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,

    Here (your 2100) is a good example of a meaningless response to a post listing specific calculations and reasons why the impacts theoretically affecting our climate from AGW are nothing to worry about:

    “Although, I’d be happier if you did turn out to be right, and I know that you yourselves desperately want to be proved right and are, in fact, already claiming that you’ve won, I should just remind you that wishing and claiming won’t make it happen.”

    There’s no substance in such a statement, Peter. It’s all rhetoric and double-talk.

    It is just as silly as if I would respond to a specific fact you cite (on rising global temperature trends or melting Arctic sea ice, for example) with the statement:

    “Although I’d be happier if you did turn out to be right that we are not headed in the direction of global cooling due to decreased solar activity as projected by many solar scientists today, and I know that you desperately want to be proved right by citing imaginary figures of 98-99% scientific consensus to your position and are, in fact, already claiming that you have won, I should remind you that wishing and claiming won’t make global warming happen (if the sun decides otherwise), no matter how much CO2 we all emit into the atmosphere.”

    Get the point?

    Come with specific arguments backed by hard data where you can, rather than pure polemic.

    Now to your “list of IPCC authors from Wikipedia”. How many of these individuals have specifically stated that they support the premise that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, to the extent that this feedback forcing will result in +1.3°C increase in temperature with a doubling of CO2?

    Can you demonstrate that it is 98 to 99% of all climate scientists, as you claimed earlier?

    “In November 2004 Gavin Schmidt was named as one of Scientific American’s “Top 50 Research Leaders” for the year. I might have mentioned James Hansen too.”

    So what, Peter? All of these guys (both pro and con on AGW being a potential global problem) have gotten awards at one time or another. Gavin Schmidt’s buddy, Michael Mann may have gotten such an award at one time before his work was shown to be shoddy and incorrect. Awards don’t mean anything. Both Schmidt and Hansen are AGW activists / lobbyists. Their opinions must be taken with a grain of salt and cannot be compared with objective science.

    The NOAA Arctic report is a great example of how to use a press release to “fog up” the fact that Arctic sea ice has rebounded in 2008 vis-à-vis 2007, and that the dire prediction of an “ice free Arctic summer 2008” fell flat on its face. It’s like the “new ice / old ice”, “thin ice / thick ice” shell game. Forget press releases, Peter. Go to the data themselves. These show that in 12 months the ice recovered by 1.6 million square kilometers, to which NOAA comment with “The near record minimum sea ice extent in 2008 was nearly the same as in 2007”. And then, while you’re at it, check the status of Antarctic sea ice, where there are no press releases (because it is growing rather than shrinking).

    Forget the PR hype, Peter. Check the actual data.

    Now to your point on sea level: “Up until now you may have had a valid point about sea levels not increasing at quite the predicted rate. However, that looks like it may be changing.”

    Not only have they not increased at the predicted rate, but the rate has also slowed down in the second half of the 20th century and most recently as compared to the first half. As with global temperature, the rate of sea level rise swings from positive to negative in multi-decadal oscillations, so you can prove anything just be picking the right point on the sine curve. Aside from these oscillations, “it may be changing” (as you predict), but this may be primarily due to a change in measurement scope and methodology from tide gauges at various coastlines to satellite altimetry over the entire ocean, a method that is still in its infancy and unable to provide meaningful results for measuring sea level.

    Your statement that ‘it may soon reach the “unprecedented” rate of sea level rise of nearly 0.1 inch (2.54mm) per year’ is just another PR hype statement using the IPCC favorite word “unprecedented” when predicting a future event.

    You are probably unaware that the annual rise in the decade centered on year 1939 was +4.7 mm/year (or almost twice your “unprecedented” rate), whereas over the decade centered on year 1990 it only rose by +1.5 mm/year.

    You may also be unaware that the annual rate of sea level change has swung from a lowering of –1.4 mm/year to a rise of +5.3 mm/year since the Holgate tide gauge record started.

    The decadal rate for 1993-2003 was quoted by IPCC 2007 to be +3.1 mm/year, based on satellite readings, while several reports showed this to be between –0.3 and +2.0 mm/year.

    So you can bury the hype word “unprecedented”. It is a flat-out lie.

    My advice to you, Peter (which I have given you before):

    · Forget PR and press releases by NSIDC, NOAA, Hadley, etc., which spoon-feed you their interpretation of what is (or what may be) going on.
    · Check anything you read in an IPCC report to make sure it is correct.
    · Discard any report that includes the PR-word “unprecedented” because such a report is, by definition, hype.
    · Forget about unsubstantiated, non-specific claims of “overwhelming scientific consensus” on AGW, since these are also hype.
    · Instead, go to the raw data (hope that it hasn’t been fiddled with or fudged too much by overzealous AGW-enthusiasts) and make up your own mind on what is going on.
    · If you suspect that there may be “funny numbers” out there, check one record with another one (example: GISS / Hadley / UAH / RSS) to see if there are any glaring inconsistencies.

    In this way, Peter, you will ensure that you are better informed.

    Regards,

    Max

  2. Correction for Peter:

    My question to you, “How many of these individuals have specifically stated that they support the premise that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative…”

    Should read “strongly POSITIVE”

    But the question still stands, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  3. Hi Peter,

    You cited a NOAA PR release which stated (among other things), “reindeer herds appear to be declining, researchers reported Thursday.”

    The impression is given (a) that caribou/reindeer population is generally declining and (b) that this is due to the warming caused by AGW in the Arctic regions where they live.

    Now I have just checked around 10 different reports on reindeer/caribou to see what is really going on (rather than blindly accepting the interpretation being spoon-fed to me in a PR release, which is intended to alarm readers to the dangers of AGW).

    I found that the total population of caribou and reindeer is estimated to be between 5 and 7 million today, that this is spread between North America (around one-third) and Eurasia (two-thirds), that there are some isolated small populations that are receding, that the overall population is stable and that this population does tend to swing in 50 to 100 year natural cycles. A good summary is given in the report:
    {http}://arctic.fws.gov/carcon.htm

    “When factors having negative effects on caribou productivity and survival occur more frequently (more bad years than good years), populations decline. Caribou populations increase when the opposite occurs. If positive and negative effects are balanced, caribou populations remain stable.

