Guided Missile

Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal from Matt Ridley, which pretty much sums up my feeling about the dismal state of much of the current scientific profession, in their approach to both the origin of covid 19 and climate change: "Mob pile-ons"? I love it. A theory is correct if most people ascribe to it, apparently.

Cast your minds back to 2009 when an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Now, we all know that the major oil companies are "corrupt as hell", but read one of the emails below, from a senior climate scientist and advisor to the IPCC, Dr. Edward R. Cook, Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: And people wonder how I have the temerity to challenge a junior climate "scientist" and his professional credibility?

Okay, ladies, village idiot here. In the absence of a clear answer to my question regarding whether CO2 is the cart or the horse in regard to global warming, I dived into one to the papers that our jolly swagman quoted above. It seems he is sensitive to professional criticism unlike me, so please don't quote me, as he wants me on ignore. I have dived into the rabbit hole of a paper in Nature, as the proof that anthropogenic warming is caused by an increase in CO2 concentrations from 0.03 % to 0.04% since 1850, the start of the industrial revolution. This CO2 increase has caused an alarming rise of 0.1C per decade since 1951-2012, according to the paper, ("On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature" by Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, ElisaGarcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang) I also dived into the critical paper cited by this one, "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature" by Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy. (SCIENCE 15 OCTOBER 2010 VOL 330) These papers confirm one thing to me. They are, in common with every other published paper on climate change, forced to deal with an extremely complicated topic by using a combination of modelling and proxy measurements of temperature and CO2 concentrations, certainly for periods prior to the 20th century. The papers are written in a language that I am not familiar with and to justify the $35 trillion governments are planning to spend, they don't convince me. A couple of extracts from these papers: ...and: I love the calls for additional research, highlighted. So, I tried, but have not been able to find a scientific answer to my question, nor find any science in climate science. I am left being reminded of Michael Fish.

Keep up, mate. I was replying to a poster who claimed to have 10 years of climate science experience and was prepared to answer our questions. After another poster and myself made the suggestion that his job and the funding supporting it may rely on the concept of anthropogenic climate change, rather than answer my genuine scientific question, he made a rambling and non-scientific post about major oil companies, finally stating: "Don't get me wrong, those companies are corrupt as hell, but the idea that everyone is suddenly going to bend over for them is insanity". That is when I challenged his scientific impartiality. FFS He's not going to "bend over for them"? By the way, congratulations on achieving your PhD. I know how hard that achievement is, from the number of PhD's that have worked for me.

And that is where you lost your professional and scientific credibility.

Apparently medieval warming and the mini ice age in the 1600's (and the Roman warming period) do not form part of the global climate history of this planet, because they are purely regional climate effects. You see, with climate science, tree rings are the gold standard.

So your job is not reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change for its funding. I'm sorry it appeared I questioned your professional credibility. You would help that by citing a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. I don't want a debate, just some science I can understand. Oh and just to be clear on what has driven my research over the past 40 years. Correlation doesn't imply causation. It's an easy trap to fall into, especially with such a complicated dataset as climate "science".

That is exactly what you did in your post as a means of "proving" anthropogenic climate change. Your response is typical of someone whose job and the means funding it are reliant on the proof of anthropogenic climate change and given that, it is not surprising that the thousands of grant chasers are singing from the same hymn sheet. I would like you to cite a single paper that proves that the increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm caused global temperatures to rise by 1oC in the last century and not that the global temperature increased by approximately 1oC in the last century which caused the CO2 levels to increase from 300 to 400ppm. Any measurement made before this time are all proxy measurements and those, as any scientist worth his salt would acknowledge, are inherently unreliable. So, a single citation would be appreciated.

Many thanks for your contribution. A couple of questions. Exactly how was the temperature and CO2 concentration measured in 1900 and where? Around 300ppm in 1900 and just over 400 ppm now as concentrations doesn't do it for me, as I doubt the assay methods are the same, nor the location. I have no doubt the concentration of CO2 is linked to the global atmospheric temperature, but my burning question is whether the increase in the concentration of CO2 observed precedes or follows any increase in global temperature. That's the $35 trillion question.

Two rapists in the Met's Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command at the same time? I doubt that Dick will continue to enjoy the confidence of Priti Patel and other female MP's much longer.

She should have taken responsibility for the terrible state the Met is in, a long time ago and resigned to allow someone new to re-vet the whole police force, reorganise the command structure and rebuild trust in the police. Instead, she thinks one of the answers is for lone women to flag down a bus if approached by a lone copper. for one, or run into the nearest house. This problem all started with Theresa May and her time as Home Secretary. A 20% cut in police funding and experienced coppers replaced by clueless graduates. Priti Patel is no better, just a apologist for Dick.

You couldn't make it up:

I would like to know who will pay for zero carbon? Are the cost estimates shown below going to be accurate or like HS2? Exactly what will we achieve if and when the UK reach net zero? My guess is that public support will evaporate if the public finally work out that they are going to have to pay, just as the high minded MLG admitted in the post above. Everyone like to think that an electric car means cheaper fuel bills, but what will replace fuel duty? These are all very large amounts of money and I still resent paying the fucking toll charge on the Itchen Bridge. I'll be just as pissed off if the fuel duty I am paying goes to some smug twat driving a Tesla, telling me how much money he is saving on petrol.

I'm familiar with the report, but I don't think you are. It is simply a report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. I am sure that there will be an impact if global temperatures increase by this amount. My question was where the evidence is for any increase in CO2 causing this. I must have missed the scientific explanation in the report. Still, I've had a fucking electric car for a couple of years and never again and there is nothing driving me do have one again, whatever the IPCC says. I am assuming that as you are worried about global warming, you have one. Do tell....

Alright, I'll try one last time. Provide me with scientific evidence that lowering the concentration of CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to say 300ppm (0.04% to 0.03%) will slow the rate of any increase in global temperatures.

Alright, I'll try one last time. Provide me with scientific evidence that lowering the concentration of CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to say 300ppm (0.04% to 0.03%) will slow the rate of any increase in global temperatures.

You're asserting that attaining zero carbon will stop global warming, and extreme weather events that may be associated with that. I'm asking for the science that supports that assertion. You have provided no scientific basis for that assertion. Mate, you're the one that needs the tin foil hat....

Jesus Christ, we're talking about spending 35 trillion and you're justifying it with that analogy.

Sorry, you're just making assertions with no science that I can understand. The central point is what proof is there that an increase in CO2 causes a significant rise in global temperatures? I guess I'm just thick. I know I'm tired. Goodnight.

Not if warming is the cause of any increase in CO2 in the environment.

Poverty will come with zero carbon, in my opinion, but the bigger question is that with a conservative estimate of $33trn to reach net zero by 2050, who will pay? A bigger question is will zero carbon stop global warming? You may now understand the point of my first question, which you have failed to answer.

...Oh and let me answer your question with this. How many poor people do you know who own electric cars and use a heat pump to warm their houses?

Errr...that wasn't the question I asked, but I assume what you're saying is that like methane, CO2 is released by warming. BTW there are very small concentrations of methane in permafrost, less than trapped CO2. So if you are contending that CO2 is released by warming, how does controlling the release of CO2 reduce climate warming?

I'll give you a detailed answer to that question when you answer mine: Remember, I'm the guy wearing the tin foil hat, so keep it simple.

So, is climate change driving CO2 change or is CO2 change driving climate change. I must admit, it's a complicated "science" but I'm sure there are posters on this board that can help me.