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 wich 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
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
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 defendable, as every
observation agrees with the burning of fossil fuels. This is explained
in detail in the following overview:
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 unstuitable for background measurements:
And even worse, the objections of Jaworowski about the (un)reliablity
of CO2 measurements in ice cores are completely... unreliable.