    Usually a combination of factors cause caribou numbers to change. Harsh weather can reduce plant growth, which causes poor caribou nutrition, and reduced survival. Some years, insect harassment interferes with caribou foraging, which also decreases survival. If it rains during the winter, ice can prevent caribou from getting their food. They may starve when this happens.

    Wolf populations in caribou winter ranges can increase in response to higher levels of other prey such as moose. When caribou return to the winter range they are preyed on more heavily by the increased number of wolves. On the other hand, when arctic foxes reach a high in their population cycle, they sometimes spread rabies to neighboring wolves. This results in reduced wolf predation on caribou.”

    Looks like the “reindeer alarm” is another red herring, Peter.

    Regards,

    Max

  4. “Autumn temperatures in the Arctic are at record levels

    Oct 17, 2008
    Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Scientists_Counter_Latest_Arctic.pdf

  5. CURRENT MELTING OF GREENLAND’S ICE MIMICS 1920s-1940s EVENT

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm

    Good Quote:
    “The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism” – Freeman Dyson

  6. Hi Peter,

    Just a followup on caribou.

    A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Prudhoe Bay oilfield operations in northern Alaska. While there I saw many caribou.

    Before the oil pipeline was built I remembered reading about the impending disaster to caribou herds, since the new pipeline would disturb their natural migration paths and cause a steep decline in their population.

    I asked one of the BP employees (who was assigned the job as part of the environmental team there) whether there had been any negative impact on the caribou resulting from the pipeline.

    He just laughed, but then he told me how the population of the herds migrating near Prudhoe Bay had actually grown since the oilfields there had been in operation.

    Just local anecdotal evidence, maybe, but I trust it more than the NOAA PR release you cited.

    Regards,

    Max

  7. 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.

  8. Hi Peter,

    To my contention that recent physical observations had refuted the IPCC claim that the feedback from clouds is positive and strong enough to result in a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C, you replied: “Your point on the overall negative feedback effect of clouds is highly speculative. Maybe 1-2% of climate scientists would agree with your statements. Why put all your faith in such a small minority?”

    So let’s get back to your claimed “consensus” of 98 to 99% of scientists, not on some vague notion that there might be a human influence on global climate of some sort but, as you stated, that the feedback from clouds is strongly positive and strong enough to result in a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C, as IPCC states.

    There were 104 scientists who signed a 2007 open letter to the U.N. Secretary General containing the sentence, “ Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports,
    recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.”

    But wait! A June 2008 press release by the independent International Climate Science Coalition lists 1,100 individuals who signed the “Manhattan Declaration”.
    {http}://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=14:text&id=78:md-june17-australia

    “Attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.”

    Now these guys certainly do not endorse the strong positive feedback from clouds. But a close look at the list shows that some are not “meteorologists or climate scientists” in the strict sense of the word, but medical doctors, economists, other scientists, engineers, etc. So, let’s say only 50% (or 500 individuals) are trained in a related physical science.

    If these represent the “small minority” of 1 to 2% that do not support the hypothesis of strong positive feedback from clouds, this means that the remaining 98-99% represent 24,500 to 49,500 scientists in a related physical science, who specifically and quantitatively endorse the strong positive feedback from clouds leading to a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C, as claimed by IPCC.

    This is obviously absurd, so let’s back down to the 100 who signed the letter to the UN Secretary General. If these represent 1 to 2% of the scientific community, then it mean that there are 4,900 to 9,900 scientists, who specifically and quantitatively endorse the strong positive feedback from clouds leading to a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C, as claimed by IPCC.

    Can you see how silly your statement actually was?

    Forget the “consensus myth”, Peter. Come with valid counterarguments instead.

    Regards,

    Max

  9. Pete,

    You quoted a newspaper article stating:

    “Autumn temperatures in the Arctic are at record levels…..

    Wouldn’t that be considered a “regional anomaly” in Alarmist lexicon? Looks like the ice is freezing more quickly than last year……must be another example of a “regional anomaly”.

    Ice Reality Check: Arctic Ice Now 31.3% Over Last Year, plus Scientists Counter Latest Arctic ‘Record’ Warmth Claims as ‘Pseudoscience’

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/18/ice-reality-check-scientists-counter-latest-arctic-record-warmth-claims-as-pseudoscience/

  10. Hi Brute,

    After reading your 2109 on “record Arctic temperatures”, it is clear to me how these statistics get “adjusted” to fit the desired message. Yep, that is “pseudoscience” at its best.

    The German Nazis, with their “Aryan supremacy” pseudoscience could have learned something from these guys.

    I was amazed that the NOAA PR release cited by Peter told us that the Arctic ice extent in 2008 was essentially the same as in the record low year 2007, even though their own numbers showed that it had increased by 1.6 million square km, a surface area equivalent to all of Alaska!

    Somebody must be getting desperate in NOAA for these guys to be resorting to downright lying like that.

    They must have been really disappointed that their prediction of an “ice free summer 2008” turned out to be a total flop. Maybe that is why they switched topics and gave us all these bogus temperature statistics.

    I just wonder how can any intelligent person be stupid enough to fall for all this?

    Regards,

    Max

  11. Hi Peter,

    Here’s a question for you, since you apparently do not want to respond to any of the earlier ones I posed.

    All (I repeat) ALL warming we experience on our planet comes from the sun (this is the basic source of the energy).

    It does NOT come from CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

    The sun has entered a period of low activity since late 2007.

    After many years of unusually high solar activity and warming in the 20th century and a 7-year period of stagnation since then, temperatures have dropped significantly since 2007.

    Solar scientists tell us that the sun is likely to remain inactive for many years to come, and that we are likely to see a general cooling of our planet as a result.

    Are they right?

    Are the AGW doomsayers, who predict continued warming, right?

