Nick Grealy runs a very informative website where he lays out the case for the exploitation of shale gas. The URL is http://www.nohotair.co.uk/
The website has recently been updated and I recommend a visit for any of you who would like some in-depth information on what the MSM like to call ‘unconventional’ or ‘controversial’ shale gas exploration.
I have much admiration for the efforts he has put into dispelling the myths surrounding shale and the balance he provides in countering the scare tactics of the usual suspects. But…..
I do have one big issue with Nick that I cover in the following letter.
I would note that the use of the word denier is offensive to many like myself who dispute the thinking behind cAGW. Otherwise I would be happy to add your site to my blogroll as providing some balance in the energy debate.
You must be aware that the IPCC’s recent AR5 has come under much critical analysis and their forecasts for doom and disaster have been downgraded to the point where the threats are non-existent. As we on the skeptical side of the argument have never denied the two core issues here, the use of the word denier is an unfair ad hominem.
- It is patently obvious that the planet is warmer now than it was in the mid-1800s; nothing in the ‘consensus’ science can in any way counter the null hypothesis that natural climate variations are responsible for most, if not all, of that warming. Therefore to call us ‘climate change deniers’ is to fly in the face of our oft-stated position. Even the consensus’ most-evil bogeyman, Christopher Monckton, doesn’t dispute the basics, just the economics and the doom-mongering.
- We accept that CO2 is a GHG but argue that there are much greater forces at work in such a complex environment as the atmosphere. Many of these other forces were ignored by the IPCC in its earlier deliberations and it is now having to address these in the light of current events. The physics of CO2 also show that there is no linear correlation between increasing CO2 and its heat-retaining potential. Even Arrhenius, in his 1906 publication, adjusted his original estimates downwards to 1.6°C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1°C). Tyndall was quite clear that water vapour was the key element in controlling heat retention via the GHE and other gases were of minimal importance.
- The subject of feedback (ECS) is one of the most contentious issues surrounding ‘climate science’ even today. In AR5, the IPCC had to admit; “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Without a proven method of ‘forcing’ there is no credibility to the continual scare-mongering beloved of the Global Warming proponents.
- Even the IPCC has had to face the unpalatable fact that the actual temperatures currently being recorded are completely out of line with their model projections and have been for some time. Whether we use the term ‘pause’, ‘hiatus’ or even ‘stopped’, the obvious conclusion is that, for at least 15 years, there has been a discontinuity in the correlation between CO2 and temperatures.
I hope you take these comments in the spirit in which I send them. I am very grateful for the efforts you have put in to dispelling the myths surrounding shale gas exploration but I find the continual use of the word ‘denier’ to be a distraction from the message you are trying to impart.
One final point. In no way can the science around Global Warming be classed as anywhere near settled. Ergo, there can be no definable anthropogenic element in Climate Change in the way it is presented in the media. Those of us on the skeptical side of the debate are just as concerned by the trashing of the environment as the NGOs. We just object to the draconian measures they advocate which often cause more harm to the very people they purport to protect.