Climategate

At one point I believed in AGW, but I no longer am convinced. Unfortunately who the scientists are is now in question. In my view the entire scientific literature on climate change from 1977 onwards needs to be reviewed again in a modified peer process in which only scientists who had PHD's before 1977, and who were NOT involved in AGW research review AND who do not have a dog in the current debate review the literature. This includes ALL of the PHD dissertations, and peer reviewed journal articles of ALL climate change, assigning each paper a grade between an A, B, C, D or F, and reviewing the raw data that went into each paper.

Papers that are A's or B's could be considered acceptable, and citable by other such papers. Everything else has to be thrown out. If that throws out people's PHD's requiring them to be re-credentialed, that's too bad. We quickly need to know how much of the science can really be trusted.

In my view it is far more likely that this entire branch of science is bogus, and we need to be absolutely sure that people like me are wrong and that people who believe in AGW are right. On the other hand if I am right and they are wrong, we need to re-orient the debate on energy and the environment to reflect that new reality. None of this changes the need for humans to recycle, use energy efficiently, conserve and reuse where appropriate, protect the environment and fragile natural resources, or the need for clean water, sanitation, education or effective health care.