    Time will tell, Peter, but it looks very much like time is not on the side of the AGW doomsayers.

    If I were a Las Vegas gambler, I’d put my bets on the solar scientists, not on the AGW proponents.

    How about you?

    Regards,

    Max

  12. Max,

    Am I right in thinking that your unreferenced statement “Physical observations show that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, rather than positive. This should result in a temperature impact of around –1.3°C.” is from either our old friends Lindzen or Spencer?

    It might need to be corroborated by other workers to gain more widespread acceptance outside the realms of contrarian websites. Furthermore I would suggest that the reason you choose to cite their results is because of your preconceived notions of what the correct ‘answer’ should be!

    A more intelligent approach would be to look at all credible scientific assessments, which is what the IPCC have done in arriving at their 1.5 to 4.5 deg C range. Call me conservative and unadventurous, if you like, but if you press me for a figure I’ll go right down the middle with 3 degC!

    You might have had a point about about the link to the NOAA press release I gave, except the press release in turn gave another link to the actual report. You didn’t manage to find this link, which makes me suspect that you can’t even be bothered to read the ‘spoon fed’ results so I’m not sure if you’ll be bothered to read the actual report. But here it is anyway:

    {http}://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ArcticReportCard_full_report.pdf

    You seem to like long lists of names and the first page gives you exactly that.

    You seem to be offering contradictory arguments on the question of ‘peak oil’. On the one hand you seem to be sceptical that there may be a peak. But on the other hand, because, presumably, it seems to suit your argument that there are not enough fossil fuels around to raise the CO2 concentrations much above 1000 ppm you seem happy to assume that there will soon come a time when there won’t be much, if any, left.

    Maybe you could draw me a graph, it doesn’t have to be too accurate, of how oil production can rise from almost nothing in the early 20th century, to what it is now, but falling again to almost nothing again in 150 years or so, and without their being a peak at some point?

    Incidentally it doesn’t have to be oil. TonyB, I think it was him, was probably right in saying that there is not enough oil to cause a serious problem to the atmosphere. There is more than enough coal to do that, though, and at some point in the future coal will go through a peak production point too.

  13. JZ and Brute,

    It probably hasn’t been explained too well by the mainstream media, but the $700 billion, or whatever the final figure turns out to be, won’t be raised through taxes. So you can rest easy. Similarly with the huge sums you have mentioned in Europe. Whenever industries have been nationalised, in Europe and elsewhere, the transaction has been financed by the issuing of government bonds which are exchanged for the shares of the company concerned.

    Effectively it is like printing the money but the general opinion is that it is not inflationary. As the recession bites there will be a benefit to those people who are lucky enough to keep their jobs and houses that the level of taxes and interest rates will fall. At least that is what should happen. If it doesn’t, a recession will probably turn into a depression.

    It’s interesting to note that Karl Marx wrote, over a hundred years ago, a series of ten points http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html (about half way down the page).

    Some of them , such as a graduated income tax, and free education have already come about. Point number 5 is ” Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly ” Sound familiar? :-)

    Reading your statement that it is not a good idea to take from citizen A and give to citizen B reminded me of Robin Hood who did famously rob from the rich and gave to the poor. I guess most people of liberal or leftish persuasions, when reading the stories or seeing the movies, do manage to recognise him as the good guy and the Sherriff of Nottingham, who is merely a hireling of Prince John (later King John) as the baddie. But what about you guys? Do you secretly hope that Robin Hood will get his comeuppance for daring to challenge the status quo?

    Robin Hood probably didn’t exist as a real character, and if he did he probably didn’t live in the reign of King Richard. So why do we all think he did? I would suggest that it is the only possible time in English history that he could get away with doing what he did without being considered too much of a left-wing hero, in Che Guevara like fashion. We can’t have that now can we? King John has a had a pretty bad write-up as far as English history is concerned. He was probably no better and no worse than any King of his day and at least he stayed home to look after the kingdom rather than engaging in reckless overseas military adventures. Richard hardly ever set foot in England, didn’t speak the language and his record of treating enemy civilians during the third crusade would mark him as a war criminal, even by the standards of his time. However, by re-inventing Richard as the goodie, and Robin Hood as his loyal subject, the whole story line can be sanitised and the seditious undertones suppressed.

    But, leaving that aside, we could have a Robin Hood approach to global warming. Rich drivers who cann afford to buy new Hummers, Ford Expeditions, and other big vehicles that emit high levels of greenhouse gases could be robbed of, sorry, pay a tax or fee, maybe a few thousand dollars, which could be directly used on funding low CO2 emission vehicles. But whether it is Robin Hood, or Karl Marx, it looks like society is generally moving in their directions. We’d all better get used to it!

  14. Hi Peter,

    You asked, “Am I right in thinking that your unreferenced statement ‘Physical observations show that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative, rather than positive. This should result in a temperature impact of around –1.3°C’ is from either our old friends Lindzen or Spencer?”

    Yes, you are right (however, it was referenced earlier on this blog). The “infrared iris” hypothesis is from Lindzen; its validation by physical observations is by Spencer.

    I have seen no papers based on physical observations that show a net positive feedback from clouds.

    IPCC models all assume a strongly positive cloud feedback, which would result in a temperature increase at 2xCO2 of 1.3°C, but IPCC does concede (in a report that preceded Spencer’s physical observations), “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”.

    Fortunately for us all, Spencer’s physical observations have cleared up this “largest source of uncertainty” for IPCC, so that in future reports they can correct the incorrect model assumptions leading to a strongly positive cloud feedback resulting in 1.3°C temperature increase at 2xCO2.

    Including this erroneous increase from clouds, IPCC estimates the mean 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks to be 3.2°C.

    In addition to the erroneous assumption on cloud feedbacks, IPCC has also based its estimate of the water vapor feedback on an erroneous assumption of constant relative humidity.

    Physical observations (Minschwaner + Dessler) have shown this assumption to be incorrect. The observed increase in atmospheric water vapor with rising temperature is less than half of that assumed by the IPCC models.

