Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Richard Courtney: Biblical lessons lost in the rush to control Earth's natural process

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 October 2009
IN THE Bronze Age, Joseph told Pharaoh that climate had always changed everywhere: it always would.
He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the millenniums since.

It is a sensible policy, because people merely complain about taxes in good times. They revolt if
short of food in bad times. But several governments have abandoned it and, instead, are trying to stabilise the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it.

This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).

AGW does not pose a global crisis, but the policy does, because it threatens constraint of fossil fuels and that would kill millions – probably billions – of people.

There is no evidence for man-made global warming. None, not any of any kind. The existence of global warming is not evidence of AGW, because warming of the Earth does not prove humans warmed it.

At issue is whether humans are, or are not, affecting changes to the Earth's temperature that have always happened naturally.

The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide – in the air raise global temperature and anthropogenic emissions are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.

But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong. Firstly, the man-made emissions and global temperature do not correlate. Secondly, change to atmospheric concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales. Thirdly, the recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by a rise in atmospheric concentrations.

Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998 and has fallen since. That is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30 per cent since 1940. It has increased by 8 per cent since 1990.

So, the normal rules of science say the AGW hypothesis is completely refuted. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.

Some people still promote the hypothesis, for several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism). But support of science cannot be one such motive, because science denies the hypothesis.

Stopping the emissions would mean reducing fossil fuel usage, resulting in economic damage. This would be worse than the oil crisis of the 1970s, because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent and energy use has increased since then.

The economic disruption would be world-wide.

• Richard Courtney is an energy and environment consultant who has acted as peer reviewer for the Independent Panel on Climate Change.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 October 2009 9:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 08:17:40
Richard S Courtney writes in defence of the continued use of fossil fuels. He states, "Stopping the emissions would mean reducing fossil fuel usage, resulting in economic damage."

Why are we not told that Richard S. Courtney is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney
2

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 09:44:06
Slioch:

It is a matter of record that you know I have not worked for CoalTrans International for a decade.

My article is correct in every detail. If you could have faulted it then you would have.

But you cannot find fault in it, and this is confirmed by your trying to discredit its message by stating an untruth about its 'messenger'.

Richard
3

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 09:48:21
As for Courtney's statements about global warming: they are all incorrect, and have been refuted many times. He appears to believe that if he repeats falsehoods often enough then some people will believe what he says. Probably some people will if that is what they want to believe, but his assertions remain false.

Let us look at some of them:

Courtney claims: "There is no evidence for man-made global warming"

Nonsense. There is copious evidence, both from theory and from observations from palaeoclimatology and from recent times. No such evidence is never regarded as "proof" and Courtney's conflation of "evidence" with "proof" indicates his confusion.

Courtney: "the man-made emissions [of CO2] and global temperature do not correlate."

Of course there is no correlation with CO2 emissions! It is the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over and above pre-industrial levels, not just the tiny proportion that has been added in any one year (ie emissions) that is the forcing components that contributes to global warming, and which correlates with global temperatures.
To put some figures on it: present levels of CO2 are about 387ppmv, about 107ppmv above pre-industrial levels, and are increasing by about 2ppmv per year. It is that 107ppmv (and similar figures for other years) that should be considered in looking for a correlation, not the annual emissions giving rise to that 2ppmv rise.
Many other factors effect global temperatures: therefore the correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures is not, of course, 100%, but it is undeniably present and greater than any other factor in recent decades. See:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

Courtney claims, "change to atmospheric [CO2] concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales."

Nonsense. CO2 concentrations have increased by 38% since the start of the industrial revolution. Global absolute temperatures have increased by about 0.3% since then.

C
4

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 09:53:20
Contd.

Nonsense. CO2 concentrations have increased by 38% since the start of the industrial revolution. Global absolute temperatures have increased by about 0.3% since then.

Courtney claims, "the recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by a rise in atmospheric [CO2} concentrations."

That is a bald assertion that flies in the face of the evidence. It is just another of Courtney's falsehoods.

