Say hello, wave goodbye.

One of the intriguing aspects of the climate wars is that you very frequently see people dropping comments on blogs that they started off as unthinking believers in catastrophic global warming but when they actually stopped and looked into it for themselves, became skeptics. I’ve yet to see a comment from someone who’s moved from a skeptic viewpoint to an alarmist one, and unlike perhaps a lot of skeptics, I do spend a fair amount of time reading the alarmist output.

There must of course be the odd exception but the general conclusion to be drawn is that the road to a climate Damascus appears to be one-way.

That’s an interesting phenomenon in and of itself but especially germane if you write a blog, since for a blog like this on a contentious subject like global warming, there are only three pertinent demographics. Those who agree it’s a load of rubbish – nice to meet you by the way so lets exchange some tips and ideas. Those who can never be persuaded – there’s a beautiful little quagmire over here I’d like to introduce you to, and finally those of you who are unaligned but are capable of being swayed to the skeptic viewpoint – you’re the ones this blog is aimed at, so hello my little Chickadee and let’s become the best of friends …

Seriously though, it’s an absolutely vital demographic to identify – those who can genuinely change their mind.

A recent survey of over 5000 skeptics regularly contributing to the big climate skeptic sites came up with some interesting statistics about those who responded. Four out of five of them had degrees, with nearly a half of those with an additional post-graduate qualification of some sort. Just to stroke our own egos a bit more, most of the qualifications were in fields like physics, chemistry, maths, engineering and computing.

Jeez, chess club on a Saturday night must have been a bloody riot with that lot around.

Anyway, apparently we’re chock-a-block with all those hard degrees which make our brightest become unemployable in these wonderful days of post-industrial service economies, where everyone is frantically selling each other intangibles like financial services which nobody actually needs and at the same time nobody actually manufactures a damn thing. They might as well have done media studies, which I’m led to believe comes with a rather swish social life.

I can’t help but feel a bit intimidated being numbered in such brainy company, but it’s quite a nice feeling though, innit? I suppose the comfort is that most ordinary folk saw through the illusion of global warming a lot quicker than the Brainiacs. Time to bask in smug mode

A superficial examination of those demographics suggests an obvious answer to why all the climate conversions are in our favour; we’re simply more qualified and smarter than your average alarmist, as Yogi said to Boo-boo. Once what evidence there is as a basis for believing in a man-made global warming disaster is looked at critically by the scientifically educated, it simply fails to stand up to close scrutiny.

It’s a temptingly easy answer and a flattering notion but given a moment’s thought, it’s obviously wrong.

If all it took was a sciency degree to become seduced to the dark side of the force, then how do you explain away what can only be called the advocate scientists who, though armed to the teeth with qualifications, still think we’re heading for a global thermogeddon? Yes, I know they’re none of them first class intellects and indeed mostly fall into that borderline B double minus and C double plus category of academics – good at the committee work and superb at the bureaucratic infighting but they wouldn’t recognise a truly original idea if it sauntered up and idly gnawed on their arse for five minutes just to get their attention.

Thinking that some sort of science qualification makes a person open to persuasion to our admittedly unfashionable viewpoint is a case of the tail wagging the dog. It’s because they actually are persuadable personalities that they do have a tendency to get involved in disciplines like science. Moving over to the skeptic viewpoint is more about people’s innate personality rather than whatever qualifications they may happen to have, if any. Third raters go into science because they’re looking for a hiding place, second raters go in there because they’re under the illusion it represents some sort of definable settled certainty, but the best go in there because they know in their heart of hearts it’s the fascinating open badlands of the mind which can never be finally domesticated.

I’ve previously expressed my misgivings about polls in general and quite frankly, I can’t help but get the feeling that the poll in question had a subconscious bias towards rooting out and establishing some sort of academic respectability for being a skeptic rather than getting a genuine feel for the skeptic as a demographic. Thank you but I don’t feel the need to be clutching a degree in climate science before raising an objection to being legged over politically. It didn’t seem to take into account there were whole other spheres of activity like commerce or that can’t drop the ball career of raising a family. Strangely, a lot of skeptics with a brain are involved in a whole range of other activities, but you’d never know it from the set of questions posed.

Anyway, we’re still driven to ask that deeper question; what makes a personality persuadable?