    Correcting for both the erroneous assumption of positive cloud feedback and the exaggerated assumption of water vapor feedback puts the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity back at around 0.5 to 0.8°C, as estimated by Lindzen and Shaviv + Veizer.

    You wrote: “A more intelligent approach would be to look at all credible scientific assessments, which is what the IPCC have done in arriving at their 1.5 to 4.5 deg C range.”

    IPCC obviously did not look at the physical observations by Spencer showing a net negative feedback from clouds (since it was reported after the latest IPCC report), so they cannot be faulted for this. Science does tend to progress, so that IPCC’s 2007 report was already out-of-date shortly after it appeared as regards cloud feedbacks (which they even conceded was the “largest source of uncertainty”).

    It is curious that IPCC chose to ignore the physical observations confirming that relative humidity does not remain constant (as all the IPCC models assume). I can only assume that this was an honest mistake and not an attempt to deceive.

    In summary, Peter, the computer model based estimate of 1.5 to 4.5°C by IPCC has been shown by physical observations to be grossly exaggerated because of erroneous assumptions on the sign and magnitude of cloud and water vapor feedbacks.

    Regards,

    Max

    PS I’m still waiting for your quantitative data confirming your statement that 98-99% of all climate scientists support the notion of a positive cloud feedback leading to 2xCO2 warming of 1.3°C.

  15. Peter, Brute, JZSmith

    The Robin Hood example is based on fiction, but you don’t have to go that far back in history to find “outlaws” who took from the rich and (after creaming off their cut) gave to the poor.

    The USA had Jesse James and more recently Al Capone and Bonnie + Clyde. All heroes in their own right (at least to some).

    I think you Aussies had a guy named Ned Kelly, am I right, Peter?

    The Swiss never were too hot on the ideas later espoused by Marx, and their national hero, Wilhelm Tell, did not steal and redistribute wealth but just fought for his own freedom.

    Regards,

    Max

  16. Hi Peter,

    In your latest response you wrote:
    “You seem to be offering contradictory arguments on the question of ‘peak oil’. On the one hand you seem to be sceptical that there may be a peak. But on the other hand, because, presumably, it seems to suit your argument that there are not enough fossil fuels around to raise the CO2 concentrations much above 1000 ppm you seem happy to assume that there will soon come a time when there won’t be much, if any, left.
    Maybe you could draw me a graph, it doesn’t have to be too accurate, of how oil production can rise from almost nothing in the early 20th century, to what it is now, but falling again to almost nothing again in 150 years or so, and without their being a peak at some point?”

    Lots of “you seems” and “it seems” there, Peter.

    “You seem to be offering contradictory arguments on the question of ‘peak oil’” No “contradictory arguments”, Peter. Just check all the reports out there on estimated fossil fuel reserves. Then check reports showing current consumption levels. Divide reserves by annual consumption and you have years left to go at current rates. It’s really quite simple, Peter.

    Now to the other point you made, “it seems to suit your argument that there are not enough fossil fuels around to raise the CO2 concentrations much above 1000 ppm”.

    Peter, it is not a matter of whether or not it suits my argument, it’s just the facts. The world’s total fossil fuel reserves (oil, gas and coal) contain a certain amount of total carbon, which represents a finite tonnage of total CO2. This total available CO2 can increase atmospheric CO2 levels only by a finite amount to an absolute upper limit, and that upper limit is somewhere around 1000 ppmv, ignoring the natural CO2 cycle and assuming that all human CO2 goes directly into the atmosphere where it stays indefinitely. If you have a better calculation, by all means please provide it.

    To your rather nebulous query about a “peak” in oil production / consumption, there is no doubt that fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase short term with increased population and (even more) with increased world prosperity. This includes oil, of course. With time, oil will be replaced as a motor fuel by sugar-cane ethanol, natural gas and electrical power (either directly with batteries or indirectly via hydrogen). It will still be used long term as a petrochemical feedstock (where it also has a higher intrinsic value). Coal and natural gas will gradually be replaced for electrical power with nuclear generation plus some smaller scale geothermal, wind and solar applications. They will also shift to becoming higher added value feedstocks. All of the above assumptions exclude any revolutionary new technologies in the energy and transportation sectors that will undoubtedly be developed over the next century. (Remember the “horse manure” analogy.)

    So yes, Peter, there will be a “peak” and consumption rates will level off and even decline, so that the “150 years at current demand rates” will most likely be extended for several centuries.

    But, regardless of how quickly they are used up, there is an absolute limit to the amount of CO2 that can be generated. Unless whole new unknown reserves are found, this limit represents an atmospheric CO2 content of around 1000 ppmv. This number may actually end up being smaller, since any fossil fuel shifts from motor fuel and power generation to petrochemical feedstocks will result in less CO2 being generated and emitted.

    That’s it, Peter. AGW will die a natural death due to a lack of carbon supply.

    Regards,

    Max

  17. Max,

    What I actually said was “Maybe 1-2% of climate scientists would agree with your statements” But you are saying that Lindzen and Spencer have a much bigger following than I’m giving them credit for?

    However, I think that you yourself know the real score. As you have said, the IPCC have chosen to ignore both the hypothesis and what you describe as ‘confirmation’. I would suggest that it is neither an ‘honest mistake’ nor an ‘attempt to deceive’, but rather the simple fact that they don’t accept either, at least at this stage.

    Confirmation would require that the results claimed by Spencer would need to be reproduced by other workers in the field. Has Spencer’s paper been published yet? Do you have a reference? The last I heard was that publication had been delayed but that a ‘letter’ had been accepted by a geophysical journal. A ‘letter’ isn’t a proper paper and you would hardly expect that the IPCC would drastically revise their figures on the basis of a single letter.

    The IPCC range for 2xCO2 is 1.5degC to 4.5degC. There may be a very few climate scientists who hold strong views that the true figure is outside this range, but not many.

