I’m not inclined to believe experts. I’m not inclined to trust authorities.
When I was a postgraduate in Bristol university 40 years ago, tasked to build an building electronic heat flow simulation model, I found that one of the pieces of equipment – a current pump that simulated solar heat gain – didn’t work too well. I asked if anyone had tried getting it to work better, and was told it was a big problem, and a lot of people had tried, but nobody had succeeded in making it work better. It couldn’t be done. But I soon found that there were a number of equations governing the behaviour of the operational amplifiers in the current pump, and suggested to my physicist boss that we try and write as many equations as we could. So we sat down one afternoon and thought up equations. We ended up with about 10 equations. And I took the equations home, and pored over them for a couple of weeks, sliced them and diced them, and came back with a new equation that I’d managed to generate from the 10 I’d started with. The new equation suggested that it would be quite easy to make the current pump work a lot better. My physicist boss didn’t believe it. So I went and built a new current pump using new numbers, and it worked a treat. But my physicist boss still didn’t believe it. It took him two years to grudgingly admit that my new current pumps worked far better than the old ones. Because it couldn’t be done.
And it wasn’t as if I was an electronics wizard, or a great mathematician. I just don’t believe experts. If I’d believed the experts, I would never have tried to make the current pump work better. Because they hadn’t managed to make it work better.
I had the same feeling with the Chelyabinsk fireball of February 2013. All the experts said that it was completely unrelated to asteroid 2012 DA14 that passed close to the Earth the same day. And I didn’t believe the experts. I had my own orbital simulation model, and I used it (and improved it) until after about 3 years of modelling, I found that a rock that had been travelling 25 million km behind DA14, along the same orbit, could have passed close to the Earth in February 2009, and ended up landing on Chelyabinsk in 2013. The two rocks were closely related to each other: they were companions. I seem to be pretty much the only person in the world who thinks this, but that’s my view. I don’t care what the experts say.
This year I’ve got interested in climate change. I don’t believe all the experts that have been telling us that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing global warming. I think that, in this respect, it was the Vostok and EPICA ice cores that had the biggest effect in changing my mind.
And what these ice cores were saying was that there’d been a pretty regular succession of ice ages over the past 400,000 years. We’re currently in a warm interglacial period. These interglacial periods only last about 10,000 years. In between there are 100,000 year long ice ages.
So if we’re going to worry about the climate, shouldn’t we be worried that our current 12,000 year long interglacial period is likely to come to an end? All the previous ones did. Why the heck is anyone worried about global warming at all? Or shouldn’t we be glad of any global warming we can get, and encourage people to generate more of it, in the hope that we can stave off the looming ice age?
But hardly anyone seems to think this way. And I’ve been wondering why. And I have what looks like a plausible explanation.
And it’s that Global Warming alarmism really only got under way in 1988, and has been on a roll for 30+ years. But the Vostok and EPICA ice cores were only completed in about 2007. They’re actually new data. I can’t remember when I first saw the Vostok and EPICA data, but it can’t be more than 10 years ago.
I’m now beginning to think that when “global warming” suddenly became “climate change” (from memory, sometime around 2008), it probably did so because of the new Vostok and EPICA ice core data. The global warming bandwagon could only keep on rolling if it was “climate change” that we were to be concerned about, because “climate change” could include both warming and cooling.
It’s also meant that, after 30 years of thinking about warming,
Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years.
Well, of course it was going to struggle, given that it was 2013 was
“…the first time that the glaciation of the entire northern hemisphere has been simulated with a climate model that includes all the major aspects.”
They simply hadn’t been looking at glaciation, they were so fixated on warming.
My prediction: What started out in 1988 as Global Warming alarmism, and became Climate Change alarmism in 2008 will become Ice Age alarmism in 2028. It’ll be a long U-turn, during which the climate science bandwagon will shift the focus of alarm from warming to cooling, while keeping all their multi-billion dollar funding.
And, distrusting the experts, I’ve been putting together my own climate model. It’s very simple. It’s a 6,000 km long core running from the hot centre of the Earth to the cold top of the atmosphere. And I’ve been dropping ice on the surface, and watching it melt. Over the past few months I’ve been adding complications in the form of a multi-layer atmosphere, a daily solar radiation regime, and multi-million year Milankovitch cycles. So what started out simple has been getting more and more complicated. But I’m hoping to show that the system naturally alternates between a “hot” state with little ice present, and a “cold” state with lots of ice. But I haven’t managed to do that yet, except with the very simplest models.
And my distrust of experts only deepens. I don’t trust the experts in Tobacco Control. I think they’re all fraudsters. And I don’t trust the experts in Public Health. I encourage people to do their own thinking, and build their own models. Because if you don’t do your own thinking, somebody else will start doing it for you, and next thing they’ll be telling you what to think.