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;
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.