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.
TonyB and Max,
(Your 2321 and 2324)
This is exactly what I was—apparently poorly—asking about last week. It seems so simple and yet so obvious to overlay CO2 levels to global temps for as far back in history as possible then see where, if at all, there are any correlations. I would also overlay other possible sources of warming, like PDO, or solar activity, or anything else that might be something to consider.
This would be a simple evaluation of observed data, not projections, or predictions, or computer-modeled simulations.
Like Robin has argued previously, if the previous (pre-industrial revolution) warming episodes cannot be explained, and cannot be the result of human CO2 emissions, then how can we successfully argue that any warming now is NOT the result of these unknown causation’s?
Max,
You don’t say where your figures have come from but they don’t agree with this Wiki source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
We shouldn’t overstate the crime problem in the USA. For example the murder rate (5.7 per 100,000) is nowhere near what it is in Mexico (25 per 100,000) or Brazil (24 per 100,000)
However it is quite a bit higher than in Australia (1.28) , England and Wales (1.37) , Germany (0.98) , France (1.64) or Italy (1.23).
I guess it is up to Americans to decide whether to be happy their murder rate is less than a quarter of the Mexican rate or whether to be not so happy that the rate for the European countries is less than a quarter of theirs. Do they want to compare themselves with Brazil or Germany?
You are probably right that the prevalence of guns is not the complete explanation for the difference. I’d guess that guns in Canada would be pretty common too and their murder rate is 1.85 /100,000 .
You can assign it to racial differences if you like but socio-economic factors are the more likely cause.
JZ: you referred (2326) to my argument that the lack of explanation of “previous (pre-industrial revolution) warming episodes” undermines the assertion that today’s warming is not the result of the same unknown causes. True – but my argument applies also to the post industrial revolution warming episodes of 1860/1879 and 1906/1940.
Peter: I’m looking forward to your completing the survey I posted at 2289. Thanks.
All: re the futility of expecting China, India etc. to reduce their GHG emissions see this article. And – the ultimate irony – as snow blanketed London for the first time in October for over 70 years, the House of Commons passed the Climate Change Bill by by 463 votes to three. See article here.
Max, reur 2323, in part:
Some of the anthropological factors that do not seem to be considered in your comments include, VERY briefly:
1) Per capita GDP is a meaningless measure, bearing no indication of contentment or rage amongst the whole of society.
2) You are talking about uncontrolled violence, and some states are better at controlling it than others, eg, by chopping-off hands or using bodies for organ donation, or by simply making everyone so happy, that there is no need for (violent) crime, etc
3) Some third-world countries have special problems, including tribal and religious conflicts, for instance Indian Muslim v Hindu massacres….also despotic/incompetent regimes of course.
4) Whilst on that point, it would be interesting to understand METHOD, and to define ‘homicides’, at each of the sources of your statistics. Maybe I was fibbed-to or the memory has erred, but I recall once that the number of violent deaths reported the last year in Detroit was about 1200, but only a fraction were defined as homicides.
5) Is a suicide a violent death or homicide?…..(or the burning of unwanted widows in India, or their escape to a subsistence sanctuary?)…. or crimes of passion…. Or the “elimination” of some Muslim women by family members for allegedly bringing “shame” on the family?
6) Moral/religious standards within a particular ethnic group may strongly differ to others.
7) Many basket-case states bear the legacy of lengthy rape by colonial powers, some of which were brutal. There are many traumatic after effects which could be discussed here, but I’m trying to keep it short.
8) Some peoples were submitted to the most humiliating crime of all: Slavery. The psychological scars of this are still evident in say ~10% of the USA population. Some of the crimes in discrimination still existed within my real-time memory.
9) Iraq?
10) Israel?
11) Central/South America
12) Drug-trade corruption in West-Africa and Afghanistan?
13) Saudi Arabia?
(End of my quick baker’s dozen)
I very strongly argue that ALL HUMANS, (and also our closely related Chimpanzees, WHEN in competitive situations), are very equally inherently violent. How this is manifested depends on history, and various complex circumstances and social mores etc, at any particular time. In general, as beneficial civilization and general prosperity advances, human conflict, (and birth-rate), tends to reduce. Keeping it brief, let’s take the example of the Japanese, whom you have highlighted as the least violent in your stats. Oh really? Their bestiality in WW2 proper, and earlier in China, was gruesomely excessive to say the least. Pol Pot et al were East Asian? Nazi Germany and the Balkans conflict were only slightly worse?
