical and independent-minded to fall for these “collectivist” fairy tales.
Regards,
Max
JZ Smith,
I agree with much of what you’ve written. The way you have characterised the left / right question in terms of a comparison between a USA or a European type of society shows a much more intelligent understanding of the issue than those who harp on about North Korea. No-one is suggesting that we need to copy a Maoist model in any way at all. Least of all to combat climate change.
I would however question your statement “That GW might not be a real threat is the real threat to them [pro-European model] and their agenda.” The European , mixed economy model, and which I do agree that I am wholly in favour of, was developed after WW2 when the link between CO2 emissions and AGW was unknown. It wasn’t part of the argument then and it isn’t needed as part of the argument now.
I would put it the other way around. Because the problem affects the whole world, and because everyone collectively contributes to the problem, it does follow that everyone collectively must contribute to the solution. This is, at least at present, unacceptable for the more individualistic of thinkers. The only way out, for them, is to deny the science and say that there isn’t a problem in the first place.
TonyN,
I’m not saying that those who haven’t written scientific papers in climate change should be excluded from discussion. I wouldn’t even say that you necessarily had to be able to cite these papers in support of your own arguments, although of course it does help.
However if you hold the position that AGW warming is a hoax, a scam, and a fraud perpetrated by charlatans, you shouldn’t expect any better treatment from the BBC, or any other responsible broadcasting corporation, than is given to the ‘flat earthers’.
PS. When I say “if you hold the position that AGW warming is a hoax…” , I didn’t mean you in particular. I was thinking of the more rabid opponents of the scientific position.
I disagree. In my view, the political left— which is the bulk of the popular support for AGW—views the possibility of AGW as a nearly perfect tool to mold the world into their ideal socio-political framework. It is the justification for radical changes in the fabric of western, free-market capitalism. It offers them an almost undreamed (10 years ago) of opportunity to gain control of global environmental laws, the flow of capital throughout the world, and the redistribution of wealth.
Remember, the true leftist seeks not just equal opportunity, but equal OUTCOMES. They are driven by an innate need to make everything and everybody equal—no matter the cost. When your out to “save the world”, no cost is truly too great.
If AGW is proven to be false, the greatest opportunity to convert the world to socialism since the Great Depression will have been lost. They will go to nearly any length to see that the ‘facts’ continue to support their theory. For them, far too much is at stake.
Correction to my post above:
“When your out to “save the world”, no cost is truly too great.”
This should read, “When you’re out to “save the world”, no cost is truly too great.
My apologies.
Thank you JZ Smith.
I think it also boils down to the American vs. European “cultural” experience. Americans are and always have been Citizens, not Subjects; we are not beholden to anyone or anything. Your description of the Left’s strict, blindingly close minded adherence to the AGW doctrine is dead on. Anything that would question the vehicle that they are using to fulfill their political agenda must be squelched immediately otherwise they will lose any momentum that they have gained. Any dissent must be dealt with harshly and quickly, otherwise the pendulum may swing away from the current zombie like acceptance of the global warming hysteria and the proposed “solutions” offered to “save the world”.
I’ve been watching with rapt attention the current debate in Congress regarding the “economic crisis”. We were told that if stop gap legislation was not enacted immediately the entire world economy would collapse, (on Monday two weeks ago). The Bill did not pass and the economy continued on and on and on. Hysteria and panic cause rash decisions. (Politicians are selling the current Bill to “free up and provide more credit” which is what I understand caused the problem in the first place).
AGW legislation is no different…….pass the laws before anyone catches on……vote on it in the dead of night on a weekend before anyone realizes what the law actually says.
Peter,
My question to you regarding your relocation to a more “politically/economically accommodating” nation was actually rhetorical. If I remember correctly, you’ve stated that you own/operate some type of electronics firm. I dare say that you would never dream of relocating your business to Russia, China, Cuba or North Korea; not due to any “connections” that you may have, but because I don’t believe that, as a businessman and entrepreneur, you could stomach for one minute the constant intrusion by a government into the day to day operations that would entail. I wouldn’t like it either. Management by committee doesn’t work. In the end someone has to have the final word. That’s why there are Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chief Executive Officers and General Managers.
This ties closely to my last post……timing is everything……..
