About

This is the blog of Mike Haseler and what you may wish to know about me is that I am a Climate Scientist as I am more of a scientist than most who work on climate.

  • I studied physics, electronics and some philosophy at St.Andrews
  • I have an MBA from Strathclyde
  • I was studying archaeology in Glasgow.
  • I worked in a variety of industrial manufacturing companies in which I worked on a large range of projects controlling or monitoring temperature.
  • I started my own temperature control company and designed precision temperature controllers.
  • Then decided to enter the new area of renewables, and did extensive market research into renewables in the UK through which I gained extensive knowledge of the different development strategies adopted for renewables in the UK and Denmark and consider myself an expert in understanding the factors affecting the early development of renewables.
  • In the process I learnt Danish in order to “understand the competition” and in the hope of doing business with the main wind companies in Denmark.
  • I was selected as a Green candidate for the Scottish Green party in 2003, but decided not to stand when the first candidate on the list refused to support our local hospital
  • I worked in the wind “industry” in Scotland erecting weather monitoring equipment and was well known in Scotland at the highest level. I eventually took the decision to leave after I accidentally informed a farmer that a wind farm was going to be built next to them; I still remember their absolute horror! I couldn’t stomach the hypocrisy of working for a business sector which was so dishonest with the public.
  • I am proud to have once stood as a Liberal Democrat councillor and doubled their vote receiving a massive 208 votes!
  • I am proficient in dozens of programming languages and now write PHP/MySQL websites as a hobby.
  • I am an agnostic on man-made warming, a sceptic by scientific training and disgusted with so called climate “science” which isn’t science as I was taught it.

47 Responses to About

  1. EddieO says:

    Hello Mike

    You may find Judith Curry’s discussion of the “greenhouse effect” useful in your quest to track down the no feedback warming rate. Its a while since I read it but I remember finding it very interesting.
    Scottish scepticism is on the rise outside the inner circle of advisers to Holyrood

    Eddie

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/

  2. lapogus says:

    Hi Mike,

    Just to say great that you have set up the Scottish Sceptic site. I have read many of your posts over at WUWT in the last year or so. I spend more time at Bishop Hill nowadays – but will certainly be popping over here to see what’s going on.

    lapogus

  3. David Bailey says:

    I just want to offer a few words of support. I used to be a supporter of Green Peace because of their opposition to forest destruction, nuclear weapons, the killing of whales, etc.

    I’d been suspicious about the theory of Global Warming for some time, and when the Climate Gate emails came out on the Wiki Leaks site, I knew they had be exposing something significant. What has really amazed me, is how much of the scientific establishment has debased themselves by covering up the AGW scam.

    I feel angry that organisations like Green Peace and WWF have been almost totally subverted from their main mission.

    Many years ago, I did a PhD in chemistry, and I was aware even back then, that some groups were less concerned with the validity of their research than with collecting data and pushing students through their doctorates. Nowadays, a variety of scandals seem to be bubbling in science – and I think areas of science have just lost their way.

    If we continue with the global warming scare, we are clearly going to run badly short of electricity. This will cause enormous disruption and waste in Britain, particularly when you think of our reliance on refrigeration, and modern gas boilers that require an electricity supply in order to function. Even though we only have a short time before electricity shortages may start, Green Peace and others don’t seem to want to discuss the problem in case people demand more power stations!

    • scientist5 says:

      The chaos theory application to climate modeling is beyond belief. It is fun, but I doubt if it does more than a kid playing computer games. We need a lot more data and knowledge before we can ever determine climate change with any accuracy. Fossil fuels are not the great contributors to climate change given them by the activisits. As a chemist you know that quantities realte tio volumes also – the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans eat up the CO2 which is not the greartest amount of greenhouse gas.
      Liked our comments – geologist/petroleum engineer with 6 decades of experience. My blog – http://energycrisis12blogspot.com.

  4. John Cooke says:

    Good luck Mike.

