Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Hot?
IGNORED

When Did You Become A Climate Skeptic?


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres

I didn't become a skeptic overnight and I never believed in "runaway AGW". However I did believe significant human caused global warming had occurred, was prepared to believe this had already amounted to 1 degree Celsius and that another couple of degrees could be added by the end of the 21st Century.

My change of mind occurred through degrees of doubt rather than something which happened over night. I cannot boast about being very early and fast to change my view, my view simply changed over a period of a year or more as I learned more about the subject.

My profile says I joined netweather 31 January 05. At this time I was an absolute believer in global warming. After a year here I learned more about meteorology and the climate system from regular posters here at that time, many whom are still here. The conviction and arguments of some of these posters lead me to believe there was more to the science than I was aware, and I started to reconsider my views.

So after 12 months I began to expose my belief in human caused global warming to scrutiny. At first I was determined to prove human caused global warming - I wanted to believe I was right. However, the more I learned the more I had to grudgingly admit to myself this was not a simple subject.

I began to read Climate Audit in late 2006 (?). Don't know where I picked up the blog - certainly wasn't here. Perhaps at The Reference Frame, which is a blog. Anyway, by 2007 I was a regular reader and had been shocked by what I had learned about the "Hockey Stick" and the lack of rigour of the science. I was at this time certainly in the skeptic camp - just three years ago, it seems so much longer!

[Edited - previously said two years, now I think I was first a reader a CA in 2006 but not a frequent one because at first it was all gobbledygook and jargon to me. By reading the comments and the English parts of the posts I usually managed to grok the take home message though.]

Shortly after my reassessment of the science Wattsupwiththat arrived and helped put different pieces of the jigsaw together in a broad brush way that was not possible at Climate Audit.

At this moment in time my view - which is not fixed - is that humans do have some role in global warming and may have contributed 0.25C warming so far and this could increase to 0.75C by the end of the Century. I don't believe this is a significant amount of warming. We will have cool periods, with possibility of being as cool or cooler as LIA, due to natural influences.

I also believe the warming that occurs and CO2 that is released has positive impact on the climate with little downside. If we got a little warming for climate change the Earth's plants would grow larger, more quickly improving harvests for the hungry in the Third World, provide more food for the fish in the sea, and make cooler regions more habitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham

I'm not going to go into great detail at the moment but I'm naturally questioning and confrontational.

Just the huge fervour of the believers and followers of the climate change industry made me question it all.

I read lots of boards regarding lots of subjects, and I notice a need in humanity for disaster and fear. There are what I call "doom merchants" in every walk of life.

On UFO forums those that think if aliens are real and we get visited by aliens they are sure to want to imprison, kill or eat us.

On Conspiracy forums those that think every single thing is a plan by the powers that be to harm us (I have to admit, some things aren't too far fetched, and certainly we know politicians lie and look after number 1), or 911 was an inside job, and they are planning the next big kill.

On other forums those that think the world is going to end.

On football forums, those that believe the nasty gossips that swear their club is heading for bankruptcy or fear the worst for their team (this applies to me as I support the worst team in the football league).

All different walks of life but all feeding from fear, in fact I think some of them get a little buzz out of it. Doom mongers.

We have doom merchants in metereorolgy and on weather sites too. It is in fact natural for any cross section of people to have this element. Just an observation of life in general there. Is the glass half full or half empty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham

And before anybody thinks I'm calling all Climate Change industry supporters misguided, or crazy, or doom merchants, I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Inbhir Nis / Inverness - 636 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Freezing fog, frost, snow, sunshine.
  • Location: Inbhir Nis / Inverness - 636 ft asl

I'm still open to anything on this subject, as it is very early days. Although I believe that what we do has a strong influence on the enviroment around us, I'm not entirely convinced that the same can be said for climate.

The push for a greener world is still a positive thing, without a doubt. Switching from fossil fuels to natural and sustainable forms of energy is sensible in my opinion and if it gains extra credibility from a false fear of climate change, then that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

And before anybody thinks I'm calling all Climate Change industry supporters misguided, or crazy, or doom merchants, I'm not.

Then you better edit your first post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Bexley (home), C London (work)
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms
  • Location: Bexley (home), C London (work)

If experts are being ignored, common sense is being ignored and the most basic of scientific principles are being ignored, there is little I could possibly say on here which would sway people either way.

Polar ice caps melt at rapid rate + ................................... = thousands of new housing developments (government funded as well in parts) in the Thames Gateway (ahem, floodplain)

A scientists advice and 'knowledge' is suitable justification for increasing fuel duty and road tax prices, but not enough to halt increase in air travel....