Sneaky: Current credit bailout bill contains carbon tax provisions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/02/sneaky-current-credit-bailout-bill-contains-carbon-tax-provisions/
JZ Smith,
I do know that you guys think that we think “If AGW is proven to be false, the greatest opportunity to convert the world to socialism since the Great Depression will have been lost.”
Its just not true of course. I think we may have plenty of other arguments in the next few years to add to the ones we already have and which are all unconnected with AGW. It’s just an argument more in favour of a mixed economy, and proper government regulation of the financial sector BTW We aren’t talking about copying North Korea!
Any right minded individual would wish that the AGW problem didn’t exist. But wishing isn’t going to make it go away.
Whereas, we think that your thoughts are along the lines of ‘There can’t be a problem. Because if there were we’d have to act collectively, and we aren’t going to go in for that. No siree! Hell no! It may even be against the USA’s constitution. ‘
Given this political rift any meaningful discussion of the science is just not possible.
H L Mencken wrote;
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed- and hence clamorous to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins all of them imaginary.”
This leads directly to the political element of the discussion here.
I think that people on the right tend to believe more on self reliance and expect the state to generally keep its distance and tend to disbelieve many things they are told-perhaps they are older and can see through it better because of past experience? Those reliant on the state will perhaps believe the hobgoblins are real and necessary and useful, and are willing to be led to a safe place.
We see constant signs of Mencken’s hobgoblins with Bse, bird flu, Sars, Weapons of mass destruction and now Climate change. Chief hobgoblin is the BBC- a govt funded organisation with an agenda run by people many with left of centre credentials which sometimes surfaces in apparent bias- the separate thread about Roger Harrabin reflects this vein.
Any way, back to the science. I live near Exeter (UK) close to Hadley and Met Centre and as I work with a Govt organisation that comes into frequent contact with them I take a special interest in their activities, hence my post about the Exeter conference and a new theory that TonyN pasted here.
This was an extremely high level mini IPCC session which will help to inform policy decisions and was held under the auspices of The Hadley Centre, Met Office, Environment Agency, Proudman Oceanographic and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Amongst the outcomes were forecasts of significantly lower sea level rises and less storm surges than previously predicted (UK bias)
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/climatechange/conference/timetable.php
It is well worth looking at the various extracts which admit far more uncertainties in predictions than previously admitted to from some of the top people in their field. Bearing in mind this is a ‘settled’ science there is considerable backtracking, presumably because the evidence-actual sea level rises, temperature levels etc do not bear out the hordes of rampaging hobgoblins that have been let loose. I didn’t see any reference to this conference by the BBC. Presumably covering a conference with uncomfortable outcomes is not as exciting as going to the IPPC jamborees. Exeter or Bali. It’s a difficult choice…
Any science that ignores history-we have been this way climatically many times before- in order to try to prove their point, needs cast iron evidence and that is lacking. Consequently I felt the second link was interesting as it covers an inriguing theory which seems to consider water vapour as far more significant than Co2 as a climate change cause and calculates a doubling of Co2 will only raise temperatures by less than half a degree. As someone who believes the role of water vapour is greatly understated and that of Co2 greatly exaggerated I found the theory interesting and more plausible than those advanced by the AGW camp-which doesn’t make Miskolczi correct of course.
http://landshape.org/stats/the-new-climate-theory-of-dr-ferenc-miskolczi/
TonyB
Peter
You said in #1808
You said in #1816:
So what are you saying about Bob Carter’s paper, and have you read it – or any other of his papers for that matter? What grounds do you have for dismissing his views?
JZSmith #1814:
An outstanding contribution, thanks.
When I drafted the blog rules, I did not ban political discussion:
Politics is at least as important a driving force in the climate debate as science, and it is certainly possible to argue that it is the predominant force. Without the support of politicians and political activists, what would the public know about climate science?
I have’nt enforced this blog rule rigidly over the last few weeks, partly because I have been away for much of the time, but also because you have all been aware of transgressions and tried to move the discussion back on thread when it has strayed onto dangerous ground.
Had I attempted to moderate the discussion we might have missed your very thoughtful and shrewd comment, and I am glad that we did not. There are some ideas there that are quite new to me, and that is unusual in a debate where, at times, one feels that everything that is worth saying has already been said at least once before. (I am referring to the climate debate in general and not specifically to this thread where IMHO the standard of debate is a credit to all concerned.)