I am a climate change skeptic. I am a scientist and I think skepticism is crucial to the way the scientific method works. Seek out the key facts – not all the facts just the key ones. On the basis of these come to a decision. Then look for any reason to junk the decision.
This isn’t perhaps how non-scientists imagine scientists work, and I dare say not even all scientists work that way. But that is how I work, and it gets the job done. It means ignoring a huge amount of apparently relevant information. And the information I do select doesn’t need to be very detailed. But it seems to work pretty well. As a chemist working in product development the problems I work on are generally not too important to anyone other than the guys paying my salary. But they let me know when I am wrong pretty quickly, so it’s a good discipline for developing decision making skills as well as a reasonable way to make a living.
Let’s apply my method to climate change. There are a few key facts. Carbon dioxide is a green house gas. If you put more of it into the atmosphere you would expect it to make the planet warmer. We know that we have increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, and we know the planet is indeed getting warmer. It seems pretty obvious that climate change is real and man made. This could well be disastrous and we ought to take action to stop it. Having come to that decision, I have no interest whatever in looking at piles of data that simply confirms this. I want to hear arguments against what I believe. If I am wrong, I want to know about it.