Effective Skeptics Don’t Reject Basic Physics

2016-09-14142653

Britain’s leading climate change sceptic Nigel Lawson says global warming is real | The Independent

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Effective Skeptics Don’t Reject Basic Physics

  1. Steve Case says:

         CO2 is not
         a problem.

  2. Neal S says:

    The Independent took 1 + 1 and somehow got 9 out of it.

    Saying CO2 is a green house gas, and saying it has ‘some’ effect, is not the same as saying that humans are causing global warming. I hope he sues the pants off the writers.

    • tonyheller says:

      GWPF tweeted this. They have no issues with the article.

    • Neal S says:

      I wonder why GWPF has no issues with the article. Is Lawson perhaps not actually a sceptic? What is going on here?

      • fourtimesayear says:

        Gotta wonder….

      • tonyheller says:

        I completely agree with him. Do you consider me to be a “real skeptic” ?

        • Neal S says:

          Yes, I consider Tony a ‘real skeptic’. I suppose the only real global warming humans are producing is the fictitious one. It is not that I disagree with Lawson. I take issue with the headline claiming that Lawson has “admitted that humans are causing global warming”.

          It is almost like the “have you stopped beating your wife” thing. There actually is no global warming for humans to have caused.

        • Neal S says:

          Most married men might object to the assertion that they “have not yet stopped beating their wife”. This is because for too many people, there is only one way they imagine that this can be true.

          Of course it can be true if they do beat and continue to beat their wife. But it also can be the case that they have never beat their wife, and there is no way to stop something that you have never begun.

  3. fourtimesayear says:

    Extremely disappointed with him. Most of the CO2 is from natural emissions; the amount we emit per year is miniscule. And catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change is rubbish…but I’m preaching to the choir….

  4. CheshireRed says:

    Lord Lawson is honest and too polite. He played a straight bat to a curve ball and all-but gets himself out first ball.

    We can see alleged human contribution to alleged warming is miniscule to the point of being lost in the noise of natural variation and has been blown outrageously out of all proportion – for POLITICAL ends. Tony has shown us that time and again. We see it with the non-correlation between CO2 and temps down the years, like in the 40’s-70’s cooling and 18 year long pause – both despite increasing CO2. (The pause has only stopped now due to a natural el Nino, yet greens are crowing as if the planet is cooking on gas mark 9.)

    All he’s effectively saying is ‘we shouldn’t do too much or lead by example’, which isn’t likely to sway egotistical politicians who just love virtue-signalling (with other people’s money) to the rest of the world. Greens NEVER acknowledge a single strong point against agw theory or a weakness in it, yet Lawson hands them a PR win on a plate.

    He should be flagging up the endless observations that completely falsify catastrophic agw theory but isn’t, not at all. He’s lost his way.

  5. geran says:

    Nigel has NO science background. According to wikipedia, he has degrees in philosophy, politics, and economics.

    Hence his confusion about the science of Earth’s climate.

    He is not alone in his confusion….

  6. Javier says:

    Most people love their beliefs even if they are false.

    Nigel Lawson is 100% correct in everything he says in that article. He is not conceding anything to climate alarmists. It is important to get the facts straight and agree on basic physics principles. The decision to decarbonize the electricity generation is incorrect at this time.

    • CheshireRed says:

      Strangely enough when alarmists wanted to discredit Lawson they insulted him and denigrated his status and views. Now he’s saying something that finds common ground with them he’s ‘Britain’s leading sceptic’. That’s exactly how they control the alarmist PR narrative.

  7. Steve Case says:

    In theory increasing CO2 should run the temperature up some. Whether it actually does or not is another story.

    • Jason Calley says:

      It could well be true that increasing CO2 does, in fact, warm the globe… and that the Moon’s tidal friction is also slowing the globe’s rotation.

      (Just because something is true, that does not mean it is either significant or worrisome.)

  8. OrganicFool says:

    People obsessed with CO2 should really get a life.

    I went camping this last week near the beautiful Arkansas river, went fishing, hiked with my dog, looked up at millions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy by the campfire, and ate grilled ribs with some local wine. The religious fanaticism behind this obsession is causing undo stress upon them. They should really get out more often and enjoy Nature.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Organic Fool! I am always amazed by people who have grown up in the city and spent most of their life there. They tell me that the world is too crowded and that nature is being destroyed. They have no idea of the ENORMOUS tracts of land that have only a minimal touch of human imprint. Most of them could get in their car and in a few hours, be someplace so remote that if they wandered from the trail they could stay lost for days. It might do them some good…

  9. charles nelson says:

    It’s always worth pointing out to Warmists that you do not dispute the basic science.
    CO2 DOES alter the radiative balance of the atmosphere.
    It’s then worth pointing out that CO2 is 1/25th part of ONE percent of the atmosphere…and that we have added 1/5th part of that ‘1’/25th part of one percent.

