<blockquote>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/why-we-bother/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/why-we-bother/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dear RealClimate team:</div>
<p>I have a background in biology and studied at post-grad level in the area of philosophy of science. For the last few years, I have been working on a book about the logic of argument used in debates between creationists and evolutionists. </p>
<p>About a year ago I decided it was time to properly educate myself about climate science. Being perhaps a little too influenced by Harry M Collins’ “<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=t5wovH0l-bcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Harry+M+Collins%27+%22The+Golem%22&source=bl&ots=9lMbCoujde&sig=kSc7XOY4GMFNM-bdV4UaiHp706E&hl=en&ei=uumYS-fsA4uWtge0kpGwCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=global%20warming&f=false"><font color="#66aa55">The Golem</font></a>” (and probably too much modern French philosophy!), I was definitely predisposed to see group-think, political and cultural bias in the work of climatologists. </p>
<p>On the whole, though, I tried hard to follow the principles of genuine skepticism, as I understood them.</p>
<p>Obviously, there are plenty of ill-considered opinions to be found either side of any issue, but only the most ignorant person could fail to see the terrible intellectual gulf between the quality of so-called skeptic sites and those defending the science behind the AGW thesis. </p>
<p>What convinced me, though, is that the arguments made by a few sites like yours are explicit and testable. In particular, it is useful that RealClimate sticks to the science as much as possible. It has been a lot of hard work to get here, but I am now at a point where I understand the fundamentals of climate science well enough to articulate them to others. </p>
<p>For my part, I am grateful to you guys. I hope it gives you some small amount of satisfaction to know that your work can convert readers who really were skeptics in the beginning. I use the word ’skeptic’ carefully – the one thing most commonly absent from the so-called ’skeptics’ is authentic skepticism.</p>
<p>By the way, my book is an attempt to categorise the various logical errors people fall into when they search for arguments to support a conclusion to which they have arrived at a priori. It will now have a few chapters on global warming.</p>
<div>All the best, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div></blockquote>