    Because of the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase the current levels of CO2 should take us about 95% of the way towards the true figure. So you might ask, why not just work out how much warmer the earth’s temperature is now, compared to what it would have been with no increase in CO2 levels, and multiply by 2.1 ?

    I would say that 0.6deg C is the best estimate for the temperature rise so far.

    2.1 x 0.6 = 1.26 deg C

    Is this the answer for 2 xCO2? No. Because the ocean is a huge heat sink and it is slowing down the warming. In other words the earth’s heat transfer is not in equilibrium. In simple terms the earth will continue to warm for some time even if CO2 levels remain at their present levels.

  18. Correction: I should have written “should take us about 47% of the way towards the true figure”.

  19. Hi Peter,

    You now wrote: “What I actually said was “Maybe 1-2% of climate scientists would agree with your statements” But you are saying that Lindzen and Spencer have a much bigger following than I’m giving them credit for?”

    “Maybe” is a mighty big word, Peter. So it’s no longer “98-99% of climate scientists who believe in a positive cloud feedback resulting in a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C”, as you said earlier.

    Maybe there are only 1-2% of climate scientists that would agree with your statements (2117), Peter. I have no notion. Nor do you. They look screwy to me.

    This appears to have slipped into a meaningless discussion of “maybe” percentages.

    The fact is, Peter, Spencer’s physical observations have shed new light on the subject of feedbacks from clouds, which IPCC conceded were “the largest source of uncertainty” at the time of the publication of their latest report. I have read many reports on cloud feedbacks (prior to Spencer et al.) conceding that the magnitude and even the sign of net cloud feedbacks were uncertain.

    Fortunately, all this “uncertainty” got cleared up with Spencer’s physical observations, and the news is good for our planet, Peter. You should be happy, rather than sulking. There is a natural “thermostat” out there that keeps our planet from spiraling into runaway warming (as poor, confused James E. Hansen would have us believe).

    The (at the time admittedly uncertain) IPCC model assumptions of a strongly positive feedback from clouds turns out to be incorrect in the actual world, as Spencer has shown.

    Of course we all realize that this kicks the assumed +3.2°C sensitivity for 2xCO2 in the head, since clouds were assumed to contribute +1.3°C of this, whereas now they will represent a negative (i.e. cooling) feedback, as the physical observations have shown.

    Now Spencer has indicated that this negative feedback is quite strong, but assuming it is only half as strong as the previous erroneously assumed positive feedback, the 2xCO2 sensitivity has already been slashed back to around 1.2°C.

    This, together with the exaggerated water vapor feedback resulting from the erroneous model assumption that relative humidity remains constant with increased surface temperature, where physical observations show that RH decreases, really kicks the model generated 3.2°C sensitivity in the head, no matter what IPCC would like to have us believe. A reasonable figure would be around 0.8°C.

    IPCC’s basic problem is that they believe their model outputs (often with GIGO) rather that relying on physical observations. This can either be interpreted as a weakness (“une déformation professionelle”, as the French would say) or it can be seen as intentional deception; to me it does not matter what the reason is. The fact is that IPCC model assumptions have been proven wrong by observed facts.

    Regards,

    Max

    PS I’ll come back to your curious calculation later. It appears to be full of holes.

  20. Pete,

    RE: 2113

    I believe that “Robin Hood” stole from the government and the people that earned their money to enrich himself and his fellows as has been pointed out. Lawlessness and violence are how he elevated his personal wealth…..is that what you are advocating? “Robin Hood” is a myth but we can examine the premise of “robbing from the rich” to “give to the poor”.

    Are you actually defending Socialists? Are you writing that the systems of government practiced by the likes of Stalin, Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mussolini and Mao are shining examples of societal achievement? I believe if you ask people that actually lived under these systems of government they would contradict your lofty opinion of these regimes. Do you really have any idea what these men did and how many people they killed in the name of Socialism? Do you really have any appreciation for the misery that these men and their warped political philosophy caused?

    The standard argument by people such as yourself, (and my dopey brother in law), is that Communism is a great system…..it just hasn’t been practiced “correctly” or in the true sense of the terms. Look at the track record of the practices of Socialism and do some research into the regimes of the men in the previous paragraph.

    Che- Guevera was a murderous thug; I chuckle to myself when I see youngsters who obviously have no idea what atrocities the man committed wearing “Che” Tee shirts glamorizing this animal. Is this the type of man that you are aligning yourself with? The fact that these punks wear shirts glamorizing this ruthless killer demonstrate either a complete lack of knowledge concerning the facts or an indoctrination by our government run school system portraying the piece of human filth as a “patriot” or some sort of “hero”.

    I watched a woman this morning on the news extolling the virtues of the Roosevelt administration here in the United States. Roosevelt was elected during the Great Depression and attempted to turn things around by nationalizing formerly private institutions and creating government programs designed to “provide” for citizens.

    The dirty little secret is that his programs didn’t work. The vehicle that lifted the United States out of the Great Depression was the Second World War in which 60 MILLION people were died…… a small detail that many “educators” seem all too eager to gloss over these days as their political philosophy dictates that “war doesn’t solve anything”.

    The global warming ruse attempts to replace plant food (carbon dioxide) with Nazism, Totalitarianism, Fascism and Japanese Imperialism…..portraying the wealthy as the “new” enemy to be vanquished and glorifying class warfare.

    Obama is a perfect example of this misguided belief. He said yesterday the he plans on cutting taxes to 95% of the citizens of the country. The fact is that 40% of the citizens do not pay taxes. Essentially he wants to expand the welfare system and take money from people who have earned it and “give” it to people who have done nothing to earn it…..wealth redistribution……giving people something for nothing……buying votes…..all in the name of “equality” & “fairness”. A common theme proposed by Socialist elites to garner support……a lie. He wants to raise taxes on the people who currently earn a living, (taxpayers) and turn the money around and provide welfare for those who do not contribute…..WELFARE….REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

  21. Hi Peter,

    Back to your “calculation”(2117).

