I'm not a Climate Change sceptic, denier or enthusiast. I'm just an ordinary person with a science degree wondering what's meant to pass for "evidence" these days.
I'd like to quote to you the link I just had recommended to me, telling me that the last six years of miserable British summers are due to Climate Change. Guardian 2012.
And now, an article, which is from early 2007, which predicts that 2007 would be the latest in a run of hot summers due to Climate Change. Observer (on the Guardian Website) 2007. That is the summer of 2007 which, in the words of Guardian 2012, had " the devastating floods....when some areas received double their normal rainfall for June"
It strikes me that pumping enormous amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the air is probably a very silly thing to do. As is burning all the oil, when we could usefully be making plastic out of it if we had cheaper and more sustainable sources of energy.
But it also strikes me that the way Science doesn't work is to start with a hypothesis, make a prediction based on it, then when the evidence is completely opposite claim that's consistent with the hypothesis. Exactly what weather in Britain over the last five years would the Guardian have claimed was not consistent with Anthropogenic Global Warming? It's hard to imagine.