    I’m a retired physicist who also became disgusted with the climate “science” being peddled to the public once I had time to look at it. Also disgusted by the behaviour of some of those involved. Absolutely not science as I was taught either.

    I think one problem is that many working scientists do not have the time to look at the climate issues, since they are busy researching their own fields. I admit my view used to be “surely they are scientists like me, so I should be able to trust their work”. Wrong, sadly!

    Hope this site adds to the public understanding of these issues.

  5. Mike H. says:

    Mike:
    I note that you worked in the wind “industry” in Scotland erecting weather monitoring equipment. In which case, maybe you are familiar the latest industry smoke and mirrors campaign aimed to brush the effects of wind shear and AM noise impacts under the carpet. Significant flaws with the IoA published wind shear assessment guidance, as currently applied, appear to lie beyond even some of the proponent acousticians and certainly the decision makers. This is unjustly allowing wind turbines to be built far too close to innocent bystander’s homes. The injustice must be stopped and the true facts concerning this conceptually complex situation placed accurately and fairly in evidence before decision makers. Perhaps you might be able help us to achieve a level playing field in this respect. Please contact me for further info – thanks.

  6. Eleanor says:

    Congratulations on your excellent website. I have hoped for quite some time that there would appear from ‘the industry’ some one who would tell it as it is. All courage to you as we thinking sceptics witness the insanity of green religion. From Gore to Greenpeace, prohibitive, destructive and useless wind energy, carbon taxation based on fear and greed. Your efforts are much appreciated.

  7. I see you said in this initial post that you were an agnostic on man-made warming. Your posts and comments since then seem to indicate that you are now a total disbeliever in AGW. What caused the conversion?

    • Scots Renewables, if I knew the answer I wouldn’t get so annoyed with all the idiots who make virtually impossible to know the truth.

      All I know is that they don’t know …. the answer may be right, but they are certainly wrong to have reached that conclusion based on the evidence before them.

      Let me put it this way. The boy who cried wolf so many times that he was not believed: he just cried wolf again, do you believe he is right? Or do you just not know?

  8. Sparks says:

    I love your blog, If you were a political candidate here in Northern Ireland I’d vote for you. I just dropped by to let you know I’m following your blog.
    all the best!!

  9. geomac says:

    Excellent initiative Mike – I’m with you all the way.

  10. Pingback: Big Wind “dishonest,” says former Big Wind executive (Scotland) Wind Turbine Syndrome Articles

  11. Conaill says:

    What goes through your mind when you read a report with no vested interest and reputable sources such as this? http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

    • Conaill, thanks for the information. I see you are not one of these people who deny bird strikes. Great!

      Let me tell you a story. I was sent one day to investigate a wind site on Lewis. I spent a glorious morning walking over this vast unspoilt landscape. I then sat down on rock with a view for miles around without another living sole or habitat in site. As I sat completely alone, I noticed that all around me eagles were circling (it may have been buzzards?). As I watched they circled round and round in every direction I could see round the huge valley, Then I suddenly realised that the whole area before me was going to be covered with windmills – I had seen the plans and I knew where they were going and there was no way these birds would miss them.

      Indeed, I was there to destroy the very landscape and the natural beauty I was so admiring. But like you I thought: “it’s got to be done”, I knew renewables people were lying about bird strikes (I had found the research which showed unequivocally that birds were killed by windmills) ,but like you I thought it may kill a few eagles but it needed doing for the greater good.

      So, imagine my horror when a few years later – and note I have a science degree and was in the wind industry – I finally went to look for the evidence which I had been told so many times was there that meant we had to put up all these windmills. It isn’t there, it still isn’t there, and if it was there I wouldn’t be writing this.

      I should have looked at the evidence first and then acted later. Instead like you I just assumed that somewhere someone had done the science and what the wind developers and other groups were telling me must be right. I really did believe that only idiots and oil funded lackeys could think otherwise.

