Warmist converts

[brenthutch 444]

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services
12
"Over the years, I’ve learnt through bitter experience that “ignorance is bliss” and that if you go and look at an area of climate it always turns out that the scam is much worse than you could have imagined.

I accepted the work of people like Hermann Harde says that CO2 should cause around 0.6C rise in global temperature for a doubling of CO2 but I assumed the real contention was the amount of feedback.But over the years working on this global warming scam, I’ve realised that there are quite a few ways the earth could be influencing climate – many of which are not even considered because of the present day obsession with CO2. So, when I realised that I might be able to string them together into a coherent theory explaining the ice-age cycle I decided to do the ground work to put that theory into a more rigorous form. That was last summer.

But, for the theory to work, it was important CO2 did cause warming … but like a gullible fool, I just assumed … given all the hype … that it would be relatively simple to find an argument supporting CO2. And what’s more, if my theory were right then whether or not I liked the idea of CO2 driving the climate, it would work so like doing a jigsaw, even if I didn’t understand all the bits just now, if the theory is right, somehow all the bits would magically fit – and if its right – who am I to ascribe moral judgement on it? All I had to do was to spend the time fitting them together.

I knew the lag between temperature and CO2 was a problem. But I assumed someone must have a convincing argument somewhere – or when I looked in detail I would find an explanation. But, I never got to look in detail at the arguments about the CO2 lag with temperature. Instead the big problem came when I looked at the cooling phase:

To the right I have my (hurriedly prepared) graph taken from the Vostok ice cores, showing temperature at the top and CO2 at the bottom shown over roughly 100,000 years of the typical (later) ice-age cycles. The problem is that whilst all show a very sharp rise in temperature very closely coinciding with a rise in CO2, temperature after hitting a peak clearly then has a rapid cooling phase which does not occur with CO2. So in the 16,000 years after the peak, we effectively progress more and more into an ice-age (and no, I’ve not worked out whether we are in the phase).

However that temperature drop occurs without an associated drop in CO2. But if CO2 were driving the temperature, then we must see a drop in CO2 associated with the drop in temperature. So, the lack of change in CO2 at a time temperature drops massively (in each of the last four cycles) is unequivocal proof that CO2 “did not do it”. CO2 was not driving the ice-age cycle.

So, in no shape or form can CO2 be said to be “causing” the temperature change through the ice-age cycles. And if temperature plummets after the inter-glacial peak uncorrelated with CO2, then the rise into the inter-glacial cannot be associated with CO2. And so as these ice-age cycles are the main reason academics postulated massive positive feedbacks, this single piece of evidence can be said to undermine totally the credibility of positive feedbacks and CO2 (aka doomsday global warming).

Too many sceptics have their heads in the sand

Unfortunately, I regularly see articles on WUWT and Bishop Hill discussing how big the positive feedback on CO2 is. The idea that there is no positive feedback and that if anything the climate has almost no change associated with CO2 is so much contrary not only to most climate academics, but most sceptics, that I’m not even going to bother to try to change their minds – because the only thing that will really change minds is a few decades of cooling.

However, having given this thought and having decided that I cannot in any way shape or form condone the idea of positive feedbacks or that CO2 can be seen to have a significant impact in any climate record, I’m going to set down my own views.

My current view of CO2 can be summed up as follows:

I can find no evidence whatsoever linking changes in CO2 to global temperature. Everything in the recent temperature series (e.g. CET) is clearly explained by normal natural variation. There is no need to invoke any “driver” of climate at any time in the CET record. Nothing in the ice cores can be said to show a linkage. That doesn’t rule out a small linkage, but it’s clearly far too small to show significant change and so I cannot with any integrity ascribe any climate change in any climate record with any certainty to CO2."


inShare

[airdvr 210]

Shhh...they're worshiping at the Hockeystick Mosque.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DanG 1]

Are you trying to represent that you wrote that?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 444]

Not by a long shot. Did you miss the quote marks?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

What is missing is whom and what you are quoting from.

[brenthutch 444]

Sorry forgot to link.
This guy:
This is the blog of Mike Haseler and what you may wish to know about me is that I am a Climate Scientist as I am more of a scientist than most who work on climate.

I studied physics, electronics and some philosophy at St.Andrews
I have an MBA from Strathclyde
I was studying archaeology in Glasgow.
I worked in a variety of industrial manufacturing companies in which I worked on a large range of projects controlling or monitoring temperature.
I started my own temperature control company and designed precision temperature controllers.
Then decided to enter the new area of renewables, and did extensive market research into renewables in the UK through which I gained extensive knowledge of the different development strategies adopted for renewables in the UK and Denmark and consider myself an expert in understanding the factors affecting the early development of renewables.
In the process I learnt Danish in order to “understand the competition” and in the hope of doing business with the main wind companies in Denmark.
I was selected as a Green candidate for the Scottish Green party in 2003, but decided not to stand when the first candidate on the list refused to support our local hospital
I worked in the wind “industry” in Scotland erecting weather monitoring equipment and was well known in Scotland at the highest level. I eventually took the decision to leave after I accidentally informed a farmer that a wind farm was going to be built next to them; I still remember their absolute horror! I couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy of working for a business sector which was so dishonest with the public.
I am proud to have once stood as a Liberal Democrat councillor and doubled their vote receiving a massive 208 votes!
I am proficient in dozens of programming languages and now write PHP/MySQL websites as a hobby.
I am an agnostic on man-made warming, a sceptic by scientific training and disgusted with so called climate “science” which isn’t science as I was taught it.

[billvon 3,132]

>Are you trying to represent that you wrote that?

It's from ScottishSkeptic, a denier so extreme that even noted skeptic Anthony Watts thinks he's out there. From Watt's blog:
===============
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Years of Living Dangerously the creepy side of the internet debate

A while back I tried to engage the "ScottishSkeptic" in a constructive debate by taking his "The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5)" and reviewing it's various claims - which I countered with my opinions, which I supported with copious links to authoritative work by the experts. In response ScottishSkeptic threatened me with legal action claiming copyright infringement, although he backed down and invoked William Connelley to mediate, but that didn't work out as he'd hoped either and I was shown to have acted ethically and legally. Which was about the last I heard of the ScottishSkeptic who never did confront my claims debunking his points in a constructive learning focused manner.

==================

[brenthutch 444]

As advertised, a converted warmist. Much like former smokers are, many times, much more vociferous in their opposition to tobacco than non smokers.