The answer to that I think is quite basic – they are people who know they can be mistaken. In point of fact, they’re used to making mistakes and correcting their course. That’s how they learn and that’s how they get good at whatever it is they do.

You made an algebraic transformation that was in error, you correct it and move on. You thought the problem was with the carburetor, but it wasn’t so you look at the fuel pump. You wrote a program and it crashed, you debug it and move on. You screwed up the household budget, you fix the numbers and move on. After you’d set that crop, you realised you could have done it better, that won’t happen next season. Somebody shows you a better way to split a brick, you start using it. You made a bad business decision, you correct it and move on.

If they notice an error or anomaly, they can’t ignore it, even if that leads them off the consensus reservation. As JM Keynes said, when the facts change, I change my mind. Those guys and gals do change their minds and one way or another they tend to be the leadership types that others look to. They’re the quality end of the recruitment pool. Take a hard look around the skeptic blogosphere – nearly every one of the prominenti in it started off as an unconscious believer in the global warming threat.

Persuadable people need explanations that work, that hang together, reasons that make sense rather than being told to have faith, not sunshine being blown up their ass. Nothing else works with that particular breed and to my mind I consider them to be the influential people we need to get on side at both a micro and hopefully macro level.

That’s why I don’t do a you gorra believe me type of blog. I honestly line up my ideas and how they were arrived at; they have a provenance, a rationale and a stated raison d’être. They’re there to be kicked around, knocked down by the average reader or just thought about. I conjecture, propose, guess but never have the arrogance to dictate. My experience is that insulting the intelligence of a persuadable personality blows all credibility you’ll ever have with them, so I never do it. Yes, I like to have fun expressing those ideas but any eloquence is never at the expense of fidelity to them.

You only get one shot with them and that’s all I ask. If our ideas have any merit, that’s all we should ever need. The result I always want is one volunteer and as they say, one volunteer is worth ten conscripts. What they decide to do from there on out is a matter I leave to them and their own thoughts.

This is a little island in the blogosphere. Ships pass by, I wave at them and perhaps someone who happens to be on deck at the time waves back and takes away some thoughts. It’s by such and such, we progress.


Update. A follow up article to this one can be found here.

Related articles by Pointman:

The real problem with polls.

Click for a list of other articles.

50 Responses to “Say hello, wave goodbye.”
  1. Rick Bradford says:

    The reason that Alarmists become skeptics rather than the reverse is obvious — people grow up rather than down.


    • Bruce Cobb says:

      If an Alarmist becomes a Skeptic, were they ever truly an Alarmist to begin with? Perhaps they simply Assumed it was true. I know I did, up until late 2007. I wasn’t even aware of the skeptic side of the story. One thing that grabbed me though was “the debate is over”. What debate, I thought. I didn’t know there ever was one.


      • Leigh says:

        Usually the alarmists becomes a skeptic when the money runs out(grants and the like).
        Or they have made enough out of the fraud to be alright after retirement.
        Or a mixture of both.
        Prof Judith Curry is one of the rare exceptions to the “rule”.
        Her concerns with to where the fraud was heading were voiced over ten year ago.
        She is becoming more vocal of late as the “overwhelming” evidence that her fellow global warmists have got it wrong.
        And they don’t like it.
        Her sworn evidence at the the recent US senate hearings really got up the noses of her fellow fraudsters.
        Even to the point of Michael three ringed circus calling her unscientific.
        Excellant article point man


  2. Bob MacLean says:

    Can we have a link to the actual poll results please?


  3. mpcraig says:

    Oh, God, I am so stereotypical. I have a Master’s of Engineering. I started off accepting AGW as a problem. Then one day, I read some email from a Phil Jones to a Warwick Hughes where he basically stated he wouldn’t give him his data because he believed Hughes “was only going to try to find something wrong with it.” (or something like that).

    I thought to myself, that doesn’t sound right for a scientist to be talking like that. Then I had to do some digging. And here I am. Frankly disgusted with some of what I have uncovered. My latest disgust is the AAAS report about “What we know”. Half of the report focused on the low probability, high impact scenarios and the other half was policy promotion to reduce the “risk” of the high end scenarios. It’s embarrassing (for AAAS members anyways) and disturbing at the same time.

    There has to be some sort of covert ideological war going on. I’m not frightened easily but this case is an exception. I’m liberal by the way which makes is worse (for me).


