UKC

I found this to be a thought provoking article,  a lot of it rang true to me, but I don't really know enough about climate science to really judge.  However, It was for sure a refreshing and seldom heard outlook on this seemingly eternally depressing topic.  What do other people think? Ben

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

i think the evidence in that article has been used in a quite, er, "selective" way........

I’m really not sure what to say. After all this time it’s a cause for despair that an opinion piece by a libertarian journalist and financier whose scientific background was in pheasant mating habits and who receives income from coal mining causes people to seriously question the consensus that has existed among climatologists for decades now that climate change is a very serious and potentially existential threat to advanced human civilisation. 

As regards Viscount Ridley, he should stick to what he’s good at,  banking 

Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. Ridley resigned and the bank was bailed out by the UK government leading to the nationalisation of Northern Rock.[11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley

oh, maybe not.

Look around you and think about the effects of climate change now on the economy, let along by 2080 (forest fires, more intense hurricanes, drought, floods, etc).  Do you think events support the article's assertions.

It's great that a depressing issue should be re-spun.

Sad that they died...   but they're in a better place now! 

What an awful article. Even without looking at the author, when someone makes a climate change arguement based on economic predictions for the entire world you know something is fishy. 

It's five years old, and published in the Spectator.  It's full of points that should ring alarm bells for anyone with a balanced and reasonable view - for example, repeating the 'hiatus' claim is a cause for suspicion.  How has his claim that global warming is good for polar bears held up today?

There are so many holes in his argument - just to pick one, the claim that by 2080 Bangladesh will be as rich as the Netherlands is now so they will be able to build sea defences to mitigate sea level rises? 

Ultimately his thesis seems to be that it's OK because the economics will work out.  That's not a theory I find very attractive.  It's just a fancy new coat for denialism.

Well that's a depressingly short term reductionist perspective.

jk

Nice bikes, though.

It's refreshing to see someone talking about some of the potential positives of a warming climate, but to present those as being greater than the likely negatives is - well, it certainly isn't a reflection of the current scientific consensus!

I don't imagine it was a reflection of the scientific consensus on 19th October 2013, when that article was published, either...

It seems entirely possible to me that a warming climate now could lead to the world being a better place for humanity in the long term - particularly if it replaces the next natural climate flip back to a much colder state, with glacial advances and a significant limiting of usable land.

But there can't be much doubt that the transition from the current climate to a significantly warmer one will be enormously disruptive and destructive for vast numbers of people - and the faster it happens, the worse that will be.

This is how populism works...present a 'solution' or simplify a problem especially one 'seldom heard' as the elites and lizard overlords are clearly suppressing this (despite it being in The Spectator etc.)

Climate change catastrophe denial is not the plucky underdog: its long been the view backed by huge fossil fuel extraction companies and governments that make billions from them and their activities.

well to be honest i really don't know, However If climate change was proven to boost global crop yield  by even something super low like 1%  it wouldn't surprise me if this would actually result in a larger sum of money than the sum of money required to mitigate the increased natural disasters, however like i said before i don't know if that's actually true.  Anyway i have to pop out now so wont answer anything else for a bit.  Clearly this is an unpopular article and i can see why, and I'm not saying i agree with it, just that i think it could be constructive to look at the positive side of climate change because the reality is, it really doesn't look like humanity is going to reverse global warming anytime soon. 

This so full of logical holes it's hard to know where to start but perhaps the 'yet nobody knows this' and 'the mainstream media largely ignores...' clickbait lines ought to be some kind of clue.

Particularly offensive is the line about cold killing more people than heat - based on figures for UK and France.  Try telling that to India or Australia (now predicting 50C heatwaves within the next decade).

Interesting research going on re photosynthesis that could revolutionise crop yields:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180904103231.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180614213608.htm

If you accept genetically modified crops (which I think are inevitable anyway)

I think that is probably the nub of a lot of the problems we're facing today, when simple explanations "ring true" to people who (no offence as I'm in the same category) have absolutely no idea. It's like Trumps wall, it makes perfect sense to a 5 year old who knows nothing about migration. People must come across the border to get in, build a wall and it'll stop them. Simple! When you start factoring in things like most illegal immigrants don't "jump the border" many have entered legally and overstayed their visas, most smuggled drugs and weapons come hiden in cars and private planes, terrorists are mostly home grown not flooding in from outside the country, the largest influx is asylum seekers who present themselves to authorities as is their legal right, the US immigration system is overwhelmed and in desperate need of investment and funding which isn't available because it's needed for a wall etc. Things ringing true is quite dangerous in this day and age, sometimes it's best not to side with the Trumps, Goves and Borrises et al with their simple solutions to simple problems and no need for scientific data led expertise.

Apart from agreeing with the comments everyone else has made I have to add that the picture they've chosen isn't exactly in the best taste!

yeah i read about this last week, definitely the most positive article I've read in a long time.  Here is to hoping the EU starts moving with the times and supporting g.m crops, at the moment they are way behind the rest of the world (China AMerica)

Had a skim read. No mention of sea level rise? Cant imagine even a slight rise in global sea rise will be beneficial to anyone, given majority of worlds major cities are on the coast.

There's always a winner, whatever the apocalypse: dinghy makers, stilt producers, removal firms, Trump golf course protestors, &c

For the world, it's irrelevant.

But for us as a species, too rapid a change won't be good. Although there could be a case to argue that population reduction through war and starvation won't do us any harm in the long run (provided you aren't one of those killed). 

as has been pointed out already, not being a climate scientist, I am entirely reliant on the expertise of others - and moreover can only take account of those that come to my attention. I am not even equipped to properly critique any particular scientists' arguments or their experience etc. so my opinion counts for very little.

However, as a rule of thumb, if an article presents a point of view that Trump seems likely to endorse, then it is probably a load of bo**ocks, and based on Trump's climate change denial stance, I suspect he would love this article.

I did not check the economics, but I did have a quick look at the data for the effects on vegetation.

see: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

This paper shows that the world is getting greener and this effect is predominantly attributed to the increase in CO2 in the air. Another important factor is climate change induced increase in precipitation.

So I think the description of this part in the spectator piece is reasonable.

