Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 10.43.52

On a personal note

Leave a reply


I well recall voicing the opinion in a well-researched paper long ago that information about pollution levels in London was being misrepresented and exaggerated by Green activists. However that published opinion quickly elicited threats of personal violence and death.  “Believers” in the Green religion, although many are well-meaning at heart, are not necessarily nice people.

They are  rarely tolerant and certainly not open to debate.

I am old enough to remember London’s pea soup fogs in the 1950’s: that was real atmospheric pollution.  The pollution problem was solved in the UK by the Clean Air Act and since those times real air pollution in the UK and throughout Europe has radically improved and is no longer a significant problem especially since unleaded motor fuels have been introduced.

CO2 emissions were not the cause of the “peasoupers”:  the cause was sulphur dioxide and soot in the atmosphere combined with Autumnal atmospheric inversions.  Neither are CO2 emissions responsible for the gross air pollution in parts of China.

The characterisation of Man-made CO2 as a pollutant is untenable.  

Any added CO2 in the atmosphere is enhancing the fertility of all plant life and should be welcomed.  Not to be feared in any way.  CO2 levels have been ten times the current levels with no excessive warming and the outcome was just more luxuriant plant life worldwide.

The official publication of “the hockey stick” temperature graph, shown above, convinced the world that there had to be a real Global Warming problem that should be addressed.  And that could be achieved by reducing the use of fossil fuels by Western nations.

It certainly convinced me initially.

So I graphed the original IPCC published data from 1990 against the “Hockey Stick”. The comparison shown above was stark.  The intentional deception eliminated the previously well understood Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, .

Added to the Mann graphic was  “Mike’s Nature Trick to hide the decline”, that was not actually shown in the official data.

The process involved was well explained by Prof Richard Muller in the is short extract from a presentation in October 2010 before his institution of the BEST temperature study.

Screen Shot 2015-05-01 at 10.32.20

“on the cover of the World Meteorological Organisation magazine”

Screen Shot 2015-05-01 at 10.33.34

“as any Berkley scientist would have published it”

So as a hobby, I began some exploration starting with the Professor David MacKay’s book Sustainable energy without the hot air.  This book, using as he says “numbers not adjectives”, debunks all the common assertions about the efficacy of weather dependent Renewable energy.

Although he believed that CO2 is contributing significantly to “Global Warming / Climate Change”,  David MacKay had at long last produced a great deal of quantified common sense on the subject of the efficacy of renewable energy.

This lead me on to a wider exploration of the question of Man-made Climate Change / Anthropogenic Global Warming / Catastrophic Climate Change, etc.

Very sadly Professor Mackay died prematurely in April 2016.  In spite of the fact that he was a green supporter and agreed with de-carbonisation of the Western economies he was devoutly rational preferring mathematics to Green religious conjecture.  And I have been trying to look at these questions, just like him  as “back of the envelope calculations”.


Accordingly one of his most recent quotes was that the attempt to try to power the UK economy with weather dependent Renewable Energy was as he said “an appalling delusion”.

However I would entirely disagree with him that Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS, is an essential technology to be developed in order to avoid CO2 emissions.  I would rather characterise CCS as “an expensive way of throwing away comparatively small quantities of useful plant food”.

Nonetheless I would hope that these notes follow his lead in as much they attempt to quantify and thus question many of the aspects of the Green dogma and the assertions of the possibility of CatastrophicAnthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change just with simple mathematics.

As my exploration has progressed I have become increasingly sceptical about:

  • the promotion of probably dubious science
  • the withholding of crucial contrarian data
  • the evasion of proper “scientific method”

the political agendas that have invested so much into confirming the assertion of Catastrophic / Dangerous Man-made Global Warming from the emission of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

The outcome has been a world-wide  Global Warming / Climate Change policy fiasco.  The irrelevant fiasco continues.  I have therefore become a devout “denier”.  Indeed I do deny that:

  • anything adverse is happening in the climate
  • man-kind as a whole can anything about it, except cause major wasted economic resource mainly at expense for the developed world.

So, from being a credulous Believer I have become a Sceptic and thus would now be branded as a “Denier”.

On being a denier

So with my views I would be derided as a “denier”, but I do not deny the following:

