So if the models are so hopelessly riddled with errors and uncertainty that an anthropogenic radiative forcing signal cannot be distinguished from noise, or if the total magnitude of the warming attributed to humans is one-tenth to one-hundredth of the error or uncertainty ranges, why are those who dare question the degree to which humans affect the Earth’s climate branded as “deniers” of science?
Monday, 23 May 2011
My reflection on this blog's value so far, is that the main beneficiary has been me - it has been a lively way to get back into climate politics and science. From the comments on the last post, and also from a few emails prompted by it, I know that at least some people have found value in exactly the ways I hope for this blog:
# help them protect their own children from the worst of the Climate Alarm Industry's excesses, by getting some early warning of them
# keeping an eye on policies and curricula in this area (and I hope the blog will also help those actively campaigning for reform or removal of some of them)
# as a source of useful information, and reference
I think the topic of climate-alarm-based propaganda in schools, which may be increasingly disguised by talk of 'sustainability' - the AGW foundation being treated as a given - is too important to walk away from. This blog does not have a large readership, but it does appear quite prominently in some Google or other searches on relevant topics and so I always have hope of some happy happenstance encounter by someone who can make good use of the content here.
Thank you to all those who commented, or emailed me. Your remarks are very encouraging, and I will be carrying on with the blog.