<![CDATA[A Skeptic, not a Denier]]>And being a skeptic I want good data and open research. I also evaluate the credibility of sources when deciding on plausibility. The IPCC is part of the United Nations. The United Nations is a systemically-corrupt left-wing political organization. That is why I pretty much discount everything it has said about AGW.

As well you may imagine I am shocked — shocked — to read this.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

and

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Oh, and this.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

AGW may be real. But I’m still skeptical.

]]>