"I am NOT an agnostic on climate change, as it's changing all the time, and will continue to do so into eternity. It may warm over the next 100 yrs, or cool. I haven't a clue. And neither does anyone else! What I am fairly confident of is that AGW will prove to be misguided, if not an outright fraud. And the implications for science-based public policy, gov't funding for basic research, science reporting, and (no surprise) the ability of the major media to objectively report a politically charged issue, are huge. (BTW: there is quite a bit of scientific controversy over the polar "melt")

"An addendum: in 2006 I began to become skeptical about my AGW "skepticism". This was at the height of the Gore/AGW hype. I had previously familiarized myself with the criticisms of the models, and the dissents from respectable climate scientists. (check out http://junkscience.com/climate-features/ for a - sometimes humorous - history of the AGW proponent's inability to answer their critics.) So I decided to spend (quite) a bit of time at THE pro AGW website: Realclimate.com (some of the principles of which were later involved in the East Anglia scandal). It was tortuous winnowing through the science, and the contributions were 100% pro AGW. But in reading the "comments" sections of the many, many articles I began to discern a persistent and troubling pattern: a chemist, or physicist, or computer modeler from another field, etc, would offer a skeptical or cautionary perspective to the gung ho, self-righteous attitude of the AGW crew. They were invariably met with disdain and ridicule. It rather quickly became apparent to me that this was a CAUSE, a MISSION, ( a business plan?) and nothing like the skeptical scientific inquiry the layman (politician, funding authority?) would imagine was taking place. It was then that my skepticism was renewed, and strengthened."

David Fuller's view Thanks for this contribution. Emails of general interest are always welcome but I am reluctant to publish more on this fascinating and important subject because, unlike the Browning Letter, it does not have all that much to do with our market analysis and investment decisions.

My impression, based on subscriber emails, is that the Collective is fairly evenly divided regarding AGW.