      The worst thing is the way big business sharks and political activists have used environmentalists.

  12. Ammonite says:

    Who picks up the carcasses that are left? (that are not taken away by foxes or lost in the heather) Another case of the companies inspecting themselves. I saw a red kite soar and call near a windfarm the day one was killed there. The thought that remains is horrific. The reality is worse. Insect kill covers the blades also, they sometimes need cleaning off as it affects the load bearing. The carcasses become carrion to the raptors. Bats in great numbers possibly by the insects and the level of sound.Tragic and very very real.

  13. Pingback: Skeptics vs academics | Climate Etc.

  14. Dunham says:

    Mike: I was looking at your post on Judith Curry’s site. I wanted to suggest that wanted to suggest an additional pairing of comparisons: pragmatism vs. empathy. I am not sure what the category would be… perhaps “Operating Philosophy” (or some other made up term, LOL). My reasons for this is that I am always astonished on the vacuum of realistic “feasibility studies” prior to launching into the myriad of incredibly expensive and ineffective projects (from wind farms to carbon capture). For example, my understanding is that a KEY PILLAR of the UK’s energy policy (in regards to global warming) was to be of the “greenest countries” in the world, and that this “leadership” would “inspire” such minor players (sarc/on) as China to stop industrializing. A pragmatist would roll over laughing (as the Chinese did. I love the comment of one of their officials, “Do you honestly expect us to stay poor forever?”). My impression is that the Warm-side believes that “wishing it so” will somehow make it so. A pragmatist would say, “Okay, if that won’t work, what’s the next option?”

    Forgive the rambling. Cheers and success Mike.

  15. Dunham says:

    Sorry for adding to my own comment, but wanted to give an example of an ABSENCE of pragmatism in the debate. For example, if one can assume/accept the proposition that MORE living creatures on the planet (humans, cows, etc.) will on balance release more CO2 than fewer creatures, then consider the following. Since I was born, the earth’s population of humans has grown from about 3 bln to 7.5 bln – a doubling about every 45-50 years. By 2070 it could be around 15 bln IF we have not run up against some other limit (food production, potable water). So to keep CO2 levels at current levels, we would have to halve the per capita CO2 release by 50% every 45-50 years. Needless to say, that’s a pretty tall order. Given that scenario, if the theory of global warming IS correct (??), adaption is the ONLY PRAGMATIC APPROACH until new technology exists… if ever.

    I guess what I am saying is that the basis of the current policies are AT BEST wishful thinking. There is a wonderful saying that goes, “A person with experience is NEVER at the mercy of someone with only a theory.” Policy should be set by experienced problem solvers (more interested in the result than the drama), rather than wishful thinkers.

    Cheers!

  16. Pingback: Sceptics vs Academics | Wotts Up With That Blog

  17. EnergyExpert says:

    Mike:

    Some good material in your blog — kudos.

    Send me an email (aaprjohn@northnet.org) so we can get better connected.

    regards,

    john droz, jr.
    physicist & environmental advocate

  18. scientist5 says:

    I have no argument with the fact that only a very few birds are killed by windmills. I do argue about the economics – windmill energy generation is not efficient. The costs of transporting the electrical energy must be taken into account – a transmission line runs about $3 million per mile. Windmill farms are located in remote areas or offshore. The maintenance cost is very high. I found that gear boxes have short lives (5 years) – replacements amounts to about $500,000 each.
    Fact – Boone Pickens lost millions on his West Texas wind farm venture and has shut down future investments in wind energy. His money making plan using windmills was an abysmal failure.
    I am all for alternate energy as soon as it is economic and reliable.

  19. C3 Editor says:

    Hello Mike,

    Actually, Lucia is a very nice person whose blog once had a significant problem with trolls. If you need her email address, let me know. You can find my email address at the very top of my blog (www.c3headlines@gmail.com).

