Global Warming: reality or myth?

A survey of the Carbon Dioxide issue, and of the damage that questionable science may be causing to genuine environmental causes.

Important Note: this paper was written prior to the release of the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature report (BEST) in October 2011.  This is the current evidence:

BEST results indicate a total variation in excess of natural variations due to solar changes or other known effects. This gives much stronger support to the IPCC case. My view is that the IPCC case is now much more credible.

That does however still leave room for much sceptical doubt, and in my view the issue is still 'under review'.

Preface

A year ago I dutifully accepted the 'CO2 = dangerous global warming' theory as promoted by the IPCC.

I have changed my views as a result of recent work by many scientists and other climate observers, my own research, and direct questioning of 'IPCC' climate scientists on their own forum.

If you want to share my conclusions, (which I have since discovered are shared with many scientists) all I ask is that you have an open mind, put aside any preconceptions and look objectively at the evidence.  If not, just stop here.

So pleased that you stayed on. Let's start.

Yes, the world has got warmer since 1850. Why?

The IPCC hypothesis is: it's mainly due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. and this is due to our use of fossil fuels. The CO2 stops less heat escaping into space, and so the earth warms up. This is called the greenhouse effect.

The IPPC then makes worrying predictions of impending global disasters if we do not mend our ways and stop burning fossil fuels.

What is the evidence for this?  

The IPCC claim is based on computer modelling. Computer models are just large, complex calculation programmes, like the Excel spreadsheets you yourself use.  Like your Excel chart, when you want to justify to yourself that you can afford a new car or holiday even after paying the mortgage. they can be 'adjusted' -  to produce almost any result. If the result is not quite what is desired, it is so easy to go back and tweak a figure or two... just a bit... and so tempting... and so human.

One fact is clear:

There has never been any field experiment in the Earth atmosphere to conclusively demonstrate and quantify a direct causal link between CO2 content and warming.

The claim is based on: Laboratory experiment, on inference, on continual adjustment of computer models to fit the facts, and finally on claimed correlation of the hypothesis with the facts.  (More on that later)

Why do I use the word hypothesis and not theory? Because a theory must be capable of being falsified.  It must propose a clear link of cause and effect, which can be tested in controlled conditions.  The global warming hypothesis does not meet these conditions.

The model structures are too complex to analyse here.  But simple correlation is an excellent scientific first test of a hypothesis or theory.  If the correlation is poor, the hypothesis or theory is obviously incomplete, or wrong.

So let's consider the correlation of CO2 levels with temperature over the last 2000 years:

Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines) and instrumental record (black line). Graph from Wikipedia, checked as correct against other sources.

This graph is an amalgam of several reconstructions of global temperature, all of which broadly agree, apart from the extraordinarily steep black line in the period 1970 to 2000, which comes from the IPCC and Goddard Institute (GISS) at NASA (more about that later) .

Note the Medieval Warm Period ( Vineyards in North England, Viking settlements in Greenland, a time of plenty in Europe), and the Little Ice Age (Ice fairs on the Thames, advancing glaciers in Europe)

The red line is CO2 in the atmosphere, generally agreed to have been stable at around 280 ppmv until 1800 AD, then rising to about 380 ppmv by year 2000.

ppmv (parts per miliion by volume) is the conventional expression for CO2 content in the atmosphere. The present level of 385 ppmv means that CO2 comprises 0.038% of the atmosphere. Manmade CO2, 100 ppmv, comprises 0.010%, that is one part in ten thousand, one molecule in 10,000.

- What caused the Medieval Warm Period? An excess of CO2?

- What caused the 1 degree C fall into the Little Ice Age ? A shortage of CO2?

There is no evidence of any such CO2 variation.  The stability of the level of 280ppmv, prior to industrialisation, is in fact the core of the IPCC case.

The IPCC accepts that there are natural variations in the earth climate, due mainly to variations in solar heat output and volcanoes.  These variations will happen regardless of manmade CO2.  

But the IPCC is not able to offer convincing explanations or model simulations for the natural variations.  The IPCC models cannot explain the past. Yet it claims to be able to predict the future.

Model simulations fail to give the right figures.

For example: Crowley  T J, in Science, 14 July 2000, Causes of Climate Change over past 1000 years:  "Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much [sic] as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism."       

That leaves 36 to 59% of variations pre 1850 unaccounted for by the models.

This shows the gap between reality and model simulation.

The yellow areas show model simulation of temperature based on 41-64% as above.

The purple areas  pre 1850 are 'unaccounted for' by models.

CO2 levels were constant up till 1850. There is no serious argument over that. So the unaccounted gaps pre-1850 cannot be due to CO2.

Yet after 1850 - 1900 the gap 'must be due to CO2 ' according to the IPCC.

The problem of the pre-1850 gaps is just 'too difficult' for the modellers. So the problem is ignored.  Models cannot simulate the 0.5 deg rise since 1900 using assumed natural causes.  The model makers cannot think of any other plausible natural causes. So the gap 'must be CO2' : 

IPCC 4th Assessment Report 2007: "No climate model using natural forcings alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the 20th century. Therefore, modelling studies suggest that late 20th century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin, a finding which is confirmed by studies relying on formal detection and attribution methods (Section 9.4.1.4)".

Note the words: 'is much more likely'. Not ' we are certain',  or '95% probable' .  But 'much more likely'.

Conclusion of 'Formal detection and Attribution methods Section' 9.4.1.4:  "Based on these detection results, which allow for possible amplification of the solar influence by processes not represented in climate models, we conclude that it is very likely that greenhouse gases caused more global warming over the last 50 years than changes in solar irradiance."

Note the words: 'it is very likely'. Not ' we are certain', or '95% probable' . But 'very likely'.

These are the words upon which world governments are forming policy. In the UK, the Climate Change Act 2008 commits the government to spend £18.3 bn per year over the next 43 years to 'tackle climate change. That is 1% of GDP, £600 a year tax burden for 43 years for every employed person in the UK. And of course it will cost more in the end. it always does. The US government is committing itself to spend $1.7 trillion, $1400 per person per year. Worldwide, the spend could be $8 - 10 trillion dollars.

All based on  "it is much more likely".

Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Woods Hole, Massachusetts July 23.–27, 1979  to the Climate Research Board , Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council:

“We conclude that the predictions of CO2-induced climate changes made with the various models examined are basically consistent and mutually supporting. The differences in model results are relatively small and may be accounted for by differences in model characteristics and simplifying assumptions. Of course, we can never be sure that some badly estimated or totally overlooked effect may not vitiate our conclusions. We can only say that we have not been able to find such effects.”

At least this statement is refreshingly honest. So, if something has been badly estimated or overlooked? 10 trillion dollars down the drain. Sorry!

And if we were to do nothing?  We will all burn in a fiery Hell.  For our sins. So we are told.  But perhaps "it ain't necessarily so"?

Fortunately other scientists, many coming from fields other than mainstream climate science, have been looking into the problem for several years, and explanations are beginning to emerge.

Earth heat?

Basic physics says that heat passes from a hot body to a cold space. The core of the earth is at 7000 degC.  The earth itself emits heat into the air and oceans, and eventually into space. Underwater volcanoes emit heat and CO2 into the deep oceans.  Nuclear reactions in the earth's core, shifts in the mantle, and heat emission into the deep oceans may be as variable as sunspots.  For example, we know for certain that 55 million years ago, a major shift in the mantle and release of heat underwater warmed the deep oceans by 5 - 7 deg C.  The resulting warming of the Earth by 4 - 5 deg C caused major extinction of species.

The Sun?

Sunspots are temporary phenomena on the Sun that appear as dark spots compared to surrounding regions. They are caused by intense magnetic activity, forming areas of reduced surface temperature. Sunspots and their cyclical occurrence are well known and recorded.

Some interesting facts about sunspots:

"Sunspots were rarely observed during the Maunder Minimum in the second part of the 17th century (approximately from 1645 to 1715). This coincides with the middle (and coldest) part of a period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age."

"In 2006, NASA made a prediction for the next sunspot maximum, being between 150 and 200 around the year 2011 (30-50% stronger than cycle 23), followed by a weak maximum at around 2022. The prediction did not come true. Instead, the sunspot cycle in 2010 was still at its minimum, where it should have been near its maximum."

During periods of low sunspot activity, the earth receives a higher incidence of cosmic rays.  A CERN experiment has indicated that in periods of low sunspot activity, cloud formation is increased due to an increase in cosmic rays.   Increased cloud cover means a cooler Earth.  More about that later.

Graph from Wikipedia. 

Note that as with many carbon14 graphs the timeline is 'Before Present'. and runs from 1950 AD at left, to 850 AD at right.

It runs opposite the usual direction, R-L.

         

The same graph now runs L-R from 850 to 1950 AD

The correlation with solar activity is remarkable.

Take a good look at this graph.

Note the historic variation: 0.5 deg C each side of the average, 14 deg C.

Up till 2000 warming is within the range of natural variation.

 (Reminder : ignore the contentious  black line)

This makes the decade following 2000 of great interest…  Is warming continuing beyond 2000?

SInce 1998 the trend of global surface temperature has not continued its earlier rise. Apart from 'El Nino' peaks, the graph is statistically flat.

The graph shows how cosmic rays help promote the formation of clusters of molecules that can then grow and seed clouds in the real atmosphere.

       Source: Fig. S2c from supplementary online material for J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011

At 03.45 am in a CLOUD experiment in Geneva, ultraviolet light began to create molecules in the cloud chamber, which approximates the air in the atmosphere. Jn above shows the neutral phase of the experiment, during which the CLOUD experiment electrically removed ions and molecular clusters. At 4.33 am, the CLOUD experiment stopped the electrical removal and allowed natural galactic cosmic rays (Jgcr) to enter the chamber through the roof of the Geneva building, leading to a faster rate of cluster buildup.

Then, at  4.58 am, CLOUD also beamed charged pion particles (Jch) from an accelerator (these are equivalent to cosmic rays), the rate of cluster production took off, convincingly demonstrating the effect of cosmic rays on cluster growth.

More on this.   

Main Nature article

Nature article Cloud formation 1 Sep 2011

If we accept that NASA sometimes gets it right, this prediction of the solar cycle up to 2020 indicates that the trend is downwards.

Note the low point in 1995, the peak at 2000, (when global temperature reached a maximum) the descent in the first decade (in which global temperatures fell) and a small rise up to 2011.  The prediction is another drop towards 2020.  Possibly a longer downward trend thereafter, well into the 21st century.

We could be heading towards a cooler Earth. If CO2 has a significant warming effect, we may need it!

Unfortunately, NASA has been wrong on solar variation predictions before. The truth is, in the present state of knowledge, nobody can accurately predict solar activity.

What that means for governments and voters, is of course another story.

Appendix 3:  Some 'major difficulties'.

Below is the front page of James Hansen et al's seminal paper of August 1981 in which he postulates the CO2 = global warming theory. Note the text outlined in red.

"The major difficulty in accepting the theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase. In fact the temperature in the Northern Hemispheres decreased by about  0.5 degC between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid CO2 buildup."

Indeed, a major difficulty. The facts didn't fit the theory.

This statement, for obvious reasons, is not much publicised by IPCC.  James Hansen has been the Director of the Goddard Institute at NASA (referred to at the beginning of this page) since 1981, and is responsible for the issue of the most important climate data upon which the IPCC bases its modelling and forecasts. He is the main originator of the global warming theory, which is his 'baby' and which made his name.   As such he is in a highly influential position of extreme bias.  He is also highly vociferous and maintains a high public and political profile.  Much of the data published by NASA/GISS is strongly contested by scientists, and considered to be biased manipulation of the raw data.

The paper continues

"Recent claims that climate models overestimate the impact..... by an order of magnitude have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is fully understood."

In other words, if the facts don't fit the theory, it's because the theory is misunderstood. Is this good science?

For more on the theme of data manipulation, see below.

Climategate at the University of East Anglia:  Data was fraudulently manipulated to fit the CO2 based predictions. Using the Freedom of Information Act, scientists obtained the raw data before manipulation, and copies of emails which exposed the fraud.

The Fake record, using "Mike's trick to hide the decline".                                                                        The True record:

In 1998 recent graduate Michael Mann published this graph of the alleged temperature record 1000 to 2000.  It conveniently showed a stable state for 900 years (even a slight fall)  then a massive rise from 1900 to 2000, coincident with the period of industrialisation. This notorious 'hockey stick'  graph was instantly adopted by the IPCC and  became its icon.  It was the centrepiece of the IPCC Climate Change 2001 Report.  It ignored the records from hundreds of reliable scientific sources.   In the next  Report, the hockey stick had mysteriously disappeared... 

Michael Mann's work was investigated and an exoneration by the National Scientific Agency concluded that there had been no 'fraud', merely some 'errors'.  You can form your own opinion.

Unfortunately,  the media love simple icons and attention-catching headlines. The hockey stick has become a permanent icon in the political collective consciousness.  It has become the metaphorical stick with which we beat our backs to atone for our environmental "sins".  It still appears in publications and online sites such as Wikipedia.  It has become an accepted myth and the symbol of the True Faith. 

But the myth is simply not true. 

Appendix 6:  'Trust us, we know best'

Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC

From his biography on Wikipedia:

James Hansen, Director of Goddard Institute, NASA.

From his biography on Wikipedia:

'In 2008 interviews with ABC News, The Guardian, and in a separate op-ed, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming.'

^{James Hansen under arrest outside the White House, 29 August 2011. This is a real photo -  not  faked.}

Appendix 7: My own prediction: 'Trust me, I haven't a clue either'

The constant 'adjustments' and 'refinements' being made with computer based climate modelling systems in order to get the facts to fit the theory, or vice versa, bring the mind the endless stream of 'epicycles' of the Ptolemaic Earth-centred solar system model, which claimed that the sun and the planets orbited the Earth in perfect circles - a theory which Copernicus and Galileo finally demolished.  Because the model was a bad one, the theory had to be constantly 'refined' by introducing yet another 'epicycle' or two to account for the data as they arose from observations. Eventually, the weight of epicycles was more than even the most dogmatic proponents could support, and the theory collapsed.

When a theory is bad or incomplete, it needs endless patching up.  Every additional piece of data has to be somehow 'accommodated'. When a theory is good, it has a natural beauty. Every additional piece of data simply adds to its integrity.

It doesn't matter how complex and sophisticated the theory is, or how powerful are the computers used to run the programs. If it doesn't have a natural integrity, it eventually collapses. 

No-one seriously disputes that CO2 has some greenhouse effect. That is all good physics.  The question is, what is net effect of CO2 on global climate?  That is a far more complex question, with many still unknown factors remaining to be investigated or discovered. 

Here's my prediction: in a decade from now, or less, many of the scientists who support the "manmade CO2 = catastrophic warming'' analysis will be making new careers out of explaining exactly why the analysis was wrong, or incomplete. The analysis will be either have been severely moderated as the result of new discoveries, or in the dustbin of science (apart from the part which is based on sound physics) along with Lamarckism,  'ether', 'phlogiston', Lysenko genetics, and the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth. Like many of those incomplete or erroneous theories, we should expect to see a long rearguard battle of increasingly strident propaganda and hysterical witch-hunting of "heretics" by entrenched political, moral, media, ideological, and commercial interests, and career scientists and journalists with a reputation to protect.

The latest (rather sad) example is here.  Poor Dr Wagner 'blames himself' for his inadvertent 'heresy'.  Such is the power of the modern equivalent of the Star Chamber.  At least he should be glad they have done away with the rack and the axe. 
 

Charts from www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming

"The world will become a desert"

After several decades of declining rainfall and dwindling food production in the Sahel, reports telling a different story started to appear. Analyses made by several independent groups of temporal sequences of satellite data over two decades since early 1980s, showed a remarkable increasing trend in vegetation greenness.

Warmer air does not necessarily mean less rain, It can just as well mean more rain.  India is both hot and wet. As is Brazil, Central Africa...

Warmer air has the capacity to hold more water vapour. Basic physics.

Figure: The results of trend analyses of time series over the Sahel region of seasonally integrated NDVI using NOAA AVHRR NDVI-data from 1982 to 1999. Areas with trends of <95% probability in white. (Modified from Olsson, Eklundh et al. 2005)

"We are going to drown!"  

Sea level rise predictions have been successively downgraded ever since the IPCC started to make them. Sea defences can be planned for.  Sea level has risen by a total of 160 mm ( 6.5 inches) at a constant rate since 1900.  It is not accelerating as is often claimed and as would be expected if it were linked to increasing CO2 levels. 

It is not that difficult to plan for another 160mm / 6.5 inch rise over the next 100 years. Add two bricks to the sea wall....

"The ice is melting"

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice is decreasing. Left graph.

Southern Hemisphere sea ice is increasing. Right graph

"No more snow!"  Snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere has not decreased in the last 30 years. There are no trends either way.

From pistehors.com: " 98-99 was really exceptional. Huge snowfalls during February in the Northern Alps, Switzerland and Austria. Avalanches ripped through the villages of Montroc near Chamonix and Galtur in Austria. The depth of snow was described as a 500 year event. "

1998 was the warmest year on record since 1940.

The climate has always changed. 300 years ago Alpine communities were being relentlessly destroyed by advancing glaciers. The poor Swiss would have liked some warming then!  Why not think how best to support development of local economies, to avoid the need for any kind of refugee, whether climatic. economic or political?  $60 bn already spent on carbon issues could have paid for a lot of water and electric supply in Africa and Asia, and better flood precautions for Bangladesh.*

*Most flooding in the Bangladesh delta is caused by river floods. not sea floods.

From the IPCC Assessment Report 2007:

Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change. {3.2, 3.8, 4.4, 5.3}

·         3.2 Surface Temperature  A decrease in diurnal temperature range (DTR) was reported in the TAR, but the data available then extended only from 1950 to 1993. Updated observations reveal that DTR has not changed from 1979 to 2004 as both day- and night-time temperature have risen at about the same rate. The trends are highly variable from one region to another. {3.2}

·          

·         3.8 Changes in extreme events There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the global ocean or in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust-storms. {3.8, 5.3}

·          

·         4.4 Changes in Sea Ice  Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}

·         5.3 Regional ocean circulation and water masses Among the major challenges in understanding the climate system are quantifying the Earth’s heat balance and the freshwater balance (hydrological cycle), which both have a substantial contribution from the World Ocean. (No change)

So perhaps the future is not so bad?

How to moderate CO2 'just in case'?   If we want to maintain energy supplies, the only realistic way is to build more nuclear power plants.  Regrettably, wind and tide power will not do the trick.  See David MacKay's work.

Of course whatever we decide in Europe will have little significance in relation to the rest of the world.  If we closed the whole UK economy down, even using IPCC models  it would have a totally trivial effect on global climate.  Whatever we do to moderate CO2 emissions in Europe may make us feel better, but it will have little effect.  By all means put a solar panel on your roof, and earn money by supplying spare power to the National Grid; that makes economic sense. Don't spend money to put a wind turbine on your house; give the money to causes that work on other environmental issues:  habitat loss, extinction of species of flora and fauna, loss of biodiversity, rainforest destruction, pollution, unchecked population growth, adequate food production, clean water, affordable energy ....

Appendix 9:  Questions to put to a climate scientist

1 Has the broadly accepted but theoretically derived CO2 radiative forcing figure of 1.66 W / sm per 100ppm,been verified experimentally in the field? 

2 Is the IPCC data in fact correct? See Spencer et al: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/  **

3 Is the interpretation of CO2 data correct? Does increase in CO2  in fact follow natural climate change?  Listen to Prof. Murry Salby: http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/  **

4 Do IPCC models account for the possibility of natural self-regulating climate feedback such as increased cloud cover?  

7  Do IPCC models fully account for the rapid non-linear decline in radiative forcing effect with increasing concentration? 

The effect of CO2 concentration in the air is not linear. It is approximately logarithmic. This is a logarithmic curve:

If 100ppmv increase causes 1 deg C increase,  a further 100 ppmv increase will not cause a further 1 degC increase. 

As David Bellamy  claims, the first 20ppmv have the most dramatic effect.  Beyond that, the effects diminish rapidly.

The first 20ppmv creates a greenhouse effect of 1.5 degC. But a 20ppmv increase from 400 to 420 ppmv creates an effect of only 0.01 degC: each successive 20ppm increase has a diminishing effect.  

Graph from David Archibald: Solar Cycle 24,  2008

The UK Climate Change Act 2008, DECC Impact Assessment, Summary: Analysis and Evidence.  This Act was signed off by Ed Miliband, approved in Parliament by 464 votes to 3, and duly signed by Her Majesty in 2009.  It commits spending of  1% of GDP each year, £600 per year for every UK employee, for the next 43 years on 'tackling climate change'.

 

<- £14-18 bn per year. 1% of total GDP. Total Cost: £324 - 404 billion.  [ I make the Total £632 - £789 bn by the way, has someone screwed  up? ] As with most large project estimates, the actual cost is likely to be much higher.

<- Figures do not include short term transition costs...

<- The 'Benefits' include 'avoided damages' from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, £404 - 964 bn.  But read the small print in the footnote: the £964 bn is only 'if others join in'.  It could be £404 bn. So a possible net benefit of nil if you accept the £404 bn total cost?

Still. a break-even sounds not too bad, except for one question: What are the 'avoided damages'?

This is the only mention in the entire study:

"The science indicates that the costs of failing to limit temperature rises to below 2°C are very significant, and the costs of inaction leading to temperature rises beyond 4ºC are catastrophically high and that there would be large net benefits to global action"

That is it. 'The science indicates catastrophe'.

On that speculative basis of global warming scenarios, the UK government has committed 1% of its GDP for 43 years.

And if the scenarios are wrong?

Oops, £404 (or £786)  billion down the drain. Sorry chaps. Great news for the 'carbon trading' and 'carbon capture' industries though.  BP is already getting in on the act, smart movers.

But as stated with great pride in the Paper, at least  the UK will have set a 'good leadership' example to the world.   While throwing away billions that could have been used for the benefit of the world, and crippling the economy. 

Further reading

Since writing this first draft of this paper, I have been referred to this book: The Chilling Stars:  A New Theory of Climate Change; Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder.  UK 2007.   It explains the theory that solar activity causes climate change, and I have included material from it in the paper. 

The Dissenters:

This 2007 film comes to the same conclusions as I have, independently. I strongly recommend it.  Note that it was made before the CERN experiment, which has now given even more weight to the argument.  Youtube: The Great Global Warming Swindle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

Youtube: Jasper Kirkby on the CLOUD experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I   I have added the sun pictures and the solar wind diagram from that video.

Youtube: Cloud Mystery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XYxL66O_s&feature=related

Youtube: Al Gore sued by 30,000 scientists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Global Warming Science - www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming  One of the best sites to see 'hard facts' and clearly presented graphs.  An encyclopaedia of information.

Prof. Nir Shaviv:    Presentation December 2010     Talk after the CLOUD experiment August 2011 

Prof. Nir Shaviv's Blog:  http://www.sciencebits.com/blog/1

Climate realists:  http://climaterealists.com/index.php 

David Evans: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

David Archibald:  http://www.davidarchibald.info

Dr Roy Spencer, Cloud specialist:  http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Ian Plimer : Heaven and Earth : Global Warming: The Missing Science, Quartet Books 2009

The Official Party Line:

IPCC publications: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Skeptical Science: a fairly balanced overview of the IPCC case www.skepticalscience.com

Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org  NB this site was set up by Michael Mann, exercise due caution!

Other good reads;

David MacKay: Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air , Dec 2008

For years, like most other people, I dutifully accepted the  'catastrophic manmade global warming' theory as advocated by the IPCC and accepted by many of our world governments and policy makers.  I listened to (the well intentioned?) Al Gore, I shared in the collective guilt, and worried about my 'carbon footprint'.

I have spent 11 years un-selfconsciously observing weather in a beautiful part of the world, in the South of France. From my house 12 km inland, at 400m elevation, I look southwards over Cap d'Antibes and the Mediterranean coastline, and northward to the nearby hills and the distant Alps. Every day the sky and the views are different. Some days the air is clear, the skies are blue, it is hot. Sometimes, haze is heavy in the air, one can hardly see the coast, it is humid but the sun heat is less intense, and it is four or five degrees cooler. Some days, I wake up to an overcast sky, the low lying clouds are dense, and it has become ten degrees cooler. Clouds and haze seemed to have much more influence on the weather than carbon dioxide.

My thanks are therefore due to my long standing friend  E M Hoskins, who first brought my attention to the subject more than a year ago with his own researches.  Although I did not agree with his findings at the time, it provoked me to respond critically and scientifically.  We exchanged many emails and data.  In the process, I learnt a lot.  I have now come around to his views on the relative insignificance of CO2 emissions, albeit for somewhat different reasons than his original reasons.  But it's all part of the same elephant in the room.  So thank you Ed.

Finally, I should note that I am not in the pay of any oil company, political lobby, or any other organisation. My views are my own.  If you have to give me a label, call me a "concerned liberal thinker with a reasonably good scientific education".

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Check the cloud cover...