Scottish Sceptic

My own vision is as follows:

• To produce a leaflet or other material outlining the evidence against exaggerated CO2 warming and to send a copy to each and every MSP. Continue reading →

First, the name is causing problems. “Sceptic” is not liked, but we don’t seem to be able to find anything better. “Global warming”, likewise isn’t something we want to promote, the poll is useful and, the leaders so far are: “Scottish Global Warming Skeptics” & “Watts up with Scotland”
Mr feeling is that there is moderate support – enough to form a core group to get it going. Would that turn into an active group able to educate our politicians or the public? I don’t know.
At this stage, I’m inclined to be cautious and listen to what people have to say … because as has been said, there’s no point forming another talking shop.
However, if there’s a general mood to “give it a go”, I think the next stage is a meeting. I know there is (potential) support in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Kinross, so unless there is a sudden rush elsewhere, I suggest trying to find a small venue for a small group to sketch out the way forward.
Any suggestions of a cheap/free venue for up to a dozen people in the central belt would be welcome

I’ve set up this poll to canvas opinion regarding a possible name. Obviously it’s not scientific, as I’m adding names as they are suggested, and to give a chance to express a view on later names I’ve enabled voting more than once …  I’ll rerun the poll more scientifically when people have had a chance to add their suggestions.
Continue reading →

See also: Poll on name
Introduction

Following some comments, I have been mulling over (again) the possibility of some kind of sceptic organisation in Scotland to help put the case for scepticism on the exaggerated claims of manmade global warming.
Paradoxically, this blog was started in the hope it might galvanise a group of sceptics to form such an organisation. But we are an awkward lot. We are the type of individuals who are not behove to any social “consensus” so we are naturally sceptical of organisations that try to represent our views as some sort of “consensus”.
So, I started looking at some organisation constitutions in the hope these would inspire me: Continue reading →

There is a new paper out which says:

These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length.

I would like to question this assertion, because an assertion without any backing is no more valid than anybody’s view. But the paper in question is behind a paywall. Now as so much climate “science” is a con designed to bleed the public dry, the last thing I want to do is to feed the con and go and pay from their drivel.
So, should such work ever be considered as part of the debate? My answer is no, particularly when the work is paid from the public purse and is addressing an issue of public concern (or none concern)

As I sit and watch the trees bellowing dramatically in the wind and the bit of the chicken house that always flies off … flying off, I realised that our internet goes through the trees and if it got worse we could be cut off.
Which is a catch 22. If the storm does prove to be bad enough to cause damage, I may not be able to post an article about the damage, but if it isn’t bad enough, I won’t post an article cause no one ever writes about something that didn’t happen!
Either way there can’t be an article on storm!
 
 

For the last five years I’ve felt very isolated in my circle of friends. Global warming was not an easy subject and led to many arguments; it was best avoided. This weekend I was sitting with a group of (unrelated) people I’d known since a child, and the subject of wheat farming and weather forecasts came up and almost without prompting someone else mentioned their dislike of the politicisation at the Met Office, the way the forecasts were always wrong and their suspicion about what we are being told about global warming. And, then the rest of the company agreed with them. Continue reading →

I’ve been wondering how long it will be before “the end”, when I realised I really didn’t know what “the end” meant. He’s some thoughts:

1. When who(?) admits that the climate multipliers aren’t “well supported”?
2. When Wikipedia admits that the climate is not currently warming?
3. When the BBC issues an apology for its treatment of global warming sceptics.
4. When the UK/Scots/US government scale back their CO2 reduction targets by what 50%?
5. When the Met Office admit that solar activity affects the climate? (And that it couldn’t forecast global temperatures even one year ahead!!)
6. When there is an inquiry that concludes that there were systematic failures in teh way science dealt with climate and that action should be taken against individuals and universities and that changes have to be taken to make the system of peer review more robust and less susceptible to bias.
7. When some world leader or David Cameron, says that mistakes were made?

Addendum
After a bit of thought, I’ve realised that few people have any reason to admit they were wrong, or make a public statement that would amount to an admission.
However, one group stands out: that is the weather forecasters. At some point they are going to have to start using solar activity in forecasts. As the Met Office and BBC have been so vehemently opposed to solar activity and so pro-CO2 as a cause of “climate/weather”, the clearest indication of “victory” must surely be when either of these two finally admit the solar link and that they are now using solar activity in their forecasts.
On that basis, I’m now going to make a forecast: that one or other of the above will by the end of 2012 or at latest 2013, make a statement or comment to that effect.