Scottish Sceptic

I know there is a temptation to see all windmill producers as part of the great evil of “green energy” global warming scam. However, having worked with Proven engineering I can vouch that Proven Engineering was not part of the wind energy scam, at least while I knew them. This was a hard working company built up by one person (and his wife) at a time when wind energy was not at all attractive to the politicians as a photogenic backdrops. Continue reading →

Following a few discussions I’ve decided to whittle down the list to the following and I would now like you to indicate your preference, for an organisation which by general consensus is primarily set up to help educate our MSPs.
Continue reading →

WUWT have just published a paper that has found evidence showing that evaporation form plants causes cooling. Let’s go through the implications:

1. Throughout the world, mankind has been cutting down forests and ploughing up fields. Plants vastly increase the rate of evaporation. This paper now shows that this process is very likely to have led to a significant reduction in cloud cover and subsequent heating.
2. Cities & towns are areas that were formally vegetation. The net result of such areas is therefore likely to lead to warming in the area as there is less evaporation to create solar-blocking clouds leading to urban heating. Continue reading →

I had the misfortune to agree to meet Neil Craig at the Glasgow Skeptic society last night. I had hoped that by arriving late I would have missed the talk, but unfortunately like all priests before their parishioners, this sermon went on and on and on.
I knew the kind of half truths we were in for as soon as she mentioned the 97% of climate scientists – the ones who had been specially asked to fill in a questionnaire effectively asking whether it had warmed since the little ice age. Even I could answer yes … only idiots or scoundrels would refer to such a disreputable statistic. Continue reading →

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)