Of particular importance in the behaviour of any particular group, are psychological factors . For instance, in Nazi Germany, the successful preaching of the “Master Race” principle, and in the Balkans war, revival of memories to revenge some battle of ~600 years before etc, are classic. These are of course elements of “Brain-washing”, and it might be remembered how some captured U.S.A servicemen in Korea came home convinced that North Korea was a great place to be. More recently, we are aware of PTSD.
OK, let’s put ourselves in the place of those African slaves, many of whom died in appalling conditions, and./or lost loved ones, when conveyed to America. (PTSD?). They were then forced into submission and hard work via superior force possessed by their new “superior” owners. I am no psychologist or anthropologist, but my theory is that generationally their thinking was adapted, possibly genetically, to submission to their masters, since they had no technology or freedom to resist them. However, it is a fact, that they are the SAME animal species as the “superior” more advantaged owner race. They share the same emotions as whites, such as human love, laughing, and various kinds of pain, etc. Today, I believe, they largely, (with a few exceptions), live in what I describe as ghettos, and are powerless to escape from these conditions, with the continued psychology of “there is no hope for us“. (together with internally-perpetuating drugs and crime).
Although I think it is grossly unfair, this apparent submission by the ex-slaves, is perhaps the saviour of the USA, and rather paradoxical.
Imagine a situation where instead of Black Slaves, they were more recent Irish or Arabs, and the gentle art of bomb making became available to them. I wonder if the situation might be different?
Brute:
I intend to say more on the fact that the ex slave’s progeny remain, in general very disadvantaged people, (HUMAN BEINGS), despite your claims to the contrary. On the other hand, it’s probably a complete waste of time, from what I see in your “I’m all right Jack” attitude so far.
Peter:
I never thought it possible, but I support some of the things you wrote recently. (not including your AGW nonsense)
My #2321 and your subsequent various comments.
I have previously posted this information but we allowed ourselves to get sidetracked by the social analogies (which are very interesting in themselves). I also asked in one of my first posts why this modern warming episode is different to others because on the surface it is nothing out of the ordinary. To make a comparison I wish to restrict myself to CO2 analyis- which is what all the big fuss is about- at present. If doubling co2 casuses a rise of up to 4.5 degrees C we should be able to clearly see that by overlaying one graph against the other. Particlarly so as the logarithmic effect shows that most warming should already have happened
I will do this exercise but I need others to confirm that the basis on which I intend to amend the CO2 graph is fair- as follows;
1) extend it to 1660 so it matches CET
2) directly substitute or add ppm for metric tons
3) extend the bottom horizontal so we can more clearly see the historic 280ppm pre industrial levels rather than the ‘0’ matrix.
TonyB
Max, and Peter,
I’d like to add to Peter’s 2327 (responding to Max’s 2323)
So the USA murder rate is roughly a quarter of some third-world countries suffering widespread poverty and corruption and gang wars and drug crimes etc?
But, the most advanced nation in the world (USA)only has about 10% of such poverty related problems?
Are you able to explain the maths to me?
Re: Robin’s #2292 and my #2298
Alex Lockwood was aware that the NS blog was thriving at Hamless Sky when he delivered his paper. See reference in a post on his blog in July here and particularly the first comment on this post which put the record straight.
Re: Various comments in the last couple of days about the OT contributions that are becoming increasingly frequent.
I will be posting something about this soon. Most of them are commendably literate and well argued, but they just do not belong on this blog.
This BBC report “Polar warming ’caused by humans’” looks important. (And far more relevant to this thread than the political stuff in which most of you are indulging these days. I too am most interested in politics – but I prefer to go elsewhere for it.)
The article reports on new research on the Arctic and Antarctic showing that “The rise in temperatures at Earth’s poles has for the first time been attributed directly to human activities …” It claims that the new finding plugs a gap in the 2007 IPCC report.
TonyN,
I do understand what you are saying but at the same time I think that you do understand yourself that the motivation for the thousands of AGW related posts that we see on the net is political rather than scientific.
Alex Lockwood uses the phrase “strong Democrats became more convinced than they already were. And strong Republicans became more sceptical than they already were”.