Petrol and gas will run out in the near future anyway, when we will left with a fresh set of problems!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

I have always been a skeptic of AGW, in the truest sense of the word "skeptic" (as emphasised in posts by TWS and Mr Tattum). When I joined the boards here in 2006 (I think) I considered myself an agnostic - I was unconvinced that man was responsible for warming, but at the same time I couldn't rule it out as a distinct possibility because of the sheer amount of evidence.

My turn to the Dark Side (!) happened over the course of several months in 2006-2007. Rather than just reading blogs and press releases I decided to go straight to the source material to see what that had to say. I found several things that I had not been aware of previously.

Firstly, most scientific papers make some kind of sense, even if you don't understand the science. Although I have a good grounding in science and (I like to think) a logical, analytical approach to things, there were things in the papers that I didn't understand. (I still read papers with sections I don't understand in detail, but I've learned that you can get a pretty good grasp of what's going on even if you don't understand the maths by assessing the context.)

I started to find that many papers were wall-to-wall good science right up until the summary and conclusions. Generally the summary would give a pretty good overview of the preceding paper, but sometimes it would gloss over subtle, but crucial, aspects of the science. The conclusions were often the worst part of the paper - I have read papers with the most astonishing leaps of logic in them. It seems almost as if the papers themselves are good pieces of objective science, but when the conclusion comes along it is hideously subjective, and evident of bias.

I also found more and more papers that built upon previous papers which had dubious, or sometimes even contentious, conclusions. The new papers took the previous assumptions as given rather than actually exploring the validity of previous works.

When I started to read the IPCC reports - firstly theTAR, then the 4AR - I noticed that a lot of uncertainties were being glossed over. The case for manmade climate change was not being found through the science; the science was being fit to the case. Clearly the IPCC reports were making an effort to compile the latest information in climate science, but at the same time it was riddled with preconceptions and prejudices that altered the conclusions which would ultimately lead to policy decisions. In other words, the ultimate purpose of the IPCC reports was political, not scientific.

I have found that the science of climate change is generally far more moderate than it is made out to be, and that it is being overly politicised. It was for this reason that I decided to stay out of political discussions altogether and focus entirely on the scientific aspects of climate change.

Since then I have been trying to find alternative explanations for the apparent warming trend of the last 100+ years, and this last year I have stumbled upon what seems - to my mind - to be a very good contender with the leaky integrator (with far more than a little help from VP!). I am now focused upon that as a prime candidate for climate change (thereby showing my bias!) until it can be shown to be false. In time I hope that everyone will get the chance to assess it for themselves.

Sorry for the shameless plug, but there you go!

:winky:

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Howdy CB! :)

I guess that, over the years, I've probably had just about every standpoint there is on the subject... :winky:

In the 1970s, I was all excited at the imminent descent into the next Ice-Age; and, I guess, the run of colder winters between 1977 and 1987 kinda fuelled my wish?

Then, along came the hyperactive ramping-up of AGW, which (as luck would have it!) tied-in nicely with the advent of the Mmmmmmm...

Now (IMO) we seem to have reached the point where natural climate-forcers are being treated with more respect...Let's face it: there have been many, many, climate changes in the eons since the World accreted! Is there another 'modern synthesis' in the offing? :)

BTW, keep going with the LI, chaps! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Bellingen NSW 2454 Australia
  • Location: Bellingen NSW 2454 Australia

Hi guys

Been reading the forum for years (and used to post to it years ago when in Sydney). Now based on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, Australia. Could not resist posting into this debate. I used to come from the real greenie side of the AGW debate but my passion for weather got me looking further into the issues and finding that all was not as it was being presented.

The recent leak of data from the University of East Anglia makes for some startling reading - and certainly pushes me further down the path of the 'climate sceptic'. This New York Times article gives a bit of background into the debate - and a lively discussion on a weather forum I help moderate in Australia also has a lot to say about what is going on. My hunch is that CO2 emmisions certainly have a role to play - but that it has been grossly overstated. With the billions of dollars going into carbon credits and taxes I have a feeling the politicians are not interested in what is really happening - simply in making more money in taxes. All a bit sad really :(

Looking forward to posting more about weather in Aus - this year we've already had 6 floods with up to 500mm in one day so hope to have some photos and other info to contribute from time to time :) In the meantime much respect to everyone in the Lake District dealing with their terrible flooding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Welcome to net-weather BW...Look forward to seeing some pics of Oz. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham
  • Location: Newton Aycliffe, County Durham

Then you better edit your first post...

No, I better had not.

I said I wasn't calling all...but some undoubtedly are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Well, it's a peculiar question - given the semantics of the debate, but I shall try ...

I first became interested in weather when I had to do a short course in short-term weather prediction for my mountain leaders qualification. It wasn't a good course, so I read around and became hooked. I am still no expert, but, I think, I have the right idea.

Since I've been messing around with computers since a very early age, I thought it might be an idea to try and do short-term weather prediction on the basis of an expert system using Bayesian inferencing. I got in touch with the MetO, the observatory at Herstonceaux and started to contruct a Bayesian system for very short term weather prediction - you must remember that such a system does not require intimate knowledge of the variables, but only evidence and huge amounts of iteration to get stuff right.

Anyway, as part of that, and a brief chat with the MetO, I asked whether day length was taken into account, explicitly, with their models. They, of course, wouldn't say, directly - but after a visit to Bracknell, I was assured that such a parameter was known to be irrelevant, and thus wasn't used.

Following that I pursued a career in software engineering until I find myself, now, as the Head of IT for an international company. I have acquired many skills and techniques over the years, including some mathematical analysis skills, and it still seems to me that the impact of the sun, and the length of the day have more to say than is given credit for (people wonder why identical synoptics give different weather)

I think that the same thing is true of climate. The Earth is considered, effectively, to be a black box unit of which stuff comes in and stuff goes out and there is some sort of net balance. For sure to arrive at that net balance is a hard, error prone, and difficult thing to do, and it has almost always been considered a problem where if we know more data then we can get more accurate results.

However, a mathematician will tell you that that is nonsense. It is a non-linear system, and using such a decompositional approach is effectively meaningless - we must approach it in the same way that the early gas-law pioneers saw collections of atoms bouncing around in a box and deriving laws from the statistical analysis of it. Indeed, quantum mechanics - surely the way forward - requires good statistical knowledge and processing.

Anyway, I think it's clear why I am - well, I wouldn't say sceptical - critical of all things weather and climate related. I think the wrong approach has yielded the wrong answers for far too long. And it's nothing more than that. I am concerned that we are basing a whole endeavour of human-kind on an attribution of mathematics that hasn't even been verified well enough to become a physical law yet - but that is a different matter.

In terms of a shameless plug, CB considered a solar lag, I put the maths together that might model it, and the LI hypothesis was born. There will be more to come on this in the very near future - so keep tuned. I am convinced that, rather like those gas-law pioneers, that I have the right level of abstraction that can model the climate well in the past and in the future. And yes, it's going to get colder.

It must all go out to review, though, of course. I have been known to make an idiot of myself in the past, before - so keep tuned for that, too!.

Anyway back to that geometric mean paper ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

When I realised just how 'undercooked' some of the predictions seem to be!

When I first glimpsed the TAR4 B.A.U. predictions (and the areas omitted as we did not have 'definitive' knowledge' of the processes so could not even put a 'ball park figure' in) I had to whince.

Seeing as the polar regions are expected to be the first to show signs of AGW then the unprecedented permafrost melt /ice cap reduction/sea ice thinning /ice shelf loss/Methane seepage/glacial ablation etc (and all well before predictions for such changes) must ring a few alarm bells surely?smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Around 1993/94 I had been taken in by some of the scaremongering at the extreme end of the pro-AGW spectrum, mainly through being at school.

I became a sceptic around late 1997 when I developed an interest in cars and a hatred of New Labour's "let's go to war with those evil motorists" manifesto pledges shortly after they were voted in. It gave me a vested interest in being rather more critical than I had been up to that point. From then until I went to university, I was strongly sceptical, and felt that the most likely scenario was no more than about 1-2C of warming over the 21st century. Since my early uni days my suspicions have moved closer towards those of the scientific consensus but I continue to be regarded as a sceptic by most of the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: The Fens. 25 asl
  • Location: The Fens. 25 asl

Good question that, "When Did You Become A Climate Skeptic?" and a nice relaxed thread considering the subject!

I first joined net weather back in 2004 but had had a very keen interest in the weather long before that. Back then I was baffled (to be honest I still am!) at all the scientific jargon I read on here, but over the years I have managed to learn a fair amount (thanks to you all)

I was a skeptic of global warming/human induced climate change before I joined, and i am at present.

Back in 2004-2007 I would at times pop into the climate threads to read but rarely post in there, then around 2007 (I think) I made a few posts in a climate thread debating against climate change being anything to do with humans, the following couple of days of battering I took, from prominent members of the forum at the time, put me off posting again and I am sorry to say this forum. In my posts I talked about the mini ice age and other natural climate changes, however I got attacked more on my grammar than I did on my thoughts. I had not at that time realised how heated this subject can get, I still do not understand today why people get so upset and defensive (I would like to point out that this is the case on both sides of the argument)

Over the years I have popped in to have a look around as a guest but have not logged on for long, just to post a few pics occasionally not to post in any of the main threads.

I came back to this forum a few days ago, I may stay for a while probably lurking here and there soaking up everyone's ideas on what this winter will bring weather wise. As to staying long term we will see.

I am not a die hard skeptic I like to think I am open minded, if I learn of some new discovery that proves climate change is down to us, I will not dismiss it out of hand, and if it is solid and makes sense to me I will embrace it. However nothing I have learnt over the years so far has made me think any different, some will probably say I need to read and learn more then! They are probably right..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny , cold and snowy, thunderstorms
  • Location: Weston-S-Mare North Somerset

I don't buy into the whole humans causing global warming business, & that's what it has become, a business.

Sure the planet is in a phase of warming, but it is naturally caused, only the few who have a vested interest in making money out of it will argue differently.

And thats what it boils down too. People see a way of making money out of something & steel a bit of glory along the way they will. Sure there are a few genuine scientists who get caught up in the political money making machine, but they are just casualities in what has become a political global circus.

never have believed it, never will.

Natural cycles is all it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
Sure the planet is in a phase of warming, but it is naturally caused, only the few who have a vested interest in making money out of it will argue differently.

Interestingly, there are some who believe in AGW who say much the same about the sceptics. There are vested interests on both sides- in particular the likes of the oil companies have vested interests in preaching the "AGW is a myth" standpoint because it will make them more money.

I also suggest that that kind of approach to AGW is be better described as "conspiracy theories" rather than "scepticism", and it's an effective way of downplaying the validity of opposing views. I also suggest that the "never will" standpoint is the trademark of a firmly shut mind, the opposite of scepticism.

Which raises an interesting question- if you can be an "it's all AGW" sceptic, isn't it possible to also be a "it's all natural" sceptic? I happen to be both...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

It'll get interesting when human inputs start to mess with natural ones (if this is not already happening). How will a true AGW sceptic allow a natural cycle being augmented by Human meddling?

To me the thing that most sceptics are 'denying' isn't happening.

That is 'pure AGW', climate is natural and there is nothing new under the sun.

The only 'new' thing is how we arrive at the GHG concentration we have.

Nature facilitated it in the past (and we know the rest) man has elevated the levels this time (faster than nature has ever been able to! Kudos) but the results will surely be what nature intends for this level of GHG concentration?smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

This is a tricky one for me because I don’t think there was ever a point where I became a sceptic, but there again, I never became an advocate for AGW either. I approached this whole topic from a ‘need to know more’ basis. Despite now knowing a great deal more, I’m still not one or the other; I’m piggy in the middle of no man’s land.

My work is the restoration and maintenance of historical landscapes and gardens. Almost 100% of this involves listed status in one form or another, either property, estates or both. As such, planting and felling of trees needs approval – akin to planning consent.

My introduction to the climate change debate came when I applied for consent to do remedial/restoration work to an avenue of mature Beech trees. They were approximately 400 years old and coming to the end of their life, my plan was to plant new Beech trees in between the mature ones which would grow and super-cede the old ones as they died out. Bog standard work, done it dozens of time, accepted practise to maintain the integrity of ancient landscapes. The application was declined. It had been decreed that Beech trees could no longer be planted as they were not expected to survive in the future AGW moderated climate of this country.

For me, it was like buying a Georgian property in the Royal Circle in Bath and being told when those wooden sash windows rot, you’ll have to put in UPVC.

I had to know more. The dilemma of do I destroy the integrity of something planted hundreds of years ago by changing the species or do I risk destroying the future landscape by planting species which will not survive? If you’re passionate about these things, it’s a guilt trip either way. I get to walk the paths that Henry VIII trod, see the views he saw and dreamt about, do I jeopardise that for future generations? Not without seeking as much certainty as is possible that there is no option.

Hence finding and picking apart every available piece of climate science ever since.

Since getting caught up in all this debate, I’ve faced the same dilemma with trees several times now; I’m pleased to be able to say I’ve won every application/appeal. So for me, despite the sometimes heated debates on here, I’m glad I got involved and grateful for all I’ve learned. But I still resist being placed in either camp, I like being in no man’s land as it’s the only place which makes any sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Harrogate, N Yorks
  • Location: Harrogate, N Yorks

To be quite honest, as soon as the Govt started using it as a reason to raise taxes! That was just a natural sceptic reaction (but it has not failed me so far laugh.gif ), but it then lead me to want to investigate the claims as I have had an interest in weather and climate for over 20 years.

