To stand up and be hated

Posted on 21 November 2014 by Scottish-Sceptic

Society often praises the volunteer who gives up their time to work on some “good cause”. And that is what sceptics did. We gave up time and money to work on a good cause, but with one very significant difference.
When the first of us stood up, we did so in an atmosphere where we were almost universally reviled, condemned and hated. And there was a real feeling that it could have ended in injury. Whilst those calling on sceptics to be locked up and tattooed awaiting a decision about “execution” were doing so publicly and therefore probably harmless, there is no doubt that every country has its moronic twits who take those kinds of calls to heart and sooner or later carry them out.
So, whilst I applaud all the people who do noble “good works”, they at least expected the admiration of others. So, how much more deserving of praise were the sceptics who stood up to be hated?
We had to be a special kind of person. Hides like Rhinoceros on the outside, caring on the inside, both scientifically literate as well as socially aware of the needs of society, without needing to be liked by that society or even approved of.
And now climate scepticism is respectable I sometimes miss the old days of going into an on line forum, knowing I was hated and reviled by everyone there and knowing there was no one at all I could call on for support – and whilst not winning for such was inconceivable against the odds – at least not sinking under the mountain of insults indignant I should even be allowed to breath let alone speak.

This entry was posted in Climate, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to To stand up and be hated

  1. A C Osborn says:
    21 November 2014 at 16:48

    Did you want to discuss the difference of opinion between Steve and myself over at Real Sience?

  2. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    21 November 2014 at 19:13

    Hi, thanks for coming here. I got quite annoyed with Steve myself a few days ago, but he runs a great blog so I just bit my tongue.
    I tried looking back at what had caused the series of comments from Steve and couldn’t find anything obvious, so I’ve no idea who or what or why it all started and I would be interested to know.
    Mike

  3. A C Osborn says:
    21 November 2014 at 20:16

    It all started because Steve believes the Greenhouse theory of Back Radiation, ie DWIR.
    Others have been arguing with for quite a while.

  4. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    21 November 2014 at 20:51

    You are telling me what you believe someone else believes. Obviously there are two sides to an argument and for me to understand the basis of the argument I need to hear your point of view. So, what are you proposing.

  5. A C Osborn says:
    22 November 2014 at 14:39

    “You are telling me what you believe someone else believes”, no I am telling you what he has said on is posts.
    Where I am coming from is based on prior experience.
    I did Mechanical Engineering at College along with Thermodynamics and Electrical Engineering as an Apprentice with the MOD in the 60s.
    But during the 90s while working for Ford Motor Co I became interested in Solar Power, not solar panels, but what you could do with sunlight.
    I looked at Magnifying glasses, but they were not much use. I then looked at Parabolic Mirrors and found that a simple 3″ torch mirror could raise a 1/4″ block of steel to 450 degrees C in a few minutes. So “focused” sunlight can do Work, it’s Watts (Power) are real. However focused “daylight” did nothing, nothing at all.
    So when “Man Made Global Warming” came along with Trenberth’s cartoon (good name for it) I thought how odd, there must be 2 kinds of Watts .
    We have 161 “Power” working Watts like you get from the sun and 333 of non working Watts that you get from DWIR.
    I also found articles on Solar Cookers, that double as Fridges when used with night time DWIR.
    I had a few discussions on WUWT and other blogs about DWIR not doing work with Warmists and one of them finally admitted that it can’t be used to do “work” unless the working machine has something Colder than where the DWIR came from.
    I have never believed AGW, I am too old and seen too many changes to our weather, from weeks of snow on the ground to the hot summer melting tar in the road. Add to that what we were taught of history etc they are obviously playing the world for fools.