It could well be argued that Al Gore has played a part in making Republicans more sceptical in the USA but I do have to ask the question of why they were more sceptical than Democrats to start with?
Even if what they say about Al Gore is all true, why should it make a difference? By all accounts Newton was an even more obnoxious character, but you wouldn’t step off a high cliff saying that therefore he must have got it all wrong with his theory of gravity.
I can’t see any point in going over the same old scientific ground, time after time, without trying to answer the question of why it is that those of a right wing, pro neo-liberal laissez faire, disposition (Republicans in US terms) take a different ‘scientific’ view to those more liberal or centre -left, pro -mixed economy types like myself?
That is where the real answer lies.
Peter: you complain about “going over the same old scientific ground, time after time”. Yet, far from reiterating well-worn material as that comment suggests, this thread and its NS predecessors have identified (at least for me) vast amounts of data providing fresh insights into the scientific and economic aspects of global warming – the scientific understanding of which appears to be developing rapidly. Politics (left or right) re unlikely to add anything useful to that understanding – any more than discussing Newton’s odd views about the supernatural (or his obnoxious character – if indeed he had one) would add anything to an understanding of the theory of gravity. Your view that the political divide is “where the real answer lies” is IMHO wholly misguided. For what it’s worth (probably nothing), I too am one of your “more liberal or centre -left, pro -mixed economy types”.
Let’s all get back to the topic.
So, in another attempt to get back on topic (see also my 2333 about man-made warming in Antarctica), two pieces of further evidence (in addition to the piece I mentioned yesterday) have just been published showing that, whatever the truth about AGW and the need to curtail GHG emissions to avoid catastrophe, China (plus India, Brazil etc.) is not going to join the party.
The first (here) from HeidelbergCement a German cement manufacturer, indicates that EU emissions trading rules may force European cement plants to relocate to China. The company, with 36 plants in the EU, said that in the worst case scenario the scheme could add € 920 million to its annual costs from 2013. Dr Bernd Scheifele, chairman of the Management Board said,
The second (here) is that, in a policy paper on GHG emissions, China says that their control is a “difficult task”. It warns that there is little prospect of an early improvement as the “coal-dominated energy mix cannot be substantially changed in the near future, thus making the control of greenhouse gas emissions rather difficult”. China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, noted that China’s fast GDP growth in the past 30 years has lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty and economic development is sure to remain its top priority. He added,
Hi Peter,
Just as you lucky guys in Oz are anticipating late spring and summer, we in Switzerland have just had our first heavy snow (29 October) reaching down deep into the valleys (a few weeks earlier than normal this year).
The large amount of early snow surprised everyone. There were power failures. Trains and airplanes were delayed; road traffic was stalled over the mountain passes.
The mountain ski resorts are happy as they anticipate a colder than normal and snowier winter as predicted by the local almanacs. As I look at my snow shovel, though, I am sort of hoping for the return of some “global warming.”
From Robin’s post it looks like London also had unusual early heavy snow (as did Tibet, according to the news reports).
James E. Hansen, where art thou, just when thy planet needs thee the most?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote to TonyN: the “motivation for the thousands of AGW related posts that we see on the net is political rather than scientific.”
This may be true of many sites on both sides of the debate.
My personal motovation is to try to get through all the hype to the scientific truth about the 20th century warming periods in order to ascertain whether or not human CO2 really has played a significant role in our planet’s climate.
At the same time, I am disappointed in the one-sided reporting of IPCC and I deplore all the political ballyhoo, media hysteria, etc. that surround this multibillion dollar industry.
What is your motivation, Peter?
Regards,
Max
Re: #2333, Robin
Stotty has form, lots and lots of it:
paste this string into Google:
site:independent.co.uk peter stott
So far as I am aware, most of his previous attempts to detect the evidence of a ‘human fingerprint’ on climate change have sunk without trace, and I suspect that this one will do so too. Modelling is a useful research tool, but since when has comparing the output of models been evidence of anything that might be occurring in the natural world? Evidence is obtained by observation.
Of course you are right, Stotts research is important, but for another reason I think. It has been publicised by the BBC as ‘groundbreaking’ with ne’er a caveat, and this will be remembered by thousands who read their article, which will probably be cited on countless blogs. No one outside the climate science community will notice if it is never referred to again.