    What Warmists fail to acknowledge is the degree of impact of the effect on climate.

    Putting an extra letter in the postman’s van DOES increase the weight of his van, and the vehicle will use more fuel on the delivery round…
    When your kid pees in the lake it IS increasing the salinity and the temperature of the lake…

    It’s worth reminding them also that ‘Water Vapour’ is the cardinal greenhouse gas and is available in limitless quantity.

    Of course they are mainly true believers and not interested in ‘science’ so quite likely you’ll be just wasting your breath. However it is good to watch their expressions when they hear some actual facts.

    • Bruce D'Amours says:

      I agree. I like to point out to people that CO2 in the atmosphere makes up, by volume, 1 part in 2500. So it has access to 1 part in 2500 of the EM radiation passing through any given volume. Anyone who can convert joules per second to BTUs can figure out that doubling the CO2 wouldn’t make a blip on a thermometer not calibrated (at a minimum) to hundredths of a degree.

      • charles nelson says:

        I think that you’ll lose them the minute you start talking joules per second or BTU’s. Most of the people I know who are ardent Warmists have absolutely no scientific background.

      • geran says:

        Bruce, “Joules per second” is “power”. A “BTU” is a unit of “energy”.

        I hope you didn’t learn units from wiki….

  10. Gail Combs says:

    I have a major problem with this statement:

    “…former Chancellor Nigel Lawson – has admitted that humans are causing global warming.”

    And it has nothing to do with physics.

    #1. It has not warmed in 15 or more years.
    #2. It is colder than in the 1930s
    #3. It is colder than during the Medieval Warm period
    #4. It is colder than most of the Holocene
    #5. At 400 ppm, CO2 has an imperceptible effect
    #6. Warming oceans outgas CO2 so the amount of the increase attributable to humans is not knowable.
    #7. THEY CHEAT so the data is completely unreliable and therefore no conclusion can be drawn.

    But the biggest problem is with that statement he just betrayed every skeptic and agreed that we are all tinfoil hat Den1ers.

    It does not matter what else he added. That ‘sound bite’ is a HUGE WIN for the other side. Add the Ship of Fools ‘win’ and they will bash us into the ground.

    I am sorry Tony, but it is a complete PR disaster especially right before the US elections.

    As you well know this has never been about science. Our side plays by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, their side are dirty street fighters using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and lie and cheat and browbeat at every turn. So their side wins EVERY D@MN TIME!

    • CheshireRed says:

      Exactly my point above, Gail. An own goal by Lawson. Accurate and correct, yes, but this is less a battle of facts and more an emotional media-friendly soundbite-driven battle (think ‘97%…’) and he’s handed alarmists a PR gift.

    • geran says:

      Hear, hear!

    • Sunsettommy says:

      “…former Chancellor Nigel Lawson – has admitted that humans are causing global warming.”

      That is wrong,incredibly wrong since there is no way to discriminate the warming effect from Human and Nature. Since THREE separate warming trends from the mid 1800’s are almost identical,there is nothing unusual going on.

      The statement make it seem that humans cause 100% of global warming. That is his blunder,that warmists will use,to continue their mentally ill hysteria over a slow warming trend.

      • Gator69 says:

        Since when do leftists put any credence in what a conservative politician says? Oh, that’s right, when it fits their warped and weird world view.

        Maybe we should remind the alarmofascists that Lawson is not a climate expert.

  11. Jim Hunt says:

    Please forgive me as I choke on my muesli.

    My old mate Benny will have to hire yet another new webmaster now!

  12. Bytor says:

    I am curious where the “physics” is in here? … I don’t see any. Show me the “physics”, and I mean the actual physics, and not just some bullshit mind game, mental spaghetti “thought experiment”. I do follow the actual physics, and it tells us just the opposite. The so-called “radiative greenhouse effect” is not possible in this universe. Use physics to prove otherwise.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Bytor, I would but it would be a waste of time here on you. You do now that the general GHE was comfirmed in the laboratory by Tyndall back in 1858, and reported to the RS in 1859? Read essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. It lays out the indisputable GHE physics in a way even you might eventually comprehend. Pretty color illustrations. Almost no math. Observational measurements.

      • Bytor says:

        You didn’t answer my comment. You presented more sophistry. I said, using physics prove that the so-called “radiative greenhouse effect” can actually exist.

        You say “indisputable GHE physics” .. really?… where? Certainly not the “essay” you cite. Care to try again?

      • geran says:

        Tyndall did not understand radiative heat transfer. The science wasn’t understood until years later. (The S-B equation was formulated nearly 50 years later!)

        Tyndall believed that warming air meant that the heat was being”trapped”. He gets a pass, because radiative heat transfer was not understood in his time. But, even today, some people believe gases “trap heat”.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actual EXPERIMENTAL Physics done on the earth’s Atmosphere:

      link for the Dr. William Happer’s talk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSokHmURVBU

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.