View Article

The following letter was sent to ClimateRealists.com a few week ago by Bob Godfrey. He has had a hard time from the Met Office and The Guardian concerning his use of scale for demonstrating the "lag" of CO2 and the Earth's climate, all he wanted to show was that the "Al Gore" use of scale and CO2 was wrong....I can't mention the person by name at the Met Office but we can call him Andrew.

Dear Andrew,

First of all, thank you for the response.

I have now found a little time to respond to your letter of the 16th March regarding “Global Warming”. Before I continue I would like to point out that I made a comment on line on the “Guardian” website and got into a conversation with a guy called “Epeeist” and I was asking similar questions to the one we are discussing.

After one question I put which I thought was a good one, the moderator for the “Guardian” removed my comment and all my future comments, while allowing many childish expletives go by from pro Global Warmers. Other sceptics complained of this, and I believe the “Guardian” like many scientists, does not want a public debate on this issue, which naturally prompted me to look a bit deeper into this. I have a distrust of politicians, the media, and beginning to distrust some scientists now. Having got that off my chest, I would like to respond to your letter as follows:-
A lot of this comes down to scale

I will refer to your point with the numbers you have used

1) This will be dealt with in my subsequent comments

2 Al Gore went back 650,000 years to demonstrate that carbon drives temperature, and as you agree that on geological timescales of hundreds of thousands of years it appears temperature increased before CO2s, the answer to my original question therefore is that Al Gore got it wrong.

I was laying in the bath the other day before going to work wondering why Al Gore went back 650,000 years to demonstrate, wrongly as it turns out, that co2s drive temperature, when you say that only very recently, the miniscule amount man produces, has miraculously turned it around the other way; and “Eureka” I found what I consider to be the answer. With a time lag of some 800 years between temperature change and CO2’s reaction to it, obviously this would show up on graphs that went back say 10,000 years.

If you saw the famous Al Gore graph on stage it was about 12 metres long (counting his paces), and this would have shown clearly that temperature drives CO2, that gap on the graph would have been about 1 metre so, temperature coming first. Al Gore’s advisers probably had a brainwave and worked out that if you make the graph so that it spans 650,000 years, this would make the gap on the graph 14mm on a 12 metre long stage and would be practically indistinguishable by the naked eye. With the undoubted help from the media, they appear to have got away with it. See attached plans (which are not to scale, but the 800 year gap has been allowed for in both graphs)


fig 1 using the "Al Gore Time Scale"


fig 2 using a much smaller time scale

3) The fact that CO2 represents only about 0.5% of all greenhouse gases, and man’s contribution to this is miniscule; most of it being produced by water vapour, rotting vegetation, animals, volcanoes, peat bogs and the like, I find it difficult to accept that anthropogenic global warming is very significant, if at all. For instance, if I were to jump in the sea at Cornwall, scientifically I am raising the level of the Atlantic Ocean, but the scale of this makes it irrelevant. I consider that to be the case with Global Warming. Also, if it is greenhouse gasses warming the globe, the Troposphere should warm faster than the surface, apparently that’s not happening either.

What I meant about there never has been a proper debate on this subject, was that non-scientific people like me have never witnessed one. I was waiting in anticipation for a televised debate between scientists to thrash out these points of difference, but we have been denied that, with an announcement that Manmade Global Warming is official; and knowing the consequences of this, my heart sank! Mainly because I like most humans and do not wish them any harm.

a) Co2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas – accepted as fact
b) Co2 is increasing directly because of human activity – to me the amount caused by human activity is miniscule (as explained)
c) Our planet is becoming warmer – agreed it is always getting warmer or colder with no interference from humans
d) Warming is directly caused by humans. If co2 is miraculously driving temperature just recently after the reverse happened to previous millions of years, it boils down to scale. On the evidence I have seen, it is insignificant.
e) That is just an opinion, not science. 800 years ago in “The Medieval Warm Period”, temperatures were higher that today, also in the “Holocene Maximum” period temperatures were significantly higher than those of today for 3,000 years with no adverse effect on the planet.

Your last paragraph states that you are underfunded, whereas other eminent scientists state that tens of billions of dollars have been pumped into research of Global Warming, and if they do not go along with the consensus of anthropogenic global warming, no funding will come their way. I would not have a problem with the oil companies funding the sceptic argument as this may balance things up a little, but the scientists I have listened to alas deny any funding from these sources.

I do not think the case for anthropogenic global warming has yet been won by any means, and I would think it would do all sides good to have a proper debate on television between scientists to thrash out all points of disagreement. What is happening now is that one side is saying it’s getting warmer, and the other side is saying it is getting cooler. I, as a member of the public would like to know the truth, and hammer all points until resolved (however long it takes)

I’m sorry I have gone on a bit, there are many more questions I would like answered though; perhaps they may be by way of debate if it ever happens. I do believe in keeping a clean environment, am very interested in my job with trees and land, drive a Prius, and live off well water, I would however like to know the truth.

Yours sincerely

With kind regards

Bob Godfrey