« BBC Radio 4 - World at One, 29 March | Main | Who guards the guards? »

08 April 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


A truly refreshing perspective on Climate Change standard boilerplate propaganda. A couple of minor points:
1) Al Gore's enthusiasm for environmental issues is hardly borne out of philantrophy or generosity. Interesting coincidence, the former VP has a major private equity portfolio of climate change-related businesses which just happen to be correctly positioned to exploit the political connections with public funds in Washington.
2) For all the merits of healthy climate change skepticism - and even more so after the evidence of data manipulation in Climategate - these issues are not a good reason to do nothing. There are low-hanging fruits to be reaped (the blog identified bio-fuels, for instance. A mandatory conversion of transportation vehicles to natural gas would probably be another 80-20 measure that could be implemented quickly and deliver lower emissions cheaply using a proven technology). It is of course challenging - but not impossible - to identify who would be the "referee" between the overzealous environmental fundamentalists and the business community. As accounting makes the use and abuse of natural resources by business a freebie, some investment may indeed be in order to stop environmental arbitrages. The key is how much is enough to reduce environmental impact without crushing companies under an unbearable cost base - particularly at this challenging economic juncture.


It is a shame that the subsidies being shovelled towards the wind industry are not more transparent - now we have feed in tariffs as well.

What is more appalling is that politicians are either unwilling or incapable to challenge the economic assumptions that underlie these subsidies (let alone the true extent of anthropogenic climate change). These are just the direct costs. What is also apparent is that because of the unreliable nature of wind power, there will need to be a new generation of thermal power stations. These, running intermittently, will be run inefficiently (in terms of both cost and energy). Finally there is the cost of reconfiguring the entire energy transmission and distribution system - something which the likes of National Grid are of course quite happy about.

When the government is trying to allocate resources away from government to more fruitful places, it should examine not only direct public spending on these schemes but also on indirect taxation in the form of increased retail prices for energy.

The central irony is that the government is introducing legislation to deal with fuel poverty when it is one of its biggest causes.


Really like the new financial product. Good to see someone doing something no-nonsense in the financial world. Time to apply the no-nonsense thinking to climate science. If you knew the Medieval warming period really well you would know that it has been shown not to be global http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
and if you talk about vines in growing in England I might scream (they are growing now and they are not a great proxy www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine

So where does the logic fall down for you on climate science:
- do you agree that our planet has an atmosphere that is composed of several gases that exhibit a 'greenhouse effect'. This can be proved in a lab and yes even at the concentrations we are talking about. Basic physics.
- do you agree that if there are more greenhouse gases there will be a warmer planet? If not - why not? Why does the simple physics fall down. Agree there is uncertainty around the degree of forcing but models and observations are quite closely matched so far.
- Do you agree that the planet has indeed been warming....the period from Jan-Oct 2010 is warmest on record. 2010 looks like being a record year. about 16 countries have broken their temperature record and other weather related records http://extremeweatherguide.com/updates.asp

I could go but I have a feeling that you will find some way to not face up to the data in front of you (it is biased by urban stations - actually the opposite is true http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html)

I am not an alarmist or warmist (what the hell?). I am an ecologist who is also an optimist. I want to see a more socially just world living within environmental limits. Think humans are perfectly capable of doing this and having a fulfilling lives - and no and do not want some kind of rural idyll. Cleaner energy, more efficient use of resources, cleaner air, water etc. Why would we not want that. Climate change is a great challenge and a great catalyst for positive change. I think your investment fund could play a great role in backing a better world. http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/rethinking-capital

Terry Smith


Thank you for the praise for the new fund.

On climate change I am not in the denial camp. I am what I say I am - a sceptic. I think scepticism is the only legitimate way to test a proposition - in this case that we are experiencing man-made global warming. What worries me is that this important subject has become confused by people who would seem to have little or no regard for the objectivity and scepticism required by genuine scientific research and/or have popularised the subject for their own ends with propaganda masquerading as research. If climate change is a serious problem, and I willingly concede that it maybe, and if it is a man-made phenomenon to which we can therefore conceive a remedy, I think we should be able to establish that without the need for rhetoric, propaganda, fixing data, tricks, movies, commercials designed to frighten the kids and all the other nonsense which has occurred and obscured the real debate which is essential.


Maybe my observation is a bit simplistic, but is it not true that major global warming took place triggering the end of the, so-called, Ice Age? Mankind's 'fault'...I think not.
This is a graph I've takem from Wikipedia and is based on the ice core at Vostock. (The site that this originally came from has now been taken down from Wikipedia)

[Graph attached in email to you. I can't upload it myself.]

What it suggests is that levels of CO2 and Temperature variation are highly correlated, but which is a function of the other?

It also makes it clear that levels of CO2 have been as high and higher in at least four periods that the preceding 420,000 years covers. Consequently it would suggest that it is perfectly feasible that the current levels of CO2 are not necessarily caused by homo sapiens. But the conceit of man knows no bounds, afterall "God created man in his own image". Genesis 1:27.

Finally Venus has 'suffered' (my homo sapiens conceit!) from the Greenhouse Effect so that the surface of the planet is now no longer habitable by man as it once obviously was........



This time last year the annual ‘Ridiculous Weather Forecast’ flagged that there was going to be a series of catastrophic hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico and the US Atlantic seaboard owing to record warm surface temperatures in the east Atlantic. In the event not one hurricane of any consequence made landfall and consequently catastrophe insurance rates collapsed.

January and early February is when most individual states take out their ‘cat’ cover for the year so, surprise surprise, the weather doomsters are wheeled out, lead on this occasion by Marcia McNutt!! You just couldn’t make it up........

18th January 2011
Yahoo! News By Gaby Leslie Yahoo! News

Scientists warn of 'superstorm' heading for California
Scientists have warned politicians to take preventative action as a superstorm, dubbed the 'Big One', is expected to hit California.

US Geological Survey scientists predict that the storm could last 40 days, producing up to 10-feet of rain and causing £190 billion ($300 billion) worth of flooding damage, which would make it the most destructive storm in California's modern history.

National Weather Service images show an atmospheric river system - a huge hose-like flow of Pacific Ocean moisture - moving onto the state increasing the risk of the winter weather phenomenon.

The storm scenario, combining prehistoric geologic flood history with modern flood mapping and climate-change projections, was released at an ARkStorm Summit in Sacramento, California last week.

The scenario suggests that a quarter of houses in the Golden State could be battered by flooding.

Weather experts say the statewide weather event, which strikes once every 100-200 years could bring an unprecedented scale of destruction. There is also a considerable risk of wind damage to the eastern part of the state, according to chief scientist Lucy Jones.

The last superstorm hit California between 1861 and 1862, but scientists predict that the threat of another one looms closer as weather patterns become more volatile, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere.

US Geological Survey Director, Marcia McNutt [sic] said: "The time to begin taking action is now, before a devastating natural hazard event occurs. This scenario demonstrates firsthand how science can be the foundation to help build safer communities. The ARkStorm scenario is a scientifically vetted tool that emergency responders, elected officials and the general public can use to plan for a major catastrophic event to help prevent a hazard from becoming a disaster."

Jones added: "This is not just a Californian problem. There will be disruption to ports and transportation systems. The economic impact will be felt across the country."

"For a storm which can cause four times as much damage as earthquakes, Californians are less aware of risks they face from floods."

Federal and state emergency management officials met last week to discuss emergency preparations for possible superstorms."

What would we do without Climate Change?

Martin Roach

Terry, You say that you are a sceptic, not a denier, but then your writings seem only to report critical views.

You say some "have popularised the subject for their own ends with propaganda masquerading as research" but surely many have produced good research without such aims or bias. You presumably say they have yet to convince you. So what would it take? Ignore the former group and consider what the latter must show to convince you. As a sceptic you should have a point at which you would be convinced.

You say "if it is a man-made phenomenon to which we can therefore conceive a remedy, I think we should be able to establish that", then what would your remedy be? I would welcome your opinion to bring fresh thinking to this.


Climate Change is just an excuse for the EU and other governments to raise taxes.
Dishonest in the extreme.

Richard Ralph

I am a little unclear as to whether you are skeptical about the evidence of a warming trend or to the anthropological explanation. Personally, I think there is compelling evidence of a warming trend to the Earth's climate contained in observations of the steady rise in global sea levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise). This has been attributed mainly to thermal expansion rather than increased melt water.
The anthropological argument is weaker, and should really be presented as “on the balance of evidence”, which it generally is not. Any scientist should be skeptical, but we all live in the real world and we have to deal with and act on incomplete evidence in our daily lives. The question I ask myself is – is there anything we collectively should, or could, do differently? I don’t have an answer yet.

Will D

I too am very sceptical of the claims made by the warmists and the lack of decent science backing their claims is all to evident.
In situations of this kind though (where the large majority are blinkered into a particular way of thinking) there usually exists an opportunity to profit in the long run by taking a contrary position. Any ideas on how this could be achieved?

Philippa Potts

I've always thought human ingenuity would eventually sort it out."Climate Models go Cold" by David Evans says it all. Thank you for linking it.


Terry Smith

I came to your site after hearing you speak insightfully about the ‘debt issue’ on the radio. But I am saddened to hear your comments on Climate Change.

Who am I? My name is Michael de Podesta and I am 51 year old scientist working at the National Physical Laboratory. I spent several years as an academic physicist and I am now working as a specialist in temperature measurement. I also talk to the public about the issue of Global Warming and have been invited to sit on the Steering Committee of the Surface Temperature Initiative – a response to the Climategate fiasco. Our aim is to create an open temperature database with independently verified analytical tools. I am not in the ‘Climate Change’ lobby, but as I explain below, I think the phenomenon of carbon emissions has some analogy with the growth of national debt.

First of all let me mention your tone: this is not the tone of a sceptic, but of a cynic. You openly express contempt for work towards which people have devoted their lives. In matters like this, tone is important.

In recent years I have briefly met some of these people (e,g. Phil Jones) and I was curious as to how would they come across. The answer, to my surprise, was that they come across as very modest and very open to criticism. But, they have been exposed to astonishing vilification – even death threats – for just making the best estimates they could with limited data. Imagine if economic forecasters and got the same level of vilification when they got things wrong! Tone is very important.

Secondly, the question to ask is not ‘Is the Earth warming?’, but ‘How did the Earth get to be the temperature it is in the first place?’ Answering this generally non-contentious question reveals the small role played by CO2 in determining the Earth’s climate. And then one notes that CO2 levels have been rising due to anthropogenic energy uses, which by the way have brought enormous benefits to human kind. Just about every calculation of what one expects the effects to be predicts the same thing: a global warming. And since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for several hundred years, we have not yet seen the full warming caused by the CO2 we have put there already, and the rate of emission of CO2 is rising. There is nothing particularly scientifically contentious about anything in this paragraph.

Thirdly, the question of the average temperature above the land surfaces of the Earth – the instrumental temperature record. Contrary to your assertion, scientists involved in this field have devised software of the complexity worthy of a derivatives trader to eliminate the effect of urban heat islands. And, although the work is subject to many criticisms, all analyses seem to show a warming trend. There no analyses which show a cooling trend. Contrary to your statement, the adjustments made remove the effect of urban heat islands and still show a warming trend. Personally, I don’t put much store by any of this because the average surface temperature of the Earth is extraordinarily insensitive to all kinds of climate change (which may warm one place and cool another) and also amazingly difficult to measure. Much of the warming has come over polar regions where there is no one to notice and measurements are particularly difficult. There are other things which one can look at (e.g. polar ice coverage, seasonal shifts etc) which are more sensitive indicators of possible changes.

Finally, should we do anything about it? Well I would like to remind you of your comments on the role of debt in economies. A certain level is fine, but when a country habitually increases its debt it is heading towards trouble – reduced credit-worthiness, increased interest rates and then possible bankruptcy. Of course the road to this is paved with pleasure because borrowing money and spending it is (a) easy and (b) feels great at the time. And most importantly, the point at which debt is too great to deal with will not be marked with any kind of fanfare.

Similarly with CO2 emissions. Burning carbon fuels is cheap and cheap energy is enjoyable and brings great benefits to human kind. Whether or not the temperature signal has been detected from its effect on the Climate is a moot point, but the CO2 has not disappeared! As I mentioned above, to the best of our knowledge the CO2 emitted already will be warming the planet for several hundred years and we are continuing to add to this amount which will increase the rate of heating as well as its duration. And we won’t know the extent of the changes we are causing for several hundred years. And like with debt, the point at which the situation becomes irrecoverable will be marked with no fanfare.

It seems to me that in this situation it would be prudent to BEGIN to reduce carbon emissions in the same way that it is prudent for the UK to reduce its debt BEFORE there is a crisis. Of course I understand that carbon emissions are linked to economic growth which is what is required to pay for everything. But cynicism towards the scientists trying to address this issue is unwarranted.

All the best


P.S. Any tips on what to do with my pension fund would be gratefully received :-)

Geoff Rowlands

These are interesting points. I would also like to point out that if you plot co2 in the atmosphere for the last 2000 years, against world population over the same period (data available online for both of these); you will find a pretty good linear correlation. This seems to indicate that CO2 production is directly related to human activity, even before industrialisation. If you think about it, this makes sense since all human activity; from respiration, keeping animals, keeping warm by burning stuff, cooking etc, etc, produces CO2. The uncomfortable conclusion would seem that population growth has been and continues to be the key problem. Unfortunately a difficult one to address too.

As others have said, it would be better to plan for the inevitable and spend resources in mitigating the effects , rather than vainly try to change world human behaviour.

An interesting exercise for you to try: Ask a number of friends or family or colleagues to tell you or guess how much carbon dioxide is in the air. Because of the publicity surrounding global warming, a lot of people get this wrong by several orders of magnitude.

Michael Podesta

Geoff Rowlands

You are right that atmospheric CO2 is linked to human activity. But primarily the link is to just one human activity: burning things! We burn stored carbon (coal wood and gas) to process materials, and extract heat and then electricity. BTW, just in case you have any doubt that the carbon in the atmosphere is anthropogenic it has a definite isotopic signature.

Spending money mitigating is an interesting option. The up-side is that we get to wait and see how bad things become - maybe things won't be so bad! The down side is that if things are as bad as they might plausibly become, it will be too late to do anything and no amount of cash on Earth will be enough to mitigate. So we have a situation of great uncertainty which is always difficult to plan for, and the timescale - many decades to hundreds of years - is something that human society has never considered before.

But actually, we know we will need to change fuel consumption use eventually, so why not face up to real problems ahead of time? Terry Smith is a banker and I would have thought that the concept of 'getting real' ahead of time would appeal.


Terry Smith

To Michael Podesta

An assertion is not the same thing as proof. And I'm not a banker.

Jonathan Hood

Dear Terry

As one greatly interested in anthropogenic climate change I'd like to offer you some feedback on your enjoyable article, in the interest of providing a further perspective to frame our thinking.

As a self-titled climate change sceptic, you've set out your reasons. It looks as though your scepticism boils down to one key point: the way climate change is presented to us as citizens. I agree; it’s hellishly difficult to get to grips with the facts, subsumed as they so frequently are by an almost impenetrable frenzy of opinion. Genuine objectivity and climate change are unhappy bedfellows indeed.

However, I think a distinction needs to be made. Because the way climate change - and this includes science, scepticism and solutions - is portrayed in the mainstream is almost entirely the work of the media and not of climate scientists. Impartial, properly referenced and peer-reviewed climate science is not the stuff of press scoops. The Daily Mail doesn’t shift over two million copies because it publishes sober columns lifted verbatim from the New Scientist. The media is a business like any other, and its USP is sensationalism.

I have to say, your article is perhaps not the most impartial or objective piece of journalism ever inked. You state that we should be presented with facts (presumably you mean evidence that is impartial and unbiased wherever possible) and we should be allowed to view those facts sceptically. I quite agree. However, your article – the reason for your scepticism – is not itself based on impartial and unbiased evidence.

You've selected "Climategate" to prove your point on "activists" and "warmists" preventing open debate. The ice beneath using “Climategate” for this purpose is thin: "Climategate" was no more than a weary act of self-defence from a beleaguered scientist trying to protect his work from being savaged by a very biased media drunk on sensationalism and crucially, doesn’t alter the science of climate change. You'll recall the glee with which the media pounced on the story of Professor Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, when he published a racy novel unconnected to his work on climate. So he has interests other than his day-job; this doesn't detract from his standing nor his ability as chair of the IPCC. But the media called for him to stand down. This is like discrediting your economic expertise because your view on climate science was found to be incorrect. Unconnected, but a succinct demonstration of the very malignant power of the media to warp and misrepresent. “Climategate” must be taken in context; one incident involving improper conduct around an individual’s handling of information is so tiny as to be invisible against the enormous bank of scientific evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change, not much of which suggests that we’re underestimating the impacts.