Courtney claims, "Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990."

An utterly ludicrous statement that contradicts his previous admission of "the recent rise in global temperature". For information, the five year average global temperature anomaly (from the HADCRUT3 series) centred on 1990 was +0.162C. That for the latest complete five years (centred on 2006) was +0.416C. That is an increase of +0.254C, consistent with the longer-term increase in temperatures of about 0.16C/decade.

Courtney's article is an embarrassing melange of falsehoods from start to finish, though I concede that his knowledge of Biblical lessons is doubtless superior to mine.
5

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 11:05:29
Slioch:

I congratulate you on your persistence. You keep being knocked down but always bounce back like those little round-bottomed men in the bottom of bird cages.

You say there is evidence for man-made global warming, but you do not cite any. If you know of some then cite it because you will surely get a Nobel Prize. Billions of pounds have been spent on research conducted around the world over decades to seek such evidence. Nobody has found any to date.

I made no mention of “proof” and your mention of it is a red herring.

The anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are claimed to affect the amount of this harmless gas in the air. And the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is said to affect global temperature. Both these claims are observed to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide is emitted to the air by nature and by human activities. Nature emits 34 molecules for every molecule emitted by human activity. And the emissions from human activity do not correlate to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration does follow change to global temperature at all time scales. Ice core data shows the lag is about 800 years at longest time scales. At shortest time scales the lag is between 6 and 9 months depending on latitude: this was first discovered by Kuo et al. (Nature, 1990) and has been confirmed by several others since.

So, the carbon dioxide changes to the carbon dioxide cannot be causing the changes to temperature (unless Dr Who is using his Tardis to do it).

You admit that the man-made emissions and global temperature do not correlate but claim the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperature change. This beg the question as to why bother altering the emissions from human activity.

Over 80% of the emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities has been since 1940.

However, recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concent
6

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 11:06:32
cont.

However, recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. Indeed, global temperature has fallen since 1998. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990 but global temperature is now about the same as it was in 1990. And the carbon dioxide concentration has increased by more than 4% since 1998.

The average global temperature over each year has risen by about 0.7 deg.C over the last century. But global absolute temperature rises by nearly 4 deg.C between July and January then falls by that amount between January and July each year. It is plain daft to claim that the small rise over the last century is significant when global temperature rises and falls by more than 4 times that during each year. And that small rise is a continuation of the warming from the Little Ice Age that began about 300 years ago (i.e. before the Industrial Revolution).

Reality is what it is observed to be and not what you, me or anybody else wants it to be.

Richard
7

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 12:07:58
Richard Courtney

You continue with your falsehoods, this time preceded by a puerile insult [those little round-bottomed men etc].

Evidence for CO2 being a greenhouse gas is founded in basic physics - the Stefan-Boltzman relationship, showing that the Earth must be experiencing greenhouse warming, the infra-red absorption spectra of CO2 and other greenhouse gases showing that they absorb IR radiation, the satellite evidence showing that IR radiation of those wavelengths is indeed being absorbed. It is found in paleoclimatic evidence in which releases of CO2 have resulted in peaks in global temperatures and glacial/interglacial intervals in which the amount of temperature change cannot be attributed to orbital changes alone, and countless other bits of information that are presented in scientific papers and that help to complete the jigsaw of information about CO2 and climate. To claim that "there is no evidence" is so absurd as to be hardly worth responding to.

Courtney, "I made no mention of “proof” and your mention of it is a red herring."
False. You stated, "warming of the Earth does not prove humans warmed it." Or are you just playing semantics and relying on the difference of 'proof' and 'prove'?

Courtney, "anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are claimed to affect the amount of this ... gas in the air"
That claim is validated by i) the fact that CO2 levels in the air did not exceed 300ppmv for over 800,000 years (evidence ice-cores) prior to the industrial revolution and are now at 387ppmv (providing the most dramatic and irrefutable of hockey-stick graphs)ii) the isotopic composition of the C in that CO2 shows it to have a biogenic origin, consistent with it coming from fossil fuels.

