As a responsible climate skeptic, I have given a lot of comments in different discussion groups like sci.environment and UK weatherworld, and on the blogs of What's up with that and Climateaudit. I did give a lot of comments in the early years of RealClimate, until halve of my comments were censored, despite of being on topic.

Why "responsible"? I think that it is prudent to reduce the use of fossil fuels, not for the amount of CO2, but for other pollutants. And as it is a finite resource, to reduce the dependency of not-so-stable countries. And it is prudent to spend a lot of money into research of fossil fuel alternatives. That will have a much higher return on investment than ten Kyoto's on middle long term. Kyoto in my opinion is a waste of money which will cost much without any benefit.

Why "skeptic"? As I have some experience with models, be it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are exactly known. To make a climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball...

I have read a lot about climate, long before the "global warming" scare started. Especially about the link between solar variability and climate on earth. I have heard about the dangers of "global cooling" of the seventies. And I was upset by the acceptance, without much debate, of the "hockey stick" by MBH (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) in 1998, which made the MWP and the LIA some trivial episodes in the world's history, completely overriding the accepted science of that moment. This was a trigger for me to look deeper into this debate... But I try to keep the debate on scientific grounds...

Some graphs and comments, used in discussions (more and better explanations to come)...
Some skeptics think that the recent rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is not caused by human emissions, but by some natural cause (temperature or an unknown source). I don't think that is defensible, as every observation agrees with the burning of fossil fuels. This is explained in detail in the following overview:
The accuracy and quality control of modern CO2 measurements is very good:
To my regret, I need to say that I completely disagree with the conclusions in the work of Ernst Beck on historical CO2 measurements by chemical methods. Most of the data were obtained at places which were completely unsuitable for background measurements:
And worse, the objections of the late Dr. Jaworowski about the (un)reliability of CO2 measurements in ice cores are completely... unreliable.

On the net: 7 March, 2005
Last update: 29 June, 2014.

To the
family homepage

Zend naar: