I said don’t look.

They’ve gone? OK.

I’ve posted “Becoming a climate skeptic” on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/LxiWNoHqdfE

I start with “Am I a climate scientist?”

You may already be a climate skeptic and not know it if you agree with ANY of the following four: rejection of apocalyptic hype, change is inevitable because everything changes, global cooling is worse than global warming, the Kyoto protocol is correct for the wrong reasons.

Contains 20 climate-related cartoons.

I mention four earlier science-sponsored apocalypses – Suez canal apocalypse, cyanide poisoning of the atmosphere as we passed through the tail of Halley’s comet, crown of thorns starfish, and Club of Rome, and debunk the last two.

I go through the IPCC science reports one by one, giving examples of the biases: Morton’s demon (rejecting data that doesn’t fit your world view), factor of 5 error in a mathematical calculation, IPCC scientists quitting because they didn’t like the political misuse, rejection of the physics of the energy balance, use of negative language – saying the opposite, gross misreporting of statistics, mathematical sleight of hand, misreporting positives and negatives, hiding the most important conclusions in a single sentence two thirds of the way through a 500 page report, irrelevant reference.

I mention that the IPCC does report positives – slightly more rainfall, not more storms, not more droughts in the 2021 report.

I show NASA MODIS data which says that there has been a huge worldwide uniform improvement in wild forest growth between the years 2000 and 2016. I hypothesise that this is due to increased atmospheric CO2, but I state that this is not proven.

In the last slide I illustrate that global warming is only one of 15 first-order effects on the environment in the near term.

Apologies to Rev Dodgson up front, I’ve included your “truly open mind” cartoon.

mollwollfumble said:

They’ve gone? OK.

I’ve posted “Becoming a climate skeptic” on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/LxiWNoHqdfE

I start with “Am I a climate scientist?”

You may already be a climate skeptic and not know it if you agree with ANY of the following four: rejection of apocalyptic hype, change is inevitable because everything changes, global cooling is worse than global warming, the Kyoto protocol is correct for the wrong reasons.

Contains 20 climate-related cartoons.

I mention four earlier science-sponsored apocalypses – Suez canal apocalypse, cyanide poisoning of the atmosphere as we passed through the tail of Halley’s comet, crown of thorns starfish, and Club of Rome, and debunk the last two.

I go through the IPCC science reports one by one, giving examples of the biases: Morton’s demon (rejecting data that doesn’t fit your world view), factor of 5 error in a mathematical calculation, IPCC scientists quitting because they didn’t like the political misuse, rejection of the physics of the energy balance, use of negative language – saying the opposite, gross misreporting of statistics, mathematical sleight of hand, misreporting positives and negatives, hiding the most important conclusions in a single sentence two thirds of the way through a 500 page report, irrelevant reference.

I mention that the IPCC does report positives – slightly more rainfall, not more storms, not more droughts in the 2021 report.

I show NASA MODIS data which says that there has been a huge worldwide uniform improvement in wild forest growth between the years 2000 and 2016. I hypothesise that this is due to increased atmospheric CO2, but I state that this is not proven.

In the last slide I illustrate that global warming is only one of 15 first-order effects on the environment in the near term.

Apologies to Rev Dodgson up front, I’ve included your “truly open mind” cartoon.

I confess to only scanning it very quickly (mainly just to remind myself what my “truly open mind” cartoon was all about), but it does look very much like you are just cherry picking stuff that suits your preconceptions, and totally ignoring all evidence and arguments the other way, so all the opposite of skepticism.

“Am I a climate scientist?”

No. You are what we call a local scientist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I confess to only scanning it very quickly (mainly just to remind myself what my “truly open mind” cartoon was all about), but it does look very much like you are just cherry picking stuff that suits your preconceptions, and totally ignoring all evidence and arguments the other way, so all the opposite of skepticism.

He’s only gone and done it. Posted it on youtube. No wonder he told me not to look.

you spelled expertise incorrectly

Ian said:

“Am I a climate scientist?”

No. You are what we call a local scientist.

so no spooky action at a distance then

Arts said:

you spelled expertise incorrectly

well he never claimed to be a spilling expert.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

you spelled expertise incorrectly

well he never claimed to be a spilling expert.

export

There are a lot of very weird people on facebook, so moll will probably be a sensation.