The fact that increasing global temperature causes increasing levels of CO2 (which no-one denies) provides NO information concerning the question, "does increased CO2 cause increased temperatures". To put forward the former as evidence for the absence of the
8

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 12:10:05
Contd.

The fact that increasing global temperature causes increasing levels of CO2 (which no-one denies) provides NO information concerning the question, "does increased CO2 cause increased temperatures". To put forward the former as evidence for the absence of the latter is to demonstrate ignorance of a quite staggering degree.

Courtney repeats, "Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990." Even though I have provided the data to show that this is not the case. Courtney appears to be a man to whom data and truth and evidence has no meaning and is just blocked out if it contradicts what he wants to believe. ALL the temperature series (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, RSS, AUH) show that global temperatures are now higher than 1990. But Courtney wants to believe otherwise so he just closes his mind to the evidence and asserts the opposite.

The rest of Courtney's confusion over changes in global average temperatures arises from his persistent refusal to see that those changes are a result of two different factors:

1. a slow relentless warming by GHGs amounting to about 0.16C/DECADE
2. Natural fluctuations of up to 0.2C/YEAR that easily overwhelm the GHG effect on time scales of a few years.

This is analogous to a rising tide: the GHGs effect is analogous to the moon causing the rising tide, whereas the natural fluctuations are analogous to the waves that the cause the actual level of the sea on the beach to surge and retreat irregularly. To point to drops in temperature after 1998 as evidence that AGW has stopped is as ridiculous as to point to the temporary retreat of the sea after a large wave has broken and claim that the tide is no longer rising.

As for, "global absolute temperature rises by nearly 4 deg.C between July and January" - that is a consequence of the northern hemisphere having a greater land surface area than the south. Land areas warm much more rapidly than the oceans. The observation has absolutely no relevance to the issue of global w
9

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 12:12:03
Contd.

The observation has absolutely no relevance to the issue of global warming
10

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 12:35:47
Slioch:

I note that you have not answered the only really important point.

You admit that the emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity do not correlate to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. So, why bother to constrain those emissions when such constraint would cause hardship and death to peoples of the world?

The only “insult” was provided by your use of a falsehood in the first posting here that was a blatant attempt to slur my motivation for telling the truth about AGW.

Basic physics is the reason for the hypothesis of AGW. It is not evidence that the hypothesis is true. Evidence from the real world shows it is wrong.

Waffle and bluster to your hearts content. The facts are what they are. Observation of reality shows that AGW is bunkum.

This will be my last post to you because I have much better things to do with my time than to continue responding to your twaddle.

Richard
11

Unimpressed one,

20/10/2009 12:41:21
Richard the fact that you have been allowed to put into print this 'heresy' gives us hope that Johnston Press, in common with many other world media outlets, it at last questioning the validity of the outrageous claims made in its columns in the last few years. At the very least, it seems to be allowing a counter-view. Thank you for you breath of common sense.
12

Unimpressed one,

20/10/2009 12:50:01
Slioch, I see you continue to argue on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Meanwhile much of the media and many scientists with a future reputation to defend, are backtracking on their support for a 'doomed planet'. Why not just admit that the game's up?
13

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 13:03:30
Audere est facere:

I completely agree that we need to reduce pollution. We have been reducing it for years and, in my opinion, efforts to reduce it should continue.

For example, traffic pollution has been dramatically reduced by adoption of fossil fuels. On average each day in 1855 more than 50 tons of horse excrement was removed from only one street, Oxford Street in London. The mess, small, insects and disease were awful everywhere. By 1900 every ceiling of every room in Britain had sticky paper hanging from it to catch the flies. Old buildings still have scrapers by their doors to remove some of the pollution from shoes before entering.

