Next SitP

Who wants to live forever? Well, me, for a start. Find out how it may be possible to live longer with Aubrey de Grey on the 25th of September #WinSitP

Next SotRT Social

The next Round Table is on the 10th of September. See you at The Black Boy for some good food and great conversation. #WinSotRT

Find Us On

Tag Cloud

SitP Photos

Twitter Feed

Climate Change Sceptic ? – Updated

We have had some more emails from Mr Bright-Paul the climate-change “sceptic”.
As you’ve seen thus far, Anthony claims to have an open and skeptical mind with regards to his own position. I have personally not yet seen any evidence of this claim, perhaps you have, perhaps I’m missing something.
Again, I post these communications in an effort to illustrate the failings of reason and the mental traps that one’s thinking can easily fall prey to. These emails, in my view, are a classic example of an entrenched position that appears unable to admit the possibility of doubt and utilises infinite minutiae to deflect answers whilst avoiding the elephant in the room.
It’s a very common trick that some creationists also use, Mr Gish of galloping fame comes to mind as a similar example. I’m sure you can think of others.
Anyway, have a read of these and see if you can find the common thread through all of this. I have posted my own personal views at the end.
I have also made the odd comment in blue (for the cooling effect ;-) ). I have not replied directly to these emails but instead prefer to conduct my communications in the open where I can be corrected in public.

It’s all rather fun really I think. There are reams and reams of information submitted by Mr Bright-Paul that he seems to think will have some bearing on the facts of the matter. Simply posting ever more detailed analyses of increasingly cherry-picked data does not change what is happening in our atmosphere and to our planet. Something of which Mr Bright-Paul would appear to be unaware.

Anyway, read on…

This email came with an accompanying PDF which you can have a look at here : Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth

On Consensus.

Dear Hampshire Skeptics, if I may address you through the person of your President,

Should you not be wary of Consensus, as if Consensus conferred upon those who adhere to it, some sort of rightness? Some sort of legitimacy? Why! The history of Science shows that the very opposite is the case!
Something of a misunderstanding of what consensus actually involves there methinks.

You may remember Copernicus, who was fearful of publishing his work De Revolutionibus for the simple reason that he feared, correctly, that he would be persecuted, not just by the Roman Church, but also by the Lutherans. Up to this time it was considered that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Any other view was considered to be heresy, and heresy meant the Inquisition and torture. Copernicus was lucky to die on the day his great work was published, in 1543.

The great majority of people shared the view that the Earth was the centre of he Universe. That was the consensus. Galileo, who was known as the Wrangler because of his argumentative disposition, came to share the Copernican viewpoint, but had a horror of torture and kept Schtmm! Quite late in his life he produced the first telescope with an upright image, with one convex and one concave lens. At first it had only ten times magnification, but shortly he had increased it to twenty times. This allowed him and others to observe the moons of Venus, which confirmed the Copernican theory. He averred that Venus also orbited the Sun and that the Moon was uneven, both of which contradicted the consensus of Aristotelian theory. The Papal commission under Paul V however decided that the idea that the Sun lay at the centre was both absurd and heretical. So, in 1633, Galileo was forced to confess, ‘I abjure curse and detest my errors’. So much for consensus!

Only a little later Giordano Bruno went further as he claimed that the Sun was a star. For saying this openly he was imprisoned and tortured for seven years, while the Inquisition sought to change his mind. But he, Giordano Bruno, (may God preserve his soul) refused and was burnt at the stake.

From this short summary, we who are Skeptics must surely be aware that Consensus has nearly always proved to be wrong. There is no Inquisition nowadays, but something more subtle, as those who question the Consensus are squeezed out of jobs, fail to obtain grants, are labelled as ‘deniers’ and have even had businesses burnt down. How far have we, my friends, progressed from the Middle Ages?
Fairly standard Argument from Antiquity or Ancient Wisdom here

In these present times there has grown up a most extraordinary ‘consensus’ about Global Warming and the role of Carbon Dioxide. This is a very curious and dangerous state of affairs, since nobody to my knowledge has yet defined what is meant by Global Warming, yet people on either side confidently argue about the warmest year ever and the state of Arctic Ice. Perhaps a member of the Hampshire Skeptics would come up with a definition. What exactly is being measured? A little thought will show that this is not as simple as first appears. But I am sure that some Skeptics will see why, without my having to prompt them.