We (and anthropogenic climate change is a part of this) are living through the kind of extinction event that leaves an unmistakable break in the geological record, one akin to a meteor strike or a super-volcano in its rapidity and reach. We're destroying the very eco-system that supports us, that cleans our air and water, that feeds us. Our technology will not replace it. Sure another eco-system will evolve assuming we haven't fundamentally broken the planet's stabilising feedback loop resulting in runaway heating but we won't be recognisably human by the time that new epoch dawns. Fingers crossed the sharks and crocs might make it.

Thinking about this in terms of short term profit and loss is almost unimaginably crassly myopic.

Highlighting transient and localised, mainly economic upsides serves only to provide an excuse for inaction. It's not dishonest, arguably it's irresponsible.

jk

That increased CO2 improves plant growth, other things being equal, is uncontroversial.  It seems to me there are three big problems with assuming this will fix the problem.

1.  For there to be a big increase in green biomass there needs to be fertile space for this to happen and given the rate at which we are cutting down vegetation, I wonder where this would be.

2. There's an assumption that this greening will occur in spite of the temperature increases that will certainly inhibit it in many areas.  A bit like the argument that Bangladesh will become so rich that it won't be allowed to flood, it assumes that the benefits predate the damage sufficiently to prevent it.

3. In terms of long-term reversal of CO2 concentration, greening won't help anyway.  At best, burning trees and replanting them is carbon neutral, but it can't reverse the release of CO2 from fossil fuels because we can't ever recreate the Carboniferous era.  Since the evolution of ligase-expressing saprophytic fungi, dead trees turn into CO2 and methane, not coal.

What might be a marginal benefit of improved plant growth would be the increased efficiency of intensive agriculture - although that only really helps if we ever managed to get properly organised to deal with food distribution globally, which we've signally failed to do so far. 

Yes, read up on that prompted by the article. It appears the additional uptake amounts to 25% of the additional CO2, so its potentially acting as a partial brake on warming but that still leaves 75%.

So despite this, the six warmest years on record all occurred after 2010. The weather has already become more extreme. Sea levels have risen. The oceans are acidifying.

That's disaster capitalism for you... expect global warming to become the rationale for a new wave of neo-liberalism and austerity just as the current phase is running out of excuses and into the buffers!

Not forgetting warming means diseases, parasites etc can spread from current strongholds in tropical areas to the more temperate regions, attacking vegetation and animals (including us).

No mention of one of the more significant positives of climate change.

If warming continues and temperatures rise by >2°c then by 2030 Nigel Lawson will have totally melted away.

I've often wondered at the (pretty) linear improvement in food production around the world over the last 100years, and if that is just down to increased & more efficient farming, or if the increased concentration of CO2 could be partly a cause. 

Interesting stuff.

The cost of carbon calculations don't attribute any benefits to the rise in CO2 at the moment, maybe they should in this instance.

How typical..

When there are no arguments it's necessary to defame the autor

Err, apart from all the arguments, you mean?

I thought he was just pointing out his lack of scientific credentials?

And how the thing he was supposedly good at he was actually crap at, if you'll excuse the English.

To be fair, he has some scientific credentials, just not in the area he's talking about in the article.  Actually, I think the piece is a bit tongue in cheek.  He's careful to qualify everything he says but in such a way as to be as disingenuous as possible.

I got as far as "...so low-lying Bangladesh will be able to afford the same kind of flood defences that the Dutch have today." before jacking it in. How did everyone else do?

Have you ever heard of peat?

Any idea of the total land area covers by peat? Or do you have some big geoengineering plans? If we could get people to stop burning it or digging it up to put on their gardens this would be a good first step where peat is concerned. 

I just respond to the nonsense above.

Peat covers approximately 2% of the land - some 3 000 000 square kilometers

Och, away...

the Right Honourable Viscount is no more able to offer an informed opinion about the consequences of climate change 60 years hence than he is able to interpret findings from the LHC and discuss their consequences for the standard model of particle physics; and neither can you, nor I. 

So it’s not an ad hominem, it’s an Argument from Authority; but there are some situations where a degree of specialist knowledge is required to comment meaningfully, and this is one of them.

its odd that climate science, along with evolutionary biology and vaccination science, are areas where people feel they are entitled to have their partial and skewed viewpoints taken seriously and respected, when they would accept this was absurd in other scientific disciplines. 

Climate science is no less complex and esoteric than molecular genetics, or quantum chromodynamics, and a journalist with a PhD in avian reproduction completed nearly 40 years ago, can have nothing more useful to say about climate science than he does about these other subjects.

oh, and he’s got financial interests in undermining and spreading disinformation about climate change- odd how some people are so ready to offer him a free pass on this. 

Has it occurred to you that the EU is not backward but rather cautious and not simply beholden to making a quick buck? There are real downsides to using these technologies

I think that if you thought that was "thought provoking" or "rang true" or "refreshing" then you're an idiot.

Sorry - but there is an overwhelming, sustained, landslide of evidence and unity of scientific conclusion that says it's bollocks and it takes astonishingly weak critical faculties not to see that.

So what's your plan?  Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of trees, and peat bogs too, but the nonsense is thinking that there's anything we can do with them that can lock up all the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels (even in theory, I think, but certainly in practice).  First, we need to get ourselves carbon neutral, then we can start to wonder if we can reduce CO2 already released, maybe.  Thinking that we can basically carry on as normal as long as we plant a few trees and stop putting peat on on our gardens is dangerous nonsense.

Even with my poor English I can read that Ridley refers to the scientific work of someone else which is the work of scientific journalist I would say (as well as to add his opinion)

There is one big problem with climate science, unlike the molecular genetics, or quantum chromodynamics. The others are not claimed as "settled science" and people with different opinion are not called deniers.  Scienentific journalists write opinion articles about them without fuss

This is the end of the article if you did not get up there: "Disclosure: by virtue of owning shares and land, I have some degree of interests in all almost all forms of energy generation: coal, wood, oil and gas, wind (reluctantly), nuclear, even biofuels, demand for which drives up wheat prices. I could probably make more money out of enthusiastically endorsing green energy than opposing it. So the argument presented here is not special pleading, just honest curiosity"

Has it occurred to you that the EU is not backward but rather cautious and not simply beholden to making a quick buck? There are real downsides to using these technologies

In reply to wbo: From what I've read some gm crops are thought to pose practically 0 danger offer incredible benefits and essentially be no different from selective breeding but still get turned down by the E.U, this I see as backwards. 

Well, ok maybe the conclusion of article is bollocks in that it suggests there will be a net benefit from climate change. but that doesnt mean that everything within is bollocks and there wont also be some major advantages from climate change, of course there will! this is going to effect everything everywhere on earth and it's ridiculous to think that only bad things will result.  I think it's refreshing to at least look at some of these advantages. 

I fail to see how climate change will benefit the economy.

In the first instance there is sea level rises and in the second desertification

So rising sea levels reduce availible land and inter continental droughts also make areas uninhabitable, both from the perspective of lack of water and extreme tempratures. his off sets land becoming availible for cultivation due to warming climates. Lands that are doing ok face the prospect of influx of more climate refugees. And I haven't even touched upon more erratic weather systems such as hurricaines and the like

I did not say I had a plan

However. If it was just 10% of that incredible amount of money which is being spent to support renewables (without any significant positive effect) invested to development of really new energy sources, we would have now very effective and clean modular reactors (posibly thorium ones) or something comparable and decarbonization could be much further

I wouldn't say that renewables haven't had a positive effect, but I'm with you on the need to get a move on with new nuclear technology.  We need both.

Personally, I think decarbonisation is pie in the sky, but I might be wrong.

To Pavelk - my issue with thorium reactors et. Al is that they are the 'fuel of tomorrow' - if they're still the fuel.of the future in 20,50 years then wind and so on look like wise 'insurance' rather than waste of money

Even if climate warming was beneficial (v doubtful) there are just a few other BIG issues which the planet faces: overpopulation, air quality, availability and quality of water, species extinction, deforestation, erosion, material and chemical pollution etc. the basis of the anti squad is that 'everything is fine - carry on as we are, invariably justified by those with short term profit interests.

An outside perspective on all these problems points to down-sizing and resource management, rather than eternal growth; the world needs tp prioritize quality over quantity starting with population control. Survival of the fittest is fashionable for all species except humans, but it leads to no good place.  

Our contribution to global warming would inevitably reduce if these other problems were acted upon.

edit: human species and domestic livestock

Not sure how you can say support for renewables has had zero effect, given the exponential falls in PV module prices that have led to grid scale solar being competitive without subsidy with fossil in sunny parts of the world. Or that offshore wind now cheaper than nuclear in UK.

I do agree that we should do more research into new energy sources, including nuclear, including SMRs.

 I don’t think it’s widely enough recognized how much energy research was run down in the 1990’s. Until 2010, only 1% of UK govt R&D was on energy, & the private sector did even less.

Why do you think decarbonisation is “pie in the sky”? Because it’s going to be much harder than people think, or because it’s unnecessary? I agree with  the former, not the latter.

I don't know the situation in the UK well, but Drax power plant burning Canadian forests is a warning sign for me. As far as I know there is some kind of  subsidies to wind power in the UK still. Other aspect is you still need backup power (usually fossil) which is not included in price.

German Energiewande is a cautionary example how to reach almost nothing for huge sums of money

I agree on DRAX, for sure. It’s arguable, though, that while Energiewande didn’t do much for Germany, it created a massive market for PV which created economies of scale and learning by doing in the Chinese PV industry - and its this that’s led to possibility of unsubsidized large scale solar in sunny countries.

The cost of intermittency is a big deal, not yet a problem at UK levels of renewable penetration, but imo a powerful argument for having a lot of baseload nuclear.

It's survival of the fittest, not all that drives people to have big families. When our children start surviving reliably and people have some guarantee of security in old age birthrates fall.

Jk

Well,there are many  factors here but in the prehistoric epoch humanoids were not so numerous; learning to use tools, create shelter and grow our own food increased survival - but in this age our learning to combat disease, raise premature or handicapped babies, and lengthen lifespan with medical intervention all contribute to greater human presence. Bref we are successful ! but our success is becoming a planetary problem  - with food and water wars impending. Maybe we just need to accept warfare as 'natural' population control   

Not to mention being written by a Viscount and former Chairman of a bank (admittedly a failed one).

well, it’s where the work of a scientific journalist starts. But a good scientific journalist would set the work in the context of the overall consensus in the field, and provide information about the background of the scientist whose work is being quoted. 

If Viscount Ridley had, he’d have noted that Professor Tol is an economist, and ‘independent scholar’ Indur Goklany is an electrical engineer. Of course, they may have important contributions to make to the overall study of the field (well, I’m not so sure Goklany does), but their picture will be partial and unless supported by close collaboration with a climate scientist, they risk making assumptions that miss vital information, rendering their modelling fatally undermined.

A good journalist would have noted this concern and drawn attention to the limitations of the work, instead of stitching it along with other carefully selected pieces of information to give the impression of there being a coherent case, when vast volumes of conflicting evidence is left out. 

a revealing comment. The difference between climate science and other disciplines is nothing to do with the former being ridden with high handed political correctness stamping out plucky dissenting voices; and everything to with there being powerful vested interests who need to undermine the evidence in order to protect their income, or political philosophy. The core of climate science is 19th century physics, and entirely settled; the other fields I  mentioned are identical, with the core of molecular genetics being the DNA molecule. The cutting edge of all these areas is of course far from settled, of course, and the updates to the IPCC report reflect the advances in the area. None of these advances in any way challenges the core of the area, that increased concentrations of CO2 lead to higher atmospheric temperatures, any more than advances in genetics throw out the central role of DNA. 

Let’s see the breakdown by source then. £4 million pa from his open cast coal mine apparently. Gas and oil are, oh yes, fossil fuels, emitting CO2. So how much does he make from wind power? Must be massive amounts, or else his claim to disinterested curiosity is a bag of tripe, and you’ve bought it. 

I really don’t get this. Pavel, maybe you’re as rich as Viscount Ridley, with a massive investment portfolio heavily dependent on fossil fuel extraction. But if not, the consequences of climate change are going to f*ck you and your children over, the consensus among the people who know most about this, climate scientists, is clear, and has been for years. Yet you persist with an inexplicable belief that brave dissenting voices are being silenced, and clutching at out of context straws from people no more qualified to comment meaningfully than I am to pilot the international space station. Inexplicable, because the plucky dissenters are the mouthpieces for fabulously wealthy corporations and individuals with entirely transparent motives to sow dissent and doubt in an area where the space for that closed a long time ago. 

In the end, we might all be on an inevitable slide to disaster, but let’s at least be honest, it’s because we’re selfish and don’t want to make the changes that we’ve been told are needed; not facing up to this and buying into the bollocks peddled by Ridley et al to avoid facing the reality may be easier, but in the end it’s just cowardice 

Apologies- re reading the last two paragraphs, it’s undeservedly harsh, and goes beyond the information I have. While your second paragraph comes close, you don’t actually claim that dissenting voices are denied a platform. 

Too much Burns night whisky and getting into full on soapbox mode. 

The underlying point is still worth making though; the willingness of many people to prefer sources of evidence which are tainted by conflicts of interest, and buy into the ‘teach the controversy’ strategy, would be fascinating, were it not so serious 

anyway, happy Burns night ... 

The former.

Evolution needs the occasional wave of change and the mass extinctions that follow.  It really drives the appearance of major new biological developments.

So in that sense what we are doing is very good for the world...

We agree, then. But calling it “pie in the sky” does suggest it isn’t worth trying.  Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will!

Thinking about this thread today, struck me we have already experienced this during the ' little ice age ' someone is bound to have done a paper.

Got Googling little ice age economic effects  

Maria Waldinger 2015 Little ice age - can't get the link to work

Waldinger - agrees with consensus, economically damaging, focused on less sophisticated, less well connected cities. Fair enough.

the odd one is a from a well respected Irish economist Morgan Kelly (no relation) who re ran the temperature numbers on the little ice age and came to the conclusion it didn't happen !! All down to the Slutsky effect??

https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucn/wpaper/201014.html

Maybe he changes his mind before page 26, I didn't quite make it

Good public health and social security has provided excellent population control wherever it is found. Wishing or working for war to cull the poor buggers yet to reap the benefits of the 19th and 20th century isn't the right answer but it is likely the one we'll choose.

Jk

Thak you for comprehensive answer

The climate science has much more uncertanity in it's essence than the other disciplines mentioned. It fails to explain glacials and interglacials as well as as well as smaller oscillations during each period. The reasons for these changes may (and may not) be much more important than the CO2 concentration and there is nothing more than several hypotheses without proper evidence to explain it

 > Let’s see the breakdown by source then. £4 million pa from his open cast coal mine apparently. Gas and oil are, oh yes, fossil fuels, emitting CO2. So how much does he make from wind power? Must be massive amounts, or else his claim to disinterested curiosity is a bag of tripe, and you’ve bought it. 

Ridley often writes in favor of gas and against coal, which is against his financial interests

No, I am not rich. Unfortunately I remember times when there was scinetific consensus about so called scientific materialism in my part of the world and great brains have spawned nonsense in favor of a career. And I don't need to be a top climate scientist to see that some nonsense is coming out of climatology mainstream from time to time. There is a great pressure to produce one type of results because as soon as there will be " it's no so bad" result the the flow of public money into climate research will slow down. As we say here in Czechia: Carp never empties its pond.

Only endless quetioning and defence may improve the theory, not denouncing the opposing wiews

It's a shame for western countries that the technological leaders in nuclear technology are Russia, India nad China at the moment.

At least in the UK something is happening. This looks interesting

https://www.uknuclearsmr.org/

Thanks for your comments. If it’s not too much to ask, would you be able to let us know what your background in climate science is; since you appear to be giving a withering critique of the field, it would be helpful to understand how you were able to do this.

Last night you claimed he had financial interests across the energy production spectrum, including gas, and so was an impartial observer. Tonight, you claim coal is his main interest, and that he engages in actions which financially disadvantage him. If you cant keep your story straight over a 24 hour period on a matter as straightforward to check as this, I’m going to start to worry that the rest of what you post might be of doubtful reliability too.

So: climate scientists can’t be trusted because they’ve got a vested interest to produce ever more sensationalist findings, and they suppress work that doesn’t fit these

but: ennobled coal mine owners can be trusted, because they promote fossil fuels they don’t make money from, or maybe they do, but still, they are brave voices, the little people standing up against the machine, just like that other maverick outsider, Nigel Lawson

really? 

yes; by people with the necessary understanding to make informed criticism based on a proper analysis of the evidence. Since you’re apparently not a climate scientist, you’re going to have to work harder than you’ve done so far to convince me that the person to do this is you. Typing stuff about ‘nonsense coming out of climatology mainstream’ doesn’t help; what makes you think you can tell? I find it hard work keeping on top of understanding my own specialist field of scientific literature properly (not an earth science); I would consider myself remarkably arrogant to presume to summarily dismiss findings of colleagues in a neighbouring discipline, never mind one I have no background in at all. I can only admire your confidence.

You have felt it on a sunny day so i assume you accept the sun warms the earth.   

Do you accept that CO2 is relatively opaque* in the IR and transparent in the visible?

If so, greenhouse effect is obvious secondary school level science as the alternative is to accept we have been fooled by a 150 year old scientific conspiracy started by Tyndal in 1859.

I think it's worth distinguishing between the core science underlying the greenhouse effect and the more elaborate climate modelling that's required to get an estimate of the effect of increasing greenhouse gases on the climate.  The former I believe does have very secure status - if the concentration of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide or methane in the atmosphere increases, then the overall temperature of the planet will increase too, through not much more than the application of conservation of energy.

But translating this in to precise predictions about climate is more difficult; there are a whole set of feedbacks, both positive and negative, and there are very complex patterns of energy transfer within and between oceans and atmosphere.  That's why there is real uncertainty about precise predictions of how much hotter or wetter it might be in 30 years time at some particular point of the earth's surface.

I don't think Matt Ridley actually doubts the central thrust of the greenhouse argument; instead his discussion is about the consequences of the warming with the suggestion that the negatives won't be as bad as people fear and there may be some unappreciated positives.  I'm not personally convinced, but what's more important to me is that I think his views rest on very flawed assumptions about how to make decisions about risk in conditions of uncertainty.  He might be right (though I don't think so), but it seems to me to be a very dangerous gamble to take given the seriousness of the consequences, if he's wrong.

