Climate contrarian waffles

That’s me, the climate contrarian. I still think it’s overblown, if not altogether bunk. But I find this Scientific American answer to the seven most prominent quibbles reasonably persuasive.

UPDATE:  ON the other hand

0 responses to “Climate contrarian waffles

  1. Uhu… that’s better. I already started suspecting that you may be changing your POV.

  2. Not really. It is embarrassing to be so far away from what appears to be a massive, scientific consensus. But when I look at the details and especially the way the details were collected, it’s hard not to doubt. Not to mention the lack of humility, the very thing most scientists I have known have had in spades.

  3. I like the title, they’re responding to nonsense.
    Because real scientists don’t question a consensus.

  4. I commented before I read it, I figured I would read it and then return but I can’t go any farther than three.
    By then, they’ve already invoked Hadley’s numbers at least twice (the ones they got from East Anglia CRU) and made fun of the people questioning Mann’s hockey stick.
    They lost me there. I’ll pass going any farther.

  5. I stumbled over the hockey stick one, too. BTW, I have eliminated, or tried to eliminate (time will tell) the log-in requirement for comments. I got tired of trying to guess which passwords TypePad was accepting this week.

  6. I stumbled over the hockey stick one, too. BTW, I have eliminated, or tried to eliminate (time will tell) the log-in requirement for comments. I got tired of trying to guess which passwords TypePad was accepting this week.