    You wrote, “The IPCC range for 2xCO2 is 1.5degC to 4.5degC. There may be a very few climate scientists who hold strong views that the true figure is outside this range, but not many.
    Because of the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase the current levels of CO2 should take us about 95% of the way towards the true figure. So you might ask, why not just work out how much warmer the earth’s temperature is now, compared to what it would have been with no increase in CO2 levels, and multiply by 2.1 ?
    I would say that 0.6deg C is the best estimate for the temperature rise so far.
    2.1 x 0.6 = 1.26 deg C
    Is this the answer for 2 xCO2? No. Because the ocean is a huge heat sink and it is slowing down the warming. In other words the earth’s heat transfer is not in equilibrium. In simple terms the earth will continue to warm for some time even if CO2 levels remain at their present levels.”

    Yes, I would agree that the theoretical greenhouse warming from CO2 since pre-industrial days should be around 47% of the 2xCO2 warming, based on the levels of atmospheric CO2 and “the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature increase” (as you put it).

    I would also agree with a temperature increase of around 0.6°C from all causes over this period (i.e. the 20th century); in fact, I believe this number is probably a bit higher (IPCC tells us it is 0.74°C, and I would not argue with this number (forgetting UHI distortions, thermometers next to AC exhausts, etc.)

    Since a large part of this increase occurred before CO2 levels rose, we know that CO2 was not the only driver for this increase.

    In fact, solar scientists have shown that the 20th century was a period of very high solar activity (the highest in several thousand years). The warming from this increased level of solar activity has been estimated by these various studies to range from 0.2 to 0.5°C, with a mean value of 0.35°C.

    The contribution of CO2 can be calculated using Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann and IPCC (Myhre et al). For an increase from 290 to 370 ppmv this gives a radiative forcing of 1.30 W/m² (excluding any feedbacks), yielding a greenhouse warming from CO2 of 0.24°C.

    The contribution of CH4 can be calculated using Arrhenius, Stefan-Boltzmann and IPCC (Myhre et al). For an increase from 800 to 1774 ppbv this gives a radiative forcing of 0.42 W/m², yielding a greenhouse warming from methane of 0.08°C.

    If we add up these three principal “drivers”, we end up explaining all of the 20th century warming, without having to resort to any computer-generated “enhancements” of the greenhouse theory through assumed feedbacks.

    Regards,

    Max

  22. Book review, but this guy illustrates good points:

    The Rise and Fall of Socialism

    by James F. Davis

    A discussion of the history of socialism for the past 200 years should be as dreary as reading the Communist Manifesto or Das Capital. Incredibly, this book is not.

    Before reading any book, it is advisable to have an idea from where the author is coming. This author was born and raised in an American socialist family. He was the national chairman of the Young People’s Socialist League from 1968 until 1973. He is presently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Quite a shift!

    Yet he gives a true believer’s lively account of socialism by telling us about the lives and ideas of the thinkers and leaders who have had the greatest impact in developing the theories of socialism. He also details the virtually always disastrous results of the application of those theories. Knowledge of the results is necessary to discuss these theories.

    The book’s title comes from Moses Hess, the man who got Marx and Engels fired up about socialism. Hess wrote, “The Christian . . . imagines the better future of the human species . . . in the image of heavenly joy. . . . We (socialists) on the other hand, will have this heaven on earth.” Therein lies socialism’s great appeal.

    The people the author chooses to highlight in this evolutionary history of socialism are Gracchus Babeuf, Robert Owen, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Clement Attlee, Julius Nyerere, Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, and Tony Blair, the present prime minister of Great Britain. Through chapters about each, he explains and documents 200 years of socialism.

    The French revolutionary Babeuf came up with the idea of outlawing private property so that all could be “equal.” “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” said the French revolutionaries. It was very different from the American “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Whereas the American founders wanted equality of opportunity, the French socialists promised equality of outcomes, i.e., Heaven on Earth. Huge difference!

    Robert Owen, who coined the term “socialist,” is one of the very few socialists who ever actually created wealth for himself and others. He made his fortune in textiles during the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s in England. Whereas Babeuf thought that one must take by force through the power of the state to implement socialism, Owen recognized that if someone just gave land and capital, a socialist community could be set up. Since he had the money, he set one up in the American Midwest.

    Owen believed that no human “is responsible for his will or his own actions.” He thought he could shape people into working collectively for the higher good by educating (indoctrinating) them from the age of one. He seemed never to have noticed that his socialist experiment failed miserably and that it seemed to attract the less industrious-even after it cost him his fortune!

    Engels came up with the idea that all private property is theft and that competition and capital lead to a concentration of wealth, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    It is fitting that Karl Marx is the most famous socialist of all. Muravchik details how much of a deadbeat he was and how he spent his entire life mooching off others, like many socialists. Further, he had virtually no contact with, nor did he want anything to do with, the poor working-man he claimed to want to help.

    Lenin was another pampered brat who lived off of others. Like many so-called intellectuals, he thought socialism should be “created for the workers, not by them!” He realized that he would have to terrorize the working man into collectivism. He did so at the cost of tens of millions of lives.

    Stalin, his heir, started out as Lenin’s fundraiser. He robbed banks. No big surprise that he followed in Lenin’s brutal footsteps.

    Mussolini, a draft dodger, modified socialism. He realized that Lenin’s violent methods worked best. But he noticed that Italy was not yet industrialized, so to get elected he decided to modify socialism into something called fascism. Under fascism, he would wait until entrepreneurs had created something of value worth taking, then nationalize it or create so many rules and regulations that he could force the private entrepreneur to do whatever he-the government-decided. Mussolini said he hated communism, yet mimicked it as often as he could.

    Hitler and his National Socialists differed from other socialists in that they were nationalistic in their looting of wealth. When Hitler took power he immediately set up four-year plans, so that no one would think he was copying the USSR’s five-year plans.

    After World War II, Clement Attlee, another pampered socialist, was elected Prime Minister of Great Britain. He decided to socialize and nationalize the UK, bit by bit, evoking the “class struggle” and envy of the rich approach that works so well today in the U.S. for the Democratic Party.

