Scottish Sceptic

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.

I’d heard on the Grapevine that the International Panel of Climate Clowns was about to write it’s obituary in the form of a report on extreme climate events.
So, I had a look to see when that was due and apparently there is a report on extreme events due for publication around 14-17 November (or whenever a handy bit of world news is available to “bury the bad news”) Continue reading →

I’ve just come across the most unusual article ever mentioning global warming. Apparently the author of the film: “the Day after tomorrow” which was a global warming propaganda film:

That information given to Strieber by the mystery man formed the basis of a book co-written in 2000 with legendary radio talk show personality Art Bell, “The Coming Global Superstorm,” which evolved into the 2004 apocalyptic film “The Day After Tomorrow.” (Huffington post)

Apparently, Strieber was visited by a stranger one night in a hotel. Who told he all kinds of strange and wondrous things from the dangers of artificial intelligence to the concept of Multiple Universes. Now I’ve got a friend like that, and when he’s drunk he does go on … but apparently Strieber

“… has never fully concluded who or what his 1998 visitor was. As hard as he tried to find the unusual man, Strieber never saw him again after that night. “It’s possible that this was no ordinary human being.”

In other words it was an alien!
See also: “Scientists” completely loose it … aliens to destroy earth