    BTW, I too have been frustrated in the past with attempts to locating an email address to specific bloggers I wanted to reach out to. As a result, I made my own blog’s email address visible to everyone…several years ago. The added spam as a result has been tolerable, especially since gmail does a great job of keeping it out of my inbox.

    My suggestion/advice. Every skeptic (sceptic) blogger should have an email address displayed, prominently.

    ‘C3′ editor

  20. kingdube says:

    Mike,
    Might I ask for an email so that I can send you an essay regarding a hypothesis of major climate change? RonaldVoisin@gmail.com

  21. Pingback: Sceptics vs Academics | And Then There's Physics

  22. scientist5 says:

    kingdube – I’d very much appreciate our essay regarding a hypothesis of major climate change. e-mail : howdyrl90@gmail.com

  23. william says:

    I was brought here by following the Wottsupwiththat blog. The host wants to open it up into a discussion from both sides but when this happens it just becomes abuse, mind you I have seen this on skeptic sites as well.

    Anyway moving on, did you catch the news from Germany , in December wind turbines and solar practically shut down for two weeks.

    Thank goodness for coal.

  24. Pingback: dodgy survey | uknowispeaksense

  25. WOW that’s quite the bio.

    Mike writes: “… I am more of a scientist than most who work on climate.”
    ~ ~ ~
    Now there’s a great way to present yourself, and your “objectivity potential” -
    You consider yourself “more a scientists” than thousands of full time dedicated professionals.
    Does that mean you also consider yourself smarter than all these full time scientists and technicians?

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Mike writes: “I am an agnostic on man-made warming, a sceptic by scientific training and disgusted with so called climate “science” which isn’t science as I was taught it.”
    ~ ~ ~
    “agnostic on man-made warming,” what in the world does that mean?

    That you don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse that acts as a insulating blanket in our atmosphere, and that increasing this insulation, in turn warms our planet’s climate system? Do you believe all that is bunk?

    Do you think humans don’t product geologically significant quantities of greenhouse gases?

    Do you think the Arctic ice cab isn’t shrinking and just as significantly thinning?

    Do you think a warming planet won’t impact every aspect of our lives?

    Do you understand the concept of a global heat distribution engine?

    • Most of the people working “on climate” are not from the hard sciences. Instead they are biologists, environmentalists and general civil servants and environmental consultants many of whom have a standard of knowledge of the climate which is not much above that of Prince Charlie.

      Most commentators have almost no relevant qualification beyond school level. For example Walport is a medical scientist, Nurse is a geneticist, only one of the top ten environmental journalists even has a science degree and that is zoology and prince charles … nothing.

      What does agnostic mean? … it’s a very well known word which you will find if you google it.

      I generally support the views typical of most sceptics which you will find in : The Sceptic View

  26. OK went and looked at your “Skeptical View” – it makes a lot of claims, but I notice you don’t reference to any scientific papers or studies or evidence. Why is that?

    To be honest, to me it looks like another example of rhetoric over substance.

    But, it will be an interesting list to work with, thank you so much for that link.

    • The document was drawn up in order to work out whether there was enough consensus amongst sceptics to form an association. It is the only such primary data on the views of sceptics that I am aware of. The methodology is fully detailed in the document.

      However, if you think you can find anything in the “scientific” or more accurately “academic” literature of any relevance to this subject then I would be interested so please do give me the link.

  27. Pingback: Bloggers behaving badly – Stoat

  28. lleuadci says:

    Hi Mike,

    Unfortunately we have a balance of power issue in the Australian Senate. The most significant ‘obstacle’ is mining billionaire Clive Palmer who has just ‘imported’ Al Gore to speak in Australia. The idea of two fat billionaires advocating green issues without a crew-cut vegan in sight says it all but please be aware that the AGW investors are alive and well down under.
    http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/06/25/palmer-will-axe-carbon-tax–on-conditions.html

    • I was just saying to my son, that when people look back at us in a few years they will think that even many skeptics were woefully too ready to believe in significant warming.

