Wednesday, October 06, 2010
WARMING ARTICLE RESPONSE
I thought I would preen slightly by reprinting the comments received for my ChangeScotland article, (also picked up by the Global Warming Policy Foundation). I have also provided a link to other opinions given by Dr Bratby whose expertise is obvious & have highlighted my reply:
This is brilliant. It reminds me of the pieces which say that aliens shot Kennedy or that mind control rays are being deployed to persuade us to shop at Tescos or similar. Lovely satire.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by James
Leaving aside the debate on climate change, one of the most worrying aspects is the security/insecurity of Scotland's future energy supplies. Some countries are already experiencing regular power cuts, with the result that such disruptions are discouraging vital inward investment. The Scottish government assures us its policies will keep the lights on. However this satisfactory state of affairs assumes that the spending on energy infrastructure they envisage will in fact take place. Austerity budgets are hampering the energy plans of many governments in the West; consequently the demand for cheaper but less popular alternatives is growing so much so that governments who once said no to nuclear are now changing their minds.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by IJ
Thank you for a level-headed article. We need more like this. So what can be done? Those who claim to have the future growth and prosperity of Scotland at the centre of their hearts, seem to be considering her of nothing more value than a sacrificial goat to be offered on the alter of AGW so they can declare to the world, 'Look we have not even held back our own country to placate the gods of climate changed, surely we should be praised for our sacrifice' Pride comes before a fall... hopefully not the fall of beautiful Scotland.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by Ian Moir
An outstanding article. The burden of the plainly ludicrous, ill-founded climate-alarmism swamping our politicians will be with us for some time to come. What will move it? The lack of observational evidence for CO2 driving climate, or even having an important impact, has not been enough. The cautionary advice of the world's best climate scientists has not been enough. Perhaps the hideous fanaticism of the 10:10 snuff movie 'No Pressure' will help move them a little. Perhaps another cold winter will make some of them think a little. The whole sorry saga has revealed how people in positions of notional authority such as the IPCC can manipulate their reporting to gloss over differences of opinion, ignore critical and informed opinion, and make the most of impressive PR skills to get a mighty bandwagon underway despite the desperately thin ice it is standing on (that's enough by way of metaphors). It is such a pity that the fledgling parliament in Edinburgh become a victim of this bizarre abandonment of independent thought. The two core arguments I have heard from the pushers are 'the IPCC says it, it must be true', and then some twaddle about greenhouses - twaddle that was revealed as twaddle more than 100 years ago. CO2 without doubt responds to infra-red in ways which the simpler molecules that make up most of the atmosphere cannot, but the net effect of this on the complex climate system, with its poorly understood network of relationships, is still a matter of debate amongst physicists. Some say it will produce a modest cooling, some say the effect will so small as to defy detection, some say a modest rise in 'average temperatures'. None say it will have a dramatic effect on its own. A few modellers have postulated a positive feedback with water vapour and in that way contrived to show dramatic temperature rises. Nothing has been seen to support their postulate, and the lack of a tropospheric hotspot as predicted by it is at least a partial refutation of the model. The ongoing lack of dramatic temperature rises as per the dramatic projections is also a refutation. But in their defence, the modellers say their models are not good enough for predictions, only 'projections'. An interesting perspective, an offspring of the unholy liaisons between some scientists and many spinners. The scientists can say 'our models are not fit for prediction', the spinners can say 'look what the models predicts, we are all doomed'. All it takes for this absurdity is a great pile of verbiage to confused the masses. Enter the IPCC.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by JS
An excellent article, which, as a scientist, I wholeheartedly support. There is no evidence that we are affecting the global climate.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by Dr Phillip Bratby
I would like to give thanks for the thoughtful comments here.
I would also like to thank James for demonstrating how strenuously alarmist critics must avoid any actual discussion of facts. Thus showing this hypothesis could never have become the dominant paradigm, let alone brought about the destruction of trillions of $s of human wealth without massive governments & compliant mainstream media propagandising combined with censorship of sceptical views.
