Everyone can be wrong.
I was wrong once.
Apparently
Although I disagree with it.
I don't pretend to know everything. I do however have sufficient knowledge of the subject to at least be in a position to question many claims which quite frankly are questionable if one takes the time and trouble to actually look at them critically.
Over the years I've come across some claims which are so flawed that even a second year A-level student should be able to question them and yet people are soaking up these claims without any question!
If one doesn't subscribe to that way of thinking then it's like being part of a religion which doesn't allow any form of dissent. Anyone who questions their beliefs is a heretic and that is how pro-anthropogenic CC bods behave.
I don't see why they object to healthy critical reviewing of many claims. If the claims are correct then what are they afraid of?
These claims are what subject-ignorant politicians have to base their policies upon. It's not their fault as they don't know any better but any errors in the data or interpretation and modelling could have far reaching and dire consequences for many economies and people's lives if these figures are wrong or misleading.
That has got nothing to do with believing that mankind plays no part in GW. Of course it must do and as a matter of course, common sense tells us we have got to reduce such as carbon emissions substantially but there are many other factors which contribute to both CC/global warming and cooling although listening to the alarmist scientists etc, one wouldn't think so.
The question is, how much does anthropogenic input actually affect climatic change? There are innumerable models bandied around, some accurate and some dubious but few actually quantify their claims and without those figures, how does one know if the measures to reduce carbon emissions are sufficient or not?
