Scotsman: Mike Haseler: No place for name-calling in debate

Posted on 4 March 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

In The Scotsman
A recent survey of those participating in online forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals, most degree-qualified and around a third with post-graduate qualifications.
The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO² and the effect it might have on global temperatures.
The results were surprising: 96 per cent of respondents said that atmospheric CO² levels are increasing, with 79 per cent attributing the increase to man-made sources. Eighty-one per cent agreed global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81 per cent also agreed that CO² is a warming gas. But only 2 per cent believed that increases in CO² would cause catastrophic global warming.
So what’s going on? Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data.
They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO² levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO² is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured).
Beyond this, the survey found that 98 per cent of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO² levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.
Overwhelmingly, participants in this large-scale survey support the science. However, this is not how they have been portrayed in the media, with what are now shown to be false allegations of “denial”.
Climate and energy are important issues, not just for us today but for our children, so now we know the facts about so called “sceptics”, please let’s see an end to this name-calling.
Instead please start listening to those which this survey shows have the qualifications, experience and background to understand the real impacts of changing energy use on our economy: the basic science is right, but the models were not, and the very best “jury” I can imagine says we are unlikely to be heading toward a climate catastrophe.

This entry was posted in Academia, Climate, Funding Imbalance, History, Sceptics, Survey. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Scotsman: Mike Haseler: No place for name-calling in debate

  2. Truthseeker says:
    4 March 2014 at 08:28

    “CO² is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured).”
    No free flowing gas traps heat. If CO2 or H2O did that, each day would be hotter than the last and the oceans would have boiled away by now. These effects have never been measured, only derived using unrealistic assumptions.
    The universe only works one way and does not operate by consensus. I know you are only reporting the results of the survey, but lets stick to the qualifications of the respondents. It is a useful counter to the argument by authority that alarmists keep trotting out to avoid talking about observations and the actual science (as opposed to models).

    • hunter says:
      4 March 2014 at 15:53

      Please go learn something about how heat flows in a system. You only look silly repeating dragon slayer kookiness.

      • David Shaw says:
        12 April 2014 at 04:11

        Are we talking a conveniently simple system, one that we understand or conveniently pretend to do so? It’s not very scientific to claim to understand the ‘climate’ system, not even I do that?

  3. Charles Brecknell says:
    4 March 2014 at 09:08

    It should be CO(subscript 2), not CO(superscript 2)- this error shows an ignorance of chemistry & weakens your good arguments.

  4. cementafriend says:
    4 March 2014 at 14:30

    I completed the survey. In contrast to so-called climate scientists as an engineer I have actual experience with heat transfer in different applications. CO2 does absorb some heat energy at a very narrow the wavelength centred on14.8 micron but in the atmosphere with a concentration of 400 ppm (volume) the amount of energy absorbed is unmeasurable. One can make calculations using the empirical formula derived by Prof Hoyt Hottel from vast amount of data in heat exchangers (see for example Perry’s Chemical Engineering handbook or Mark’s Mechanical Engineering Handbook) which will show the insignificant absorptivity upto 8kms of atmospheric height. Further, any tiny increase energy is converted to movement of the atmosphere or is radiated to space and can not be transferred back to a surface which is at a higher temperature.
    Let me add that heat & mass transfer is an engineering subject which scientists and physicists have little or no understanding. Let me ask has anyone seen mention of the Nusselt number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nusselt_number) in an article concerning global warming or so called global energy budgets?

    • Scottish Sceptic says:
      5 March 2014 at 09:10

      In my experience no one (in Britain) listens to engineers until things go wrong. Then they have gall to blame the engineers, then the engineers fix the problem they were warning about, then everyone forgets … until the next time something goes wrong.
      I’m not sure if “lunatics” is quite the right word for those who are so disdainful of engineers, but in Britain the “lunatics have taken over the asylum”. The global warming scam was just a symptom of this wider problem. The people you would want running a vibrant economy, were treated like pariahs.
      Fortunately, whilst the politicians, media and greenspin groups may huff and puff and blame us for everything that goes wrong, the reality is that the people answering the survey are the ones who really run the country.

  5. hunter says:
    4 March 2014 at 15:54

    Most of the comments here, sadly, do not support the survey results.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:
      5 March 2014 at 12:57

      More accurately, some of the comments don’t support your opinion on climate change and the survey.

  6. Chic Bowdrie says:
    5 March 2014 at 16:59

    “CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured).”
    I’m interested in documenting where these measurements have been or will be made. Specifically, where is the data that shows how much of the “trapped energy” from today remains in the atmosphere tomorrow? As cementafriend alludes to above, absorption of IR is quickly converted to kinetic energy increasing the temperature of local air masses and leading to convection. What keeps that energy from escaping after the sun goes down? More importantly, where is the data that documents how much more is “trapped” due to increasing CO2?

  7. CC Skeptic says:
    6 March 2014 at 00:52

    An article titled “Ben Wouters: Influence of Geothermal Heat on past and present climate” has been posted on “tall blokes” web site. I am still searching its references but it is the first article that touches on the geothermal influence on climate.

  8. David in Kent says:
    8 March 2014 at 07:17

    I have a degree in agricultural botany so I’d classify myself as a degree-qualified scientist with no special understanding of climate.
    My view is the CO2 levels are probably higher than in the past though some of the measurements look questionable. Higher atmospheric CO2 would cause plants to grow faster in some cases and it would not be surprising if it had some impact on the climate.
    The real question is what to do about this problem and the solutions proposed by warmists have been uniformly unacceptable.

    • citizenschallenge says:
      15 April 2014 at 02:17

      What the realization that CO2 is the driver behind current warming?
      And that a radically altered climate system will tear apart our complex global system that is unprepared for extremes.
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
      What you folks got here is ‘science in a vacuum’ and it’s about as useful as a dog chasing it’s tail.
      Please note Mr. ScottishSceptic is incapable of defending his “science” to a rationally skeptical challenge:
      http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/scepticview-scottishsceptic.html

      • Scottish Sceptic says:
        15 April 2014 at 08:25

        It’s not my view, it’s “the skeptic view”. That’s a simple statement of fact that which you seem incapable of accepting.
        All I can defend is the methodology used in deriving that document, not the contents as they belong to the “collective” and not to me.

  9. David Shaw says:
    12 April 2014 at 04:19

    If I suggest to my wife that her backside is getting bigger then I might get a slap and some hurtful comments re characteristics of my physique in return. If history is to be respected I will probably get this for the next infinity of years or until I die whichever is sooner. But if the context is changed I might well get away with it, memory changing substances perhaps.
    To akin the climate system to some simple single postulated physics rule out of context of the many other influencing factors and their interactions is pure stupidity. I don’t mean that as a slur, it’s just a basic observation.

  10. Pingback: Extreme Socialist-Environmentalist Ideation as Motivation for belief in Climate Science | ManicBeancounter

  11. Derek Alker says:
    23 April 2014 at 04:55

    You have got to love engineers, at least they put their stuff out there in a way that can be tested, one way or the other… Conclusively…
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152304175080727&set=vb.353346331387046&type=2&theater
    http://teespring.com/engineering8

Comments are closed.