  • I do not deny that climate changes.  It does it all the time and can go either way warmer or colder.
  • I do not deny that the world got warmer in the latter half of the 20th century, just as it did in the earlier half of the 20th century at about the same rate and to about the same degree:  then there was no possibility of any influence from Man-made CO2.
  • I do not deny that the world has gotten significantly warmer since the Little Ice Age and that this warming has produced a more congenial climate for man-kind and the biosphere.
  • I do not deny that the earlier Medieval and Roman warm periods of the Holocene were even warmer than current temperatures.
  • I do not deny that the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest millennium of the current benign Holocene epoch
  • I do not deny that the Holocene climate “optimum”, around 6000 BC, was more than 3°C warmer that the depths of the Little Ice Age.
  • I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  But it’s effect is minor and it is one of several warming influences the most important of which are water vapour and clouds.
  • I do not deny that some 77% of the effectiveness of CO2 (up to ~200ppmv) as a greenhouse gas is essential of the survival of plant life and thus all life earth.
  • I do not deny that the influence of CO2 on temperature diminishes with increasing concentrations and is now at ~400ppmv.  At that level some 87% of its effectiveness as greenhouse gas is already expended
  • I do not deny that man is contributing to the increase of atmospheric levels of CO2.
  • I do not deny that Man-made CO2 output is inevitably going to continue to rise until the underdeveloped world, still about half the world’s population, has universal access to electricity and other life enhancing affordable energy sources.
  • I do not deny that Man-kind pollutes the environment and does do significant toxic damage to the planet.
  • I do not deny that variations in the output of the Sun at its full spectrum of visible and non-visible wavelengths has a significant but often unappreciated influence on the World’s climate.
  • I do not deny that and the planetary mechanics of the Solar system has a major long term influence on the World’s climate.

But from my examination of the Climate question I do deny the following:

  • I do deny that atmospheric CO2 from any source is a dangerous pollutant:  it is the foundation of photosynthesis – thus fortunately it is the basis for all life on earth.
  • I do deny that CO2 is currently at dangerous levels in the atmosphere:  presently it is at rather low levels compared to the historic past of our planet and the needs of plant life.
  • I do deny that Man-made CO2 can ever be the most significant control knob for world climate.
  • I do deny that any further moderate warming within normal limits, (+2°C or more) is a global catastrophe.
  • I do deny that +2°C could ever be attained by Man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, because of the limiting and radical diminution effect that applies to increasing concentrations of CO2 into the future.
  • I do deny that any additional warming is significantly enhanced by massive positive feed-backs that radically increase the effective warming that may be produced by higher CO2 concentrations.
  • I do deny that there are major worldwide negative and catastrophic risks caused by Man-made Warming / Climate Change.

This group of illustrated essays poses some of the central questions and solutions about the Man-made Global warming assertion. It also questions the due diligence with which they have been confirmed as irrefutable.

Man-made Global Warming Advocates and Alarmists only ever emphasise the catastrophe that awaits the world in the future as a result of Man-made Global warming.

But the obverse is more likely to be true.

Increased levels of CO2 and a rather warmer, probably wetter, climate within natural limits will continue to bring real benefits to the biosphere and mankind just as they did in the previous 20th century and during the warmer periods of our current benign Holocene epoch.

The world could well survive having additional areas available for viable, well fertilised, agriculture.

Instead it is likely that the short spurt in global warming at the end of the last century, that gave rise to and has been exaggerated as the

“Great Global Warming Scare”

has been:

  • an entirely natural process
  • well within normal limits
  • fortunately truly beneficial.

Economic studies now show that there would still be net benefit to the biosphere and mankind in warming up to a further 2°C.  See

But further warming may be not now be occurring at all.  So it has become clear that any attempts at man-made climate control by reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce global temperatures are ineffective and will be futile.

The UN IPCC, because their predictions are not now supported in nature have been forced to change their nomenclature from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.  They have simply extrapolated the warming that certainly occurred towards the end of the 20th century as if it was going to continue unabated.  However there has been a hiatus in their anticipated inexorable world temperature increase for about the last 20 years.

So climate can change both ways either warmer or colder.

But now any adverse weather event, even cold events, such as the recent winters in the Eastern United States, can be ascribed to “Climate Change” by alarmists and blamed on the CO2 production of Man-kind.

Nonetheless all Warmist policy recommendations are only ever intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the attempted reduction of Man-made Carbon Dioxide, CO2 emissions.

This has to be the BLINDING and ILLOGICAL PARADOX of the Catastrophic Alarmist / Warmist position.


This site provides a series of short illustrated and referenced articles on the subject of “Global Warming” and / or “Climate Change”.  The notes are intended to work at the level of an intelligent layman with graphics to clearly illustrate the points involved.

These are the references:

The Holocene context for Global Warming Alarmism

The temperature context

The diminishing influence of increasing carbon dioxide CO2 on temperature

The record of recent man-made CO2 emissions, 1965-2014, accounting for the under-reporting of Chinese emissions

The outcome of the Obama-China climate deal

Renewable energy Costs and Performance in Europe 2014

Renewable Energy: the Question of Capacity

Estimating Lifetime costs for Renewable energy in Europe

Charting the World’s developmental deficit

Charting the Worlds energy sources

The significance of carbon dioxide CO2

Some supporting notes:

Renewable Energy costs and effectiveness in Germany


Official adjustments to temperature records worldwide

Growth of renewable energy installation in the USA UK and Germany

Renewable energy solar and wind power compared with gas fired generation USA Germany UK

2 thoughts on “On a personal note

  1. Pingback: Ed Hoskins: Capital Cost and Production Effectiveness of Renewable Energy in Europe – the Data | Tallbloke's Talkshop

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s