      But what will look most odd, is the way so many people were misled into the need to “reduce carbon”, by people whom the future will be able to see are the biggest carbon consumers on the planet.

      One of the reasons I write this blog, is not because I think people will be persuaded today, but because I know I will want to be able to point back at it and say to my grand kids: “look I told you I wasn’t one the idiotic people who went mad at the turn of the millennium – see it’s on my blog – I said that global warming wasn’t a problem”.

  29. Richard Mallett says:

    Since you are not replying on the original thread, I will use this one to keep you informed of progress on my plots of the CRUTem4 station temperature record. There are 170 stations with temperature records that start on or before 1850. I have plotted 139 so far, of which probably 74 have 90% or better (of the range of years for each station) with complete temperature coverage.

    As I mentioned (and as you have seen for yourself) CRUTem4 gives us the individual monthly averages, so a ‘complete’ year means a year with 12 monthly values; then I calculate the yearly average, and plot that (and the running ten year average, if there are ten consecutive years) over the range of years for each station.

    As I understand it, the ‘industrial age’ is supposed to have started in 1850, so that’s why I’m interested in station records that start before 1850.

    • Richard I know that 1850 is the usual date given but the industrial revolution started well before, like 1760s/70s.
      http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/industry.html

      Also don’t forget that human agriculture and forest cutting impacted our planet’s atmospheric carbon budget before 1850:
      ~ ~ ~
      06-26-2011 | 05:38 PM Author: Thomas H. Clarke, Jr.
      “Human impacts on the climate preceded the dawn of the petroleum age”
      http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/climate-change/b/climate-change-blog/archive/2011/06/26/human-impacts-on-the-climate-preceded-the-dawn-of-the-petroleum-age.aspx

      “Prior posts, occasionally with tongue planted firmly in cheek, have noted that human impact on carbon loading in the atmosphere goes back to well before the industrial era.

      A recent assessment has calculated that over the eight millennia before 1850, clearing land (for both hunting and for farming) removed trees that had stored or would store CO2, adding approximately 350 billion metric tons (1 mt = 1,000 kg or 2204.62 lbs) of carbon into the atmosphere by 1850. For purposes of comparison, it should be noted that it has been estimated that humans have added 440 billion metric tons of carbon since 1850, mostly from burning fossil fuels. …”
      ~ ~ ~

      You might be interested in the reading some of Brian Fagan’s books: “The Great Warming” and “Flood Famines, and Emperors” – “The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations” (though I haven’t read this last one yet)

    • Sorry Richard for not responding. In retrospect, I’ve already taken on far too much at the moment.

      The real solution to these temperature data sets is to have a “institute of temperature measurement”, with the most rigorous and accountable methodology to produce, perhaps not one, but several datasets (using various assumptions). Of course the catastrophists can’t allow that to happen, because they know the establishment are not keen to believe us skeptics, but they would have no choice if an institute were doing a truly skeptic scientific job and coming to the same results.

      However, that doesn’t mean what you are doing is very important. We’ve found time and time again, that data that is left out usually does not support the catastrophist meme, so quite likely there should be some gems in what you are doing.

  30. My bad for rushing, first and third are the same book and I have read it, but he’s got plenty of others – http://astore.amazon.com/brianfaganc03-20/

  31. Richard Mallett says:

    Yes, they are on my ‘to be read’ pile :-)

    Now we are chopping down American trees to ship across the Atlantic to burn in UK power stations (because they are ‘renewable’) so we are doing the same thing for ‘nobler’ reasons.

    What I’m looking to find is if there is a ‘natural’ rate of warming and a ‘natural + industrial’ rate of warming. For the Hadley Centre Central England Temperature from 1772-1850 the rate is 0.37 C per century, and from 1850 the rate is 0.62 C per century; so we could say that the post-1850 AGW effect is 0.25 C per century.