Affluence reduces pollution. Rich people can afford sewers, toilets, clean drinking water and clean air. Poor people have more important things they must spend all they have to get. So, people with wealth can afford to reduce pollution but others cannot. Pollution in North America and Europe was greater in 1900 than in 2000 despite much larger populations in 2000. And the pollution now experienced every day by billions who do not have the wealth of Americans and Europeans includes cooking in a mud hut using wood and dung as fuel when they cannot afford a chimney.

The use of fossil fuels has provided that affluence for the developed world. The developing world needs the affluence provided by the development which is only possible at present by using fossil fuels.

But you assert that fossil fuels will run out. Sorry, but no (not before the Sun consumes the Earth).

No resource exhausts. Humans did not run out of flint, antler bone, bronze or iron.

The cost of a resource increases as the scarcity of the resource increases. And the increased cost has two effects; viz.
1. people look for additional sources of the resource because more expensive sources become cost effective
and
2. people look for alternatives to the resource.

Thus, sources of any resource are maintained or increased. Why look
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 13:05:07
#12 Richard S Courtney

Claimed, "I note that you have not answered the only really important point.

You admit that the emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity do not correlate to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. So, why bother to constrain those emissions ... ?"

I actually stated that emissions do not correlate with global temperatures, I made no statement about the correlation with CO2.

I was responding to your statement that, "the man-made emissions [of CO2] and global temperature do not correlate." But it appears that you didn't understand the simple point I was making.

I made it clear that by "emissions" I was referring to annual anthropogenic emissions and illustrated that by reference to the annual increase of c.2ppmv in atmospheric CO2 caused by those emissions. Those emissions CONTRIBUTE TO (but do not correlate with) the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere which has risen from c.280ppmv in 1750 to c.387ppmv now. That increase has been brought about by human activity.

The reason for constraining emissions is that they contribute to the total CO2 levels in the atmosphere. It is that simple.

You previously confused evidence with proof. Now you confuse correlation with contribution. You write an article littered with falsehoods and when these are demolished claim to "have better things to do".
15

Richard S Courtney,

20/10/2009 13:05:36
cont.

Thus, sources of any resource are maintained or increased. Why look for additional sources when there is a plentiful supply available? The available resource of crude oil was about 40 years supply throughout the twentieth century. It still is about 40 years supply because there is no point in looking for more when there is known to be 40 years supply available. It will stay at 40 years or longer throughout this century.

But ‘low fruit are picked first’. The amount of available resource may remain or increase but the cost of obtaining the resource increases with time. This increasing cost encourages search for alternatives. And the found alternatives often turn out to have advantages (e.g. iron had advantages over bronze but was more difficult and more costly to obtain).

Assuming that environmentalists fail in their attempts to stop development, then future generations will be able to devise new sources of resources (e.g. by mining the Earth’s interior and/or the minor planets). But such possibilities, and others we cannot now imagine, will be removed from future generations if we inhibit economic and technological development by constraining emissions from use of fossil fuels.

Richard
16

Stefaan,

Glasgow 20/10/2009 15:08:19
What a lesson this great thinker taught me today. Now I know the bible teaches us not to interfere with the earth's natural process of burning billions of tons of fossil fuels. He also presented undeniable scientific arguments to convince me that the increasing CO2 levels and all the other benefits that come with it have no impact on global climate and probably no negative side effects either. Just like my pack of cigarettes.

I despise these nature loving folk that try to interfere with this biblical burning just to protect their self interests. You can see it in their eyes when they cycle past my 4x4 on their way to work. They know that cutting down the fossil fuels consumption will end up killing probably billions of people. I'm so glad we have people like Richard Courtney and Dick Cheney to expose these extremists.

Thanks Richard and best wishes to you,

Stefan
17

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 19:26:21
Stefan:

I do not know where you got the idea that the Bible teaches the Earth has a natural process of burning fossil fuels. I would be interested to know the Biblical reference.

However, of course you are correct when you say that nature burns billion of tons of fossil fuels. The Oracle was at Delphi because the natural gas fires there emitted fumes which caused ‘visions’. Coal seams in China continue to burn as they have for centuries. etc.