I wonder if Pallab Ghosh, who is a good science reporter, used a search string in the way I did before he wrote up the story? Or is ‘standing up’ a global warming story before publishing it seen as heresy at the BBC now?
Re: #2337, Max
I don’t suppose that you attach any more scientific significance to minor blips in the onset of winter than I do but, just for the record, last night the BBC reported on an open air meeting addressed by an ex-US President and a well known presidential candidate which was attended by a huge crowd in spite of it being the coldest October night on record in Florida.
The gales of last winter mean that my woodshed is particularly well filled this year, and I suspect that I may need it all. The mountains here have been well covered with snow for days now, and that is very rare in October.
Re #2334, Peter
I think that you’ve raised some really interesting issues that go right to the heart of the climate debate. I’ll come back to you.
Hi Bob,
Reur 2329 (and my earlier 2323).
Thanks for your long response. Yes, I agree with you that this is a complex issue with many facets.
The comment you quote is not from me, but from the study I cited referring to the Rushton theory on different degrees of aggressiveness that are linked to genetic (and anthropological) differences. I neither support this theory nor do I argue that it is false.
The US homicide statistics by major city are what they are. No attempt is made to explain why they are as they are. Did 18th and 19th century history of slavery contribute to 20th and 21st century aggression among African-Americans? Does 21st century poverty contribute?
I just found the statistic interesting that average homicide rate in the USA (with an 18th century “right to bear arms” anchored in the Constitution) is only marginally higher than that in the EU or in India (where very few people own firearms). I had always thought, based on many stories out there, that the USA murder rate was much higher than that in the EU on average, but this does not appear to be true, based on the actual statistics:
{http}://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
USA (ranked #24): 4.28 homicides per 100,000 (total population 301 million)
India (ranked #26): 3.44 homicides per 100,000 (total population 1,130 million)
EU (unranked): 3.35 homicides per 100,000 (total population 497 million)
And I was happy to see that in Switzerland (where almost every adult male has an Army rifle at home until he reaches age 45 or so) the rate (at 0.91 homicides per 100,000) is much lower than in the EU (where this is not the case).
I also found it interesting that in the three largest East Asian countries (China, Indonesia, Japan) the rate is much lower than in the EU, India or the USA.
China (not ranked): 1.73 homicides per 100,000 (total population 1,322 million)
Indonesia (ranked #58): 0.91 homicides per 100,000 (total population 235 million)
Japan (ranked #60): 0.50 homicides per 100,000 (total population 127 million)
Subtotal: 1.52 homicides per 100,000 (total population 1,684 million)
Population density has been mentioned as one cause of human aggressiveness, but the low homicide rates of Hong Kong and the Netherlands seem to argue against this. These statistics tell me that the problem is apparently also much more complex than just the “right to bear arms” issue, as Brute pointed out (2235).
Now there are certainly questions about unreported homicides (ex: living female newborns that get counted as “still births”) and artificially high homicide numbers resulting from gang warfare of immigrants coming from high-homicide countries, etc., all of which can skew the statistics.
But I really don’t want to get into a discussion of all that and would prefer to get back on to the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the AGW hypothesis.
Peter has not yet responded my #2320 on the “Hansen delayed equilibrium” hypothesis, where I tried to get our discussion back on topic.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyN,
Reur 2340: This is a climate-related story, so I hope you don’t cut it.
During the early days of North American settlement by white Europeans, a new settler family in what is now South Dakota was concerned about the impending winter and about how much firewood to stock up. A neighbor told the new settler about a wise old Indian chief up on the mountain that might be able to give him an idea about how cold the winter would be.
So the new settler climbed the mountain and asked the old chief, “Will this be a cold winter?”. To which the Indian first looked across the plain below, sniffed the air and then replied, “Winter.”
The settler went home and chopped more firewood. But his wife asked him again whether he had stocked enough for the winter.
So he went back up the mountain. This time the old chief replied, after looking across the plain and sniffing the air, “Winter, cold.”
So the settler chopped several more cubic meters of firewood and stacked it all around his house. But his wife was still worried, so she sent him back up the mountain again.
Again the chief looked across the plain below and sniffed the air. Then he said, “Winter, very cold.”
The settler finally asked him, “How do you know the winter will be very cold?”
Reply, “Because white man cut much wood, winter very cold.”
Cause and effect?
Regards,
Max
TonyN: Certainly not OT and should be required reading for all politicians and policymakers who consult the IPCC.
