grumpydenier
_____________________________________________
Well, I’ve been around longer than I’d like but I’m still hoping to last a little bit longer.
Happily married for 40+ years, 3 children and 5 grand-children (at the moment), my wife and I run a smallish retail business with two outlets. We have a maison secondaire in the South West of France that will become our bolt hole when we give up working.
Needless to say, I keep a close eye on the EURGBP exchange rate.
Why another ‘skeptic’ blog, you may ask? Well, the answer is simple, really. Over the last couple of years I’ve come to realise that all is not right in the world of climate science. I suppose, like many laymen, I began by believing what I was told; ie the planet is warming and that much of that warming could be blamed on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity.
The premise seemed, at first glance, to be a simple fact; the charts I saw could hardly be denied. At that time, I had no clear understanding of the difference between the terms correlation and causation. The only thing they have in common is the starting letter and the five closing letters. In all other respects they resemble chalk and cheese. To help you follow the rest of the blog, I’d like you to read the following;
Correlation does not imply causation
Now, why is this important? The basis of the whole catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (cAGW) scare is predicated on a supposed correlation between CO2 and increasing global temperatures. Whilst there is, undoubtedly, some basis in physics to show that CO2 can trap Outgoing Longwave (Infrared) Radiation (OLR), as it heads off into space, there are also sound reasons, based on the same physics, to show that this is not a linear process and the CO2 molecules quickly reach levels of absorption that reduce their ability to further impact on atmospheric temperatures.
It was the search to resolve the argument surrounding the statement correlation does not imply causation that started me down the skeptic path. I hope that as you work your way around this site, you will come to the same conclusion as I have. The case for CO2 as the driver of global temperatures has not been proven.
One thing I should point out before I go any further is that I am not a scientist nor am I particularly good at maths. The one thing I do have in my favour is the ability to stand back and weigh up the pros and cons of an argument and make my mind up on the balance of the evidence.
_____________________________________________
grumpydenier 
G’day Grumpy,
Good luck with the blog! The more of JD’s community begin their own blogs, the stronger we become.
Forward to Victory!
Cheers,
Oz
Posted by Ozboy | March 20, 2013, 9:50 amThanks! I won’t be rushing this as I know the folly of ill-thought out websites (I’ve done a few in my early days). Any ideas are welcome.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 20, 2013, 12:34 pmG’day again Grumpy,
Caught your message earlier. A couple of points:
1. Have a “Contact” page so people can get in touch with you without their message being posted publicly. I’ve got one at my place – let me know if you need help setting it up.
2. Also, this may just be me, but I prefer to display a paragraph or two of the most recent threads on the home page (as JD does), rather than simply the thread titles in the sidebar as you have at the moment. You can use the “more” tag when editing a thread to determine how much you wish to display on the home page.
BTW I’ve added this site to my blogroll.
Drop me an e-mail if you have any questions or need any other help.
Cheers,
Oz
Posted by Ozboy | March 22, 2013, 12:23 amCongrats on the blog Grumpy.
“I began by believing what I was told; ie the planet is warming and that much of that warming could be blamed on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity.”
That’s exactly what I thought. My daughter would talk to me about the things she was being told at school wrt global, warming as it was called back then and when I started looking into it there were far more questions than answers.
People who supported the CAGW thesis would typically spout endlessly on about “the science being settled”. It was presented in a highly aggressive fait accomplis but when pressed it turned out that the “science” was based on models and when questioned they would refer you to papers written by other people who based their statements on what other models said.
When I scratched beneath the surface and saw the link between the hard left and the climate change mob I started to smell a rat.
C
Posted by Christina | March 25, 2013, 10:38 amThanks for popping in Christina. There’s a long way to go and there’s no point trying to compete, directly, with the big boys. If you have ideas for subject areas just let me know.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 25, 2013, 10:54 amYou’re very welcome.
The things that interest me particularly are the political aspects of this scam. I won’t even pretend to understand the science or the debates that rage around the science or the statistics. I don’t understand them and frankly, they leave me a bit cold. I do try to keep up and KT3/Reality Returns and others have done their best in the past to educate me (lol) but it gives me a headache.
I’m a musician (B.Mus, M.Mus), I also trained as a lawyer (LLB, LLM, LLD) after the ’92 recession so I would have another string to my bow (sorry) if the world went to poop again. So I approach these issues from a slightly different angle.
Posted by Christina | March 25, 2013, 2:59 pmCongratulations on the blog, Grumps. There will come a time very soon when this A.G.W. nonsense will be nothing more than a historical curiosity and people like you are doing great work in bringing that time closer. Keep it up!
Posted by pedestrianblogger | March 28, 2013, 11:25 amThanks PB. There’s a private message on its way to you.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 28, 2013, 11:35 amNice one grumps. Keep up the good work.
Posted by orcadiana | March 28, 2013, 7:13 pmCheers and if I put you in my blogroll can I have one of those clocks?
Posted by grumpydenier | March 28, 2013, 8:31 pmand Grumps…If I put you on my blog roll, it’ll cancel it out ROFL.
Posted by orcadiana | March 29, 2013, 1:43 pmAh but, no but, if I get more traffic than you I win so I still claim my clock.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 29, 2013, 2:29 pmI have to say, it WILL tell you if the tide is in or out, rising past low tide or falling from high tide. What it WON’T tell you is if sea levels, generally, are on the rise. So you wont find it of any intricate scientific value whatsoever, and therefore a useless aquisition.
Posted by orcadiana | March 29, 2013, 10:00 pmIf it tells the time, that’ll do. My son, in Oz, sent me a self-winding watch that keeps stopping. When I told him about this, I pointed out to him that it would work well for Mr Bolt, the runner, but for an acknowledged sloth like me, it may not have been the best choice. Once he’d stopped laughing we got on with chatting about family things. I don’t think he took offence.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 29, 2013, 10:30 pmGrumpy, it wont tell the time, as it’s a tide clock. It tells you if your local tide is at high water or low water. lol. 😉
Posted by orcadiana | March 29, 2013, 11:30 pmIt’s still fine. I have a high spot once a day and a low spot once a day. So that sounds fine, to me. I’m getting the feeling you don’t want me to have one. OK, I can take a hint. I’ll leave your link on my blogroll to show there’s no hard feelings.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 29, 2013, 11:50 pmDo you live near the sea?
If you do, I’ll make a special one, as soon as I have a moment or two (between May and August. It’ll be a special Grumpy One.
Posted by orcadiana | March 29, 2013, 11:55 pmAbout 2 1/2 hours away, here and in France, so all I need to do is check what’s happening in Newhaven (when I’m at home) and La Rochelle (when I’m in France) build in some sort of offset and I’ll be good to go. My birthday’s in August so that would be nice. 😉
Posted by grumpydenier | March 30, 2013, 12:09 amYou cheeky thing you 😉
Posted by orcadiana | March 30, 2013, 12:12 amAnd, I have now blogrolled you.
Posted by orcadiana | March 29, 2013, 11:40 pmExcellent, somewhere else for adults to discuss pressing matters, a rare oasis.
Posted by g1lgam3sh | March 29, 2013, 3:26 pmHi Gil
Thanks for popping by.
Posted by grumpydenier | March 29, 2013, 3:46 pmIf you need a no-charge illustration ask.
Posted by fenbeagleblog | March 30, 2013, 10:38 pmAppreciated and if I can think of something I will. Maybe a cartoon of me for the ‘about grumpy’page?
Posted by grumpydenier | March 30, 2013, 10:48 pmAfternoon GD.
Good work, keep it up.
Posted by catweazle666 | April 2, 2013, 5:22 pmTa and do pop back in.
Posted by grumpydenier | April 2, 2013, 7:14 pmDoes this mean you don’t believe in global warming or just that CO2 does not cause it?
Posted by thebookybunhead | April 3, 2013, 8:16 pmAsking me if I don’t believe in global warming is asking the wrong question. Of course the planet has been warming; it has just emerged from a Little Ice Age. You would expect it to be warmer than it was when rivers in Europe were so frozen people could skate on them and hold events that were called ‘The Frost Fairs’.
There are natural cycles in climate activity (approx 60 years) and it just so happened that the bandwagon started rolling during an upswing of one of the cycles.
As far as CO2 is concerned, there is no empirical evidence to link CO2 to any catastrophic global warming. What we have are charts, based on models, that show a correlation during the latter half of the 20th-century, which have been extrapolated to produce projections into the future. Beyond that, zilch.
I’m not sure where you want to go with this but I suggest you study the section on CO2 to gain some idea of how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere https://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/resources/more-about-co2/ and then post some questions in those pages. This will help other new readers to follow the debate.
Thanks for popping in and asking your questions. I hope we can help clarify things for you.
Posted by grumpydenier | April 3, 2013, 8:37 pmThank you for taking the time to write such an insightful response. Global warming is a topic I’m very interested in and concerned about and I’m always looking to learn more about it. Thanks again, I’ll be sure to check out that article soon.
Posted by thebookybunhead | April 3, 2013, 9:37 pmThank you for that response. Please keep an open mind when doing your research. There are good and bad websites supporting both sides of the argument and you will need to do as I did when I first started out; be patient and expect some abuse. The sad thing to say, about this whole sorry business, is that peoples’ views have become entrenched and we all hate to admit we were wrong, we think we might be made to look foolish if we change our minds.
I have been digging into this subject for nearly two years now and I took quite a bit of convincing before I became skeptical. I now have no doubt that although this may have started out as a reasonable proposition it quickly got out of hand once politicians became involved.
Please do keep an eye on the site. It’s only a few weeks old and there is an awful lot more to be posted; time and family constraints don’t help on this sort of project.
Posted by grumpydenier | April 3, 2013, 9:54 pmThank you for generosity in sharing your knowledge on this subject. I’m looking forward to future conversations and debates – so I’ll be sticking around!
Posted by thebookybunhead | April 4, 2013, 4:06 amHere is a graph showing temperature from 1850 – present day.
It is instructive to compare the periods ~1910-1940 (previous to the commencement of anthropogenic influence on climate) and the period ~1970-2000, the trends for which periods are effectively identical in duration, gradient and height.
This would suggest that – unless the solar effects overcome the current influences – the climate will continue to cool for the remainder of the current negative phase, until ~2030, when warming will recommence for further ~30 year cycle.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1860/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120
Clearly visible is the ~0.5 deg per century background warming – probably a section of the positive phase of the ~1000 year cycle responsible for the well-documented Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods and the respective cold periods separating them, and thus likely to change sign at some time in the future..
This is overlaid by a ~60 year harmonic that correlates quite well with the product of the Atlantic and Pacific ocean oscillations, correlating also with the cooling observed since ~2000.
Note particularly the statistically practically identical positive phases ~1910 – 1940 and ~1970 – 2000, for which Warmists for some unfathomable reason insist on different causes, presumably being unfamiliar with Occam’s Razor.
It appears from this graph that the cooling that has occurred since ~2000 will reverse ~2030.
Posted by catweazle666 | April 13, 2013, 4:45 pmThanks for the Twitter follow. In regard to the facet of AGW involving the smear of skeptic scientists, I will have more news about that at my page quite soon.
Posted by Russell Cook (@questionAGW) | April 29, 2013, 9:27 amThanks for popping in, Russell, up to now I’ve avoided Twitter as it seems populated by (insert preferred ad hom) but I thought I’d give it a go as an additional source of info.
I have a Guest post section if you ever feel inclined to contribute.
Posted by grumpydenier | April 29, 2013, 9:33 amThanks for the offer! I didn’t have a good handle of either Twitter or Facebook for a long time, particularly the latter place, but now I’m using it as a heckuva social network, and both as a means of announcing my articles and other related items. I believe I will be busy quite soon à la Donna Laframboise when it comes to dissecting the accusation that skeptics are fossil fuel industry shills. Combine the evidence that the IPCC is not all its cracked up to be with endless bits on how the corruption accusation falls apart, and we soon see how our AGW friends pleas for the public to ignore skeptics will begin to implode in catastrophic fashion……
Posted by Russell Cook (@questionAGW) | April 29, 2013, 6:23 pm