I thank you for adding such a good point as a comment on my article. I had not thought to include it.

And I despise the people who have usurped environmetalism for their own ends, too. My greatest disdain is for Al Gore, then James Hansen, then...
Well, I am sure you can add to the long list without great effort.

Richard
18

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 20:02:46
Slioch:

I really do have much better things to do with my time than to answer your diatribes.

However, you imply that I am avoiding your points. No! I am refuting your assertions as being blatant nonsense not worthy of response. I will provide one example so others can understand why I see no purpose in addressing your wriggling.

I said (#12) to you:
“You admit that the emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity do not correlate to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. So, why bother to constrain those emissions when such constraint would cause hardship and death to peoples of the world?”

You replied (#16);
“I actually stated that emissions do not correlate with global temperatures, I made no statement about the correlation with CO2.
I was responding to your statement that, "the man-made emissions [of CO2] and global temperature do not correlate." But it appears that you didn't understand the simple point I was making.
I made it clear that by "emissions" I was referring to annual anthropogenic emissions and illustrated that by reference to the annual increase of c.2ppmv in atmospheric CO2 caused by those emissions. Those emissions CONTRIBUTE TO (but do not correlate with) the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere which has risen from c.280ppmv in 1750 to c.387ppmv now. That increase has been brought about by human activity.”

BUT
It is the claimed effect of the emissions from human activity on global temperature that is asserted as reason for constraining those emissions. You state that those emissions do not correlate with global temperatures. So, why bother to constrain those emissions when such constraint would cause hardship and death to peoples of the world?
AND
It is self-evident that the much larger natural emissions of carbon dioxide dominate over the relatively trivial emissions from human activity when the carbon dioxide in the air does not correlate to the emissions from human activity.

Your response is pure sophistry,
19

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 21:04:08
#20 Richard Courtney

Are you really so incapable of understanding such a simple message?

Let me explain it again. Prior to about 1750 average CO2 concentration was about 280ppmv and had been close to that level for thousands of years. (Evidence from several ice cores). This fact reveals two main consequences.

Firstly that global average temperatures had had ample time to equilibrate with that level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is, that at that time there was little or no forcing from CO2 towards a higher (or lower) temperature.

Secondly, that the present level of CO2, at 387ppmv has increased as a result of human activity. To deny that is simply egregious nonsense.

That present level of CO2, 387ppmv, is 107ppmv above the pre-1750 level, and it is THAT increase that causes an increase in heat retention by the atmosphere that in turn is leading to increases in global temperatures, though there is a time lag of several decades (ie it takes several decades to reach equilibrium) largely because of the huge heat capacity of the oceans.

That being the case we should expect some correlation between average global temperatures and CO2 levels, but that correlation is by no means 100% because a) other factors (El Nino/La Nina, changes in the sun, volcanic eruptions, changes in albedo etc) also influence temperature, and b) because of the above mentioned time lag.

BUT that correlation is there: the link I gave previously that you have ignored, shows it. here it is again:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

But to get to the point that you still appear not to understand: that correlation is NOT with the annual emissions, the correlation is with the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Strictly, it is with the logarithm of those concentrations, but forgive me if I didn't include that slight complication earlier). If you had bothered to look at the link I provided that would have been obvious, since the ONLY data provided about CO2
20

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 20/10/2009 21:05:02
Contd.

If you had bothered to look at the link I provided that would have been obvious, since the ONLY data provided about CO2 was the atmospheric concentration (plus the natural logarithm thereof).

The annual emissions obviously contribute to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations: that is why such emissions need to be curbed. But the correlation is with the total amount.

To use an analogy: if you have a piggy bank into which you put your spare pennies every day and you weigh your piggy bank and plot a graph of the weight of your piggy bank, with what will the weight correlate - with the total number of pennies in your piggy bank or with the daily additions you make? Obviously the correlation is with the TOTAL number of pennies, NOT with whatever daily amount you put in. Similarly with CO2: temperatures correlate with the TOTAL CO2 in the atmosphere, NOT with the annual emissions.