  4. Here are some climate bloggers who switched from alarmism to scepticism:
    Anthony Watts
    Graham Strouts
    Verity Jones
    Jo Nova
    Mike Haseler
    Follow the links in their ‘about’ pages to read their stories. Any others for that list?


  5. Jon says:

    There are strong parallels between the growth of AGW scepticism in the face of the prevailing viewpoint and the growth of New Atheism in the face of religious belief. In both cases the movement is growing at the expense of those who were once True Believers, and polls show that like AGW sceptics, atheists generally know more about religion than believers. There’s also a close resemblance in many of the arguments used by the opposition; especially the Precautionary Principle, which is a dead ringer for Pascal’s Wager.


  6. Aussie Nana says:

    I wasn’t an alarmist as such but I did “believe” what I was told about climate warming to start with as did all my academic peers. But then things didn’t start to gel. Alarmists were more about marketing than science. They didn’t want to share their data. What? It came to me that they weren’t interested in what I understood as science. What irritates is that AGW comes as part of a package of sustainability. Of course we want our ecology to be sustainable, but that doesn’t mean I will swallow everything that goes in the package. And after AGW fiasco I’ve become a lot less trusting of anything in the sustainability package across the board.


  7. Truthseeker says:

    The CAGW boat was just a convenient vessell for the collectivists to use to try and drive society in a direction of their own choosing. They lost the cold war so they looked around for some other leaver to use. Along came environmentalism and a new home was found. Witness one of the founders of Greenpeace leaving the organisation because of its political agenda (note that he has a strong engineering and pratical science background). It is entirely a political movement using science to justify changing society to fit into their dogma.

    The science of it is not of interest to many bysanders. However if you point to the political shenanigans and the language that the alarmists use, alarm bells will ring for most rational people.


  8. donaitkin says:

    Another engaging piece, Pointman. I fit the description, to a large degree.


  9. flyingtigercomics says:

    Reblogged this on Flying Tiger Comics.


  10. pete says:

    My engineering degree also fits me in nicely in the statistic. I remember the first time I read/heard about the CO2 thingy causing global warming’ my mind racing backwards in time to when my chemistry teacher had explained to us the composition of the atmosphere, N2- 79%, O2-21% and that tiny weeny little bit of a fraction of a fraction of 0.03% CO2.

    There’s another characteristic that separates alarmists and deniers in a nice way me thinks, and that’s the left/right divide wherein alarmists have leftist affiliations while skeptics are mostly composed of the non-socialist, anti-socialist and free-trading members of society.

    In the case where scientists are of the alarmist bent, these will be found to have their leftist traits trumping their own scientific mind.


    • mpcraig says:

      I am on the left although certainly anti-socialist and pro free trade/market. I think the divide is most clear on the socialism boundary which is further to the left than I am.

      And I think the majority of the public is left-centre to right-centre so I find it disturbing that the far left (and sometimes on other issues the far right) have so much influence.


  11. Oh God, I’m another engineer who started out assuming the Alarmist line was true (hey, they’re scientists, right?), then got suspicious, then started reading for myself.
    Details here…


    • mpcraig says:


      That was a great article, thanks for that. It’s actually a great summary of what true believers need to disregard to keep believing.

      And once again, it reminded me of my as yet unanswered question: Why the hell is NASA involved in climate science?


  12. nofixedaddress says:

    Putting forward that people have Taxation without representation will destroy a fair bit.


  13. Mindert Eiting says:

    Yes, Pointman, I fit nicely in the sceptics profile but have been sceptic about many subjects provided they were interesting enough. To be sceptic requires a mental effort. Till 2009 I had no interest in the climate at all. However, compare it with boring neighbours. At a certain moment their noise and screaming becomes so loud that you have to do something. It was the science editor of my leftist newspaper who wrote in 2009 a text so anti-science, with a fanatic call for censorship, that I had to do some reading. I had to do it on the internet because my newspaper apparently never reported facts violating their doctrine. I was ready when climategate occurred and began to analyse temperature data my self. With enough experience you simply smell when data are manipulated (ask Steve McIntyre). The climate still doesn’t interest me very much but at present a sadistic pleasure keeps me going.


  14. mike fowle says:

    I’m no scientist but I have followed this path. I remember arguing passionately in the 1970s that the oil was running out etc. etc., all the Greenpeace garbage, (well they did do some good things once), but now am just appalled at the low standards in the scientific world. BTW, I just love your prose style.


