A while ago a group of Scottish Sceptics met with a view to forming some kind of association. The meeting was positive and the will was there to move ahead, but as should have been expected amongst a group of strong willed individuals, we disagreed afterwards and I felt the best thing for the group was to exit as graciously as I could.
However, as there were several consultations which needed some kind of response from a Scottish Sceptics as a group when nothing materialised in time, I created a temporary pseudo-association called the “Scottish Climate and Energy Forum” … a loose alliance of Scottish Sceptics. The hope was that this would only be a short term thing until an organisation could be formed to represent sceptics in Scotland.
Several more months have passed and there is nothing to show from just waiting. Something needs to happen.
For obvious reasons I have gone off the idea of a sceptic organisation. We just aren’t the consensus types that make it easy for anyone with experience running an organisation … let alone total novices like me. So, instead I’m going to start a few small projects and ask for help.
The first project is going to be a modest website for the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum called sceg.org.uk. It’s not going to be an all singing/dancing fancy thing. It will just try to help people understand the sceptic view on the climate debate in Scotland. Something which I’ve yet to see anyone attempt to do.
So, I am now putting this current statement of the Sceptic position in Scotland to consultation. I would welcome comments either below or via the contact form and please also contact me if you are prepared to help with the website.
[For latest discussion see here]
Sceptics in Scotland broadly support the following:
- Carbon Dioxide has been increasing
- There is a greenhouse effect
- There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years
- There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years
- Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming
(about 1C for each doubling) - Although man-made CO2 is likely to be increasing natural levels, there is substantial evidence CO2 levels have risen due to natural processes and it is wrong to attribute with any certainty what part of the rise is man-made.
- There is a lack of evidence supporting the necessary positive feedbacks necessary to raise the 1C of accepted CO2 warming to catastrophic levels.
- The effects of temperature rise have been exaggerated and known benefits have been hidden. We have yet to see substantial evidence of adverse changes such as increasing weather extremes.
- Even if we consider the worst case scenario, we question whether there is an economic case to justify current policy to reduce CO2 output. The cost of adapting to any climate change appears more cost effective.
- We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them. We therefore call for an impartial inquiry to examine both the original allegations of malpractice in Climategate, and also to examine why these allegations were not investigated by the several inquiries.
Addendum
- CO2 is essential for plant growth and the evidence shows that increasing levels are beneficial to plants. This is another benefit which is often hidden from the public.
- when climate proxies, including historical records, are considered there is much evidence that the world was warmer during the medieval warm period, and before 5,000BC as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
Revision 2
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing: in 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.
- There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures. This is about 0.8 C in the past 150 years.
- There is a greenhouse effect, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
- Increasing CO2 alone should cause warming of about 1C for a doubling of CO2.
- People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This catastrophic warming is not supported by the evidence.
- Although man-made sources of CO2 have increased global levels of the gas, it is falsely suggested that all the rise is man-made. Scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.
- The effects of warming have been exaggerated and known benefits have been hidden (We have yet to see substantial evidence of adverse changes such as increasing weather extremes. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse.)
- Even if we consider the worst case scenario, there is no economic case for reducing CO2 output. The basis of the economic analysis appears flawed and seems sensible to wait till there is evidence of specific problem and deal with these, rather than basing policy on unsupported speculation about what may happen.
- CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants. This is another benefit which is often hidden from the public.
- Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” ( and before 5,000BC) as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
- Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.
- In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.
- We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them. We therefore call for an impartial inquiry to examine both the original allegations of malpractice in Climategate, and also to examine why these allegations were not investigated by the several inquiries.
“There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years” – I thought it had gone from 288ppm to 394ppm?
I think CO2 is expected to be double pre industrial levels by about 2080.
It’s a cut and paste from Lindzen’s presentation to the House of Commons. I assume it is the contribution to warming which is a logarithmic relationship to concentration.
Perhaps it could read “there has been a 37% increase in CO2”.
Is this an attempt to prove to knowledgable AGW supporters that Scottish sceptics aren’t crackpots or to educate those ignorant of AGW why scepticism is reasonable? The two are not quite compatible. Personably I’d aim for the latter.
To that end – Lindzen’s presentation is a start but make it your own, by presenting each point in a way that would have impressed/educated you when you first came looking. I’ve often thought there needs to be a clear guide to climate scepticism and although there are good attempts out there, there isn’t anything that feels quite right. In my mind it should be something like what the BBC used to be good at when programmes like Horizon actually had science in them.
eg I think it’s worth putting the figures in and even putting oxygen in as a comparison 209,460 ppm. Sometimes people worry about oxygen running out as a byproduct of burning fossil fuels.
As a minimum the list above could be tidied up eg comment 1 + 3 could be lumped together as comment 3 makes comment 1 superfluous.
If your aim is to educate, then the first step is to work out which warmist web sites (or other type of science) are impressive. Not to aim to match the graphics but how do they structure the information. Do you start with a heading like CO2 and talk about levels now, the past, the long past, measurement, ice cores, etc, with links to deeper information that you can build on? Or do you lead with your favourite facts and diagrams eg over a quarter (almost a third) of emissions have occurred since 1997 but the global temperature has not measurably risen during that time. Another thing is to look at existing sceptic primers like Jo Nova’s.
This is probably deeper than you wanted to go but you did ask. I’d help but I’m a foreigner 😉 Seriously, if you want help I’m interested but kick around the idea of what you’re aiming for first. Then break down the tasks as small as possible and ask for volunteers.
TinyCO2, thanks, that’s just the kind of contribution that is useful.
The aim is all of the above. But I started the list because I really do want to know what is widely supported/supportable by sceptics and write to that.
I think we can start just by stating the above.
Next we can work up a longer explanation for each statement explaining what they mean.
Finally I have a vision of a “layman’s guide to the climate”. It will start by talking about atmospheric circulation and the role the atmosphere has in cooling the earth. I’ll probably go into geological climate changes after which minor things like greenhouse gases can be introduced.
If I am to be bluntly honest the main targets will be:
1. Sceptics … to give us a list which we can say: “stop telling us what sceptics think, this is what most sceptics broadly accept”.
2. Journalists writing about sceptics. At the moment they have nothing at all to say about us. We need to give them an overview so they are not just forced to make it up from warmist gossip.
3. People who read our consultation submissions.
All it takes is for one journalist to read the website and think: “actually these sceptics don’t sound so bad” … and I think all the effort will be worth it … and it will be fun.
Pingback: Revised statement of sceptic view | ScottishSceptic
Pingback: The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5) | ScottishSceptic