  6. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    22 November 2014 at 20:06

    I’m not sure about the two kinds of light. I’d need to know more details about the light and what it’s being focussed on. Your right to be sceptical about greenhouse warming but not for the reasons you think.
    The most telling thing is that when a professional who works out gas absorption does the calculation of the “Greenhouse effect” they get a figure 20% of the typical warming estimate of the IPCC. So, 80% of this scam has no basis in science
    To put a figure on that, Prof Hermann Harde has calculate that the warming potential of CO2 is equivalent to around 0.6C (using standard climate models – he’s not a climate modeller but a gas absorption specialist).
    The IPCC estimate around 3C warming. So, how do we get from 0.6C to 3C? Here are the steps:
    1. Ignore the latest spectral data and use out of date data ->1C
    2. Take a short term trend from 1970-2000, which is no different from that between 1910-1940. Then say “all this is due to CO2” — and then project forward the trend. I would guess that gets to 2C.
    3. Then talk about “escalating effects”, so add a fudge factor to increase it even further.

  7. markstoval says:
    22 November 2014 at 20:55

    Mike,
    I am having real trouble making a comment here. Is there someplace I can e-mail you?

  8. markstoval says:
    22 November 2014 at 20:56

    Well, heck. That one posted. Will wonders never cease? OK then, I’ll try a post again.

  9. markstoval says:
    22 November 2014 at 21:02

    “Did you want to discuss the difference of opinion between Steve and myself over at Real Sience?”
    I got banned for basically saying that Mike H. was correct with his “advanced greenhouse theory” posts of a short while back.
    My position is that CO2 in the lower atmosphere does nothing or so close to nothing as to be not worth worrying about. Mainstream scientists have pointed out that in the lower atmosphere the CO2 molecule will “bump” into a nitrogen or oxygen molecule before it has a chance to radiate its excess energy that it received via photon. In other words, in the lower atmosphere convection is the overwhelming dominate force.
    I don’t think Steve G. is willing to talk about that.
    ~Mark

  10. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    23 November 2014 at 08:39

    Mark thanks. The biggest con of all these models is that they ignore the layer of clouds and the variability of that layer. And they ignore the feedback between convection and cloud formation.
    And the way the warmists hide this is using this “greenhouse warming” simplification which ignores clouds & convection.
    This is why I would prefer a more complex model of how greenhouse warming actually works, rather than the noddy simplification we usually see.
    Unfortunately, Steve tries to put a complex subject over in a single sentence, he uses sloppy language and that makes it hard to understand what he is trying to say. The best I can say is that it certainly looks very confused and lacking in substantial detail and I’m not surprised he’s getting a rough time.

  11. markstoval says:
    23 November 2014 at 09:33

    We agree on the simplistic and noddy nature of the current mainstream climate science theories.
    As to Steve, it is to his credit he has unbanned me it looks like. Or it was perhaps all a wordpress thing out of his control. Either way, I am glad it turned out that way. He does like the snarky little one line posts and responses that are stated in language that can be easily misinterpreted. That does the skeptical side no good.
    He wants us all to believe that “back radiation” exists. Well fine, I can do that — but what if said “back radiation” does not do anything measurable?
    By the way, this blog is always one of my first stops to see what you have posted. It is one of the net’s nice pleasures.

  12. A C Osborn says:
    23 November 2014 at 12:18

    Sorry, Prof Hermann Harde may be a gas absorption specialist, but his 0.6C cannot possibly explain history, unless of course the accepted history is wrong.
    450M years ago we had a 10 degree drop in temp, to an ice age with CO2 at 4000ppm.
    400M years ago they say CO2 fell 3500ppm to lesse than 500ppm, but the temperature didn’t drop for another million years. The temperature then rose 10 degrees followed by an increase in CO2.
    So something does not add up.
    Therefore there is something about the Atmosphere that prevents gases doing what Scientists say they should.
    It would appear that you can’t translate laboratory conditions to the actual atmosphere.
    For me it is all about Water in it’s various states completely swamping any CO2 ability to do anything when it is present.
    Where it isn’t present the CO2 cools the atmosphere, if you don’t believe me, do you believe NASA, they are the ones who have measured it.
    It is also about the time factor, over deserts the earth sheds 50 degrees C in around 12 hours, so the supposed slowing of outgoing radiation from CO2 does not do very much.
    As to Back Radiation warming the planet, I will believe it when someone can actually prove it can warm the Surface, I believe it can warm colder air/moisture around it but that is all.
    They say they measure the Radiation, but they can’t get it to do anything usefull.