    Muravchik thinks socialism is dead because it has failed just about everywhere. And Margaret Thatcher’s Tory government reversed many of Atlee’s socialist nationalizations. Lastly, the socialist Labor Party of the UK got Tony Blair elected by campaigning on a platform that was anti-socialist. But socialism has yet to disappear in the UK.

    Nyerere’s socialization of Tanzania, one of the first African colonies to get independence, is detailed by the author. He subsidized farmers, took over the education system to teach people to work for the common good, etc. Despite massive aid from the developed world and China, the economy shrunk for the 23 years he was in power.

    Muravchik says socialism never got a foothold in America, and then explains how Samuel Gompers, the most significant organizer of labor unions, and George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, the country’s largest union, kept the socialists/communists from taking total control of the unions in this country. Gompers and Meany were from working-class backgrounds and were acutely aware that socialists would subordinate the workers’ goals to someone else’s goals. They knew that the workers would starve without the capitalist owners and that government intervention was socialist. They had no use for middle-class theorists who appointed themselves to lead labor. They were anti-communist and referred to Stalin rightly as a brutal fascist dictator.

    China’s Communist dictators Mao and Deng both came from privileged backgrounds. After almost 40 years of Mao’s socialist experiments and millions of deaths, Deng noticed that giving people personal responsibility and rewards for their efforts worked better than collectivization. He turned Communist China into a Fascist dictatorship and started allowing private ownership and a market economy. For Deng, the dictatorship of the party was the essence of socialism; all else was negotiable.

    Gorbachev’s siblings and grandparents died, along with millions of others in the 1932-33 collectivizing of the Ukraine. Once he traveled to the West, he knew he had to do something different. His conclusion: if he could just clean up the corruption and inefficient bureaucracy, socialism would work. He thought he could do this by allowing a little democracy. It had never occurred to him that maybe it was the system that caused the corruption, inefficiency, and horrible living conditions in most socialist societies. Yet even today he remains a committed socialist.

    Why then has socialism continued to have such popularity? My wife, who grew up in a socialist family, says its eternal appeal is that is makes people feel good about themselves. It is particularly popular with people who would never directly help their fellow man, but they claim the higher moral ground by declaring to want to help their fellow man by taking someone else’s hard earned money and redistributing it to someone else who has not earned it.

    Muravchik says socialism was popular because, “Not only did it vow to deliver the goods in this world rather than the next, but it asked little in return.” He thinks socialism is dead. A look at our own government suggests he is wrong.

    Our government promises medical care and social security, expropriates private property without due process, subsidizes or pays special interests not to produce, fixes prices, and controls production of certain commodities. It intrudes in our private lives more and more, and uses welfare to strip people of their dignity as unique persons by asking nothing in return, etc. These are all socialist/fascist programs and should be called as such.

    Yet this book demonstrates with many examples how socialism goes against human nature, how it has virtually always hurt the poor the most, has caused 100 million deaths in the 20th century and billions of people to live in horrible conditions. But it still sounds nice to idealistic people who have not experienced it first hand or studied its horrible results.

    That is why socialist ideas are still so popular in universities throughout the world.
    These ideas are also popular with politicians, since taking other people’s money and taking credit for giving it to someone else is how they get elected. Government employees also usually like politicians who give them more money.

    Having experienced firsthand the lack of liberty and brutality of living under a socialist government, I was disappointed that the author glossed over how horrible it is to live under socialism. And although I do not agree with the author’s contention that socialism has been defeated, there is so much excellent history in this concise, interesting narrative that makes it worth reading.

  23. Hi Brute,

    Enjoyed your book review “The Rise and Fall of Socialism” by James F. Davis. This book reminds me very much of one that came out in France a little over ten years ago. Below is a book review.

    “In late 1997 a leading French publishing house, Robert Laffont, published Le Livre Noir du Communisme (The Black Book of Communism), an 850-page book of scholarly essays that collectively provide a history of Communism in the 20th century. The contributors to the book include some of the finest scholars from both East and West, who have drawn extensively on new archival findings. Every country that lived (or is still living) under Communism — the Soviet Union, the East European countries, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Mongolia, and so forth — is covered. The book also features many crucial, previously unpublished documents from the former Communist archives.

    Le livre noir du communisme begins with a 38-page introduction, “Les Crimes du Communisme,” by the editor, Stephane Courtois. This introduction and the conclusion (also by Courtois) are what caused most of the controversy in France. Some prominent French intellectuals and politicians, especially those affiliated with or sympathetic to the Communist Party, argued that Courtois had gone too far in drawing a parallel between Stalinism and Nazism as systems that relied on violent terror. Some claimed that Courtois had overstated the intrinsic role of mass violence and repression in Communist systems. Courtois and numerous other scholars responded in a series of heated exchanges in the French press and academic journals. (At times, these exchanges bore only a scant connection to the book itself.) The next 800 pages of the book are separated into five large parts.

    The first part is a 250-page study by the distinguished French historian Nicolas Werth, “Un Etat contre son peuple: Violences, repressions, terreurs en Union sovietique” (“A State Against Its People: Violence, Repression, and Terror in the Soviet Union”), which draws extensively on new archival findings. The essay is divided into 15 sections, beginning with “Paradoxes et malentendus d’Octobre” (“Paradoxes and Misunderstandings About the October Revolution”) and then covering the whole period of Bolshevik and Stalinist terror as well as some of the events that followed the death of Josif Stalin.

