The climate scare is collapsing, it seems, as climate scientists everywhere are renouncing their previous certainty.
Skeptics OTOH have been consistent. This blog in particular has been challenging since 2005 the establishment global warming views on such predictions as mass extinctions, significance of warming, decreasing rainfall and droughts.
It is instructive to look into ourselves and ask – how could the skeptics have been right – when the consensus of the learned experts thought differently? As a recent post at WUWT asked – what was my personal path to climate skepticism? Particularly when one has never before been at odds with the scientific mainstream.
The answer for me was elegantly expressed by A.O. Scott of the New York Times review of the Disney film Chicken Little. He said the film is:
“a hectic, uninspired pastiche of catchphrases and clichés, with very little wit, inspiration or originality to bring its frantically moving images to genuine life.”
My theory is that due to their scholarship in other fields – such as engineering, the hard sciences, and economics – skeptics are attuned to genuine scientific insight and not deceived by the “uninspired pastiche of catchphrases and clichés” that constitutes the majority of global warming research.