After much consideration, I have decided to limit the length of comments (no essays) and to be more strict in the use of moderation. I truly would like to have an open blog, but that seems very difficult when discussing climate change. My decision is based on the policies of blogs that discuss climate change and other controversial topics in a relatively civilized manner. People are allowed to ask questions, point out links, etc. If you have questions on what I write or links to articles that might prove me wrong, please be as specific as possible and I will try to answer. My answer may be “I don’t know–I have to research this.” I write these questions down and try to address them over time–please be patient.
When I began this blog, it was a response to the website “Watching the Deniers”. It was my intent to comment on that blog’s content. The blog has virtually NO math. The articles are on “March Heatwave: New Normal”, “Three graphs” (close to discussing the math), cherry -picking complete with a photo of a science fiction television character to illustrate the frustration, articles on “extreme” weather with lots of pictures, and a statement that leaked climategate emails are meaningless (so scientists spend a lot of time emailing about nothing?). You get my drift.
The major claim of climate science is that we must follow consensus. How can I ignore that claim? I can’t. Believing in something you don’t understand because people you have decided are experts is no different that rejecting the “something” because different experts say there are serous problems in the theory. It all boils down to who you call an expert. There are tens of thousands of scientists who do not subscribe to the theory of AGW. It’s statistically improbable that all these scientists do not understand the math and science or that none of them based their opinions on science. There is no reason to exclude them from the debate, other than to create a false consensus. I have studied this in detail and no one has presented an argument that I find believable. Mostly, the response is “this is complicated and requires years of study”. Perhaps it does. However, if you are going to sell this as anything other than “faith-based” the scientists need to find a way to make their science understandable. They must address the disagreement instead of dismissing it. Until that happens, my position stands.
It is not possible to respond to the “Watcher’s” blog without dealing with a broad number of issues in climate science and the blogosphere.
If you are interested in the math and theory only, http://scienceofdoom.com is a site that discusses the science in detail. This is a site that looks at the theory and what it means in a much more technical way than I have the time to address in every post on this blog. My interest is not only in the math and science, but in the politics, presentation and public relations involved in the issue.