  13. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    23 November 2014 at 13:01

    Thanks. and to be honest Steve’s is one of the first blogs I look at.
    Like most things in climate science – the real problem is that the academics are appalling. So, that results it completely meaningless descriptions of the climate and then people like Steve start trying to say “the science is right” – when the “science” was what a decent scientist would draw on the back of a fag packet.
    The “Greenhouse theory” works for PR, but it is utterly completely useless as a scientific tool because it just does not represent the way the atmosphere actually traps heat.
    And then when we get an argument – where do we look? Is it to the crap “scientists” like Mann who wouldn’t know back heat if it hit them in the face? So, we are all left struggling to make sense of a “theory” dreamt up by third rate graduates who only got a job because they applied for the “then” dead beat subject of climate.
    However, I’m just writing up something now, it hasn’t been as straightforward as I thought – clearly I’m still developing my understanding – it should be ready in a day or two. (Then Steve can come and tear me apart).

  14. Scottish Sceptic says:
    23 November 2014 at 15:29

    As far as I could tell looking at his CV Harde usually works out IR gas absorption for industry. Like Salby he just happened to become interested and presumably just thought it would be interesting to have a look and was pretty horrified by what he found.
    The 0.6C is in my view the best estimate of the “Greenhouse effect” of CO2 (and some other gases). But I don’t think he even attempts to answer the question about feedbacks.
    Regarding the 4000ppm, as the scale is logarithmic, that represents around 2C warming. Looking at the vostok ice cores, that kind of change is “in the noise”.
    And yes we agree on water.
    Back radiation: if you can I strongly suggest going and buy a cheap IR thermometer** and take it outside at night when the sky is partially obscured. This will convince you that the sky can have very different radiated temperatures … but it will also convince you that there are far far more important things that need modelling … and they are white and fluffy.
    **Buy it for the wife – say it is for her to use for making toffee without having to clean the thermometer and likewise for checking the temperature of fat when frying. Actually no need to “claim” – ours now sit beside the cooker.

  15. Jason Calley says:
    24 November 2014 at 15:32

    Hey Mark, Hey Scottish-Sceptic!
    Real Science is one of the sites that I check pretty much everyday. I am always amazed at some of the statistical jewels that Tony digs up from the raw data. Anyway, I have been following the GHG brouhaha over at Real Science as well. I may be wrong on this, but I really think that the majority (not all, but most) of the problem is semantics, and it involves the exact meaning of the verb “warm”. It looks to me like when Tony says (I paraphrase) “GHG warm the Earth.” he is assuming that we are speaking about the Earth with all of it’s normal incoming solar energy. In other words, an Earth such as we have now will be warmer with GHG in the atmosphere than it would be wothout GHG in the atmosphere. On the other hand, many of his critics are looking at an Earth isolated from a continual solar input and saying (I paraphrase) “GHG cannot make the earth warmer because the GHG in the atmosphere are colder than the surface and heat does not flow from cold to warm.” Even if I am correct that this is a semantic argument, it is still about a theoretical effect that in the real world will likely be vanishingly small. In the real world, convection overwhelms radiation in the troposphere. Add in the phase changes of water, and you get a spherical heatpipe that is so efficient at moving vast quantities of energy that the practical effect of GHG is probably not even measurable.

  16. Scottish-Sceptic says:
    24 November 2014 at 15:43

    I tried suggesting the analogy of a weir in a river. The normal way of saying things is that the “weir causes the water to rise”. However, if one is pedantic, it is the incoming water that causes it to rise – a difference that is just semantics, unless it happens to be a very flat water course, or the weir is above the bankful depth.

Comments are closed.