That's why I do think it's relevant to look at some of his personal history - it's not so much the coal mining interests that are important, but his role with the bank Northern Rock.  This was the bank whose failure in 2007 set off the UK branch of the global financial crisis, and whose bailout by the state cost British taxpayers around £2 billion. Ridley was Chairman of the bank at the time; he admitted that he didn't understand the risks of the bank's business model.  Sunny optimism can be a marvellous quality, but if I'd like to see a little bit more worry and precaution-taking from the people in charge of my banks, how much more is that necessary when it's the future of the planet at stake.

I'd add (S) Korea to your list of countries with real nuclear expertise - it has the distinction of being the only country in the world that's managed to bring the cost of nuclear plants down as it built more of them.

That's the biggest argument for SMRs, in my opinion; if they're small enough to make in a factory, then there's a sporting chance that the 40th one you make might be cheaper than the first.  Rolls-Royce is the only place in the UK with expertise in building nuclear reactors through their submarine work (probably fair to say, though, that business is not notorious for its cost control).

You ansvered yourself. 

It's well known thar there is no satisfactory explanation of past climate changes which means that some essential information about the reason why do they happen is missing. You can fardly explain current climate change then. It's a basic logic and you can't hide from it behind esoteric mathematics. The same applies, for example, to cosmology. Vithout explanation of dark matter and dark energy much of their cutting edge science is wrong. (But they are not so arrogant as climatology mainstream and they openly admit i

Straw man. I did not claim anything. Just pouinted out come facts you seemd to ignore

Straw man. I did not say anything like that.

Both sides have vested interests, of course. Ridley is at least open about them. Whether you believe him or not is your business. If you compare the amounts of money invested to renewables nad fossils and compare the amnount of public money going to each it may indicate where the vested interests are bigger now

Straw man, again. "Nonsense from time to time" doesn't mean summarily dismiss. I almost want to write somethink about how carefully you read.

Why do you think I want to convice you? I respect you have you point of view and you have some reasons for it and it's fine for me. Just as I do thouhg I don? expect much respect here (it's good English practise, anyway)

You are right here. But strange thing is that before the financilal crisis it was authorities who has mitigated the degree of risk and it was authorities (FED) who has triggered the process leading to crisis. So the question is whether it is better to worry about the warnings of the authorities or the risks they are warning about

I found Tim Lenton’s book “Revolutions that made the earth” really illuminating about what’s known and not known about deep climate history. Strongly recommended, if you haven’t read it.

So climate scientists are arrogant? Not a straw man, just using your own words Pavel.

Indeed I don’t think you have grasped what a straw man is; pointing out that what you post one night as contradicted by what you post the next isn’t a ‘straw man’; it’s flagging up inconsistencies in your position.

Likewise my response to your ‘nonsense’ comment; of course I don’t think you are claiming all climate science is nonsense. I’m pointing out that it’s implausible that you are able to accurately determine which is nonsense and which isn’t. Whether you think you can is beside the point; unless you have got a background in the methodology and statistics used you are in no position to say. 

There is also a clear implication of climate scientists being dishonest inherent in your argument. Ridley is ‘at least open’ about his vested interests, and ‘both sides’ have them. The only reasonable interpretation of that is that those who he disagrees with are concealing their ‘vested interests ‘; moreover, for it to be worthy of comment, this must have non-trivial consequences, else why bring it up? Again, the only reasonable interpretation I can make is that you feel climate scientists allow these ‘vested interests ‘ to distort their findings. This is in keeping with your previous posts, about ensuring they produce results that keep their funding coming 

so you claim climate scientists are arrogant and dishonest. This is not a straw man, or not in the generally accepted usage of the term. It is the only reasonable interpretation of the words you posted. 

And, you claim to have an extraordinary understanding of a technical field you have no training or qualifications in; nonetheless, despite these handicaps, you are able to make pronouncements with certainty, which are at odds with expert opinion in the field, eg- ‘it’s well known there are no satisfactory explanations of past climate change’; and can pass damning judgement on authors, dismissing their work as ‘nonsense’

But I’m not here to try to persuade you either ( though I hope I can persuade you to read the wiki page on logical fallacies so you don’t just label everything you don’t agree with a ‘straw man’); and glad to be able to help your English practice.

a bit of openness from you would be welcome though: what is your personal view on whether human activity, principally the release of CO2

- can change the climate 

and

- is the main contributor to observed changes over the last 100 years

Fact is that Sheffield's reservoirs were mighty low during the summer of 2018.

They supply not only Sheffield but also Leicester and Nottingham.

I guess 2019 will be a tad warmer....

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=E2E719022F164CE6557...

Howden reservoir photo.This massive reservoir was drained so as to make Ladybower look full.It is almost as big as Ladybower...

(Guessing that you mean low reservoirs = climate change?)

Weather and climate are different things, with respect low reservoirs and a hot summer aren't meaningful in the big picture, until a pattern is discernible - probably many years into the future.

The reason that people are rightly very concerned about climate change isn't the 'now', it's what the models are predicting is to come.

I have watched the Chamonix Glaciers shrink over the last 45 years so somethings up. To get a feel for how hard it is get predictions from climate models watch this https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/tim-palmer-climate-change-chaos-an...

Simply to let people know how low those reservoirs were.The more we conserve water,the less chance of them running dry.But,yes,doh,climate change is responsible for low reservoirs.It isn't 'weather change'. The climate pattern has changed.There is a consistent year on year increase in temperature in the UK.I am not interested in arguing stats, I just want  various sleepwalking Brits  to wake up to the realities of finite water resources.We don't have ''many years into the future'' to sort the increasing water problem.

I think it is valid that 'Climate Scientists' started to argue for climate warming. When the evidence wasn't there it's now climate change. 

As the climate constantly changes and we know that temperatures were much higher 1000 years ago I personally take it as a means of getting money out of politicians through scaremongery.

Changes to the climate take 100's or 1000's of years so there is some difficulties in identifying any real changes when your measurements don't go back even 50 years. It's like measure the height of ripples on top of a wave in the Atlantic and projecting if the wave is going to be bigger or smaller. And like all forecasts - they are wrong.

Basic O-level science/geography is at odds with much of the arguments they offer.

However as evident in the posts above more people prefer to believe than not. 

How can you claim climate change takes 100's or 1000's of years when you claim records only go back only 50 years?