On a personal note. You are someone who has spent much time and effort writing about global warming issues. I have to say that I find it very difficult to accept that you actually, truly, misunderstand matters as profoundly as you appear to do. Maybe you do. Maybe you really cannot understand the science, and the utter rubbish that you write is sincere. I hope for the sake of your soul that that is the case, but I must confess that I suspect that you know that what you write is nonsense and that you write to deliberately and maliciously mislead others for bizarre idealogical reasons. And if that is the case, then may God have mercy on your soul.
21

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 20/10/2009 23:50:34
Slioch:

I am answering your "personal note" aimed at me in hope that my answer will help you.

I know I have hurt you by pointing out that your belief in AGW is a superstition which is denied by science. And I am sorry that this causes you pain. But lashing out at others in response will not ease your hurt.

Recant your superstitious belief and the pain will go away.

Richard
22

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 21/10/2009 00:18:45
#23 Richard S Courtney

"I know I have hurt you by pointing out that your belief in AGW is a superstition"

Hilarious. You reach new depths of pompous absurdity with each new post.
23

Phillip Bratby,

Tiverton 21/10/2009 10:25:08
Richard,

I don't know why you bother replying to Slioch. He is well known for not being able to provide evidence linking man-made CO2 to global warming. Don't be goaded by his lack of science and insults. He posts links on many web sites without posting any evidence to support the hypothesis for AGW. I don't believe he has any scientific training.
24

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 21/10/2009 11:34:16
#25 Phillip Bratby

Yes, I tend to agree with your assessment, Philip, that Richard is floundering and needs a bit of support.
25

Stefaan,

Glasgow 21/10/2009 12:40:52

Dear Richard,

The biblical reference came straight from the title of your article just in case you haven't noticed. And how sweet of you to point out a few of many obvious ways that our planet burns the fossil fuels deposited over millions of years. However, I fail to see how the natural processes and the man's over exploitation of fossil fuels seem to end up in the same basket. Well, I know we're a part of nature but this is like saying that bombing Hiroshima was a natural process.

Just in case no one has pointed this out to you, the intentions are to control our emissions and not to control the climate. Even you do not argue that our activities alter the composition of our atmosphere. Somehow though you find this unbelievable arrogance to claim that changing the composition of our atmosphere does not and will not have any effects on the ecosystem. You're either a prophet or unbelievably confident in the powers of your reasoning. I'm sure it's nice to feel very smart and confident but it does not hurt to realize that the best of us have made grave mistakes in the past. Or maybe you find it exciting to be the sceptic in these times. Must be fun to stand up against the wave. Well, I'm not sure what you are and I don't care much for you either.

Regards,

Stefan
26

Richard S Courtney,

Falmouth, Cornwall 21/10/2009 23:33:57
Stefan:

I did not choose the title to the article. Some sub-editor did (as is usual with newspaper headlines).

You suggested a Biblical statement and I merely asked you for the reference. I understand from your reply that you made it up. Making things up is usual for AGW supporters so I suppose you may share the delusion that AGW is a real effect. Of course, I apologise if that supposition is incorrect.

And I lack the "unbelievable arrogance" to think that humans can sigificantly alter the atmosphere and the climate of the entire planet.

It probably comes as surprise to you that I could not care less what some person who chooses to remain anoymous thinks of me, especially when that person asserts, "bombing Hiroshima was a natural process". Indeed, I would be ashamed if such a person were to like me.

Richard
27

Stefaan,

Glasgow 22/10/2009 13:20:12

How nice of you to claim that I was making stuff up by referring to the title of your article. I honestly thought that it was your creation so I am sorry to have misused the the word 'biblical'.

In the same line of reasoning however you claim that the governments are trying to control the climate and that is what I was referring to. The control of emissions is not the same thing as controlling the climate. Therefore the comparison of a natural process to man made pollution represented in the example of Hiroshima. Since you classify controlling our emissions as interfering with the natural processes I thought you might follow this kind of reasoning plausible. Somehow you just attached it to me instead but why not if that makes you happier.