    The second part is a 100-page study of the Comintern and the Soviet Union’s role in the international Communist movement, “Rªvolution mondiale, guerre civile et terreur” (“World Revolution, Civil War, and Terror”), by Stephane Courtois, Jean-Louis Panne, and Remi Kauffer. This part is divided into three essays, “Le Komintern de l’action,” by Courtois and Panne; “L’ombre portee du NKVD en Espagne” (” The Shadow of the NKVD in Spain”) by Courtois and Panne; and “Communisme et terrorisme,” by Kauffer.
    The third part, “L’Autre Europe: Victime du Communisme,” is a 100-page overview of Communism in East-Central Europe. The author of the first section, focusing on Poland, is the most eminent historian in Poland, Andrzej Paczkowski, who has been of great help to Western scholars in gaining access to archival materials in Poland. (He also is a member of the HPCWS Editorial Board.) The other section, of roughly 70 pages, by the distinguished Czech historian, Karel BartoÔek, covers the rest of Central Europe and the Balkans. These two sections together provide a rich and nuanced reassessment of the Communization and Sovietization of Eastern Europe, drawing on a wealth of new archival material.

    The fourth part, “Communismes d’Asie: Entre ‘reeducation’ et Massacre,” focuses on East Asia (China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). It is divided into three sections. The first is a 100-page study by a distinguished French historian, Jean-Louis Margolin, of China under Mao Zedong. It covers the civil war in China as well as all major episodes in post-1949 Chinese history (the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, etc.) and China’s occupation of Tibet. The 30-page second section, also by Margolin, focuses on North Korea, Vietam, and Laos. The third section, by one of the world’s leading specialists on Cambodia, Pierre Rigoulot, looks at Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. This 80-page section is both riveting and profoundly disquieting.
    The fifth part of the book, “Le Tiers-Monde” (“The Third World”), deals with Communist regimes in other parts of the Third World. This part is divided into three sections. The first section, by Pascal Fontaine, is a 35-page overview of Cuba, Nicaragua (under Sandinista rule), and the Sendero Luminoso in Peru. The second section is a 30-page overview of Marxist (or formerly Marxist) states in Africa — Ethiopia, Angola, and Mozambique — by the leading French expert on Africa, Yves Santamariabe. The third section, by Sylvain Boulouque, is a 25-page analysis of Afghanistan from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.

    The book ends with a 30-page conclusion by Stephane Courtois, “Pourquois?,” which tries to come to grips with the destruction and terror that have been extensively cataloged in the previous 800 pages. Courtois maintains that “[despite] the availability of rich new sources of information, which until recently had been completely off-limits [and which have led to] a better and more sophisticated understanding of events, . . . the fundamental question remains: Why? Why did modern Communism, when it appeared in 1917, turn almost immediately into a system of bloody dictatorship, and a criminal regime? Was it really the case that its aims could be attained only through extreme violence?”
    In a dense analysis of how violent terror became a way of life under Lenin and Stalin, Courtois concludes that “the real motivation for the terror ultimately was Leninist ideology, and the perfectly utopian will to impose a doctrine that was completely at odds with reality.” This totalizing ideology, Courtois argues, generated murderous intolerance toward all those who were perceived as obstacles to the new regime: “Terror involves a double sort of mutation. The adversary is first labeled an enemy, then a criminal, and is excluded from society. Exclusion very quickly turns into the idea of extermination.” That basic outlook, he writes, has been present, “with differing degrees of intensity, in all regimes that claim to be Marxist in origin.”

    In addition to the introduction, the five main parts, and the conclusion, the book features several dozen full texts or excerpts of recently declassified (and, with a few exceptions, previously unpublished) documents as sidebars. These documents appear in the book in French translation, but the French publisher has supplied copies of all the original documents to permit direct translations into English. Among the items featured are orders for the ruthless suppression of the Tambov rebellion in 1921, correspondence between Stalin and the writer Mikhail Sholokhov, transcripts of interrogations from the Great Terror, reports from the show trials in both the USSR and Eastern Europe, the 1940 memorandum ordering the execution of Polish officers in Katyn Forest, decrees on the deportations of ethnic minorities, reports from the commandants of Siberian gulags, several items pertaining to activities of the French Communist Party, documents on the treatment of prisoners of war in the USSR, reports on the actions of Communist guerrillas during the Greek civil war, a memorandum outlining the East German state security ministry’s ties to the terrorist Carlos, reports on forceful measures against religious believers, directives issued by the secret police in several East European countries, reports on political repression in Romania and China, documents on prison camps and forced labor in China, reports and directives from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, and many others.”

    (end of book review)

    I have read and re-read this book a few times (unfortunately I do not believe that it has been translated into English).

    As one can imagine, it caused major uproar and shouts of indignation from the French “left” at the time of its publication. To their great dismay the authors did make some comparisons between extreme “international” socialism (communism) and national socialism (fascism), but, in general, limited their analysis and historical study to those communist regimes that called themselves “socialist”.

    The close similarities between the two totalitarian systems are there, of course (ask any Hungarian or Pole who is old enough to have witnessed both).

    Regards,

    Max

  24. Tony N,

    Do you know what happened to Bob FJ, (Black Wallaby)?

  25. Max,

    Once again you have me confused with someone else.

    So it’s no longer “98-99% of climate scientists who believe in a positive cloud feedback resulting in a 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.3°C”, as you said earlier.

    Sorry, but the words in the quotation marks aren’t mine and I can’t help you with whose they actually are. Maybe you are too stressed about the USA banks being nationlised by your “Great Leader” GW Bush? Or some sort of dementia setting in? Lets hope not! Maybe you just need to take a couple of days off work.

    There wasn’t a time in the 20th century which were “before CO2 levels rose” as you put it. As you can appreciate, because of the logarithmic nature we previously discussed, it is the first tonne of CO2 which has a larger effect than the last tonne. In addition there are cooling effects from aerosols and volcanic eruptions.

    This link explains in more detail:

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

    I must say that my back of envelope calculation can’t be taken to too many places of decimal accuracy, but it does show that the current warming is consistent with IPCC figures.

    You also seem to have forgotten that I’d asked you for the reference to the Spencer paper. I presume that you must have read it thoroughly. Only a complete idiot would base his case on something that he hadn’t seen!

    Brute,

    Can’t we just have the links rather you copying and pasting all this crappy stuff that you seem very fond of? I’m sure that you are just as capable as James F. Davis (Whoever he is) of writing it yourself.

    If you have a problem with Tony’s spam filter just put {} around the http part of the URL.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha