My climate change argument in a nutshell

The following is a comment left on the Bishop Hill blog post about the latest paper from scientists on Antarctic ice melt.

It neatly sums up why I am a man made climate change sceptic – sceptical of so many of the increasingly outlandish claims made by some climate scientists about mankind allegedly being absolutely and certainly responsible for the changing climate, which are then breathlessly relayed as given fact by agenda-serving hacks in the media.

My head is going to explode! After six or seven years of following the global warming/climate change debate I think I have reached my saturation point. But I believe I have come to one conclusion…Mankind simply does not have the data nor the understanding to reliably say what the climate is doing, is going to do, or what is causing it to change or will cause it to change. I am no scientist but if we built and repaired airplanes with the same level of robustness and arrogance that I have seen in climate science nobody would fly.

Eric H

The fatuous arguments that we can prevent the climate changing – something that would be unnatural – if only we spent billions of pounds, dollars, euros, yen etc on reducing CO2 emissions and redistributed money to the ‘developing world’ should be enough to make any reasonable person sceptical. But surely if that we’re not enough the faith placed in ‘climate modelling’ by scientists, whose previous models have singularly failed to predict the current lack of warming now stretching to 16 years, should be.

In years to come I have a feeling the way in which science and scientific method have been abused and corrupted will be looked upon by those who follow us as a period in human history where reason was turned on its head for the sake of a political agenda. It’s a fairly safe assumption given there still remains no causal link between mankind, CO2 and changing climate.

10 Responses to “My climate change argument in a nutshell”

  1. 1 Edward. 22/10/2012 at 5:58 pm

    Actually, it is all about mankind’s basest instincts, not altruism, kidology, lies, bigger lies and a ponzi scheme to end all ponzi schemes.

    By Kyoto, if you hadn’t realised that it [global warming] was all about investment bankers profiteering, taxing the bejeepers out of consumers, quasi humanist faux redemption politics and not at all anything to do with climate then; you were either born on Mars, a Greenpeace eco-loon or in the NUT, Westminster claque.
    Still the madness persists, still the climate is obliviously uncaring and still the money is poured down the drain because Dave and the EU believe the green energy agenda will ‘work’ – just like the bird chompers – symbols of man’s infinite, insane folly and ravenous greed.

  2. 2 nnoxks 22/10/2012 at 8:40 pm

    My response to your climate change argument in a nutshell in a nutshell:

    “‘I am no scientist'” . . . aaaaand done. Really no need for more information than this, is there?

    Reply: Ah yes, the ‘prestige’ defence from a true believer. And there was me thinking only the Pope thinks he’s infallible. I bet you have a photo of Michael Mann on your desk – AM

  3. 3 Sackerson 22/10/2012 at 9:17 pm

    Are we trying to stop it getting warmer, or colder?

  4. 4 Woodsy42 22/10/2012 at 10:20 pm

    I think they are trying to keep it the same, and no sudden heavy rains that could cause a flood while some rain at least once a fortnight to prevent droughts. In the meantime windspeed will be between 10mph and 30mph. Basically if the outdoors isn’t as safe and comfortable as indoors then it’s the fault of global warming. I mean we didn’t have weather before the industrial revolution did we so it must be our fault!

  5. 5 Fay Kelly-Tuncay 22/10/2012 at 11:40 pm


  6. 6 Nigel Carter 23/10/2012 at 1:07 am

    So, is Mankind responsible for this Global-not-warming Sameness, or not? And if so, or not so, then what…or not?
    Does this mean we can use our 300 year supply of coal now? And tell the EU to leave our coal power stations alone?
    And as there’s no warming, will the Greens say sorry and disband now?

  7. 7 nzrobin 23/10/2012 at 9:17 am

    Yup, CO2’s going up and the models say the temperature should be going up too – but the temperature isn’t going up. So why is that?

    I would expect that most people who are seriously interested in global warming know the IPCC models incorporate positive feedback factors. These feedback factors multiply the effect of CO2’s warming by several times.

    A recent paper accepted by the Asia Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, by Lindzen (MIT, USA) and Choi (EWU, Korea), May 2011, ‘On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications’ investigates the topic by comparing changes in satellite measured outgoing radiation with changes in sea surface temperatures. The paper updates their earlier work published in 2009. The last few sentences from their May 2011 abstract states:

    ‘We find again that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST [sea surface temperature] fluctuations exceeds the zero feedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA [top of atmosphere] outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 [IPCC] atmospheric models forced by the SST are less than the zero feedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterise these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.’

  8. 8 PeterMG 23/10/2012 at 1:01 pm

    Nnosks your comment reminds me of the hordes of managers I have met over the years who claim you don’t have to know what your staff do, only how to manage them. In 99.9% of cases people who say this don’t know how to manage either.

    I in common with many of my ilk (engineer) picked up early on that anthropogenic global warming was complete claptrap, but it took me a few years to realise that it was never about science, but always about politics and control. We change the politics and we rid ourselves of anthropogenic global warming its various climate change offshoots and ruinous policy responses.

    It was clever of these people to choose CO2 as their bogyman. As individuals we had neither the time nor the resource to counter the argument that the minute amount of CO2 that man emits relative to the entire biosphere is somehow is the only bit that can change the climate. Dream on.

    Fortunately we had people like Anthony Watts who audited the temperature stations and found them not fit for purpose, we had others like Steve McIntyre who was able to penetrate the mathematical contortions some scientist were using to ensure that the numbers told the right story. And we have all the bloggers to thank for allowing us to spread this information against the wished of the establishment. Some things in history never change. Gradually the public began to ask questions for which there are no sensible answers.

    And now the consequence of all the political folly is coming home to roost. Just as predicted years ago the very foundation of our modern world, cheap and abundant energy, is becoming expensive and scarce. We have no shortage of raw energy, but a great shortage of brain power and knowledge in the establishment.

  9. 9 Edward. 24/10/2012 at 8:09 am

    That was a great comment PeterMG,

    Rather eloquently put too.

    Alarmist hysteria, a congressional hearing and television, Hollywood too can do some weird things, Global warming, MMCO2 was the weirdest fiction and like all zombies, it takes some killing off and that’s the trouble with the undead.

  10. 10 letmethink 26/10/2012 at 12:33 pm


    I agree with your synopsis.

    However, I think I would have used ‘trillions’ rather than ‘billions’.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: