Though personally I prefer MY VERSION of Brian Mason, global warming skeptic … he keeps clarifying his views.
Brian:
… here an example of some good science that shows a completely different view than the alarmist one. To me, this video does NOT do a great job of explaining WHY we are seeing warming but it isn’t trying to do so. Instead, it does a very good job of explaining that there is much we don’t know, much that hasn’t even been considered, and that the stated certainty that we are doomed is ludicrous.
Click PLAY or watch Dr. Vincent Courtillot on YouTube.
… YEESH. 1930 was the hottest year in the USA. The last 12 years are flat or decreasing in temperature. Temperature variations have more to do with solar activity than my jet contrails. …
Don’t give us more uncertainties, Brian. Get definitive. What DATE will the world not burn up due to Global Warming. 🙂
______
original post March 22, 2011:
Brian Mason closely follows the science of the “global warming” debate.
He tells me there’s no real evidence that global warming is happening, nor that man is causing it.
He tells me that graphs like this are fear mongering.
…
There are lies, damn lies … and statistics.
I believe Brian. But most of my other friends (and Economist magazine) feel that there is enough evidence. That our planet is warming. That we should rally to FIGHT and reverse that temperature increase.
Here’s an interesting argument independent of whether or not Global Warming is actually happening.
Click PLAY or watch it on YouTube.
Let’s say you agree with this argument. … Unfortunately for YOU, I fear there’s not the money nor political will to make any serious effort to fight Global Warming. We’d better hope it doesn’t exist.
Dave Sykes points out that this is a variation of Pascal’s Wager.
____ UPDATE from Brian:
Just wanted to correct your misinterpretation of my beliefs on this.
I suspect global temperatures are likely increasing (though data quality issues probably give a significant upward bias to the trend).
I suspect also that CO2 emissions have some effect (but realize that radiative effects such as these are not the whole story). If there were no (positive) feedbacks, we would have close enough to zero problems and I have little faith in the large and positive feedbacks posited by “the climate models”.
Why? Climate is messy and the climate models haven’t been able to deal correctly with clouds (see Roy Spencer for more here) and water vapour. I don’t think there is a conspiracy but I do think the big boys leading the scientific charge for alarmism are WAY out of line (see Muller’s recent video .)
Net net: I’m not concerned about global warming, but I am concerned that our concern with CO2 is going to push us into increased nuclear and into uneconomic (read subsidized) green energy such as windmills.
Rick McCharles 
Pascal’s Wager!
THANKS
I knew I’d seen that somewhere.
R
Hi Rick,
Just wanted to correct your misinterpretation of my beliefs on this. I suspect global temperatures are likely increasing (though data quality issues probably give a significant upward bias to the trend). I suspect also that CO2 emissions have some effect (but realize that radiative effects such as these are not the whole story). If there were no (positive) feedbacks, we would have close enough to zero problems and I have little faith in the large and positive feedbacks posited by “the climate models”. Why? Climate is messy and the climate models haven’t been able to deal correctly with clouds (see Roy Spencer for more here) and water vapour. I don’t think there is a conspiracy but I do think the big boys leading the scientific charge for alarmism are WAY out of line (see Muller’s recent video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded ).
Net net: I’m not concerned about global warming, but I am concerned that our concern with CO2 is going to push us into increased nuclear and into uneconomic (read subsidized) green energy such as windmills.
Hi Rick,
Forgot to comment about Greg Craven’ “Most Terrifying …” video. In this video, he states we can’t tell which path we’re on but we can still decide which policy option to take. In his words, we don’t need to be thinking in rows (which path nature is on) but we can choose columns (which action we should take). Then he picks column B (action against global warming) because it’s so much more terrifying than column A (no action).
Craven asked me to (politely) tell him where he is wrong, and I am happy to oblige. Is it the lack of nuance? Nope, I’m fine with that: we know the world is more complicated than a 2×2 box but he’s not pretending otherwise. So what’s the problem?
Easiest to see if, like Craven, we simplify the real world to an extreme and ask “What if the chances of global warming were zero? Should we still take action, because the consequences of not taking action are so horrendous?” Of course not. It would be as whacky as defending ourselves from an attack by Godzilla.
Ok, obviously there is some chance that global warming must happen and certainly the more likely it is, the more reasonable taking up column B is. The main point here though is that Craven’s idea that we don’t even need to consider which path nature is on is simply incorrect, since Column B is not costless. In fact, we must take BOTH probabilities and costs into account.
If Craven’s approach is right (and we don’t need to consider probabilities), then we should act because SOMEBODY says sea levels will rise by 25 meters and that’s scary. (But how likely is that when in the past century, sea levels have risen on average 1.8 millimetres per year?) Adherence to the precautionary principle MAKES people try to scare other people. Take a look at the fabulous 2006 story in SPIKED! http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2045/ that gives a list compiled by John Brignell of all the things that have been blamed on global warming, complete with links to the source of blame. A friend of mine once recited the poem IF by Rudyard Kipling to our grade eight or nine class and I can still hear bits of it: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs …”
Craven is also wrong because his costs are wrong. Why don’t we ever hear (especially in places like Canada) about the benefits of a little warming, even though WAY more people around the globe are killed by too-cold than are killed by too-warm. Why don’t we hear about the real costs of trying to stop CO2 growth? What happens to countries in Africa who are now developing with the benefit of petroleum products? Solar just doesn’t cut it yet, even in Africa, and telling these people to stop burning oil means sentencing them to poverty and for many, death. Many warmists thinking about this (see Roger Pielke Jr.’s website) believe it’s impossible (!!) to mitigate the ‘problem’ and are instead considering measures to adjust to the ‘problem’. Why aren’t we discussing this instead of allowing ourselves to be pushed around by the “The sky is falling …” crowd representing a VERY new science that has yet to make a convincing case?
Hi Rick,
I know nobody will see this (commenting a full nine days after original post) but I want to include here an example of some good science that shows a completely different view than the alarmist one. To me, this video does NOT do a great job of explaining WHY we are seeing warming but it isn’t trying to do so. Instead, it does a very good job of explaining that there is much we don’t know, much that hasn’t even been considered, and that the stated certainty that we are doomed is ludicrous.