The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis – sorry, who? – forms the basis of your evidence to discredit the Met Office Hadley Centre. The latter is funded by the UK government and even for a time by the Ministry of Defence – the same MoD that’s waking up to the huge potential threat to UK – and global – security of resource conflict and large-scale population migrations that even a moderate climate change scenario may bring. I’ve never heard of the Moscow-based IEA though. And since when did an obscure Russian economic institution become an eminent and impartial proponent of authoritative climate science, fit to lock horns with the Hadley Centre? You’ll be familiar with the Russian stance within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – hardly what one might call progressive. The Russian government generates huge revenues from the export of oil and gas. A global treaty whose ultimate goal is to phase out use of fossil fuels means decreasing revenues for oil and gas exporters. I wonder who bankrolls the IEA. No conflict of interest there!

You’ve berated Al Gore but have given no context for the quotation you supply. You’ve accused him of “mangling” the English language. A lack of facility with language is not an indicator of lack of intellect or expertise. As it happens Terry, there are spelling mistakes in your articles. To seek to discredit someone on the basis of literacy is hardly fair.

And as for Lord Oxburgh, prior to his position at the Carbon Capture and Storage Association he was non-executive Chairman of Shell. He’s also a geologist and geophysicist. As such I think we very likely can rely on him to be objective; if I were charged with appointing someone to lead an enquiry into evidence in a debate so important but so utterly polarizing as climate change I’d want a candidate with as broad a range of experience as possible in the field. As one who has worked at the highest level both in the carbon production and abatement industries, Lord Oxburgh would seem admirably suited to the task.

One final point, Terry. Someone of your obvious economic expertise could do better than to cite Viscount Monckton – a man who has publicly stated he believes the only way to stop the spread of AIDS is for every member of the human race to be blood-tested each month, and for all carriers of the disease to be immediately isolated. Christopher Monckton is an angry old man who cherry-picks evidence to support his assertions on climate change and many of his claims are as spurious as his name – he isn’t actually a lord, he just pretends he is because he thinks this gives him more gravitas to hold forth on climate change. He’s a fraud.

Your article is not the work of the straight talking Terry Smith we know and love - this is a rickety and threadbare argument that compares apples with oranges and offers no credible answers to the problems it picks out. As you accept that anthropogenic climate change is happening, surely the best thing for us all to do is to focus on solutions. But you berate both technologies (you state they’re spurious) and market mechanisms like carbon trading. Even in a world where fossil fuel use had no negative impacts, they will still run out. We need innovation – market and technological and no matter how clumsily it starts out – to get away from our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels. A proponent of economic stewardship such as you will be only too aware just how utterly dependent the global economy is on cheap energy, and how contrary to the principles of stewardship over-reliance on one resource is. And that resource – that carbon-intensive fossil energy – will run out. We absolutely need a range of clean and low-carbon energy technology coupled with market mechanisms that incentivise their rapid and large-scale deployment, mechanisms which simultaneously discourage profligate and unsustainable consumption of polluting fossil fuels. Maybe you could bring that no-nonsense approach you’re renowned for to bear on that instead? I think the media would go for that.

Jon unia

Perhaps you need to re-look at the evidence now the Climategate scientists have been vindicated in the most comprehensive study yet. One funded by Koch a climate change denier.


This is not my area of expertise, but given the ongoing debate I take a semi-interest in it and am interested in mulling over the various aspects of the debate.

It's one that seems so polarised in terms of tmany fo the views and reactions of people, that I for one welcome people exploring, questioning and debating aspects of it, whichever perspective it's from.

I presume Jon is referring to the recent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study? It's a good piece fo work and the team are certainly impressive/impartial. But what does it tell us?

Essentially it tells us that the earth has warmed by 1 degree C since the 1950s. That's fine and I'm happy to accept their findings. BUT it doesn't provide any hard conclusions as to WHY temperatures are rising.

For me this is where scepticism comes in. That is not a sound basis for then drawing all sorts of varied conclusions, rather it is a step on a journey. I’ve always found that scepticism and keeping the ‘six honest serving men’ in mind helps keep me from making plays without understanding the risks and probabilities inherent in them (there are very few dead certs and even they generally have a catch in them somewhere).

