I am impressed by your bravery in questioning much that appears in the media about 'climate change'. I am sure the climate is changing, as it is still warming from the last ice age, but that is a natural cycle. As a dyed-in-the-wool scientist, trained carefully in my PhD studies in the logic, method and philosophy of science, I have been horrified by the apparent abandonment of scientific method by many in research on our climate. 

I say this for two reasons. The first is that a basic premise of scientific method is that nothing can ever be proven for certain, that all conclusions are subject to change. Adoption of that approach was a key step in development of the scientific method and abandonment of religious-type certainty, yet it appears to have been abandoned as far as climate research in concerned. Second, you may remember that ex-president Obama opined that no grant money should be given to scientists seeking to disprove theories of climate change, yet the whole scientific method IS to generate experiments to disprove a hypothesis. I recommend subscribers read Karl Popper on this matter, as he explains the scientific method very clearly. 

I do not know whether human activity is particularly relevant to climate change, but I do know that much that passes as 'scientific research and comment' is just the opposite. I am more concerned about pollution that carbon dioxide, and that focus would have been much wiser than the approach adopted by the EU that ignored common sense, led to subsidy of diesel engines, and caused tens of thousands of premature deaths. (Was anyone ever held to account?). I never switched to diesel.

Well, despite Obama, there are alternative research views being published and this article refers to one quite contrary to the carbon dioxide hypothesis.

The original research article can be accessed by links in the article and I strongly suggest subscribers do read it to at least loosen their views a little.

It suggests that human influence is negligible and that any changes are mostly due to increased cloud cover generated by cycles in cosmic radiation. However, I fully expect the response to an alternative view will be as you stated: "Confirming evidence is accepted at face value but non-confirming evidence is dismissed. This practice is justified by the urgency of the problem and the need for action, but it is exactly when a vital decision needs to be made that cool heads need to prevail." 

Well done Eoin for stating this. You are impressive in your clear thinking and all subscribers benefit from your wisdom if they learn from you while investing.

Eoin Treacy's view

Thank you for this email and I also read the article citing Finnish research with interest. Karl Popper was required reading when I was at university.

Cloud formation as a result of cosmic rays is particularly interesting as is cloud formation resulting from airline contrails. There are over 100,000 airline flights per day and that number is growing at an impressive rate as living standards rise. It makes intuitive sense that if there are more clouds the blanket effect of trapped heat is greater. Therefore, one of the most important innovations to monitor for pollution and climate is the drive towards emission free air travel.  

This article also discusses how planes can make rain and snow storms worse. 

This link to Comment of the Day on May 21st may also be of interest. 

One point worth considering is if the regulatory authorities were not willing to act against diesel there is no chance a concerted effort will be made to tackle aircraft pollution until a viable alternative is commercially available.