Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:22, Martin Brown wrote:

You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled
stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.

It is a pity that the scientific journals restrict the readership of
anything more than an abstract to those with a subscription. Those of us
on the outside are frequently denied the full story.

Oddly enough if you google the author, you will often find the same
article in his own website..

I did that with an earlier article showing how CO2 levels and solar flux
did not vary enough to account for the little ice age or the mediaeval
warm period.

Flatly contradicting earlier studies which said it did..

Sigh.

Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.


In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is settled.


That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
public opinion.