So WHY and HOW is that temperature change happening? If we want to stick with recent reports, how about the 2011 Interim Report of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change - Climate Change Reconsidered. Its an interesting read and provides some fascinating perspectives into the wider debate needed. Even if I think some of their conclusions on the economic and policy implications are rather too limited in their focus, they are still valid points that merit debate.

To add flavour to that report, the issue of Global Dimming is interesting. I don't claim to fully understand this but it seems arguable that the various air quality regulations introduced in many western countries led to quite significant reductions in atmospheric aerosol pollution between 1980 and 2000 (e.g. by nearly 80% in the EU for Sulphur), removing a counter effect to warming. Rather interestingly that change broadly coincides with the spike in temperatures seen in the latest global warming graphs.

If we want to talk about investment in R&D and renewables etc, lets do it on the basis of sound reasons that are clear considered and economically viable and sustainable. I agree its something we need to look at at, but its also something that has wasted not inconsiderable amounts of money/capital in being unduly rushed in some areas, while other less 'trendy' options are ignored.

I may have over-simplified my points, but I hope the debate keeps going and that there are sufficient sceptics (on both sides) to keep asking the questions and kicking the tyres of the arguments.

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." (Milton)

Terry Smith

To Iain

It's not my area of expertise either but I agree that scepticism is the right approach to almost any proposition let alone one where the consequences of the proposed actions are so far reaching and the aims of at least some of the participants would seem to be to stifle debate and get actions taken on the basis of belief rather than proof. Even the language used in this (as you correctly observe) polarised debate shows this. Climate change sceptics are labelled "deniers" as if we were discussing religious beliefs.

Jon unia

Yes I was referring to the Berkeley study. You can look up the study or the following link will give a summary:
The point is that is shows many of the statements made in the "I am a Climate Sceptic" note are wrong so you this blog can be restated but with the statement that since the 50's global temperatures have increased by one Centigrade.
Then we can move the debate on to the cause.
Most of the "deniers" clearly do not want to move on to this. The scientist who were vindicated by the Berkeley study have also explained cause...

Mike Mellor

Terry Smith,

This is a good article and I respect you for your free speech policy in the comments thread.

I'm firstly a climate cynic and believe that the purpose of global climate hysteria is not to make the world a better place for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and the half a billion other plant and animal species on the planet;

Its purpose is to provide a good income and lifestyle for climate scientists, their children, and perhaps if the money hasn't all been spent before then, their grandchildren too.

It's a fraud, it's a hoax, it's a get-rich-quick scheme.

Not one of the expensive solutions to the warming crisis will have any effect at all.

Not that I doubt greenhouse theory in the slightest. I know the physics. I can calculate the surface temperature of any hypothetical planet given its size, solar distance, albedo, and the composition, density and depth of its atmosphere. I largely agree with Dr Richard Muller of BEST when he says that the warming of the last 30 years is anthropogenic.

But I really don't see what the global warming problem is. A warm planet is a happy planet. Back in the early 1970's when the temperature anomaly was a mere minus 0.2 degrees, climatologists feared another Ice Age, agriculturists were moaning about shorter growing seasons and economists predicted global famine. Now that the anomaly is a mere plus 0.2 degrees, the charlatans fear that we're all going to fry, bunny-huggers are moaning about polar bears and economists are predicting global famine.

I think, with evidence provided by the esteemed Dr Michael Mann in his paper on the Medieval Climate Optimum, that earth can easily handle an anomaly up to plus 1 degree Celcius.

A presently unidentified Mystery Negative Feedback Factor X has offset the warming of increasing CO2. Claims that the anomaly will hit plus 4 degrees by the end of the century are just hysterical hype.

Given that warming is beneficial and anyway it's beyond our ability to control, the money fraudulently being spent on wind farms and climate alchemists could better be spent on nuclear reactors and the poor.

Unlike you, Terry, I'm not a sceptic, I'm a lukewarmer. But like you, I am shaken by the sheer rottenness of the climatologists on the warmist side, and distrust everything they say and do.

This is my first visit to your blog and I think I'm going to learn a lot from you.


Look what happened to Bellamy when he disagreed with the BBC & the C02 religion

Part 1

Part 2



The 'thinking / opinions' of scientists were very different in the 1970's


Perhaps all the funding available today helps to paint a different story.

The comments to this entry are closed.