To claim climate change takes 100's or 1000's of years you must accept that there are historical scientific records, records in nature (tree rings etc) or that climate modelling works so you don't need records of any kind.

where do you even start with this sort of thing? 

we’re all f*cked, aren’t we? 

We know from history the UK was warmer in Roman times. Also we have records that the Thames froze over in the past - so colder winters.

However we have no records of the CO2 at these times. 0.05 or 0.034.. etc. So there's nothing to calibrate this with.

I should of included O-level maths as well. Simple statistics.

3 seconds with google: 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-o...

The world’s moved on a bit since you did your O levels, which probably explains a lot

Don't forget the ice core data* for atmospheric CO2 levels AND temperature going back 800,000 years (Antarctica) including temperature changes of 10C in 40 years (Greenland).  

https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-chang...

*air bubbles trapped when the ice froze up to 800,000 years ago!

I think you need to do a little bit more studying before firing from hip. Suggest you start by reading up on the record of oxygen isotopes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice etc etc etc.

But you do understand that teaching courses for ‘O’ levels include huge simplification and oversimplification because the full science is too complicated? 

So we know that the sea absorbs the most CO2 from the atmosphere. But once its frozen it doesn't anymore?

The research does stand up to simple questions? like how much CO2 in our bubble in the ice that has been frozen has dissipated into the ice around it. It comes back to knowing the starting point for the measurement, and as this occurred  1 million years ago this is just a guess. If you assume 50% was dissipated in the ice then our CO2 levels are lower than 1 million years ago. Just apply some common sense! What's of interest is the deviation error and when it comes to climate change I would suspect this exceeds the sample results.

Glaciers are fresh water not sea water.

You seem to know more than the people who have spent decades on this

If you are proposing the CO2 is dissipating you will have to explain why the CO2 fluctuations have not dissipated. Basically, what's your interpretation of Figure 3 at https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-chang... and why does it look so consistent if CO2 is dissipating?

... this is just a guess....  If you assume..... Just apply some common sense!

You’re on a roll, RD. now you’ve got climate science sorted, please can you turn your talents to medicine, you’ll have a cure for cancer good to go by the weekend. 

I just don't believe a lot of the research which typically is being paid for and has a vested interest in a particular outcome.

Most of the links referenced above leave open more questions than they try to answer and none document their assumptions and how this would affect the conclusion should they be wrong.

As an example in the link disputing a little ice age there are two graphs with very random data in which they have drawn a straight line through this data. The deviation invalidates the data.

I personally think there are a lot more factors causing climate change - the sun being the number 1 factor as it can change the temperature daily from below freezing to tropical and the moon that influences the weather systems. And I'd suspect CO2 is so far down the list it's largely irrelevant except for political gain. But a lot of people have careers dependent on people not questioning this. It might be a case of maybe more people should have studied and understood science, research and statistics at school.

That’s because the links are not to the original publications. Fill your boots with this lot:

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1902

you’ll need your institutional subscription for most of them, but since you’re clearly a significant figure in the field, that shouldn’t be a problem for you. 

If you wish to pay me £20 million pounds I'm happy to argue the opposite.

CO2 in ice 1 million years old is just a measurement of CO2 in ice. Does anyone really know if their assumption that the gas hasn't dissipated is correct? No it's an assumption. They don't say this in the report however current science has proven that osmosis happens. So why should I believe their conclusion? To my understanding of science it's wrong. And I've done tests in school that demonstrated osmosis working.

I don’t like calling ‘troll’; but that’s the most charitable explanation left for stuff like this...

The fact that scientists are human is not a reason to disregard science.

Thanks! Added to my "must to read" list

'Should of' instead of 'Should have'. So you didn't do English O-level then?

My first post was quote from the article, my second "contradicted" post was just observation. I don't understand how could they contradict

Claiming exact numbers about past global temperatures (like medieval warm period) in situation where the proxy data has sensitivity worse than 1 degree celsius and samples were taken in only tens of places aroun the world is nonsense. Only rough estimate can be made with such data. One doesn't need to be a top climatologist to uderstand this

No i don't . Simple fact - checking is often enough to recognize nonsense. I have to specify it's often output to the public which I find nonsense

You contradicted something I did not say. That is straw man. And thank you

yes

I am not convinced and i don't deny it. Most of what we know about climate are etimates or approximate values so it's difficult to prove such a claim

What I se as a real problem is measures taken to halt climate change (under the applause of elite climatologists). Most of them is ineffective or counterproductive, extremely expensive and some of them tend to restrict the freedom

This is just turning into a ‘you said this/no I said this’ exchange, which is pretty fruitless. Anyone still reading can look back over our posts and make their own minds up on the straw man issue.

I still think your language is instructive though. Throughout your posts, there is a relentlessly negative appraisal of climate scientists; arrogant, publishing knowingly distorted results for personal financial gain, and now applauding counterproductive solutions. There is also a loaded use of language- ‘elite climatologists’- what are we meant to make of the use of the word ‘elite’? It has certainly acquired a range of connotations in recent years, and seems to be both inaccurate (unless the definition of elite is stretched to Yatesian levels ie ‘anyone that disagrees with me’), and to serve no purpose but to denigrate. 

Of course I have no way of telling your real viewpoint or intentions other than from what you post here; but the consistent thrust of your posts is to undermine the validity of climate scientists as a source of reliable information, by a series of ad hominem attacks.

This is then coupled with an inflated estimation of your own ability to judge the relevant science. The source data is only available in journals which are by and large behind paywalls, and written in technical language that requires a background in the field even to begin to read. If the output to the public is all you have access to, that’s entirely insufficient to form a judgement on, any more than an article in the Mail is sufficient to reach an informed view on whether vaccinations are associated with developmental disorders. And even if you had access to the journals, without a background in the methodology you aren’t in a position to comment on the validity of the conclusions. While not as absurd as RD, with his claims that his O level science proves current climatology wrong, what you are saying in the end is little different to that.

I accept that this is a problem, and one that is going to get worse. In the end, it is impossible for a lay person to judge the science behind climate change, or vaccinations, or any area of current science. We have to take on trust that the scientific method that produced the results is the same method that has been so successful over the last 200 years, and that the scientists have high levels of probity and integrity. At the same time, anyone involved in a scientific field knows that the peer review system is creaking, that some results are more likely to be published than others, and that some scientists are liars and cheats, just as in any other area of human endeavour.

so we have to trust a flawed system, but on the basis that as a whole, it is self correcting, and over time the wrong findings do get corrected. Climate science is a mature enough discipline that I find it wholly implausible that the central findings are wrong other than in detail.

But in a world where sources of authority are steadily losing their power, and trust in experts is being lost, there is certainly fertile ground for people with an agenda to attack and undermine science. This can be seen across many areas; anti vaxxers, creationists, any area where people *want* the ‘orthodox’ position to be wrong, they will find a way to justify that belief. And they will use the exact tactics you have- dismissal of the science based on a limited version of it as conveyed by mass media and internet sources, and attacks on the integrity of those working in the field.

the policy choices in response are of course entirely in the realm of politics and it is entirely proper that they be subject to debate. But the debate is sadly not carried out on a realistic level, by and large; it mostly seems to consist of attacking the need for any action in the first place, by seeking to discredit the science, rather than debating which of the options available are to be preferred. Fortunately, most world leaders accept that the science is secure; Trump may yet prove to be the exception, but time will tell

I was going to university lectures about sustainability and renewable energy before most of you were born and long before we started hearing about global warming. Yes, this was the era of new ice age panic. So forgive me for not panicking about my Carbon footprint. I am just happy to have survived the Cold War and pissed off that I am being denied the all-year-round ice climbing that I was so looking forward to. 

Are humans affecting the environment? Well, we put a big hole in the ozone layer and a massive island of plastic in the ocean. Still plenty work to be done there.

Does climate change exist? Of course it does. THERE WAS ALWAYS CLIMATE CHANGE. Do we understand why? Not a f3ckin clue. 

Renewable energy? Excellent idea. Always was, always will be.

Sustainability? Excellent idea. Always was, always will be.

[If you think diesel's bad, try batteries.]

Spot on

Which bit?

if you mean the comment about us not understanding why the climate changes, what makes you think that this is correct?

You might not have a clue (in which I rather fear your university lectures about sustainability were wasted), but plenty of other people do have a clue. In fact, many people have much more than a clue, and have good solid scientific arguments to explain the relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperatures. 

Just because you are, by your own admission, ignorant, does not mean that everyone is. 

Does anyone claim 'exact numbers' about past global temperatures? All the graphical presentations I have seen show increasingly large errors bars as one goes further back into history. See for example this from the BEST project:

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

However, more recent data has been collected with increasing degrees of accuracy. It is also the case that in addition to simple temperature records, there are many proxies for temperature, such as Arctic sea ice extent, and flora and fauna population shifts. 

The rates of changes are now such that 50-100 years of data is more than adequate to show a distinct trend in global temperatures. 

Excellent post.  I completely agree.

Much of the source data is, in fact, in the public domain. For example, five of the most extensive datasets are available here:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-temperature-data-sets...

However, it is almost certainly the case that most lay observers do not have the time, resources or ability to use the data in any meaningful way. One only needs to read some of the discussions on website such as Real Climate to realise that the statistical analysis treatment needed is distinctly non-trivial. 

The basis of the original article is that a warmer, wetter world with more CO2 is good for mankind.

I'm naturally inclined to disbelieve such an article by Matt Ridley, but this seems to have a degree of truth to it. Surely such a world will support more plant life and therefore more people?

I can see all the negative impacts on how and where we live now (coastal cities flooded, desertification of populated areas while new areas flourished, conflict from mass migration, more extreme weather events) and I know there is a big risk of a feedback mechanism in global warming.

Is there a reason why e.g. world agriculture wouldn't naturally increase in such a world? 

But the effects of global warming will not be uniformly warmer and wetter. In some places it will be hotter and drier. Farmers in Australia and the American mid-West are already experiencing this, and there are many other regions of the world where seasonal patterns of rainfall are changing to the disadvantage of agriculture. 

There is already an argument that the civil war in Darfur in the early years of this century had its roots, at least in part, over water access, and it is likely that water will become an increasingly scarce resource in other parts of the world, prompting if not conflict, then at least widespread movement of populations. 

And it not even the case that wetter is necessarily better. For example, in monsoon areas, wetter may in fact lead to catastrophic flooding. 

That is not to say that there will not be gained to had in some parts of the world, but I'm afraid it's somewhat simplistic to consider that world agriculture would naturally increase in such a world. Frankly, there is little about 21st century agriculture that is natural. 

I think agriculture will benefit for sure (the rise agricultural output is pretty linear).

The point is that change is coming (& it may or may not be being accelerated by human emissions of CO2), for me the main question is 'should we be sinking billions into some pretty ill-thought-out emission reduction initiatives, or are there better ways to spend it?'. 

The Copenhagen Consensus make some pretty compelling points.

https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

If you don't know whether climate change is or is not being accelerated by human emissions of CO2, how can you suggest that emissions reduction initiatives are ill-thought-out? 

But to clarify my position, there is no doubt that CO2 emissions are leading to increasing temperatures. The role of greenhouse gases in keeping the planet at a habitable temperature has been established for many years, and it it is illogical to suggest the atmosphere can accommodate further increases in greenhouse gases without accompanying temperature increases. 

Yes, you’ve fleshed out all the negative impacts I had highlighted in my post, and I’m not ignoring them, or arguing they are acceptable costs for the greater good. 

I just wondered if there was any sort of consensus that the world as a whole would be less fertile. 

I sat through a lecture not so long ago, in which the lecturer explained that current world food production is nearly three times that which would be necessary to feed the human population 2500kcal per day; and that inability to access the available calories due to shifts in the market are by and large what cause famine. The linked data below doesn't tie in exactly but more than illustrates the point. In light of this, global greening looks unlikely to actually give much relief from food shortage: we already produce more than enough!

https://ourworldindata.org/food-per-person 

In any case, a greener world does not necessarily produce more food. The climate warms disproportionately at the poles due to the accompanying reduction in albino effect with the melting ice caps. Global temperatures will become more evenly spread and habitats less diverse. Diversity being the best defence against disease: this isn't going to increase crop yields. As an example, the Northern winter currently prevents the Colorado Potato Beetle (a major crop pest and alien invader to Europe) from spreading any further North than around 55 degrees. 

