What do you think?

Posted on 23 September 2011 by Scottish-Sceptic

I’ve been asked to show the following youtube video. I’d be interested to hear comments because to my way of thinking this is not the way to combat the nonsense on global warming:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91q0gG3eBnM]
First, I think we have to be brutally honest with the public. Yes they are right, CO2 is a trace gas, yes the Australian part of that rise is small. But even trace gases can have dramatic effects and to my mind if you start hiding things like that, you start behaving like climate “scientists” and we are already winning on the science so why descend to their level?
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe one has to fight the lies of propaganda with more propaganda? Maybe I just like science and don’t understand PR, but I would prefer to be brutally honest: The best estimates of CO2 warming for a doubling of CO2 is around 0.5 to 1C, this is way below the predictions of 3.5. There is now a massive unsubstantiated gap between the real science and their “Global warming” by several hundred percent.
We have the evidence to prove they are wrong: the lack of recent warming which shows all the models wrong, the papers by: Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan which show the scaling up of CO2 is wrong, and now CERN/Svensmark showing the likely candidate for a lot of this “natural variation”. We do not need propaganda, because we are winning on the science … the science backs us, not them!
However, may be it is arguable that a large amount of the CO2 increase we have seen may be due to national causes. (Not something I’ve followed up) and perhaps this is an effective way to put over the concept that it is “natural” for climate and CO2 to change.
I we did something similar in Scotland/UK is this the way to go?

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to What do you think?

  1. Pascvaks says:
    23 September 2011 at 11:02

    On the fine, small, delicate, and controversial points of life… go with your gut.

  2. rms says:
    23 September 2011 at 11:12

    I think you are right. It’s not particularly helpful to try to counter the argument based on the volume of C02 in the atmosphere, since, far as I know, this has really never been debated.

  3. Jazzermonty says:
    23 September 2011 at 17:36

    SS, normally I would agree but in this case I think your off the mark a bit. In my experience, within the realms of the general public opinion, peoples views on CAGW tends to come in three forms. Those of us that are sceptical and try to follow the science, those that indulge in their conformation bias and hang out at RC or SS websites (and like to troll sceptical sites), and the rest. The rest IMO, is the general public who get their information from newsreels and sound bites. To them more co2 means more heat (which in the strict sense is correct). Talking of tipping points, forcing’s and feedbacks doesn’t filter through so much (and now cloud cover, cosmic rays etc). So taking it back to the basic common dominator (I.e. how much co2 is really in the atmosphere) is a good starting point. I’ve even heard stories from Oz of people wanting carbon removed from their food. Now, with that type of understanding you can understand where a film like this is coming from as it does give a very basic understanding of carbon and its necessary for life on earth.
    Respectfully
    Jazzer

  4. Scottish Sceptic says:
    23 September 2011 at 17:42

    Thanks JazzerMonty, I was afraid someone was going to say that!

  5. TinyCO2 says:
    23 September 2011 at 18:38

    I don’t think the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the more interesting spanners in the AGW machine despite using it in my moniker. But the public do like this sort of simple illustration. What is the essence of scepticism that would appeal to a Scottish audience and how can you illustrate it?
    You’re right though, honesty is the best policy. Tell the good and the bad. One of the things that made me suspicious of AGW was the lack of uncertainty in a field that was hideously complex. You are not selling scepticism ,you’re just asking people to use their innate caution.

  6. Michael Cunningham, aka Faustino aka Genghis Cunn says:
    27 September 2011 at 10:48

    ScottishSceptic, the context for the video is that for several years the Australian Labor Party government has vilified CO2 as a serious pollutant – they talk of “carbon pollution” – ignoring that we are a carbon-based life-form and that we owe our existence to CO2. I agree that “honesty is the best policy” and that we should have “truth in science,” and that the fact that CO2 is a minor (by percentage) trace gas does not give a measure of its impact in climate. Alan Jones however is fighting fire with fire (or fighting a forest fire with a small candle), there’s been a huge scare campaign without regard to truth or science, we are facing massive, costly economic changes – all in the direction of bigger government, more regulation and higher taxes – for no discernible potential impact on the earth’s temperature. Happily, there has been a significant swing in public perception away from an unfettered acceptance of the CAGW hypothesis to an increasing scepticism, a view that we have been led astray.

  7. Scottish Sceptic says:
    27 September 2011 at 10:57

    Michael, that puts it in context: as an answer to what the public sees in Australia I can see that makes sense.

  8. barn E. rubble says:
    5 October 2011 at 10:17

    RE: “We have the evidence to prove they are wrong: the lack of recent warming which shows all the models wrong,. . .”
    Well except for the latest model (from Travesty Trenberth et al) that ‘proves’ the warming has been transferred to deepest depths of the oceans (as yet undetected) for about a decade . . . which means it will soon rise up! Can’t you just see them all gathered on the beach, hand in hand, with the Goreacle leading the sermon, “Rise up, oh mighty heat! Rise up!”
    That bit, and the ‘aliens are gonna get us for wot we done’, I believe was the tipping point in credibility for the warmongers. Perhaps playing up the more silly bits that they’ve come up with on the public’s dime is the way to go.
    The ‘Credibility Tipping Point’, once you’ve hit it, there’s no saving it . . .
    -barn

  9. Scottish Sceptic says:
    5 October 2011 at 10:43

    Barn, somehow I think all of us both sceptic and warmist will find we were wrong about the climate in the end. I just think that we are more likely to be less wrong than Gore.(I like safe bets!)

  10. barn E. rubble says:
    5 October 2011 at 14:59

    RE: “Barn, somehow I think all of us both sceptic and warmist will find we were wrong about the climate . . .”
    That, I’ve no doubt. Mother Nature has shown a rather remarkable ability to rebound from (all? most of?) the damage we’ve inflicted. I’ve no doubts whatever that generations of pumping crap into the air, water and land has done great harm in both long and short term. However, I think we’ll find the answers to how things work (if allowed) long before we’re in a position to realistically control the Earth’s climate – and I doubt very much that control will have anything to do with CO2 shut-off valves . . . or the like.
    -barn

Comments are closed.