- (i) Is there today unequivocal unprecedented global warming?
- (ii) Is there scientific evidence of major AGW?
Question A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Question D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
Question V - If you have confidence in your science why didn't you come out fighting like the UK government's drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?
- So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black- ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used.
- And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.
- This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology. It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.