Max,
Apologies to Tony N but I just would like to know where this figure comes from.
EU (unranked): 3.35 homicides per 100,000 (total population 497 million)
Its not from your link which, incidentally, quotes from a source which is ten years out of date.
The biggest three countries in the EU: France , Germany, and the UK have, even according to your link’s old data, figures of 1.73, 1.16, and 1.4 respectively. So this unsubstantiated figure of yours, 3.35 for the EU as a whole seems unlikely.
Methinks you just make up figures willy -nilly to suit whatever argument you are peddling at the time!
Hi Peter,
You asked from where the EU statistic on murder rates came, insinuating that I made them up. Actually I did not. It is the same source I already cited. And yes the table is based on UN statistics that are eight years old (I have not seen a recent update of this table, but do not believe that the numbers would be drastically different). I took the national rates and came up with the total. Remove {parentheses} from link.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/2988476067_558b3da560_b.jpg
As you can see there are wide differences in the rates for individual nations.
Denmark appears to be the “safest” EU country at 1.07 homicides per 100,000 population, while Romania is the “least safe” at 25.1 homicides per 100,000.
This is very much the same as in the USA, where the “safest” state is Montana at 1.46 homicides per 100,000 and the “least safe” is Louisiana at 14.16 homicides per 100,000.
Facts are facts, Peter, even if they seem “unlikely” to you.
Regards,
Max
TonyN: how do homicide rates possibly have anything to do with AGW? I find this all most tiresome.
Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EVIDENCEFORPREDICTINGGLOBALCOOLINGFORTHENEXTTHREEDECADES.doc
Robin,
Maybe people are so consumed with global warming anxiety that they kill each other to lower the amount of CO2 emissions? Higher murder rates really are a net gain for “the environment”……less humans around breathing, driving cars, using electricity and gas, purchasing consumables.
Maybe “lowering your carbon footprint” really isn’t just a slogan anymore. Maybe some people have decided to take matters into their own hands and lower the homicide victims carbon footprint for them……permanently? The murderers can now be viewed as “climate crusaders”; they are actually doing us all a favor, (for the communal good).
You see, any circumstance or scenario can be attributed to arresting “unbridled capitalism” and “changing society for the good of the planet” if one is clever enough.
Higher murder rates are a positive thing!
Sarcasm off……
Believe Robin (2336) has pointed out the futility of the scramble (voiced most strongly in the EU) for “mitigation” to reduce global CO2 emissions.
We noted that the 11+% annual growth rate of the Chinese economy has “slowed down” to around 9% as a result of the global financial crunch. It is expected to be “only” 6 to 8% over the next few years (let’s say 7% per year).
China emitted 6,800 million tons of CO2 last year (out of a world total of 27,800).
Let’s assume that increased energy efficiency will cause CO2 growth to be at only 85% of GDP growth, or 6% per year.
This means China will emit 2,300 additional tons of CO2 annually in five years (growing from 6,800 to 9,100).
This is more than the EU can reduce if they cut their CO2 emission by 50% over these 5 years (current level is around 4,300 million tons – and increasing, rather than decreasing).
The other fast-growing giants, like India and Brazil, will also add several hundred million tons CO2.
Even if the USA (under a new Obama or McCain administration) goes along with a 10% reduction of its current 5,900 million tons over the next five years, there is no way that the growth from China, India and Brazil can be offset.
“Mitigation” is truly an exercise in futility.
But let’s be honest. There are two other points that show how absurd all the “mitigation” talk really is.
“Mitigation” is just a nice word to disguise the real intent of imposing a crippling carbon tax (or cap and trade scheme) on the world.
“Mitigation” (even if there were no growth from China, etc.) would not result in any measurable change in our planet’s climate.
Max
Yes, Robin, you are correct (2346) in saying that homicide rates are totally irrelevant to our discussion here on climte (despite Brute’s “tongue in cheek” post (2347).
I hereby confirm that I will refrain from falling into the trap of posting any future messages about homicide rates.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
The Easterbrook paper you cited (2347) makes much more sense than the 1,000-page pseudoscientific gobbledy-gook put out by IPCC last year (although I’m sure Peter won’t like it as much).
The charts of past cycles of temperature should be interesting for TonyB, if one can get access to the root data cited by Easterbrook.
Regards,
Max