Just watched another superb video on YouTube of a talk by Professor Salby.
In the past I’ve avoided the question of whether all the CO2 was manmade. My feeling has been that there is more than enough evidence against the positive feedback thesis of the warmists to dismiss them as charlatans. Indeed the main point it not that rising CO2 should cause warming, but that it is wholly wrong for scientists to mislead the public and politicians about the scale of that warming using speculative, even fraudulent “science”. In other words propaganda with a thin a false veneer of scientific credibility.
So, I’ve not been too interested in the question of how much of the CO2 rise is due to mankind. But, I used to have the same dismissive view of the link between solar activity and climate. On that I was also wrong. When you look at the evidence it is clear, this is really beyond reasonable doubt … certainly sufficiently proven to require policy makers to take recognisance of the potential of a New maunder Minimum. Only this week I came across yet another paper:
Maybe it is less obvious than it looks to me, but I cannot see how anyone can deny that C14 levels known to be related to solar activity do not go up and down with the ratio of the O16 to O18 isotopes which is a known proxy for temperature.
So when I came across Salby’s video on the origin of CO2, even though he was a respected academic, I thought twice about watching. I am very glad I did! Although an hour long, it is something I think anyone with an interest should watch and tell others about.
I should be careful how I phrase his results (because he was being scientific and being careful), so I probably ought to watch again to check what I say matches what was said in the video, but as far as I remember he was suggesting that it was provable that a large part of the rise in CO2 was due to natural causes, and (here I need to check) it would appear that all the rise could be natural. He came to this conclusion, by comparing the rate of CO2 rise with change in surface conditions (such as precipitation), and as the above graph shows, the two are very well correlated.
Just as the lack of warming this century, proves that the computer models have been wrong, but it does not prove that some at least of the warming was due to CO2 rise, so, the evidence provided by Salby does not prove that human activity is not responsible for a substantial part of the CO2 rise. But it does prove it is both false to say that all the warming was due to CO2 AND that all the rise in CO2 was due to human activity. In other words it is outright fraud to say that we are certain beyond doubt that human produced CO2 caused all the rise in temperature in the 20th century.
The balance of evidence is now wholly against the present Scottish policy on so called “climate change”. The evidence is there. The onus is not now on us sceptics to prove our assertions. The evidence the policy is wrong is there for anyone who looks. It is so palpably wrong in so many ways. The science is wrong, the economics was wrong, we were lied to about jobs, we were even lied to about the amount of CO2 reductions of wind. Now we have a legacy of a ruined countryside, a electricity grid on the verge of collapse and no doubt we will continue for decades paying through the nose to the very culprits who were most responsible for the scam and destroying the scenery of Scotland. Unless or until we can find some politicians with the guts to prosecute those who are most responsible.
In my view, it is now on the Scottish government and particularly the wind lobbyists to prove that they acted in good faith and not with criminal intent when they misled the public (even if not intentionally) and implemented a policy which is now clearly wrong.
There does seem to be more C14 now than previously which could be industrialisation. On the other hand John Redwood once asked a parliamentary question on the subject and was told human CO2 was only 3% of total emissions. Either way this is no indication of AGW more than a fraction of a degree.
It also looks like the Roman and pre 5000BC warmings were above the Medieval and none of these were catastrophic – quite the reverse.
Neil, the biggest problem isn’t where the CO2 comes from, it is that the advisers of government are providing advice which is so distorted, so partial, so one side, so ignorant of the vast array of real evidence and focussed in the inward looking “buddy” reviewed fifth rate knee jerk – must get something out to prove the sceptics wrong – that it is fraudulent.
if there really was science pointing to catastrophic warming, then I certainly would want the government to know it.
But I would want that policy to be given appropriate weighting compared to every other issue government has to deal with. Instead, the priority given to global warming (even if it were correct, and even if the cost of the policy compared to the benefit) is completely utterly out of proportion.
Come on, what is the worst thing anyone in the UK can attribute to 20th century warming? That we get spring bulbs earlier (most of which is due to urban heating).
In other words, global warming is equivalent to a minor garden problem … a bit like the New Zealand flat worm … something that really shouldn’t be in the environment – something we wouldn’t do on purpose, but something government aren’t going to do an awful lot about – something worth monitoring, but not worth spending money on unless there is a substantial and real problem (not a few greenies complaining)
I entirely agree. Warmth, unless it gets to catastrophic levels, is a rather good thing – certainly the medieval, Roman and Climate Optimum periods were rather good. Moreover incresed CO2 helps crops grow. Thus any warming looks overwhelmingly likely to be beneficial.
Have the world’s p0liticians acted in good faith?: – I am sure they are all going to say, in the tradition of MPs/councillors found with envelopes full of fivers, that “no evidence has been found that they were personally corrupt”. However it is inherent in “mistakes” that they are random. The odds on 1 politico getting hysterical about catastrophic warming may be close to 50% but the odds that thousands of them all did so & not one (currently) hysterical abour cooling, without it being a deliberate and coordinated fraud, by wholly corrupt politicos, is statistically zero.
I accept Menckens line that “the practical purpose of politics is to keep the populace scared and eager to be led to safety by frightening them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Without that the eco-fascists would have to work for a living.
See Lord Monckton’s critique on CO2
Monckton exposes Fake Greenland Map & CO2 Fraud
….. More climate related stuff on other pages at the site
Reblogged this on pindanpost and commented:
Add your thoughts here… (optional)
Same tiny cliique talking to each other . . . why bother when Bishop Hill is the sexy place to be?
Scots, Renewables, that is a very insightful comment. The characteristic that distinguishes most sceptics is that they put a very low priority on what other people think – or to be more accurate, what is “popular” or “sexy”.
I think if you wanted to make the insult you might have tried something like:
“Same groupthink illogical views being repeated ad nauseum … Bishop hill is where the real science/intellect is”. (Which still wouldn’t work because most people here post at Bishop hill!)
But the main point is we don’t care if we are a clique … some of the greatest science was done by individuals and small groups. As for Bishop Hill being sexy … Bishop hill does a fantastic job. He deserves the publicity his site gives him, and I’m more than pleased to support him … so I’m very pleased you think his site is sexy …. although I suspect he won’t welcome the accolade.
Note that such ad homs, rather than any attempt to discuss facts, is the very best the alarmists are capable of, whether it is SR & the perhaps slightly more credible Hansen or less credible Al Gore doing it.
Neil, it is not surprising that SR resorts to personal attacks. He is so intimately bound up in the whole thing that I’ve no doubt he cannot distinguish between a legitimate attack on the “policy” in general and a direct attack on him.
So, e.g. when we say “Global warming is a scam” … he interprets this personally as “he is a scam” and feeling he is being personally attacked he responds in kind
So that’s all good then ;0
Did you see that James Lovelock just Bailed from the Global Warming Alarmist Ship and did so very publically on MSNBC. A full report of the ramifications is available as an “Infowars” video, and we have added this to our Vast Collection of videos at teh Fraudulent Climate Website.
I thank you 🙂
Maybe Scottish Renewables will be less snarky now – the UK’s 4GW capacity of metered windmills have just managed to generate more than 2GW for a full 24 hours now. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Happy day (singular) for the wind industry!