I too have plumbed the depths of the IPCC tomes and found them incredibly political, again raising my suspicions as to motive. I suppose I have always been of the opinion that if there really was an imminent, asteroid-on-collision-course-with-Earth, type climate disaster that was avoidable then something would have been done about it without recourse to public debate. To allow it to be bandied around the Internet like it has just reinforces my feeling that it is just a theory, and like all theories will either stand scrutiny (if allowed, CRU!!!) or implode in on itself.

I continue to be ready to receive that irrefutible evidence that man produced CO2 really does have more than a negligible effect on the temperature of the Earth, but while findings such as estimations that a cap and trade bill on the Waxman-Markey line successfully implemented across the entire planet would only reduce temperatures by 0.2C in 100 years abound, then I believe more and more that evidence will never be found. It will likely turn out to be a very complex interaction of natural forces with a mix of minor human influences such as land use changes and, yes, quite possibly human CO2 output - just in a minor influencing role.

I am now becoming more concerned with the direction our policy makers are heading, rather than the science (which I'm confident will work itself out in good time), especially as we have already saddled our future generations with unbelievable amounts of debt to fund our previous profligate lifestyles. The kind of suggestions in play regarding our way forward are more about power broking and making yet more money (like we haven't learned a bloody thing) than saving the planet, and will not make the environmental picture any better while at the same time making our financial outlook even worse.

If all of the £7 trillion spent on global warming in the last 20 years had been invested in alternative energy development based on a scientific way forward beyond fossil fuels, without the scaremongering political crap, we'd probably be there now and have a few better run hospitals and <irony> scools </irony> from the change!

SO in an effort to be involved with something at least on a different level to just sitting around reading blogs and hurling abuse at the latest biased reports from the BBC I have become a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org, for those that don't know rolleyes.gif ). I hope it won't turn out to be just another right wing sceptic politiking organisation, and it's base position of not denying climate change but disussing the actions we take is a good starting point, but I already note alarmists lining up to pooh-pooh it before it heaves itself off the runway so what influence it will ever bring to bear is another discussion entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

I went to Waterstones today and had a look through ‘the idiots guide to global warming’.

I don’t think I have ever seen a book with so many lies on the first page (It was written in 2007).

Comments such as , ‘we have now rapid run away global warming’ to ‘talk to 10,000 scientist’, if you don’t believe.

It should be taken of the shelves as propaganda of a nasty kind and its important stuff.

So when did I become a sceptic, I was always a sceptic

That goes with along with things such as the silly idea that a meteorite wipe out the dinasours type stuff

I have course haven’t a clue if man will warm the planet , maybe the 6c raise will be delayed by 40yrs if we do nothing (from original estimates) but give me big fat lies and I wont believe.

Ps Of course if it is all true we better all buy GW a beer ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

I went to Waterstones today and had a look through ‘the idiots guide to global warming’.

I don’t think I have ever seen a book with so many lies on the first page (It was written in 2007).

Comments such as , ‘we have now rapid run away global warming’ to ‘talk to 10,000 scientist’, if you don’t believe.

It should be taken of the shelves as propaganda of a nasty kind and its important stuff.

So when did I become a sceptic, I was always a sceptic

Could anything change your mind?

That goes with along with things such as the silly idea that a meteorite wipe out the dinasours type stuff

I have course haven’t a clue if man will warm the planet , maybe the 6c raise will be delayed by 40yrs if we do nothing (from original estimates) but give me big fat lies and I wont believe.

...

What lies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

For me, as soon as the hockey stick tried to wipe out the MWP. That single act fuelled my desire to dig deeper. And since that fatal day, I've yet to find any hard evidence, that the projected rise in global temperatures will come into fruition. That and the continuing OTT comments from most within the AGW community, makes me mistrust nearly all the data, and best guess approaches! Oh how I pine for honest science!! wallbash.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

For me, as soon as the hockey stick tried to wipe out the MWP. That single act fuelled my desire to dig deeper. And since that fatal day, I've yet to find any hard evidence, that the projected rise in global temperatures will come into fruition. That and the continuing OTT comments from most within the AGW community, makes me mistrust nearly all the data, and best guess approaches! Oh how I pine for honest science!! wallbash.gif

And you expect to get honest science from blogs that delight in rifling through stolen goods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...