I still remain a Climate Change Sceptic

Only second blog since 16 August; amazing how medical operations and family holidays consume the time.

I recently read Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.  I was attracted to this book by its title and its objectives; in particular in developing arguments as a Climate Change Sceptic.  The irony is that the author is a Convinced CC Alarmist; he constantly makes denigrating comments about CCS throughout the book.

The reviews are mixed, As a matter of principle I usually read the 1 star reviews first.  Paul Vjecsner cited 20 examples where the author engaged in ad hominin attacks.  A number of reviewers recommended to stop reading after the first two chapters saying the book was dense and disorganised.  I beg to differ: yes chapters 2-11 match the description but in Chapter 12, Who’s Your Expert?, author Massimo Pigliucci lifts to a higher level.

One sentence particularly resonated.  Science the capacity for self-evaluation, self-criticism, and self-correction.

Another item that resonated was that every science fell somewhere on a spectrum between historic (geology) and ahistoric (quantum mechanics).  Theories in Geology are proven by masses of observations.  Theories in Quantum Mechanics are proven by taking a proposed hypothesis creating models and experiments to prove or disprove (Popper again) the hypothesis.

Ask a geologist to examine Man-made Global Warming (MGW) and he would produce a graph like this:

170 million years ago CO2 represented 0.7% of the earth’s atmosphere   Now it has declined to 0.04%.  Meanwhile the earth’s temperature has remained stable except during periods of glaciation.  Thus, most geologists would deny the MGW hypothesis.

Ask a Quantum Mechanic to consider MGW and he would build a model to predict the rise in temperature due to the rise in CO2 and test it on the past 50 years.  The graph below shows the   average of the predictions of the 100 models used by the IPCC.  The predictions are consistently higher than the reality.  The Quantum Mechanic would also reject the MGW hypothesis.

Net zero is a preposterous notion.  It is defined in many ways by different countries.  Australia actually absorbs three times as much it produces and its Net Zero number is -2. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.  China has 1161 coal fired stations; India 285.  Both countries are building a lot more over the next 25 years

Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030. The trouble is that it is a tiny place with few people and has no plan or accountability mechanism – pure hot air. Even the Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans for carbon removal but no mechanism. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’ only, not in law.

Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.

Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.

Finally please do not tell me that 97% of climate scientists believe in MGW.  The figure is misinformation: Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change.  I do concede 97% of climate scientists follow the funding and given what happened to Peter Rigg and Murray Salby are careful in what they do and say.