  15. Curt says:

    With multiple engineering degrees and a practicing engineer for over 30 years, I fit that profile to a T (but I must express skepticism that it is a proper representative profile, as people without a strong technical background may well decline to participate in these surveys).

    But even if this profile is not truly representative, it is clear that many highly competent technical professionals are deeply skeptical of the mainstream line on climate science. I think you are on point (sorry!) in saying that this type of person has long experience in proposing theories (formally and/or informally) for various phenomena, trying them out, seeing whether they are correct – the first ones usually are not – then revising and repeating as necessary.

    In many fields, this can be done relatively quickly, so you have many cycles of this. To survive in the field, you need to learn self-skepticism and humility. Unfortunately, in climate science, there are no quick cycles. Many of the scientists will be retired or dead before any of their more significant predictions can be verified or debunked. My blood pressure goes up when I hear someone like Gavin Schmidt claim that he has developed a good intuition from his experience in the field when in fact he has not really gone through a single cycle of this for any of his more significant work.


  16. beththeserf says:

    I began as a believer in AGW but read an ariticle article by Dr David Evans on
    ‘The missing Hotspot’ and went over to Climate Debate Daily to look at some of
    the evidence for and against. My qualifications are in the humanities. Sudying
    History you ask questions about theories and look at evidence. Wasn’t too long
    before I became sceptical about the ‘science’ and Climategate was the clincher.


  17. hazze says:

    Two decades ago…I was sitting at an ecologyseminar…n suddenly i lost the voices…saw the participants..all saviours n solvers of big big problems…the bigger they made the problems the more important they became…n if the world was on the brink…they where essential..all of them.Now im on a raft..passing by pointmans ship..i wawe…I think of that special seminar again when i read this…where i lost or left i think…gained something instead..dunno. It felt like that old tune… ” Stop this world, let me off,There’s just too many pigs in the same trough,There’s too many buzzards sitting on the fence,Stop this world, it’s not making sense” …I see diffrent things nowdays…better things


  18. j.arimathea says:

    I am retired over a decade now. Masters and PhD in Agricultural Science. In my formal studies I was exposed to basic meteorology and climatology. In my working life I needed to use statistics to get a signal from noisy data, and I did some work with crop modelling, where there are many variables. . I worked with people who were involved in climate issues [agriculture is obviously sensitive to these], and my recollection of those early days is that there was genuine debate on the matter: the Arrhenius stuff suggested that CO2 might warm the globe, but some evidence [note that word?] suggested that the globe might actually be cooling. My recollection again is that the IPCC [note CC=climate change, not global warming] was set up to help resolve these issues one way or the other. I was pretty open-minded then because I didn’t know enough to justify an opinion. But along the way I noticed that the advocates for AGW began to become personally involved in one side of the issue, and some things worried me, as an admirer of Karl Popper. (1) Instead on setting up testable hypotheses and then subjecting them to the severest test they could devise they actively argued for one side. (2) Instead of adopting and testing the Null Hypothesis [i.e. CO2 had no effect], they used the weasel words such as ‘the data are consistent with the hypothesis’, which is scientifically useless; and no mention of Type I and Type II error. (3) I noted that instead of engaging people of the differing opinion [not even opposite, just differing], they attacked them personally. (4) They presented results from models as if they were data, whereas in my days journals would not even publish models unless they had been tested against independent datasets. Gradually I took the logical position that nothing I was hearing convinced me that I should reject the Null Hypothesis, and personally I became more and more suspicious that the people advocating AGW were not acting in a very scientific way. Hence my position. Pointman I enjoy your stuff; keep it up.


  19. pottereaton says:

    One of your best, p-man.


  20. Jim S says:

    My profession is architecture (with the requisite engineering classes in college) Like most I assumed that man’s “carbon” was warming the planet and designing buildings with zero carbon footprints was the wave of the future (i.e. sequestration, pv power, wind turbines, geothermal, etc.). I’m embarrassed to say I wasn’t even really aware that the “carbon” in question was CO2. It was the climategate emails that really opened my eyes. After a brief look at the quality of the historical temperature record and “adjustments” made to it when calculating average temperatures, I was horrified that anyone could use this data to make any type of scientific claims. It all begins with the data.


