Skip to content

Response From Philip Bratby

May 1, 2015

By Paul Homewood 

 

Regular, Philip Bratby, responds to criticism in the Bournemouth Daily Echo:

 

Examine scientific evidence before you make comments on climate change

Examine scientific evidence before you make comments on climate change

 

 

 

IT HAS been brought to my attention that for no apparent reason, in a letter of April 23, Dr Martin Rodger criticised me for having “attacked” the Royal Society and NASA in 2009 and for having “a history of climate-change denying”.

I don’t know anyone who denies that the climate changes; history and geology have shown us that the climate has always changed.

As a physicist with many years experience in the fields of fluid flow, heat transfer and thermal-hydraulics, I have a deep understanding of the physical processes which drive the climate.

Indeed, it would be inconceivable to me that a chaotic, non-linear, multi-variate, open system such as the earth’s atmosphere, could be stable and would not change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) has stated in one of its many scientific papers that it is impossible to calculate the future state of the climate because of this chaotic nature of the climate system.

In its political papers the IPCC does not admit this, but the fact that none of over 100 climate models in use was able to predict the fact that there has been no global warming for over 18 years is testament to the impossibility of predicting the future climate.

It shows that our knowledge of how the climate system works is seriously incomplete.

I suspect that Dr Rodger is no scientist otherwise he would not just accept statements from a few individuals at the Royal Society and NASA.

It is no accident that the motto of the Royal Society translates as “take nobody’s word for it”.

Scientists do not accept arguments from authority but are only interested in scientific evidence.

Dr Rodger appears to prefer to criticise scientists rather than examine scientific evidence.

 

Dr Phillip Bratby, Devon

11 Comments
  1. AndyG55 permalink
    May 1, 2015 10:59 pm

    It should be noted that Dr Martin Rodger is on the desmog payroll.

    His doctorate is in Operations Management which obviously has zero to do with the climate.

    He is also a member of his local Agenda 21 group.

    So, basically, among the lowest of the low of totalitarian socialists there is around.

    http://desmogblog.com/user/ma-rodger

    • saveenergy permalink
      May 1, 2015 11:03 pm

      Well spotted sir.

  2. Joe Public permalink
    May 1, 2015 11:37 pm

    What a put-down!

  3. May 2, 2015 6:31 am

    This whole issue stems from the fact that the proposed Atlantic Array offshore wind farm in the Bristol Channel was pulled by the developer RWE Npower Renewables. I had spent a lot of time in opposing the proposal and didn’t want to see all the work go to waste. Hence I contacted groups opposing the proposed Navitus Bay wind farm off the coast of Dorset (the main one being the Poole and Christchurch Bays’ Association), offering to amend my evidence to make it applicable to that proposal. My offer was accepted and so I set to work, submitting evidence to the Planning Inspectorate and making a statement at an ‘Issue-Specific Hearing’ in Bournemouth. From the moment my evidence was published I was attacked by the local supporters of the proposal and there has been a long-running series of letters in the Bournemouth Echo by this Dr Martin Rodger. His latest letter attacked me for having “a history of climate change denying” and attacked two other physicists for having “accused Navitus of breaking the laws of physics”. Physics is obviously being something of which Dr Rodger clearly has very little understanding, his background being, as pointed out above, in Operations Management.

  4. Retired Dave permalink
    May 2, 2015 8:37 am

    Truth and scientific evidence are not required when you are espousing a religion. The “global warming” mania is now deeply embedded and even evidence to the contrary is ignored. In fact “the data must be wrong” has even been stated by some so called scientists.

    With all main political parties in the UK on the Kool-aid (or for some the gravy train) it is hard to see how it will become dislodged – only reality will have any effect, but with even the opposite to predictions being evidence of “climate change”, it will be a slow process.

    Quite amazing – but as Charles MacKay told us –

    “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

    ― Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

    As I say I reckon it will be a very slow process – tell me I’m wrong, it will cheer me up a lot.

  5. johnmarshall permalink
    May 2, 2015 11:36 am

    Well you cannot have real scientists telling the truth can you.

  6. TonyM permalink
    May 4, 2015 2:08 am

    It would be great to get a link to the IPCC paper that admits that it is impossible to predict future climate.

    • LilacWine permalink
      May 9, 2015 3:30 pm

      I don’t know which assessment report this comes from, but here ya go!
      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm
      The quote is: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” You’ll find it a bit below half way down the page. Hope that’s what you’re looking for. 🙂

  7. May 5, 2015 8:58 pm

    Just a thought, but isn’t it long overdue that people like this were taken to court for “libel” or “defamation of character” or some such, apologies not a lawyer!

Trackbacks

  1. Response From Philip Bratby | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | Cranky Old Crow

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: