Oooooh kaaaaay. Nice Marketing Spin.
I wasn't trained as a scientist, but I was trained as an engineer (Electrical, thanks for asking!), and while that's not exactly the same thing, it left me very well versed in the Scientific Method. More importantly (from a
So yeah, you can count me as one of those "skeptics".
What do we mean that something is "scientific"? You should start here, because the core principles of science are easy to understand. More importantly, it's easy for someone to spin you if you don't understand them.
Global Warming in a nutshell. This is a high-level overview of the whole situation.
Remember the "Hockey Stick"? It's what Al Gore used to hype Global Warming in his movie. You don't hear much about it any more, because it turns out that it's a lot of bunk. The data was dodgy and the computer program that did the statistical calculations makes hockey stick shaped graphs out of random data - say, the phone numbers in the telephone directory.
Just how many thermometers are used to measure the Earth's temperature? How many were used 100 years ago? 200? So how do we know that "1998 was the hottest year in 1000 years"? But Borepatch, I hear you say, surely it can't be that bad! Sure can.
The word that you will never hear from
Science is about the data (and also about reproduceability). So how good is the data? Terrible. Really terrible. Unbelievably terrible (this one is simply mind-blowing). It's so bad that NOAA - the government agency that runs the nation's weather stations - doesn't even try to get accurate readings any more.
Did you know that the climate data has been manipulated (it's called "adjusted")? Did you know that if you just looked at the "raw" (unadjusted) data, there has been no warming at all since 1850?
Skeptics suggest that the temperature record is biased upwards by the "Urban Heat Island" (UHI) effect - that as cities grow, weather stations that had previously been sited in cool meadows now find themselves in the middle of hot asphalt parking lots. The "consensus" view of Climate Science is that UHI is minor, if it exists at all. The problem with this poo-poo response is that a sixth grader can show that UHI is real, and serious.
A very large portion of the case for Global Warming comes from computer models. Just how reliable are these models? Not very.
What does history tell us about climate? Quite a bit, actually, and the climate data do not explain this well. Translation: the climate reconstructions are falsified by historical records.
But what about the "consensus"? Quite a few scientists are as skeptical of Global Warming as I am.
So why are so many scientists caught up in what's clearly a pretty shaky hypothesis? It's almost a religious debate. And not in a good way.
Bad public policy recommendations based on Global Warming hysteria: starve children, kill pets, "green" electricity that's far dirtier than coal plants.
There are a bunch more posts here, for those of you who are gluttons for punishment.