    • Ian George says:

      I was a teacher and told what to teach re AGW. It was when Mann came up with his hockey stick and tried to say there was no MWP that first raised doubts.
      Then, like you, I started checking the data and came across the ‘adjustments’ that really made me realise something was truly amiss. The CG emails were the final straw.
      I totally agree with you – ‘it all begins with the data’.


    • jaymam says:

      Thank you for mentioning “carbon”. I shall now draw a diagram to show where all the carbon accessible to humans resides, along the same lines as my diagram for CO2 in air:


  21. DBD says:

    Where did you learn to write? I really enjoy the way you put words together.


  22. Colin says:

    O God & me to a T seems to be the way to start a comment, and it’s true. I’m a cartographer and after spotting the games/misrepresemtation about ice extents had my worst fears confirmed by the climategate emails. Btw you’d be rprized at what happens at chess club.


  23. John Boles says:

    Hello Pointman, just wondering, who is the dirty faced guy in your blog top? Is that Arnold from the movie Predator? I am a regular here and at WUWT and I love your essays and it is cold here in Michigan and I could use some warming. Best regards, John


  24. baroonga says:

    I was sceptical before I ever heard of global warming. I did a biological science degree in the 80’s. Then I went to work in CSIRO. I saw straight away that science as it was done was fadish and political. You had to have the right buzz word in your grant proposal or you wouldnt get the mortgage paid or the kids to school. If you used the buzz word that was all the rage a decade or two ago you were out on your ear in a heartbeat. The thing was to make whatever research you had been doing and sort of morph it with a name change into the latest fad. Ecology had been “in” in the 70’s or sometime, so there was the Dept of Ecology this and the Research Centre of Ecology for that – but when I got there the signs were mouldering and falling off the buildings and name changes were happening, and I think it was Salinity that was in, so was Biodiversity. If you put the word “Ecology” in your research title then NO money.

    So I knew there were more buzz word subjects on the way, just didnt know what, and in the case of Global Warming how worldwide the scam was going to be and how it would not just be about science research.

    At first when I heard of Global Warming I thought over what was said and was open minded about it. Then I got to personally suffer from the Kyoto protocol and our local councils Agenda 21 plans, and the science didn’t seem to add up, and it was obvious the whole thing was about power, money and control and not the environment. In research circles by this time Salinity was old hat and Biodiversity mostly out so I knew my old colleagues were writing Global Warming to get their grants. The extent to which the Global Warming thing has perverted science into political propaganda is nauseating.

    I used to feel comfortable about the future. Now I think the governments of the world have collectively gone nuts.


  25. mpcraig says:

    Here is a good engineering perspective on things right now:


  26. theguvnor says:

    As an Architect and keen outdoor walking type my interest was born out noticing that the rhetoric for AGW catastophe didn’t nearly match what I was experiencing in reality and the examples of the supposed ill effects were always in far off intangible places, glaciers, ocean depths, the mangroves in Bangladesh. Then I discovered Delingpole who opened up links to a vast vault of information from fellow alarmists with much more science base knowledge then I’ll ever have to support my hunch.


  27. theguvnor says:



  28. Vieras says:

    My scepticism started when I wanted to see, how much we affected the world. I didn’t doubt AGW. I just wanted to see how big that A was and to see how that acceleration looked like. Based on that I could estimate, how things would be.

    Well, needless to say but there were absolutely no data that looked scary. No acceleration whatsoever in sea levels, for example. And the more I’ve read about CC, I’ve become more and more convinced that all the predictions are blatantly wrong. There’s no quality control. It’s way more likely that a coin toss predicts the future better than these people do.


  29. Shar says:

    I guess I don’t fit the typical description of a skeptic, no degrees of any kind just an ordinary bookkeeper/secretary. My skeptical spidey sense got tingling about 2005 when I heard a “scientist” on a radio report claiming that CO2 was a pollutant, all I could think was that they had finally come up with some way to tax the air we breath so started to investigate and learn. The science was all new to me but the math and stats was something I already understood somewhat. I’m pretty much a minority where I live in British Columbia being the home of Weaver, Dr. Fruitfly Suzuki and the Hoggan PR group, envirowhakkos are coming out of the woodwork around here for every cause imaginable, all I can do is keep talking with friends and family and recommending wonderful websites like this one.


  30. Pointman says:

    Thank you everyone for all the feedback on this piece, especially as I’d like to do a follow up one in roughly the same area. Keep it coming, your description of your own climate Damascene event will shape that article.

