I have had several emails asking me for more Bali coverage. Which reminds me that I have never really explained what I am trying to do with this blog. My goal is to be a reporter of the science side of climate. There are many skeptics blogs out there, but I didn’t see enough science on them for my tastes. There are a number of good climate science blogs, but most cater to a knowlegeable community of insiders. I am working to demystify some of the science and present it for the layman. This does not mean that I never touch on issues like Kyoto or the Bali conference, but it means that I don’t try to report all the blow by blows, particularly when I have not yet gotten my Christmas shopping done ;=)
If you want to follow all of the back and forth at Bali and day-to-day in climate from the skeptic’s viewpoint, Tom Nelson has been very busy, linking away every day, of late acting like the Instapundit of the skeptic community.
1. Do you really understand the science well enough to present a popularized version?
2. Do you properly analyze issues in terms of confounding variables and the like? Doing so thoughtfully in a truth-seeking and a “what can we agree on, what can we say we know, what are the key levers (among uncertain, unsettled areas) that affect things the most” manner? Or do you advocate?
3. Looking over the posts on this page, they are very very light on even popular science. Mostly ARE about press reports and the back and forth of the skirmish wars and various more complicated forms of ad hominem (climate advocates are socialists) that seem to be far, far more common and fun for some I guess, than actually buckling down and taking problems apart.