Why "responsible"? I think that it is prudent to reduce the use
fossil fuels, not for the amount of CO2, but for other
as it is a finite resource, to reduce the dependency of
countries. And it is prudent to spend a lot of money into
fossil fuel alternatives. That will have a much higher return on
investment than ten Kyoto's on middle long term. Kyoto in my
a waste of money which will cost much without any benefit.
Why "skeptic"? As I have some experience with models, be it in
processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make
of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical
and equations are exactly known. To make a climate model, where
parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for
seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive
such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as
into a crystal ball...
I have read a lot about climate, long before the "global
started. Especially about the link between solar variability and
on earth. I have heard about the dangers of "global cooling" of
seventies. And I was upset by the acceptance, without much
the "hockey stick" by MBH (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) in 1998, which
the MWP and the LIA some trivial episodes in the world's
completely overriding the accepted science of that moment. This
trigger for me to look deeper into this debate... But I try to
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
not caused by human emissions, but by some natural cause
or an unknown source). I don't think that is defensible, as
observation agrees with the burning of fossil fuels. This is
in detail in the following overview:
The accuracy and quality control of modern CO2 measurements is
To my regret, I need to say that I completely disagree with the
conclusions in the work of Ernst Beck on historical CO2
chemical methods. Most of the data were obtained at places which
completely unsuitable for background measurements:
And worse, the objections of the late Dr. Jaworowski about the
of CO2 measurements in ice cores are completely... unreliable.