Climate Change debate - Warmers in Corners

Letter to Guardian.....

By Piers Corbyn

You don't need a conspiracy to know when its time to make money. So let's
be fair, their is probably no more 'conspiracy' among Global warming
ideologues than in any field of business, although Al Gore's substantial
investment in 'Green' business (Generation Investment Management) and David
Milliband's closeness to the nuclear industry might merit a peek. Conspiracy
denials must not substitute for scientific debate. Neither should the fact
that the Intellectual Property of Weather Action's Solar Weather Technique
has not yet been published let anyone cop-out. (Richard Nunn Letters 13
Nov). The SWT will be published when the time and proprietorial issues are
right. Meanwhile the fact that it applies basic physics - and advances - in
using predictable particle and magnetic effects from the sun to make world
leading weather forecasts 12 months ahead must negate the claim (Eric Wolff
13 Nov) that Climate Scepticism from me and others 'is in contradiction to
everything we expect from basic physics'

Dr Wolff admits "CO2 has indeed increased in response to temperature change
in the past..." So the Global warmers must explain how it is that for many
tens of thousands of years measurements show that for data smoothed over all
time scales from thousands of years down to only 22years (the magnetic
double-sunspot, or Hale, cycle) estimates of particles from the Sun and
world temperatures move together, whereas CO2 mostly either follows changes
in temperature or moves the other way (eg from 5,000 years ago to 2,000
years ago). If CO2 somehow drives temperatures how or why does the Sun's
activity then 'follow' those temperatures? Let's apply basic physics. The
Earth's temperature, let alone man's CO2, cannot control the activity of the
Sun!

What is left is the last ditch defence of the Global Warmers, which appears
to be, that the world is now 'suffering' an unprecedented high level of CO2
or rate of CO2 rise. The first is observationally false and the second is
certainly not proven because past ice core data smoothes out (by diffusion)
CO2 'spikes' which almost certainly existed, given man's puny influence on
larger things. The GWers claim that current extra CO2 might cause warming
which somehow gets dangerously magnified by extra water vapour feedback also
fails for two reasons.

1) The sea and sea life largely absorb extra CO2.
2) Increased transpiration cooling by the enhanced growth of plants which is
caused by extra CO2 cancels out the extra greenhouse warming of that CO2 and
so cuts-out the GWer's feedback loop.

For example (as in my presentation re the Stockholm conference) the
increased CO2 greenhouse warming due to doubling of CO2 is estimated at 3.7
Watts per sq metre. This is negated by the enhanced transpiration cooling
which is about the same. Therefore the warming required for the GWers tricky
feedback cannot take place.

Climate change, now or anytime - and it's not new - is driven by bigger
wheels than man can muster. I am all for saving the planet, from misapplied
science - not from CO2 which is no problem.

Thank you
Piers Corbyn , weather Action Long range forecasters.