which is somewhat  alike to finding out they are fundamentalist Christians who believe in creation.

‘Well’ they say ‘its all a scam’, ‘What’ I say ‘how about the science?’ to which the reply becomes vague and unspecific. It is all about making money or some government conspiracy but when pressed the answers dry up. It’s an awkward feeling, and rather like a close friend revealing that they collect Nazis war memorabilia. Despite the number of friends with doubts only one is an ardent sceptic and they are also vocal about the truth of 9/11.  Hit the internet and sceptics abound with the free press slowly catching up.

The Mail and the Telegraph get into a whirl of misinformation about Climate Change along with Europe, Health and Safety and of course moral decline, they bang the cage and the monkeys go bonkers, I enjoy the blogs, I wouldn’t form opinions based on them but they make educational reading. Peter Hitchens and Mel Philips only make passing nods of recognition to the Climate Sceptics being far more concerned about political correctness gone mad, the real deniers are Christopher Booker and James Delingpole. Booker is completely deranged believing in creationism and the harmless nature of asbestos , Delingpole is perhaps more cynical and sees his alliance to the deniers exposing the climate change hoax as a means to get noticed and build a following.

It amazes me just how those little details like facts just don’t seem to have any impact on ‘sceptics’ . Climategate or rather we made stuff up gate is an example where if you offer the context of a line from the email it loses any wrong doing yet the same old lines are peddled as proof that climate change is a rather elaborate hoax. ‘”The fact is, we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” becomes “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate”.

I wandered into the denialshere of blogs, thinktanks and sceptic comment to find out what it was about. For one it is very male, aggressive, slightly paranoid and conservative, it is an upside-down world where they seem to think that getting in with the first insults like calling science a religion based on faith makes them right. The demonising of Michael Mann of the climategate emails and who was the first to build a 1000 year record of Earth temperature is disturbing. There is the odd belief that the entire science of climate change rests on the work of his paper dubbed the hockey stick rather than the, now, thousands of peer-reviewed papers and basic science. If only they could just bring this one man down surely the whole hoax would collapse and we could resume to a world of cheap abundant energy.

However the sceptics do have a few scientists on their side and even peer-reviewed papers so in the interest of real sceptical balance I read some.  Professor Geoffrey G. Duffy, in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, said “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” Duffy isn’t a climate scientist but lets not be fussy, he tends to write articles rather than peer-reviewed papers, but lets get too nit-picky. He believes the world is actually cooling and that CO2 stops working as a greenhouse gas after it passes a certain concentration. The cooling, and the previous decades of warming are caused by the sun or rather the intensity of sun spots which occur over an eleven year period, the sun has gone rather quiet and he presumes- or rather predicts, that the coming solar cycles will have few sun spots and therefore 1% less radiation. Less radiate= less global warming, if it wasn’t for the CO2 we would be heading for a little ice age and the Thames would freeze. Prof Geoff Duffy presented these facts in his paper Climate Change- The Real Causes, however he is not big on citing his references, but with a little research I found this where Stephen Wilde F.R.Met.S.  a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968 complains [read the comments] that Duffy has lifted his article Global Warming and Cooling – The Reality, otherwise known as plagiarism. Stephen Wilde is not a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, [it appears he joined as a weather enthusiast- one of thousands who man weather stations] and you can check the Societies website, he is a property solicitor and member of a thinktank [opposed to Climate Change legislation]. But he does provide references to the remarkable claim that we are heading for a mini ice-age- he cites, as a main source, David Archibald, who according to another think[climate change sceptic] tank is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science.

David Archibald has a Geology BA [so technically a scientist] and Geologist with Summa Development Limited. His cancer cure turns out to be based on herbs and spices and similar to the Generals secret KFC recipe. He takes a similar line to the previous scientists in that the sun is responsible and “There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” … “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so minuscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation” He actually published a peer reviewed paper on his findings, well sort of. “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling. Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here.

Archibald does at least try to pretend to write a real paper [all 8 pages of it] with references, although the main contributor is Archibald, he finds some real papers such as  Brunetti, {M. 2003, Solar signals in instrumental historical series of meteorological parameters} yet if you read that paper [its on line] the conclusions states clearly that sun spot activity does not make any real difference to global warming. But 2006 was an age ago so the same paper is updated and reworked as Solar 24-Implications for the US, then Warming or Cooling and Solar 24-Implications and Expectations and each time heralded in blogs, newspapers and Fox news as proof that there is no global warming.

Sceptic science is just recycled nonsense theories that get dreamt up and then passed around between the sceptics. And there is nothing new in this. Duffy’s other theory is that CO2 stops functioning as a greenhouse gas once saturation has been reached but this is as old as the idea of global warming and gets recycled once a year as proof that it isn’t happening. Around 1900 Svante Arrhenius published his argument that our use of fossil fuels would eventually cause global warming, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment of sending infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, and at that time the tube appeared to reach a saturation level of CO2 where there was no more heating. Knut Ångström was quick to warn geologists of all people not to listen to Arrhenius wild theories of global warming.



  1. Hey Bollocks,

    What about the science? What is the evidence of AGW?

    I am finding that believer sites spend much time “debunking denier myths,” but little time actually making out the case.

    From what I can tell, it is:

    1. Recent warming is unusual or unprecedented.
    2. Climate models show that increased CO2 in the atmosphere explains the warming.
    3. There is no other explanation for the warming.

    Point 1 is very debatable, 2 is whatever the modelers want it to be, and 3 needs much further study since there is not much study as to other causes of the warming.

    • Hi JZK,
      What about the science- well I’m not a scientist but I do read a lot of books and a few science papers and I would recommend the IPCC assessment reports which you can find on their website. I am not sure why it is not the first must read for many sceptics, sure they make errors which are pointed out and corrected and they list the thousands of papers that determine their findings.

      As to your points they are tackled in the reports. But I will have a go at answering without rushing to other sites or cut&pastes
      1. Unusual or unprecedented, I don’t know if those terms have ever been used by the climate science community, I have read in the Royal Society Report that ‘all climate change is dangerous’. We as a civilisation rely on a stable climate that has existed for at least a 1000 years which is evident and obvious. As I understand it the cause for concern is the 1c rise in just 100 years, and the potential extra 1.5 – 4c rise in the coming century. This does appear to be unprecedented in recent human history and unusual,i.e. the speed of change.
      2. Not entirely accurate, basic physics explains the existing rise, as does observations that are not just thermometers but nature proxies like plants, predictions were made 20 years ago with comparatively crude computer models [as found in the first 2 IPCC reports] that include the current trend.
      3. Science requires elimination of other factors, if the sun’s output is taken into account and the ENSO cycles, then there are few other causes left. The Earth’s tilt that 5,000 years ago was greater caused the Northern hemisphere to be hotter than today, oddly a hotter Sahara was a greener Sahara, but the tilt has not changed recently so that is eliminated too.

      Other causes have not been offered by sceptic scientists.

      From my POV I am just following current scientific thinking which is supported by all the world’s major science societies. I am more interested in the arguments and thinking of sceptics. Real sceptics who doubt AGW science should also turn the same degree of doubt to those trying to say AGW is not happening.

      • Bollocks,

        Watch this @ 2:30 or thereabouts

        He restates the hockey stick conclusion that the recent warming is unusual, but then goes on to state about the evidence that the warming is our fault: “that conclusion has actually been established by taking models, theoretical models of the climate and subjecting them both to natural factors like volcanic eruptions and changes in behavior of the sun and human factors of increasing ghg concentrations, and what those more recent studies show is that you can’t explain that anomalous recent warming from natural factors, we can only explain it when we include the effect of humans on the planet.”

    • “Point 1 is very debatable”–No, it’s not

      “2 is whatever the modelers want it to be,”–Hmmm, don’t really understand modeling, do ya?

      “3 needs much further study since there is not much study as to other causes of the warming.”–Oh, dear: Check the BST study; it IS a bit short, having examined *only* about 1.6 BILLION bits of data. And shows we dun it.

  2. Jules,

    Enjoyed the article


    – you need to read the latest IPCC Reports to understand the evidence, not contrarian websites (AR4, working group 1)

    Your “it’s all models” bit is just nonsense – models are basically just a way of expressing a hypothesis

    For example, here is one relevant bit form the

    9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity

    This section assesses recent research that infers equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from observed changes in climate. ‘Equilibrium climate sensitivity’ (ECS) is the equilibrium annual global mean temperature response to a doubling of equivalent atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels and is thus a measure of the strength of the climate system’s eventual response to greenhouse gas forcing.

  3. Reblogged this on uknowispeaksense and commented:
    In checking out a new commentator here, I can see that Jules Bollocks has an excellent and relaxed writing style conducive to easy understanding by anyone. I really enjoyed this post and am likely to reblog a number of her pieces in the future now that I am following her but I urge you to check her site out yourself.

  4. I’m not aware of being a member of any ‘think tank’ and the term F.R.Met.S was used by one publisher on one occasion in error.

    Nonetheless I am entitled to call myself a Fellow of The Royal Meteorological Society for historical reasons. The modern equivalent would be Associate Fellow.

    In the meantime it isn’t currently looking good for the alarmist viewpoint.

    • The ‘alarmist ‘ view point only appears to be challenged in the echo chamber of denialist blog sites. The evidence is overwhelming and the ‘pause’ is just that- normal service will resume shortly. It is a matter of physics – satellite data is recording more energy hitting the Earth than escaping. An energy imbalance of 4 Hiroshima bombs every second. All that energy will manifest it’s self- Climate- as you should know even as an Associate Fellow of the RMS- is slow in the making.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s