Lysenkoism looks reasomable by comparison.
This is brilliant. It reminds me of the pieces which say that aliens shot Kennedy or that mind control rays are being deployed to persuade us to shop at Tescos or similar. Lovely satire.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by James
Leaving aside the debate on climate change, one of the most worrying aspects is the security/insecurity of Scotland's future energy supplies. Some countries are already experiencing regular power cuts, with the result that such disruptions are discouraging vital inward investment. The Scottish government assures us its policies will keep the lights on. However this satisfactory state of affairs assumes that the spending on energy infrastructure they envisage will in fact take place. Austerity budgets are hampering the energy plans of many governments in the West; consequently the demand for cheaper but less popular alternatives is growing so much so that governments who once said no to nuclear are now changing their minds.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by IJ
Thank you for a level-headed article. We need more like this. So what can be done? Those who claim to have the future growth and prosperity of Scotland at the centre of their hearts, seem to be considering her of nothing more value than a sacrificial goat to be offered on the alter of AGW so they can declare to the world, 'Look we have not even held back our own country to placate the gods of climate changed, surely we should be praised for our sacrifice' Pride comes before a fall... hopefully not the fall of beautiful Scotland.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by Ian Moir
An outstanding article. The burden of the plainly ludicrous, ill-founded climate-alarmism swamping our politicians will be with us for some time to come. What will move it? The lack of observational evidence for CO2 driving climate, or even having an important impact, has not been enough. The cautionary advice of the world's best climate scientists has not been enough. Perhaps the hideous fanaticism of the 10:10 snuff movie 'No Pressure' will help move them a little. Perhaps another cold winter will make some of them think a little. The whole sorry saga has revealed how people in positions of notional authority such as the IPCC can manipulate their reporting to gloss over differences of opinion, ignore critical and informed opinion, and make the most of impressive PR skills to get a mighty bandwagon underway despite the desperately thin ice it is standing on (that's enough by way of metaphors). It is such a pity that the fledgling parliament in Edinburgh become a victim of this bizarre abandonment of independent thought. The two core arguments I have heard from the pushers are 'the IPCC says it, it must be true', and then some twaddle about greenhouses - twaddle that was revealed as twaddle more than 100 years ago. CO2 without doubt responds to infra-red in ways which the simpler molecules that make up most of the atmosphere cannot, but the net effect of this on the complex climate system, with its poorly understood network of relationships, is still a matter of debate amongst physicists. Some say it will produce a modest cooling, some say the effect will so small as to defy detection, some say a modest rise in 'average temperatures'. None say it will have a dramatic effect on its own. A few modellers have postulated a positive feedback with water vapour and in that way contrived to show dramatic temperature rises. Nothing has been seen to support their postulate, and the lack of a tropospheric hotspot as predicted by it is at least a partial refutation of the model. The ongoing lack of dramatic temperature rises as per the dramatic projections is also a refutation. But in their defence, the modellers say their models are not good enough for predictions, only 'projections'. An interesting perspective, an offspring of the unholy liaisons between some scientists and many spinners. The scientists can say 'our models are not fit for prediction', the spinners can say 'look what the models predicts, we are all doomed'. All it takes for this absurdity is a great pile of verbiage to confused the masses. Enter the IPCC.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by JS
An excellent article, which, as a scientist, I wholeheartedly support. There is no evidence that we are affecting the global climate.
Posted on 03/10/2010 by Dr Phillip Bratby
I would like to give thanks for the thoughtful comments here.
I would also like to thank James for demonstrating how strenuously alarmist critics must avoid any actual discussion of facts. Thus showing this hypothesis could never have become the dominant paradigm, let alone brought about the destruction of trillions of $s of human wealth without massive governments & compliant mainstream media propagandising combined with censorship of sceptical views.
Lysenkoism looks reasomable by comparison.
Labels: global warming, Government parasitism, Media
