Alastair’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Kyoto

  I have a problem with Kyoto.  The problem I have is that it is merely a political mechanism for bringing us global socialism.  I seriously doubt it will have much effect (if any) on CO2 emmissions.  If the global warming alarmists were really serious about this great hoax, why don't they instead of spending millions on climate research spend that money on finding alternative energy supplies so that we are less relient on fossil fuels.  I guess that would make too much sense.

  We can agree to disagree on the causes on global warming but I think we can all agree that finding alternatives to fossil fuels is fundamentally a good thing for everyone.  This would be a good idea both from an economic perspective and also because of the reality that oil is a finite resource.

  Global warming activists, green politicians and the left wing media are motivated more by a socialist and anti-capitalist agenda than genuine concern for the environment and they also have ideas that wouldn't work even "if" CO2 was the real cause of global warming.
  On 'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase posted 2 years, 4 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Concencous?

  All it takes is to go onto the internet and doing a bit of your own research to quickly realise that claims that there is a scientific concencous simply isn't true, therefore I struggle to believe the typical AGW claim that there is a unanimous concencous.  It's all very well to say that AGW has the seal of approval from an "impressive array of international organisations", but without individual experts prepared to speak out, these "organisations" are likely just a mechanism for the AGW industry to avoid accountability and responsibilty.  Many a time I have heard in the media (newspapers, TV and film) reports of the latest global warming scares, but these reports are almost always arrive via journalists, reporters and politicians.  You almost never see any actual scientists themselves endorsing the media reports which are almost always anonymous in that respect.  

  I have just recently watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time and one thing I noticed was the lack of scientific experts to appear in the film and endorse the films messege "in name".  Contrarily, the british documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was endorsed by an impressive array of climate scientists.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 109 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sulphates and GHG

  
  Early 20th century temperature rise was due to the increase in solar activity and the increase in ghg.  The mid century lull was due to increasing particulate emissions, especially sulfates, at a rate much faster than GHG.  Post ~1980 warming is due to much faster increasing levels of GHG, and flattening and then declining SO2 emissions.
  

  It's very unlikely that the mid century cooling effect was due to sulphates.  The reason for this is sulphates largely originate from sulphur which forms a part of all fossil fuels especially coal has a large percentage of sulphur.  So since the beginning of the industrial revolution sulphates and greenhouse gas emmissions would largely have increased together, ie in relative terms sulphate emmissions would have been higher than greenhouse gases (in relative terms) much earlier on in the industrial revolution before there were any environmental regulations governing sulphur pollution.  However, since the industrial revolution wasn't accompanied by cooling the suggestion that cooling this century was caused by sulphates can more or less be dismissed.

  Since it can be shown that mid century cooling cannot have been caused by sulphates, it strongly suggests that the dominant mechanism governing global temperature is natural.
  On 'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Stunned Silence

  I see a lack of response to my previous posts.  Is that because you know I'm right?On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 4 months ago 43 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  CO2 and SO2

  GreyFlcn.  I find that article very weak.  The ice core data clearly shows that temperature preceeds CO2 by 800 years and therefore CO2 can't be the cause of the temperature rise.  The fact that CO2 may be preceeding temperature rise now is coincidental.  The CO2 rise is caused by human activity and the temperature is going up because we are coming out of the little ice age NOT because CO2 is going up.  To me the evidence quite clearly points that this is the case.  There are too many contradictions to believe that CO2 is responsible for the present temperature rise.  One being the ice core data as mentioned above.  Another being mid-century cooling during the post war economic boom.  I don't believe this was due to SO2 emmissions as has often been mentioned, this is merely pulling at straws by those with a pro global warming agenda.  Why don't I believe it?  Firstly the mid century cooling has a quite clearly defined start and end point, SO2 emmissions didn't just start suddenly after the war and stop a few decades later.  SO2 has been released into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution with large scale coal burning, why didn't that cause cooling?  The mid-century cooling was clearly a result of natural causes.On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 5 months ago 43 Responses