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:
A Holocene North Atlantic SST record and regional climate variability
H.P. Sejrup a,*, H. Haflidason a, J.T. Andrews b,c
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.
Slide for Prof Salby's presentation before the Sydney Institute
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.