As you all meet in a Pub in Winchester of a Thursday evening, be sure to buy a pint of foaming Bitter, an ice cold Lager, a gin with Indian Tonic Water, Scotch with either soda or Ginger Ale, or if one prefers wine a charming, barely alcoholic, Lambrusco, or an Asti Spumante, or perhaps even a glass of Champagne is in order. And every single one of you can then contemplate the minute, clear bubbles rising in the drink. The same with Coca-Cola or with Pepsi, every single one of these drinks is carbonated thanks to Joseph Priestley, who first identified Carbon Dioxide in the 1770s, apart from also identifying Oxygen and various other gases. It was clear from his experiments in a Brewery in Leeds that Carbon Dioxide (fixed air) was colourless and heavier than air. By swilling it about he made the very first soda water that became a popular drink. So Hampshire members raise your glasses to the memory of Joseph Priestley.
This and the next paragraph are relevant how ?

As you observe these tiny colourless bubbles, it is as well to remember that through an incessant propaganda campaign this innocent well-loved gas has become the villain of the piece. It is supposed to be responsible for that Global Warming, which as I have pointed out, has yet to be adequately defined. In turn this Global Warming is supposed to be responsible for ‘climatechange’ – I put it all in one word on purpose, while it is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that climate is changing all the time and Great Nature is quite capable of looking after its own.

Furthermore, any of you who watched the recent series on the Earth’s Orbit round the Sun, will have been made well aware that the cause of Solar Warming and of changes in climate occur largely because of this same elliptical orbit and our proximity, perihelion, or aphelion, distance from the Sun.
Nope. Helen and Kate said it was almost all down to the axial tilt of the Earth as has already been pointed out in a previous comment.

In the atmosphere Carbon Dioxide is but a trace gas, less than 0.04% of the whole.

The latest figure I can find is 392 parts per million, which equates to 0.0392%, a little less than 0.04%. This is the total from all sources. What then, according to the International Panel on Climate Change is the contribution of man-made Carbon Dioxide? It is 2.9%. Let us multiply 0.0392% x 0.29% and we arrive at 0.001136%. That is a trace of a trace, I am sure you will all agree.

Nevertheless there are some who argue that because CO2 responds to infrared, which means it warms up, that its presence in the atmosphere leads to a ‘trapping’ of heat. This argument fails on at least three counts, possibly four.

It is true that CO2, as Paul writes, that CO2 absorbs the infrared and radiates every which way, possibly within a nano-second, according to the latest research. But just as CO2 can be warmed, it can also be cooled, which is proven by the fact that Dry Ice is CO2. It is a reactive gas, and by the laws of logic it cannot therefore be a causative one. Furthermore this does not take account of the Adiabatic Lapse process, by which gases as they rise cool. In fact they cool by 2°Celsius for every 1,000 feet of altitude.

By 7,500 feet the temperature is on average 0.0°C, and by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics it would be impossible for an ice-cold Carbon Dioxide to re-radiate heat back to Earth, as we know that heat, by itself, always flows from hot to cold and never vice-versa. Yet this curious form of perverted Physics has even taken hold of some otherwise intelligent people.

Furthermore, as I have already demonstrated, heat cannot be ‘trapped’. Heat has no temperature, but is the result of an action. Radiation also has no temperature either; it is the result of a substance having a temperature. Likewise electricity has no temperature. Get your heads round that! Yes, that is difficult, so ask your best authority to confirm what I say, namely your Honorary President, Dr Helen Czerski..
Our “best authority” is certainly not our honorary president, after all she’s not a climate scientist, she’s an oceanographer and physicist, so what would be the point of having her adjudicate upon some recondite infinitesimal of climate-change ? No offence to Helen of course.
And in any case, as if any authority would even be relevant. An authority is by definition worthless, the consensus is not an authority it’s an overall viewpoint formed by the vast majority and contains within it a myriad of different views. The broad direction of the consensus view is only apparent from outside of the consensus, inside it’s a seething maelstrom of peer-review and critical analysis. But the critical thing is that everyone in the consensus will, if asked the big question, give much the same answer. That’s why it’s called a consensus. Authority means nothing and is worthless when it comes to the evidence. Even the greatest Nobel Prize winners with the highest possible credentials and weight of authority can be turned away from the scientific method in their thoughts and fall prey to the same kinds of failings as those who ignore evidence and skeptical enquiry. Linus Pauling is possibly the best example I can think of off the top of my head.
It seems to me that those who give the greatest weight to authority are the ones who do not understand the workings of the scientific method.

Contrary to popular belief at this moment, your famous ‘consensus’, Greenhouse Gases far from warming the climate do precisely the opposite. For which reason I attach a paper by Hans Schreuder, for those of you with a scientific bent.

The consequences of this scam are huge. Vast sums of money have been spent in Europe, in the USA, in the UK, all supposedly in order to make the world greener. Not only has the land not become greener, but our country has been decimated by huge and useless wind turbines, which do not even produce 1% of the world’s electricity. As you watch those bubbles of clear colourless Carbon Dioxide you will I hope become aware of the monstrous lie perpetrated by Al Gore and his henchmen as he shows Power Station chimneys pouring black smoke into the air. Where is the Carbon Dioxide, my friends? Ah! You cannot see it. There may indeed be some there, but don’t let smoke get in your eyes! Carbon Dioxide is transparent.

Should any of you feel aggrieved that you are having to work longer for less pension; if you feel frustrated because you have just been made redundant; if you are finding it difficult to survive because of your monster heating bills; if you are having to put off vacations; if you can no longer afford to send your kids to the schools of your choice; if the prospect of sending your kids to University fills you with fear and apprehension; then just reflect for some moments on the vast sums of your money your Government is spending on something that is totally useless, is not saving the Planet, is distorting the world’s economy and is impoverishing you.
Fairly typical conspiracy stuff; Scams, henchmen, fear, government stooges, money etc… etc… Standard conspiracy proponent fare. Makes me wonder where the government get all the time to do all of these shadowy things they’re alleged to be doing.

Anthony Bright-Paul

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

Whoooo. Or should I say Woo ?
This one was followed up by another email and attachment that started getting a bit more personal and I have added my comments again in blue. Here it is …
Warming and Cooling attachment

Dear Dave Hughes,

Thank you for publishing my first article. Although you attempted to rubbish me, nevertheless you had the grace to publish my replies in full. I had hoped that you might also publish ‘On Consensus’, but perhaps that was a hope too far.
Those seemingly with an inability to examine the evidence and go where the facts take them should be rubbished don’t you think ?
Those who spread bad science and misinformation should be challenged at every turn, should they not ?
Those who hold evidence, not authority, in the highest regard should stand to challenge such misinformation at every turn, do you not agree ?
That a true skeptic will go where the evidence takes them regardless of personal beliefs, is that not so ?

Now I am not in to name calling, which I consider to be childish. I am interested in honest debate. It is evident that PaulJ is well prepared and I respect his comments. John Bowness on the other hand is clearly what I call a Skeptic. It is clear that he has doubts, that his mind is not cast in concrete. So his remarks were well worth while. It is evident that there must be others open to debate. It is true, as you pointed out, that I made some direct assertions, but these were done with the purpose of provoking debate.
The debate has broadly been over since the consensus formed. The debate over what is happening is pretty much done and dusted. There is still a debate over what we should do and over some of the mechanism details but the overall argument has been over for some considerable time now. You only have to do some cursory reading of the journals for that to be very apparent.

Now I have written another article, which also quotes from 3 eminent climate Professors, namely Professor James Peden, Hans Schreuder and Dr Pierre Latour. Peden is a world renowned Astrophysicist. I already sent you a paper by Hans Schreuder, who also contributed to ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’. It is easy also to look up Dr Pierre Latour in Google.
There’s that argument from authority again and the false debate thing too. Oh, and a “world renowned astrophysicist” does not count as a climate scientist just in case there’s any confusion there.

If you are a serious Skeptic then I would appreciate your also publishing the attached article, so that the debate can take a more scientific turn. I have no difficulty in your publishing my gmail address if you so wish, anthonybrightpaul@gmail.com Perhaps you would kindly ask John Bowness if he would like to write to me so that we can correspond directly.

Looking forward to calling in on your Pub at some late date, so I can meet yo personally,
You are very welcome to join us for our monthly meetings, all are welcome regardless of beliefs.

Sincerely

Anthony Bright-Paul

[contact info redacted by editor]

Motto: Learn something new every day.
Note to self…

Planet Earth is dynamic and evolving.

Anthony, you have not responded to any of my points about your thought processes, you continue to make assertions without expertise or qualification that I can find, you seemingly insist upon a futile anomaly hunt and you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you may be incorrect and from what I have thus far read here and elsewhere there is no hint of doubt in you regarding the matter of climate change at all.
Your position, in my view, is not a skeptical one but that of a denier.
Deniers in my experience make it clear that they are not interested in nor can they be swayed by any presented evidence.
If one is blind to the evidence then one has ceased to think.

I ask you one final question : What possible evidence could one present that would cause you to change your position ?

I think I already know the answer and so, I suspect, do you : I think that no evidence would be enough, no evidence would change your mind, no evidence would kindle the slightest doubt or precipitate any change in your position.

Which is a very great shame indeed, understandable but still a great shame.

I’ll (futilely) post this for your edification by way of addendum : Skeptical Science – Getting Skeptical About Global Warming Skepticism
Try and remember that the issue is not about arguing over the details, it’s about how you arrive at your conclusions. If you use the scientific method properly then you can be pretty sure that no matter how bizarre or at odds with the current consensus your conclusions are, if you’re doing it right, your ideas will be borne out by the evidence gathered by those who repeat your experiments. That’s science.
It’s how you think that’s important.
Just don’t think you’re Galileo, please.

And I thought these from the website were brilliant :D

12 comments to Climate Change Sceptic ? – Updated

  • Mike Torr

    Nice analysis, Dave. I would also add, in regard to the second point about the Copernican theory, that it’s not just an argument from antiquity but also clearly a false analogy: in their claim to be “the consensus”, the Papal Commission did not have the advantage of published papers in modern peer-reviewed journals.

  • Dave Lee

    For goodness sake, It’s obvious climate change is being driven by the changeover to BST, that extra hour of sunshine each day is boiling away the earth’s atmosphere, I thought everyone knew that!
    (Nicely done Dave).

  • John Bowness

    Dave

    I’d like to reply to some of the comments you made above, but first I would ask why there has been no reply to my last post? I admit it was rather lengthy, but there is a lot to discuss on this topic, and I tried to reply to the points you brought up in your previous posts whilst trying to outline why I am skeptical of AGW.

    You appear to be rather closed minded on the subject, judging from your comments. You stated, “The debate has broadly been over since the consensus formed. The debate over what is happening is pretty much done and dusted. There is still a debate over what we should do and over some of the mechanism details but the overall argument has been over for some considerable time now. You only have to do some cursory reading of the journals for that to be very apparent”. May I ask you, are you basing your support of the current AGW hypothesis purely on the fact that, as you point out, a consensus has formed, or have you seen some scientific evidence that led you in that direction? Do you have a good knowledge base when it comes to climate change/global warming, or again, are you following the consensus?

    I’ll say it again, the only question that needs to be asked is “Does increased CO2 in the atmosphere lead to significant warming”. That is all you need to prove. That is what the AGW position is predicated on. Everything else is irrelevant. I stated in my previous post, “… the amount of warming decreases logarithmically as CO2 concentrations increase, greenhouse effect equations show that the current CO2 concentrations are well into the region where even doubling atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would have very little effect”. This is a scientific fact. You can look it up if you like. This alone should make you at least consider the other side of the argument, seeing as you are a skeptic. Does it? Recent (last few days) data released by the UK Met Office (HADCRUT 4) show that there has been no significant warming since 1998 with a global temperature of 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg C (2 standard deviations.) Whilst this is irrelevant, as I mentioned before, it somewhat tempers the claim that the earth is heating up. Again, scientific evidence that is easily researchable and should make you question the current thinking.

    You stated, ” Those seemingly with an inability to examine the evidence and go where the facts take them should be rubbished don’t you think ?”. Yes, I would certainly agree with you on that point. Once again, though, what are these facts of which you speak? Where is this evidence? You strike me as not having looked at the substantial amount of peer reviewed papers and scientific information that lends support to the skeptical position. Maybe you have and I’m doing you a disservice. If this is the case, what about them did you find fault in?

    If there was a peer-reviewed study or studies that quantitatively showed the AGW hypothesis to be the statistically most likely, or most preferred, AGW proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops, rubbing it in the faces of all those ‘deniers’ out there. This hasn’t happened yet, which begs the question, Why? Is it that they have the evidence but have kept it hidden, or that no such study exists? My money is well and truly on the latter. This begs a further question: Why does such a study not exist? With all the urgency and controversy surrounding the subject, it’s not as though they won’t have tried. They will have done, and failed at the attempt.

    As a skeptic, what I have described above is all I require. If it can be shown that rising CO2 levels have a significant warming effect on the planet, and that the production of excess CO2 is due to the actions of mankind, then sign me up to the AGW club. Until then, I will maintain my skepticism.

    One final point. You did something, which, in my opinion, does you a tremendous disservice. You appeared to imply that Skeptical Science was a site worthy of looking at. Never has a site been so inaccurately named. They are essentially an AGW cheerleader with no interest in the science at all and only interested in what they call ‘The Consensus Project’. Rather than use the science to back up their position, they are more interested in “…visualising the consensus data in sexy, interactive ways”, and “…to achieve this goal, we mustn’t fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion”. These are direct quotes from leaked documents obtained recently. Going onto their Facebook page and linking to an article of study that goes again this ‘consensus’ will get your post removed fairly quickly, with repeat ‘offenders’ being banned from the page completely.

  • Derek

    Just stumbled on this site and found the discussion very interesting. John Bowness makes a most compelling case.

  • John Bowness

    Thanks Derek. I make my point in (much) greater detail here http://www.hampshireskeptics.org/?p=2553#comments replying to Dave’s comments and elaborating on my reasons for skepticism. Unfortunately, he has failed to answer my comments, which is a bit disappointing. I was hoping, as a skeptic, he would be open to the evidence I had provided and let me know his opinions. It seems he is just interested in pointing out the logical fallacies in Anthony’s essays, in a slightly condescending tone, whilst committing some himself, argumentum ad populum, or the headcount fallacy, for example.

  • Test comment (previous attempts have failed)

  • Hi folks,

    On 18th I tried posting a comment on Dave’s “Climate Change Sceptic ?” article (http://www.hampshireskeptics.org/?p=2553) but apparently there was a problem with the page (no CATCHA) which prevented posting. Since then I have exchanged a few E-mails with Dave, some of which may be of interest to others so I pulled it all together into a single comment.

    When I first tried posting the comment I was again unsuccessful so I tried a test submission which was fine – “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” So I will now try posting my original comment in parts to try to identify any problem in it (e.g. words disliked by an automatic spam detector).

    Here goes —

  • PART 1

    Dave’s articles here and on “Climate Change Sceptic ?” are interesting because they reflect my own experiences during recent E-mail exchanges with Anthony Bright-Paul. I first came across Anthony on 5th May when owner of St. Matthews Publishing (SMP – http://www.stmatthewpublishing.co.uk/) Philip Foster copied to me an E-mail in which Anthony said ” .. Hans Schreuder, a leading scientist on Climate matters has posted an article of mine on his website .. “.

    Three individuals mentioned in “Climate Change Sceptic ?” have been named as executives of a group of bloggers who reject the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. The group uses the pretentious name Principia Scientific International (PSI) and the individuals are John O’Sullivan (CEO and Legal Consultant), Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder (CFO) and Philip Foster (Compliance Officer?). I stumbled across this Hampshire Sceptics blog while looking for connections between John O’Sullivan and Philip Foster.

  • Hi Dave, I give up trying to post my comment.

  • I invite you and your viewers to visit my blog globalpoliticalshenanigans

  • Hi folks,

    One more try at posting my comment after removing all of my links.

    Dave’s articles here and on “Climate Change Sceptic ?” are interesting because they reflect my own experiences during recent E-mail exchanges with Anthony Bright-Paul. I first came across Anthony on 5th May when owner of St. Matthews Publishing Philip Foster copied to me an E-mail in which Anthony said ” .. Hans Schreuder, a leading scientist on Climate matters has posted an article of mine on his website .. “.

    Three individuals mentioned in “Climate Change Sceptic ?” have been named as executives of a group of bloggers who reject the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. The group uses the pretentious name Principia Scientific International (PSI) and the individuals are John O’Sullivan (CEO and Legal Consultant), Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder (CFO) and Philip Foster (Compliance Officer?). I stumbled across this Hampshire Sceptics blog while looking for connections between John O’Sullivan and Philip Foster.

    I have to say that I too am sceptical of the Catastrophic AGW hypothesis and have had close dealings with the founding members of PSI since Dec. 2010. I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever to support Anthony’s claim that Hans Schreuder is a leading scientist of any sort, never mind climate change. Since starting my “PSI & Due Diligence” exercise in Dec. 2010 I have searched high and low for any such evidence and drawn a blank other than finding Hans’s own blogging efforts. I could find no peer-reviewed scientific papers whatsoever by “analytical chemist” Hans although I did find a 1999 bankruptcy order in which he was referred to as simply a marine technician.

    It appears that Anthony has tied in with the PSI bloggers which is perhaps the appropriate place for him. PSI members are presenting their own questionable version of physics in an attempt to claim to have refuted the “greenhouse effect”. I am preparing an update to my recent article “SpotlightON – Principia Scientific INTERNATIONAL” in which I shall be commenting on each of PSI’s founding members. Some of the Hampshire Sceptics may find my May & June articles about the PSI group of interest.

    The earliest connection between Philip and John in my E-mail record is 8th May 2010 when John was putting together his team of founding members of PSI. SMP is the the UK publisher of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and at one time Philip was being touted by John as PSI’s Compliance Officer. I have a suspicion that Philip Foster, like other previous members of the group, may now prefer to distance himself from PSI.

    During the E-mail exchanges with Dave the subjects of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, Consensus, Peer-review, the IPCC and Maurice Strong were mentioned. Coincidentally I received an E-mail from Philip Foster, an active participant in the “Repeal the Act” campaign which I fully support. Philip forwarded a link to an interesting Financial Post article “Junk Science Week: Money corrupts peer-review process”. Author Professor Robert (Bob) M Carter, ” .. a palaeoclimatologist at James Cook University in Australia and Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition .. ” talks about peer-review and the IPCC.

    Professor Carter is a highly regarded scientist among those who are sceptical of the catastropic AGW hypothesis but as is to be expected, he is vilified by catastropic AGW supporters.

    I did a search to see what PSI CEO & Legal Consultant John O’Sullivan had to say about Bob Carter and came across this Oct. 2011 article “Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Global Warming Lies” which you may find of interest because it relates to the claimed CACC “consensus”. That article provides a link to a thread on catastropic AGW sceptic Thomas Richard’s blog Climate Change Dispatch which offers an a/v of a presentation by Professor Carter in which he correctly says “ .. science is not about consensus. Science is about testing hypotheses .. ” (1:50 minutes). You may find the full presentation interesting.

    In the article above Dave responds to Anthony Bright-Paul’s comments with “ .. The debate has broadly been over since the consensus formed. The debate over what is happening is pretty much done and dusted. There is still a debate over what we should do and over some of the mechanism details but the overall argument has been over for some considerable time now. You only have to do some cursory reading of the journals for that to be very apparent .. ”.

    That would seem to me to be one of the problems with many involved in the CACC debate, whether supporters or rejectors. Surely no true sceptic considers it enough to simply take a cursory look at the articles in the journals. In my opinion doing so increases the likelihood of blind acceptance of the conclusions drawn by the authors rather than understanding how they arrived at them.

    I am presently doing a second read of Andrew Montford’s excellent exposé “The Hockey Stick Illusion” which provides examples of the dangers of such cursory review and indicates one of the failings of peer review as it is often undertaken by those journals. I speculate that Dave has not read the book yet.

    This was picked up in John Bowness’s comment of 3rd Apr (at 23:18) and reluctant as I am to agree with anything that Anthony Bright-Paul says I have no argument about his comment that “ .. John Bowness on the other hand is clearly what I call a Skeptic. It is clear that he has doubts, that his mind is not cast in concrete .. ”.

    On the other hand Anthony appears to readily accept the claims made by others as long as they fit with his own prejudices. He says in his E-mail to Dave “ .. 3 eminent climate Professors, namely Professor James Peden, Hans Schreuder and Dr Pierre Latour. Peden … I already sent you a paper by Hans Schreuder .. ”. He again refers to Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder as though he is an authority in one of the many disciplines that are contributing to improving our presently very poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. It seems that Anthony does accept what people claim without bothering to do his own research into the validity of those claims.

    Another CACC sceptic (Peggy, a wise old bird from Australia) passed on to a group of us sceptics an article “The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam”. You may find it of interest. It was published around the time that I first became involved with John O’Sullivan and his group of “Slayers”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  • Yipee – but what was wrong with the links Dave?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

Blue Captcha Image
Refresh

*

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>