I think Climate science should be based on evidence. Which of course sounds like a no brainer, since who would want science to be based on anything else?
But science also runs on assumptions, guesses, hunches and ideas, which lead to hypothesis, then theories, experiments and research, to discover if our ideas about how and why the world is as it is, and if our observations match our theories, which is a very important part of science.
I have resisted for four years now posting about climate science on Evidence based Science, for a multitude of reasons, The main one being I actually didn't know that much about it, having thrown up my hands years before, thinking global warming was overwhelming, happening now and fast, and there was little to be done about it. Plus politics, something I avoid. Also the venom and emotions that surround climate, and even weather, because, once again, politics.
So I am not thrilled about this venture, not at all. Comments will be turned off, and if you really feel the need to lambaste something, you can do so at the EBScience blog, but as always, I don't really care about anything except evidence. If you have some I don't please share.