    Now I’m looking to see if there is an effect (similar or different) in other parts of the world. The difficulty (as I mentioned above) is that some stations have very incomplete records.

  32. Richard Mallett says:

    Let me state my own position here, in case you haven’t seen it in the discussions.

    1. Global temperatures have been rising since 1880 at an average 0.65 C per century (NCDC and GISS) or since 1850 at 0.47 C per century (HadCRUT4)

    2. (as mentioned above) Hadley Centre Central England Temperatures have been rising since 1850 at 0.62 C per century.
    From 1659-1850, Central England Temperatures rose by 0.18 C per century.
    From 1772-1850 (when daily records started) Central England Temperatures rose by 0.37 C per century.
    Therefore, since 1850, the rate has increased by somewhere between 0.25 and 0.44 C per century. Anthropogenic effect ? (but see 5. below)

    3. All of the above have included warming / cooling / stasis periods. Roughly speaking, we can say that there was, since 1880 :-

    cooling 1880-1911 -0.89 C per century.
    warming 1911-1945 +1.95 C per century.
    cooling 1945-1956 -3.05 C per century.
    pause 1956-1976 +0.19 C per century (when we were being warned of a coming ice age)
    warming 1976-1998 +3.43 C per century (‘hockey stick’)
    current pause 1998-2013 -0.21 C per century.

    4. Since 1992 (according to the Colorado University Sea Level Research Group) sea level has risen by 3.2 ± 0.4 mm. per year.

    5. IPCC 1990 Executive Summary to Chapter 7 (as copied in Climate Audit) :-

    “We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.”

    Caption to Figure 7.1 (excerpts) :-

    “There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5,000-6,000 BP) at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era at this time (Section 1). Thus parts of western Europe, China, Japan, the eastern U.S.A. were a few degrees warmer in July during the mid-Holocene than in recent decades (Yoshino and Urushibaru, 1978; Webb et al 1987; Huntley and Prentice, 1988; Zhang and Wang, 1990). Parts of Australasia and Chile were also warmer. The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987; Lamb, 1988). This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but south Japan was warm (Yoshino 1978). This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”

    “The Little Ice age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities. So it is important to recognize that natural variations of climate are appreciate [sic] and will modulate any future changes induced by man.”

    This seems eminently sensible to me.

  33. Richard Mallett says:

    I suspect that the use of station temperatures will be allowed to die out gradually and be replaced by satellite measurements.

    When you say :-

    However, that doesn’t mean what you are doing is very important.

    I hoped you left out a word :-)

  34. YES!!! It was meant to say “it is important”.

    “I suspect that the use of station temperatures will be allowed to die out ”

    have you noticed the way it hasn’t warmed since we got widespread satellite coverage! And have you noticed how these days most of the added warming we see each year occurs IN THE PAST before satellites.

  35. Richard Mallett says:

    Well, I must admit that I’m rather busy compiling my CRUTem4 station data at the moment. I tend to look at the current statistics only about once per year.

    • Richard Mallett says:

      OK, here are the results from the 32 stations with the best CRUTem4 coverage before and after 1850 :-

      1700-2013 Maximum +0.81 (St. Petersburg) Minimum +0.04 (Paris le Bourget and Vilnius) Average +0.41 C/century
      1700-1850 Maximum +0.97 (Vilnius) Minimum -1.09 (Kobenhavn) Average -0.39 C/century
      1850-2013 Maximum +1.45 (St. Petersburg) Minimum -0.01 (Vilnius) Average +0.94 C/century
      Difference Maximum +2.44 (Kobenhavn) Minimum -0.98 (Vilnius) Average +1.33 C/century

  36. The thing is, the points you make in the document are all fraudulent – based on misrepresenting the science and omitting important details. As I’ve detailed with my mediocre effort over here:
    [Link to libellous article removed]

    [snip]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>