Furthermore, the greening effect seen is most prominent in the world's oceans, which account for between 50-85% of photosynthesis through blooms of phytoplankton. Given that oceanic phytoplankton rely on oceanic currents to return nutrients from on deep to the surface waters and that these currents are driven by ice formation at the poles...

I was always very sceptical of alarmist global warming predictions in the past and am still very optimistic about humanity's capacity to tackle these issues. Having worked with the scientific community behind it all though, I can say two things:

1 - The people producing the scientific literature make a very modest living, which they could continue to do quite happily, with or without climate change being on top of the political agenda. Ironically, the only real money in the research arena tends to come courtesy of oil companies - see Exxon Mobil's funding of microbial biofuels research.

2- If somebody found data, through sound techniques and analysis, that stood against the weight of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change; all involved would jump at the chance to have their name go down in history as the scientist who debunked a hitherto widely accepted theory; and journals would be falling over themselves to gain publishing rights to what would no doubt become the most referenced piece of scientific literature in the next decade.

Lastly though, a note on Jim Fraser's comments: reducing your own carbon footprint is nothing to panic about, but is the easiest thing in the world. Just turning off electronics, closing the curtains when the heating comes on in the evening or just walking into town instead of driving. Like you I love driving: I literally go on driving holidays around Europe, but when I'm just driving from A to B I get my MPG up on the dash and challenge myself to get it as high as I can (It helps that I'm also a tightwad). Nobody's life is incompatible with reducing their carbon footprint, the best part is, it normally saves you money and (even as somebody who never really bought into climate alarmism) it makes you feel good.

Unfortunately, you appear to have hitched this trailer to the wrong wagon.

We have several well-reasoned propositions certainly. Just as we had for a new ice age. Some aspects of the scientific output seem to never make it into the newspaper and magazine articles. One such element that regularly appears in discussions and conclusion but seems seldom quoted is the term "remains poorly understood".

"We don't know what we don't know yet."

Up until about the 1980s, that was called common sense.

Maybe not all that common within my own generation!

(I have just spent a week living with my brother, constantly turning off lights.)

There is a whole range of behaviours that were common amongst previous generations that have been reintroduced under banners such as carbon reduction or sustainability. 

For many, this was driven by poverty or war or both. The "Make do and mend" generations who lived through the first and second World Wars were the people who influenced my early life. Recycling was normal. Growing your own food was normal. Buying local was normal. Walking and cycling were normal. 

I could agree but you missed one important aspect. People trust in science because it helps to improve their life. Thanks to results of science people are safer, healthier and richer. But climatologists together with politicians say something different. They say: "Your lifestyle is wrong. Your dreams to be richer are bad. Now you have to buy worse and more expensive things and tolerate restrictions for the salvation of the future". It's not surprising people are suspicious about it whether the scientists are right or not especially when they hear the talk of modesty and carbon footprint from people flying their own jets.

If people like Michael Mann spend less time snoring opponents and proposing their police investigationn and spend more time explaining the science to ordinary people, trust in climatology could be bigger.

Thank you for evaluating my abilities to read scientific articles but I belive that with the Master of Biology and five years contribution in research I have some idea of how the methodology of scientific work should look like (though I dont consider myself a scientist)

It’s a great time to be alive; but also a crap time. We are the generation who get to have more comfortable lifestyles,  more choice, better health, and more ability to experience the world than any other in history. We also get to be the ones that find out that the party is coming to an end; the world just doesn’t have enough resources for us in the west to continue as we are, never mind for the 6 billion others to join us. Climatologists get the unhappy job of being the messengers, and we all know what happens to bringers of bad news. 

That doesn’t mean they are wrong. I’ve got children; I really wish that the climatologists were wrong. And I’m sure they could be better communicators; but I’m not sure that that would help. Two of the greatest communicators of our age- David Attenborough and Barack Obama- have made it clear that the risk to our society is real and severe. But the discourse on it has become too polarised, especially in America- where it appears that denial of climate change is almost central tenet of the right- and any message delivered by someone perceived to be in the ‘opposing camp’ will just be dismissed. This is a tragedy in its own right- that rejection of a reason and evidence based world view has become ingrained as part of the identity of a large part of the US political spectrum. I can’t see how any good comes from this. 

As to your ability to understand the science- I’m not setting out to be derogatory to you. It’s just that science has become, inevitably, hyper specialised and I think it’s impossible for an outsider to a field to, on casual acquaintance with it, offer an informed critique. I’ve got a doctorate and 15 years contribution to research, though like you I don’t consider myself first and foremost a scientist; I still think that this in no way equips me to pass judgement on a field so far removed from my own (it barely enables me to comment on large areas adjacent to what I do...)

And I accept, this is a problem. Science works because it’s methodology is (or should be) explicit and open, and others should be able to interrogate it and replicate it. When fields become so specialist that only a few people are able to comment validly on it, then that weakens the whole enterprise. 

In the end, too many people think as you do, or even if they accept there is a problem, the changes that appear to be needed are too great to engage with fully. I hope that science will bale us out, either by advances in battery technology that allow large scale storage of energy to deal with intermittency from renewables, or by finally ‘cracking’ fusion, or both. I’d feel less worried if i saw our governments investing in these areas on a scale more like the Apollo program. Sort out need for energy out, and a lot of problems go away; and we don’t have to rely on people doing something they’ve never effectively done on a global scale before, deny themselves material improvements to help future generations in places they’ll never even visit. 

If a qualified climate scientist questioned your research would you think they are a bullshitter out of their depth in your field?

Unless your science made outrageous* claims there is no reason to think you were a fraud. 

*although outrageous claims verified by experiments is scientific progress and might have set you up with a scientific career for life! 

Curiosity and questioning accepted science is part of science, as is knowing scientific mistakes and fraud exist.

However part of science is knowing that you can't as an individual repeat every experiment so for the 99.9999999% of science you have not done yourself you have to have faith that it is imperfect and developing at the edges but overwhelmingly correct (less so at the edges).

Global warming is developing science, accepted science and imperfect science. However that is not reason to say it is mistaken or fraudulent science. The two main aspects of CO2 far IR absorption and effect of planetary atmosphere on surface temperature are also established science dating back a hundred years.

The details of global warning can definitely be scientifically questioned. The big picture can't be sensibly questioned with scientific credibility.