Clearly I am the arrogant one. I only worry about the possible affects on human induced changes (do not even have to be significant but you decided to conveniently add this to my statement). I am not the one that is so unbelievably sure of himself. You are.

Stefan
28

Richard Edward Lawrence,

Kidderminster 23/10/2009 09:07:16
Score one for Mr. Courtney.
His sections were a lot easier to follow, and his points a lot more convincing. I have had the pleasure of meeting Richard before, and I came here to cast a critical eye over what was being said, to see if any realistic challenge could be raised to points he had mentioned before.
No such evidence has appeared, and to be frank, I believe him.
I also don't believe it's fair to put that environmental advert on TV where little children are told they are going to die in a horrible flood. That advert is sick, and reminds me of threats made of nuclear holocaust. Of course the company made money out of doing the ad, and there we have the reason for so many people jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
A. There is money in it.
B. It serves nicely as a way to keep people worrying about something they can't effect. A nice way for governments to look good and do nothing, very cheaply, apart from make people's lives harder.

Incidentally why do we all have to change our way of life in the UK to 'save the world,' when countries such as China have cities you can't breathe in.

Ever seen a mouse try to rape an elephant? Even if this AGW rubbish were true, then the UK is doing it's part. We are living cleanly compared to most of the rest of the world, but we are still constantly assaulted by media buzzwords, such as 'carbon footprint.' I'd like to KILL the S.O.B. who coined that annoying phrase. The only people who seem to use it seriously and with a frustratingly punchable earnestness are the people I see driving Audis and BMWs. But hey they run to work once a week! Big sodding deal.

Meanwhile the rest of us want to get on with life, and want to see our government deal with helping the REAL big pollutants to cut emissions IF it's so important, but no, let's pick on the ordinary man in the street. Expect him to walk everywhere, or take crummy unusable public transport. (Works in major cities, is a terrible insult everywhere else.) Seriou
29

El Franko,

02/11/2009 08:57:57
I missed this article until today, thanks to another link. Well done The Scotsman, and especially, well done Mr Courtney! This is one of the most sensible pieces on the AGW scam which I have seen in a long time.

The author is restrained, responsive (see above comments), and well-informed. I would personally go further and assert that given our knowledge of the very minor effects of CO2 on the climate, it is grossly irresponsible for anyone to scare others with threats of doom. Not least children. Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre when there is no fire would be a minor harm compared to what the AGW alarmists are doing. Part of their success is a plausible half-baked science, such as Slioch has taken on board, who hears what he wants to hear and ignores the real complexities of the climate system. Shame on him.

30

K McDonald,

Glasgow 02/11/2009 13:17:01
Good article Mr Courtney.

Pointing out that observations and measurements do no fit the AGW theory does no go down well with followers of the Global Warming fraternity. I feel sorry then, they have a lot to lose...face, research budgets, tax revenues etc..
31

T Harvey,

Rye, East Sussex 02/11/2009 23:04:52
I have come to this article via a link from WUWT and am surprised and pleased to see a major newspaper giving the space to Mr Courtney to expound his views on the AGW topic. He does so in a clear, restrained and convincing manner, and responds to the sniping of Slioch and Stefan calmly and authoritatively. I particularly liked his compassionate response to Slioch at 21. I bet that made Slioch fume.
32

Climaterealist,

Southern England 03/11/2009 00:30:42
Slioch

If you are comparing like for like, surely a fair comparison of temperatures would be from the top of one climate cycle to the top of another?

Instead you are comparing the Hadley datasets (comprising of a tiny number of stations from 1850 with few in the SH) which is measuring from the bottom of the little ice age cycle to the top of the current warming cycle. That seems an odd way to make a meaningfulcomparison don't you think?

Perhaps you don't believe in climate cycles and think that our climate has always been unremittingly cool until 1850, when Phil Jones managed to suddenly track an unprecedented upsurge in temperature caused solely by Man's activities?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.