    I very strongly agree with Curt that the results of the survey gave a false impression of your average skeptic. If only from personal correspondence, I know a four out of five having some sort of degree is massively OTT. It was probably a mistake mentioning the survey in the article, since I have a feeling it might have inhibited people who weren’t all degreed up from commenting. A new word is born …

    Thank you and please keep the comments coming.



  31. Ossqss says:

    One of the first questions I ask alarmists when in a discussion is:

    Do you believe that one additional molecule of CO2 (totaling 4) in 10,000 airborne molecules can end the world as you know it ?

    That usually gets the serotonin in their brains flowing in the right direction.

    Unfortunately, the correct answer is Yes, if the UN gets its way.


  32. durango12 says:

    I have long ruminated about how robust as adopted “story” is to the standard human. Cognitive dissonance is too mild a theory to account for how the narrative is preserved against all manner of conflicting data. The great psychologist Dan Kahneman spends almost an entire book on it. he concludes that it must have had an evolutionary benefit but does not say what that might have been. Clearly it now stands in the way of whatever is left of the Age of Reason.

    So I have been struck by the particular case of Judith Curry, whose migration from warmist to a skeptic of sorts must have been very difficult for her. She knew full well that the migration would cost her in terms of career, but she notes that she has tenure so did not have her livelihood endangered. Still, such people are to be cherished.


  33. durango12 says:

    My Damascene event was pretty simple. A combination of circumstances in 2006 got me to actually look at the case for strong AGW. I looked through IPCC reports and other venues, armed with the technical training of theoretical physics and career long experience in assessing research. Frankly, I was amazed; the case was so thin as to be laughable. The skeptics at the time were not a whole lot better, so it was obvious that the question was open. Since that time both Mother Nature’s works and skeptics’ research have tilted the playing field firmly against the dogma. The body of evidence now points strongly to an equilibrium climate sensitivity around 1 degree for 2 X CO2, much smaller than even the lower limit of the recently slightly revised IPCC range. At this level, it is obvious that there will be no catastrophe; indeed CO2 fertilization will likely give net positive economic effects.


  34. Ben Vorlich says:

    I was never more than a Lukewarmer. Growing up in rural Highland Scotland I was well aquatinted with natural climate change, evidence of the last iceage and more recent changes which caused peat bogs to replace forests was visible to anyone who took the time to look. In pre TV pre Internet days a lot of time was spent reading and listening to the radio. I knew that the Minoans and Romans had had warmer weather than now, conversely farming had been very difficult during the little iceage. I’d read about civilisations across the world which had come and gone when the environmental conditions changed. As we were quite isolated most of my early years were spent in the company of my brother or my own, so I’ve never really been happy as a member of a large group so not fitting in with the current fad hasn’t ever bothered me. I have never needed to belong to a big group, I don’t support either of the auld firm, never ran a marathon, was neither a mod nor a rocker and so on and so on.

    So when the AGW scare started my initial position was that it sounded feasible. (I was/am more concerned about cooling though). As the clamour grew and the predictions and solutions more extreme the “that doesn’t sound right” alarm went off. A bit research about atmospheric CO2 and global temperature confirmed that current levels are low rather than high.

    My background as a test and reliability engineer in electronics manufacturing had made me very conscious of the fallibility of designers and models, how easy it is to go down the wrong track a very long way, as well as all the unknown unknowns waiting to raise their heads.

    I think I was unusually well placed to resist the siren call of AGW, as a bonus I did have a lot of interesting discussion with a fully convinced work colleague over the years.


  35. nzrobin says:

    Years ago I saw a list of visitors and commenters at Jeff Id’s Air Vent. Here’s a link.
    A very educated and articulate crowd. But not organised – yet.


Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Say hello, wave goodbye. | Pointman’s. […]


  2. […] has a 1 hr discussion between John Christy and Kerry Emanuel. Pointman has an interesting essay Say Hello Wave Goodbye, asking the question what makes a person persuadable? Politics and policy . FabiusMaximus has a […]


  3. […] also this blogpost from Pointman, which starts off with “One of the intriguing aspects of the climate wars is that you very […]


  4. […] and have never been the target demographic of this blog. That has always been what I categorised as persuadable people. I’m looking to snag the passive believers who always assumed the science was as legitimate […]


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: